Better Responses to Youth Status Offenses November 12, 2013

1. Better Responses to Youth Status OffensesNovember 12, 2013 MARIE WILLIAMS | Coalition for Juvenile Justice ANNIE SALSICH | Vera Institute of Justice TARA GRIESHOP-GOODWIN | Kentucky Youth Advocates Photo: Jen Pagonis (_pidge)

2. Leads a national movement • State-based juvenile justice coalitions and organizations (43 members in 33 states) • Laws, policies and practices that are fair, equitable and developmentally appropriate for all children, youth and families Photo: Moriza

3. A nationwide coalition of State Advisory Groups (SAGs) and allies. • Dedicated to: • preventing children and youth from becoming involved in the courts and • upholding the highest standards of care when youth are charged with wrongdoing and enter the justice system.  Photo: Moriza

4. Our Speakers Marie Williams Acting Executive Director Coalition for Juvenile Justice Annie Salsich Director, Center on Youth Justice Vera Institute of Justice Tara Grieshop-Goodwin Chief Policy Officer Kentucky Youth Advocates

5. More Harm Than Good: Developing National Standards to Address Needs of Youth Charged with Status Offenses More Harm Than Good: Developing National Standards to Address Needs of Youth Charged with Status Offenses

6. Why Status Offender Reform? Major Goals • Support CJJ’s longtime formal position on prohibiting detention of status offenders • Advance in practice, the policy change we seek in JJDPA reauthorization • Promote optimal and evidence-based policies and practices across all states to limit court contact and prevent adjudication and detention of youth at risk of being charged as status offenders

7. One of the Original Core Requirements Youth charged with status offenses (and youth who are alleged to be dependent, neglected or abused) shall not be placed in secure detention or correctional facilities. Valid Court Order (VCO) Exception - 1984 Youth charged with status offenses who violate a valid court order may be held in a secure juvenile facility for the period allowable by state/local law. Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders(DSO) Core Requirement of the JJDPA

8. The nation is divided: In all, 28 states and territories prohibit or choose not to use the VCO exception in practice. Of these, 14 have state laws citing prohibitions. In 2008, 27 of 55 states recorded allowable uses of the VCO exception as part of their JJDPA compliance efforts. Additionally: Wyoming is the only state that does not participate in the JJDPA – appears to lock-up many status offenders. Some non-VCO states are struggling with JJDPA compliance due to detentions of minors in possession of alcohol. Is the Valid Court Order Exception still used?

9. Approx. 9,850 VCO-related detention orders are issued annually in the 27 jurisdictions. Typically a few courts or jurisdictions are responsible for the VCO-related detention orders. According to OJJDP data from 2007-2008, nearly 60% of all such VCOs occur in 3 states: Arkansas, Kentucky and Washington. Is the Valid Court Order Exception still used?

10. When detained, there are safety concerns: Nearly 20% of status offenders are placed in living units with youth who have killed someone; More than 25% reside with felony sex offenders; Half participate in programming with youth who have been charged with murder and/or rape. When detained, there are poor outcomes: Re-offense rates increase; School engagement and success are diminished; Emotional, social, familial and other problems are exacerbated. Nationwide Concern about Status Offender Detention

11. Phase-out use of the VCO exceptionto the DSO core requirement; Prohibit detentionof children under the custody of child protection/child welfare agencies; Place strict limits on lengths of stayin secure detention for all non-delinquent youth, including status offenders; Provide funds to enrich the continuum of servicesfor community based and/or family-connected care for status offenders. JJDPA Reauthorization Push to Improve Outcomes

12. OJJDP at the U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee (x2 in legislation) CJJ, NCJFCJ and more than 380 organizations, including: The American Bar Association American Probation and Parole Association Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators Fight Crime Invest in Kids National PTA Broad Consensus to Eliminate ALL Detention for Youth Charged with Status Offenses

13. Preventing non-delinquent children from entering locked facilities where they are housed with more serious offenders; Reducing out of home placements and incarceration of youth charged with delinquent offenses; Reducing reliance on secure custody for the full range of juvenile offenders, with community supervision and case management approaches: therapeutic, educational and/or skill-building components; Family and community-connected services/interventions produce the most positive outcomes for youth development and community safety. National, State and Local Trends Support Deinstitutionalization

