1 / 37

North Carolina Youth Accountability Planning Task Force

North Carolina Youth Accountability Planning Task Force. Presented by Michelle Hall, Task Force Coordinator Drug Treatment Court Conference, September 1, 2010. Agenda. Background Historical Context Current C ontext Youth Accountability Planning Task Force Membership Mandate

liza
Download Presentation

North Carolina Youth Accountability Planning Task Force

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. North Carolina Youth Accountability Planning Task Force Presented by Michelle Hall, Task Force Coordinator Drug Treatment Court Conference, September 1, 2010

  2. Agenda • Background • Historical Context • Current Context • Youth Accountability Planning Task Force • Membership • Mandate • Work Plan • Work Groups • Efforts to Date • Approved Recommendations • Next Steps and Final Report • Questions

  3. Background • North Carolina only 1 of 2 states with juvenile jurisdiction age 161 • Unique because of lack of flexibility1 • Other states have options for offenders under 211: • Blended Sentencing • Youthful Offender Status • Reverse Waiver • No option to move to juvenile court1 1Source: Birckhead, Tamar. North Carolina, Juvenile Court Jurisdiction, and the Resistance to Reform, 86 N.C. L. REV 1443 (2008).

  4. Juvenile Jurisdiction, Age 16 2 STATES Source: United States Census Bureau map with updated data from “Report on Study of Youthful Offenders, NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, Report to the 2007 General Assembly, March 2007

  5. Juvenile Jurisdiction, Age 17 10 STATES Source: United States Census Bureau map with updated data from “Report on Study of Youthful Offenders, NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, Report to the 2007 General Assembly, March 2007

  6. Juvenile Jurisdiction, Age 18 38 STATES & District of Columbia Source: United States Census Bureau map with updated data from “Report on Study of Youthful Offenders, NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, Report to the 2007 General Assembly, March 2007

  7. Other Sources of Variance • Federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act1 • 16 and 17 year old “status offenders” • American Bar Association Standards related to juvenile delinquency2 • Recommend 18 as upper limit of juvenile jurisdiction • International Treaties3 • Consider 18 appropriate age for delineating between juvenile and adult court jurisdiction 1Source: Lachance, Paul. “Legal Issues Relative to the JJDP Act Compliance in North Carolina. Presentation to the Youth Accountability Planning Task Force Legal Issues Work Group, May 14, 2010. 2Source: Inst. Of Jud. Admin. Am. Bar Assoc., Standards Relating To Juvenile Delinquency & Sanctions 14-17 (1980) as quoted in Birckhead, Tamar. North Carolina, Juvenile Court Jurisdiction, and the Resistance to Reform, 86 N.C. L. REV 1443 (2008). 3Source: United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, G.A. Res. 44/25, Art. 1, Annex, at 167, U.N. GAOR 44th Sess., Supp. No 49, U.N. Doc. A/44/49 (Nov. 20, 1989) as quoted inBirckhead, Tamar. North Carolina, Juvenile Court Jurisdiction, and the Resistance to Reform, 86 N.C. L. REV 1443 (2008).

  8. Historical Context • Juvenile Court Statute passed in 19191 • Was to cover youth up to 18 in juvenile court • Last minute switch to 16 • 1940s research by Wiley Britton Sanders1 • Advocated increasing age to 17 • General Assembly rejected proposal • 1950s and 1960s: study reports1 • Multiple studies commissioned • Recommendations made to increase the age of jurisdiction • 1990s: Punitive approach to youthful offenders1 • 1997 Hunt Commission on Juvenile Crime and Justice1 • Rewriting of the juvenile code 1Source: Birckhead, Tamar. North Carolina, Juvenile Court Jurisdiction, and the Resistance to Reform, 86 N.C. L. REV 1443 (2008). Section: “A Long Established Pattern: 1915-2008,” pg. 127-147.

  9. Current Context • 2004: Alamance County school drug bust • 2005-2006: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission Report on Youthful Offenders • Recommendation to the 2007 General Assembly to increase age of juvenile jurisdiction to 181 • 2008: Governor’s Crime Commission contracted report • Impact of Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention • Cost/Benefit analysis presented to 2009 General Assembly • 2007 & 2009: Bills filed to extend age of jurisdiction • HB 492 and HB 1414 Source: Report on Study of Youthful Offenders Pursuant to S.L. 2006-248, North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, March 2007. pg.7.

  10. Youth AccountabilityPlanning Task Force • Established by S.L. 2009-451 • Mandated to develop an implementation plan for expansion of DJJDP to include 16/17 year-olds1 • Membership • Appointed by Governor, Chief Justice, Speaker of the House, President pro Tempore of the Senate 1 Source: S.L. 2009-451 18.9. (a)

  11. Official Duties of the YAPTF • Costs to the State Court System and State and Local law enforcement1 • Relevant state laws to be conformed, included motor vehicle laws, as a result of revising the definition of delinquent juvenile to include 16- and 17 year-olds1 • Proposals to eliminate racial disparity1 • Proposals for community programs to rehabilitate youth1 • Total cost to expand DJJDP1 • Implication on other laws including compulsory school attendance1 • Felony motor vehicle offenses1 • Any other issues1 1 Source: S.L. 2009-451 18.9. (f) Subsections 1-9.

