DMC Advisory Board

1. Digging Deeper into Juvenile Bench Warrants:Using Data to Reform Policy Faith Augustine Criminal Justice Commission May 14, 2009 DMC Advisory Board

2. System Stakeholders • Local entities: • Louisville Metro Police Department • Louisville Metro Youth Detention Services • State Entities: • Administrative Office of the Courts • District Court Judges (includes Juvenile Court) • Court Designated Worker (CDW) Program - applies pre-adjudicative detention criteria (state-level form)

3. Things to Remember: • The Court Designated Worker is responsible for applying the pre-adjudicative detention criteria to all youth transported to detention and contacting a District Court Judge. • District Court Judges have discretion when making decisions regarding release/detention status for all youth. • District Court Judges have discretion as to alternatives to detention placement.

4. Bottom Line • Louisville Metro Youth Detention Services (LMYDS) is the only local-operated detention center in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The State Department of Juvenile Justice operates regional secure detention facilities and provides services in the rest of the State (119 counties). • LMYDS is not responsible for: • Decisions regarding Detention or Release of youth • Alternative to Detention Placement • LMYDS is responsible for: • Keeping youth safe and secure • Ensuring youth appear in court

5. W. Haywood Burns Institute Process 5. Institutionalize the system improvement process. 1. Convene traditional and non-traditional stakeholders. 2. Build communities’ capacity to collect and analyze data. 4. Make findings public to increase system accountability. 3. Build communities’ capacity to develop and implement system reform interventions.

11. Bench Warrant Data Summary • The majority of youth were placed in secure detention because of a bench warrant rather than a public offense – “Lowest Hanging Fruit” • The vast majority of youth detained were African American – revealing the overrepresentation of minority youth

12. Develop & Implement System Reform Interventions “Digging Deeper” • Digging deeper generally means going “behind the data” to look at individual policies and practices to clarify reasons behind the statistics. • What are the practices or policies contributing to the statistical disproportionality?

13. The Process used to “Dig Deeper”

14. What Data to Collect? Questions Asked • What is the initial charge? • Did the youth meet pre-adjudicative detention criteria on the initial charge? • Was the youth placed in secure detention as a result of the initial charge? • If the placement was granted an override, what was the reason given? • What was the reason for the warrant?

15. Demographic Findings • 51% Newburg neighborhood • 49% California neighborhood • 86% African American • 14% Caucasian • 84% were between 14 and 17 years of age • 69% male and 31% female

17. Did youth meet detention criteria on the original charge? Were they detained or released on the original charge? • 85% did not meet detention criteria on the original charges, and therefore were not eligible to be placed in secure detention. • 93% were released to a parent/guardian or responsible adult and not placed in detention. • 7% override

18. Why was Bench Warrant issued? • 65% were issued for Failure to Appear • 31% were issued for Failure to Comply • 4% were issued for new offenses

19. Identified Strategies to Reduce DMC Developed a subcommittee to take an in-depth look at the current policies and procedures regarding juvenile bench warrants, and to develop recommendations to enhance the current process. Juvenile Bench Warrant Subcommittee: Reviewed policies and procedures used for: • court notification • issuing and executing warrants • applying detention criteria

20. Juvenile Court Flow Chart

21. Strategies to Reduce Number of YouthDetained on Bench Warrant • Enhance the Current Notification Process • Juvenile Bench Warrant Review and Recall • Judicial Review

22. Enhance Current Notification Process Previous Process: Youth receives a reminder card documenting the next scheduled court date from the Juvenile Court Clerk and the Public Defender at the conclusion of the court hearing. Recommendation:The juvenile court will make reasonable, affirmative efforts to locate, notify, and produce clients for court appearances to improve the functioning of the system while reducing the reliance on warrants and detention. Failure to Appears could be reduced simply by reinforcing notification of court dates and verifying contact information.

23. Enhance Current Notification Process – Cont: Strategies to implement the recommendation: • Implemented • CDW office will verify mailing addresses • Request contact information from Jefferson County Public Schools. • Develop a “Contact Sheet” Form • Pending • Establish process for system to remind and/or notify youth and parents/guardians of scheduled court dates.

24. Juvenile Bench Warrant Review and Recall Recommendation: The juvenile court system will make positive efforts to decrease the number of outstanding juvenile warrants by reviewing the warrant for possible recall. Strategy: The County Attorney’s Office is reviewing and/or recalling outstanding bench warrants that have been issued for youth 17 years of age and under.

25. Bench Warrant Review and Recall:Monitoring the Data • As of August 15, 2007, there were 500 total outstanding juvenile bench warrants (youth 17 and under) • Of the 500 warrants, 64% were African American youth • As of April 16, 2009, nearly 50% had been reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office and 56% were recalled and/or dismissed • Ongoing process

26. Judicial Review Current Process:Youth picked up solely on a bench warrant are held in detention and see a Judge at the next Juvenile docket. Recommendation: To ensure that youth picked up on a juvenile bench warrant (with or without new charges) have the opportunity for judicial review, the Bench Warrant Subcommittee provides the following strategies:

27. Judicial Review - Cont: Strategies to implement the recommendation: • Implemented • Chief Judge, Jefferson District Court entered court order requiring a Court Designated Worker (CDW) to present all pending juvenile bench warrants to a Judge for review and detention/release determination. • Juvenile court clerk to document why the warrant was issued, to include the original charge(s). • Youth Detention Services is to provide access to the original warrant for the CDWs.

28. Judicial Review: Monitoring the Data • Timeline of the Process: • February 3, 2006 – District Court order entered • February 14, 2006 – Trained Judges, CDWs, and Detention Staff • February 20, 2006 – Implemented Court Order • Monitoring Process: • Detention makes a copy of the original bench warrant and the intake form, and provides to DMC Coordinator • DMC Coordinator - • developed an SPSS database to track and analyze data • provides statistical reports to the DMC Advisory Board

29. Judicial Review: Data Findings

31. Bench Warrant Reform Lessons Learned • Ongoing education and information sharing with Juvenile Justice Stakeholders • Accessing and sharing data • Buy-in from stakeholders • Sustain the process – continue the momentum of “Digging Deeper”