14. Recent efforts in VCO states – such as Alabama, Louisiana, Ohio, Utah and Washington – are cutting VCOs by 50% or more with practice changes and alternatives to detention. Other states have enacted legislative changes to move status offenders away from the delinquency system, such as Connecticut, Georgia, New York and Pennsylvania. States Leading the Charge to Avoid Detention

15. Overview: The SOS Project • Three Core Strategies • Promote and support judicial leadership • Developtools and information to support change • Identify, assess and/or develop model policy

16. Partners • Public Welfare Foundation • NCJFCJ and NCJJ • Vera Institute of Justice

17. Judicial Leadership Strategy • Identify and elevate examples of judicial leadership on the use of alternatives to court involvement and detention for youth with unmet needs who are charged with status offenses. • Provide peer-to-peer support opportunities for judges seeking alternatives to confinement. • Distill lessons from judicial leaders on DSO.

18. Positive Power • Profiled Examples of Judicial Leadership on DSO • Focus on: • Demand for evidence-based approaches • Balancing of interests • Reliance on partnerships • Use of judicial convening power

19. Model Policy Strategy • Identify and develop state statutes that effectively divert youth and families from court and confinement and toward family- and community-based services. • Analyze, contextualize and measure the effectiveness of current state statutes in achieving the goals of DSO and producing optimal outcomes for youth, families and communities.

20. National Standards Development Process • Phase I - Convening expert advisory group in a consultative role to develop standards for practice. • Includes stakeholders from various points of contact with the JJ system, SAG members, representatives from schools, child welfare and law enforcement. • Phase II - Developing the standards for addressing the needs of youth charged with status offenses without court involvement. • Phase III – Comment and Dissemination to broaden and solidify buy-in and begin to promulgate the Standards in the field.

21. Promoting the Use and Sustainability of Standards Goal #1 State level change in practice. Goal #2 State level change in policy. Goal #3 Ground-up support for federal restoration of the original DSO core requirement, i.e. elimination of the valid court order exception.

22. Overview of the National Standards • Introduction • Section I: Principles for Responding to Status Offenses • Section II: Efforts to Avoid Court Involvement • Section III: Efforts to Limit Court Involvement • Section IV: Policy and Legislative Implementation • Section V: Definitions

23. Introduction to the National Standards • History of status offenses • Overview of recent understanding about status offenses as sometimes symptomatic of complex needs • History of DSO core requirement, the VCO and state response

24. Section I Principles for Responding to Status Offenses 12 key principles to which professionals can adhere to protect youth and family well-being. The principles acknowledge and address the individual, familial and community contexts in which status offenses may occur, and underlie all subsequent standards.

25. Section II Efforts to Avoid Court Involvement Discusses key principles and practices to shape how education, social service, child welfare, runaway and homeless youth, mental/behavioral health, law enforcement and juvenile justice systemsshould first respond to youth and families at risk and in need of immediate assistance. It offers examples of early intervention services that will help the child and family avoid court involvement.

26. Section III Efforts to Limit Court Involvement Focuses on judicial, legal and other professionals working within the court system, with guidance about how to use the court’s powers to ensure the proper services are implemented while avoiding deeper court involvement. Provides specific guidance at various stages of the case to ensure best outcomes for youth and families.

27. Section IV Legislative, Administrative and Budgetary Policies Proposes legislative, administrative and budgetary principles and policies that relevant authorities can promote and adopt to reform their current status offense responder systems, and support implementation of the National Status Offense Standards proposed in previous sections.

28. Section V Definitions Common terms referred to in the Standards.

29. Beyond Courts to Communities: Better Ways of Responding to Status Offenses November 12, 2013Annie SalsichDirectorCenter on Youth Justice November 11, 2013

30. Why status offense reform • What system change looks like on the ground • How practitioners, policy makers, and advocates can access information, support, and guidance in this area Presentation Outline

31. In 2010, juvenile courts across the country processed 137,000 status offense cases. • In 36% of these cases, the most serious allegation was truancy – that’s nearly 50,000 kids taken to court for skipping school. • Despite the noncriminal nature of these behaviors, youth in approximately 10,400 cases spent time in detention. • In 6,100 cases the court disposition was a longer-term placement in a residential facility .   Why Status Offense Reform

32. Courts often over-burdened • Lack of immediate and appropriate crisis response • High financial and social cost of the juvenile justice system, particularly for non-criminal behavior • More effective alternatives Why Status Offense Reform