  12. Division of Labor

  13. October 2009 – PresentFull Task Force • Data collection • Information gathering • Primary focus on three main areas: • Dropout Rate and Short and Long-term Suspensions • Mental Health and Substance Abuse • Disproportionate Minority Contact • Participation on Work Groups • Interim report to General Assembly (Short Session) • Vote on recommendations from Work Groups

  14. Legal Issues Work Group • Tasked with determining which State laws should be conformed or amended as a result of revising the definition of delinquent juvenile to include 16- and 17-year-old persons who commit crimes or infractions • The work group agreed to examine the following1: • Criminal law • Traffic/Felony Motor Vehicle laws • Juvenile code including possible changes to juvenile disposition chart • Transfer standards • Expunction • Other age-based laws • Other relevant issues 1Source: S.L. 2009-451 Section 18.9. (f) subsections 2, 6, 7, 8

  15. Legal Issues Work Group • Approach to decision-making1: • 1. Focus only on issues created by adding 16- and 17 year-olds to the juvenile justice system • 2. Make as little change to the current law as possible • Assumptions1: • 1. All current provisions of the Juvenile Code and other applicable laws would apply to 16- and 17 year-olds except where changes are recommended • 2. Proposed legislation recommendations would require amending applicable forms published by AOC 1Source: August 2010 Final Recommendations, YAPTF Legal Issues Work Group report to Full Task Force, August 27, 2010

  16. Programs and Benefits Work Group • Tasked with determining the best environment and practices to treat and rehabilitate juveniles in a cost-effective way, with a focus on eliminating racial disparity in the process of juveniles. • The work group agreed to examine the following1: • Programming, including community-based, Detention Center and Youth Development Center best-practices • Racial Disparity • Mental Health/Substance Abuse • Benefits, including long-term savings • Other relevant issues 1Source: S.L. 2009-451 Section 18.9. (f) subsections 3,4

  17. Programs and Benefits Work Group • Approach to decision-making1: • 1. Receive and discuss literature and presentations on evidence-based practices and effective best-practices for juvenile offenders in North Carolina and other states • 2. Examine specifically: community programs, court services, detention and youth development centers, substance abuse services, mental health services and educational services • 3. Solicit input from each affected agency • 4. Develop recommendations for each area examined. 1Source: Interim Report to the 2010 Short Session of the General Assembly, Youth Accountability Planning Task Force, June 2010

  18. Systems Costs Work Group • Tasked with determining the costs to the State court system, State and local law enforcement, the DJJDP, and any other agencies affected by revising the definition of delinquent juvenile to include 16- and 17-year-old persons who commit crimes or infractions. • The work group agreed to examine the following1: • Law enforcement (state and local) • Courts • DJJDP • DOC • Local Government • Other relevant issues 1Source: S.L. 2009-451 Section 18.9. (f) subsections 1,5

  19. Systems Costs Work Group • Approach1: • Capture the population of 16- and 17-year olds that would move into the DJJDP into a dataset to allow for projecting costs of different scenarios • Identify cost elements from each agency affected by the change in juvenile jurisdiction • Identify victim and offender costs connected to the crimes associated with the population • Examine methods of cost and benefit analysis used in other states • Consult with other work groups to project costs based on specific programmatic and legal recommendations 1Source: Interim Report to the 2010 Short Session of the General Assembly, Youth Accountability Planning Task Force, June 2010

  20. Systems Costs Work GroupCost/Benefit Analysis • Lack of staff capacity and time demanded outside assistance in analyzing data • Vera Institute of Justice • Team of juvenile justice and cost/benefit experts • Working with the Task Force and Systems Costs • Working in cooperation with agencies • End result will be a cost/benefit analysis to supplement the findings of the Systems Costs Work Group

  21. YAPTF to Date August 27, 2010 Vote on Legal Recommendations

  22. Legal RecommendationsAreas of Focus • Jurisdiction • Transfer • Effective Date • Petition • Delinquency History Points • Dispositional Alternatives • Detention • Transportation • Other conforming changes Source: August 2010 Final Recommendations, YAPTF Legal Issues Work Group report to Full Task Force, August 27, 2010

  23. Jurisdiction • All proceedings relating to offenses committed by 16- or 17- year olds should originate in juvenile court unless: • The offense is one under G.S. Chapter 20 (Motor Vehicles) • In some instances, the juvenile has a prior adult criminal conviction • All offenses under G.S. Chapter 20 should be excluded from juvenile court jurisdiction (for 16- and 17 year-olds • A 16- or 17 year-old who has been transferred to and convicted in superior court should be excluded from juvenile court jurisdiction for all offenses committed after the conviction Source: August 2010 Final Recommendations, YAPTF Legal Issues Work Group report to Full Task Force, August 27, 2010