33. A new paradigm has been emerging in many jurisdictions: • Connect struggling families with social services in their communities, instead of turning to courts. • The MacArthur Foundation supported and encouraged this shift in its Models for Change initiative. • Vera has provided technical assistance and research support to more than 30 jurisdictions across the country in this area since 2001. What System Change Looks Like

34. Effective community-based systems feature the following: • Court diversion • Immediate response • A process to triage and diagnose • Services that are accessible and effective • Internal assessment What System Change Looks Like

35. Three Examples from the Field: • Florida • Calcasieu Parish, LA • New York State What System Change Looks Like

36. Impetus for Change: • Growing recognition that courts and detention were inappropriate for serving runaways and other youth who had not committed crimes • Passage of Runaway Youth and Family Act in 1983 created a statewide task force to plan a new system • Goal: • To strengthen the continuum of services that would serve troubled teens and their families in their communities • Reform Champion: • Legislature has been a key champion in the reform movement Florida

37. Reforms: • Department of Juvenile Justice contracts with Florida Network of Youth and Family Services to oversee FINS/CINS programs • Youth/families can access immediate services from over 30 sites statewide • Strong emphasis on quality assurance and accountability • Outcomes: • 91% of the 14,847 youth served from 2011-2012 were crime free six months after services • A 2011 cost effective evaluation found that Florida Network early interventions saved the state $160 million Florida (cont)

38. Impetus for Change: • Concern about the long length of time between referral and the development of a service plan for FINS youth • Goals: • To link youth and families to needed services in the community and facilitate immediate access to those services • Reform Champion: • Calcasieu’s Children and Youth Planning Board (CYPB) took the lead in planning the MARC • Engaged in a comprehensive planning process, which included reviewing FINS data, surveying youth and providers, and visiting model sites Calcasieu Parish, Lousiana

39. Reforms: • Launched the Multi-Agency Resource Center (MARC), a central point of intake for FINS and delinquent youth • Emphasis on data tracking and review of case processing times • Outcomes: • In 2011 (first year of MARC operation), less than 1 percent of referrals resulted in a court petition • Time between intake and service plan development has dropped dramatically, from 50 days to 2 hours • Since 2006, no youth have been committed to the Office of Juvenile Justice on FINS charges Calcasieu Parish (cont)

40. Impetus for Change: • 2001 increase in age of jurisdiction raised concern about increases in court cases and high costs associated with non-secure detention and placement and spurred a closer look at the system as a whole. • Goals: • To examine how localities were using the status offense system and find effective alternatives to juvenile justice involvement. • Reform Champion: • The New York State Office of Children and Family Services contracted with the Vera Institute to conduct a study and provide technical assistance to 23 counties over a 3-year period. New York State

41. Reforms: • Localities across the state set out to (1) divert more PINS youth from the court system and into supportive services in the community and (2) develop community-based alternatives to non-secure detention and placement. • Legislative change in 2005 to further encourage the use of court alternatives. • Outcomes: • Between 2003 and 2012, the state saw a 70% decrease in PINS court petitions. New York State (cont.)

42. Vera’s on-line Status Offense Reform Center • Funded and supported by the MacArthur Foundation, as part of its National Resource Center Partnership. • Aims to help policymakers and practitioners create effective, community-based responses for keeping youth who commit status offenses out of the juvenile justice system and safely in their homes and communities. • Will go live in December – www.statusoffensereform.org How to access guidance in this area

43. Toolkit • Step-by-step guide outlining how to undertake a status offense reform effort • Library • Central repository of information related to status offense behaviors, system responses, and reform efforts • SORC Products • Notes from the Field • Research Briefs • Other Features • Webinars • Podcasts/Videos • Blogs Status Offense Reform Center

44. Kentucky Progress on Status Offenses: Creating Environment for Reform Tara Grieshop-Goodwin Kentucky Youth Advocates

45. Youth locked up for status offenses From 2nd to 4th highest among 50 states Data reported by Coalition for Juvenile Justice

46. Use of secure detention has dropped in recent years for status offenses Data from Department of Juvenile Justice and Louisville Metro Youth Detention Services

47. Strategies for creating change • Showing the numbers • Media work • The message

48. Publishing the numbers • Numbers of bookings by • county • Estimated cost by county

49. Media coverage

50. The message • Avoiding jargon • Public safety • Cost of secure detention • Offering a solution