  24. Jurisdiction • A 16- or 17-year-old person who has previously been convicted of a felony under G.S. Chapter 20 of the General Statutes should be excluded from juvenile court • A 16- or 17-year-old who has been convicted of a misdemeanor under G.S. Chapter 20 should be subject to juvenile court jurisdiction for subsequent acts committed prior to the age of 18 Source: August 2010 Final Recommendations, YAPTF Legal Issues Work Group report to Full Task Force, August 27, 2010

  25. Maximum Age of Dispositional Jurisdiction Chart Source: Mason, Janet. “August 2010 Recommendations,” Powerpoint Presentation to the YAPTF, August 27, 2010

  26. Transfer – After Finding of Probable Cause in Juvenile Court Chart Source: Mason, Janet. “August 2010 Recommendations,” Powerpoint Presentation to the YAPTF, August 27, 2010

  27. Transfer – After Finding of Probable Cause in Juvenile Court Chart Source: Mason, Janet. “August 2010 Recommendations,” Powerpoint Presentation to the YAPTF, August 27, 2010

  28. Effective Date/Applicability • The increase in the juvenile age should apply prospectively only, except: • 1. Offenders under 18 who have an adult felony conviction under the former law for an act committed at age 16 or 17 should be excluded from the juvenile court’s jurisdiction • 2. Offenders under 18 who have an adult misdemeanor conviction under the former law for an act committed at age 16 or 17 should be included in the juvenile court’s jurisdiction, and the prior misdemeanor conviction under the former law should be treated as a prior adjudication of delinquency Source: August 2010 Final Recommendations, YAPTF Legal Issues Work Group report to Full Task Force, August 27, 2010

  29. Petition • Court should be authorized to allow amendment of petition, even if amendment changes nature of alleged offense • Juvenile should be entitled to continuance of at least 5 days to respond to amended charge Source: August 2010 Final Recommendations, YAPTF Legal Issues Work Group report to Full Task Force, August 27, 2010

  30. Delinquency History Points • When a 16- or 17-year-old has an adult misdemeanor conviction under G.S. Chapter 20, delinquency history points should be assigned only for: • Impaired driving • Impaired driving in a commercial vehicle • Misdemeanor death by motor vehicle Source: August 2010 Final Recommendations, YAPTF Legal Issues Work Group report to Full Task Force, August 27, 2010

  31. Dispositional Alternatives • G.S. 7B-2506: • (1) Limit placement in custody of DSS or others to juveniles under age 18 • (2) Limit reference to compulsory school attendance to juveniles under age 16 • (3) Delete 12-month limit on order that juvenile cooperate with treatment program • Intermittent Confinement • G.S. 7B-2510 (Probation): • (1) Add probation conditions requiring juvenile to • a) notify court counselor before moving • b) have permission of court counselor before leaving the state • (2) Allow court to delegate to court counselor authority to order electronic monitoring or intensive supervision at Level 1 as well as Level 2 Source: August 2010 Final Recommendations, YAPTF Legal Issues Work Group report to Full Task Force, August 27, 2010

  32. Dispositional Alternatives • G.S. 7B-1903 (Secure or Non-Secure Custody) • Custody between adjudication and disposition: • Require findings by clear and convincing evidence that: • restraints on juvenile’s liberty are necessary, and • no less intrusive alternative will suffice • Secure custody based on alleged probation violation: • Should be allowed when alleged acts • damage property • injure persons or • demonstrate danger to self or others Source: August 2010 Final Recommendations, YAPTF Legal Issues Work Group report to Full Task Force, August 27, 2010

  33. Detention • All detained persons under juvenile court jurisdiction should be in DJJDP facilities • Detained juvenile who has been transferred to superior court should be moved to adult facility at age 18 • facility should notify sheriff • sheriff should transport juvenile Source: August 2010 Final Recommendations, YAPTF Legal Issues Work Group report to Full Task Force, August 27, 2010

  34. Transportation • Transportation of anyone under juvenile court jurisdiction to or from a state or local juvenile facility should be responsibility of DJJDP Source: August 2010 Final Recommendations, YAPTF Legal Issues Work Group report to Full Task Force, August 27, 2010

  35. Other Conforming Changes • Change “contributing to delinquency of a minor,” in G.S. 14-316.1, to refer to person who is at least 18* *will be potentially revisited by Task Force • Change G.S. 15A-505, regarding notification of parent and school when a minor is arrested. • Re-codify G.S. 20-106 (receiving or transferring stolen vehicle) under Larceny in G.S. Chapter 14. Source: August 2010 Final Recommendations, YAPTF Legal Issues Work Group report to Full Task Force, August 27, 2010

  36. Next Steps • Public Hearings over coming months • Program and Benefits Work Group to report out on October 15 • Systems Costs Work Group to report out November 19 • Vera Institute of Justice to complete cost/benefit analysis by December • Final Report due to Legislature January 15, 2011 • Bill filing in new Legislative Session

  37. Questions? Contact: Michelle Hall, Task Force Coordinator 919-890-1470 Michelle.l.hall@aoc.nccourts.org www.ncdjjdp.org/TaskForce

More Related