Summary of HB 86 Juvenile Provisions

1. Summary of HB 86Juvenile Provisions ODYS Director Harvey Reed Judge Theresa Dellick Moderators: Yvonne hunnicutt Sharon weitzenhof October 13, 2011

2. Rationale: • To avoid institutional placements when proven-effective community placements lead to reduced state costs, improved public safety and better outcomes for youth. • Currently, approximately half of DYS students are moderate risk and less than a quarter are low risk, most of whom would be better served in community programs.

3. This what we felt like we were doing

4. history • Rightsizing Juvenile Justice in Ohio • Federal lawsuit • HB 235 - attempted • National Campaign to Reform State Juvenile Justice Systems • MacArthur Foundation, Gund Foundation

5. history • Ohio Juvenile Justice Coalition • Myriad of members • Lobbyists • Long wish list - shortened • Push for legislation

6. Ohio JJ Coalitionphase I • Shared visions: • Cost effectiveness • Community safety • Relevant outcomes • Programs that meet common goals of multiple systems • Evidence-based practices • Impact a significant population and issues

7. history • Part of Budget – Why • Cost Savings and Cost Drivers • Suitable alternatives • Used a Business Model • Quality assurance and measured outcomes

8. history • Juvenile Justice as a social problem • Conveyor Belt to Adult System • Cookie-cutter approach • One size does not fit all

9. Main Provisions • Promotes research-supported, outcome-based programs and practices that maximize results and provides greater public safety per dollar;

10. Revises ineffective and costly sentences by permitting greater judicial discretion;

11. Addresses competency; and

12. Adopts the ‘Smart on Crime’ philosophy that balances developmentally appropriate treatment and accountability measures.

13. Research-informed practices • Encourages the utilization of research-supported, outcome-based programs and services, to the extent available. • Re-appropriates 45% of the amount not spent on juvenile correctional facilities back to ODYS and not to state budget.

14. Maximizes the impact of the RECLAIM state-local revenue sharing model by promoting county-based interventions that have evidence of measurable performance effectiveness (i.e. diversion, reducing recidivism, reducing admissions to secure placements, etc.) • While this language does not create a requirement, it encourages the local level to move toward performance-based measures.

15. Judicial release • Current law: • Judges can only grant an early release during a student’s minimum sentence time period after the mandatory commitment is complete, after which any release decision rests solely with the ODYS • Judges do not have continuing jurisdiction.

16. Judicial release • HB 86 • Judges maintain jurisdiction to consider early release opportunities throughout a student’s commitment, including instances in which students are serving mandatory commitments. • Allows courts and DYS to release a juvenile after the expiration of his/her minimum term when appropriate including allowing the court to release a youth servicing mandatory commitments.

17. Judicial Releases • Extends juvenile court authority to allow for judicial release throughout a student’s term of commitment. • Student released to court’s authority if before half-way term served.

18. Gun Specifications • Revises commitment specifications to allow for judicial discretion in instances involving a gun where the student was not the main actor • Did not possess, dispose of, or otherwise use the weapon.

19. Courts can help to effectively assess the degree youth is making progress and may warrant an early release and/or a change of placement or services. • A student with a 3 year gun specification can dramatically change and make substantial progress in 2 years, but under current law, the judge could not release for another year.

20. Students with gun commitments continue to answer to the juvenile court. • Court continues to oversee the student’s treatment, education and progress. • Keeps the student connected to his/her home community.

21. Juvenile Competency Code • Adopts a uniform juvenile competency code applicable to all delinquency proceedings using a juvenile-specific standard. • Currently, when competency is raised, courts may apply different standards and guidelines, resulting in disparate treatment.

22. Juvenile is incompetent if due to: • mental illness, • Intellectual disability, • Developmental disability, or • Otherwise due to a lack of mental capacity, And

23. The child is presently incapable of understanding the nature and objective of proceedings against the child, or • of assisting in the child’s defense.

24. A child who is 14 or older, who is not otherwise found to be mentally ill, intellectually disabled, or developmentally disabled, is presumed to not have a lack of mental capacity.

25. Reverse Waiver • Creates a reverse waiver provision for youth automatically transferred to adult court (mandatory bindover) that would permit transfer back to juvenile court.

26. Applies when a youth is convicted of an offense that would not have originally qualified as a mandatory bindover offense. • Case would go back to juvenile court for juvenile commitment or an amenability hearing to determine whether the adult sentence should be invoked. • 25 States have similar provision. See hand-out.

27. Research-informed Practices • In regards to RECLAIM dollars, encourages research-supported, outcome-based programs and services, to the extent available.

28. Truancy • Permits filing of truancy charge against the child, parent, guardian or other person having care of the child • Section 2152.021

29. Interagency Task Force • Creates an Interagency Mental Health Juvenile Justice Task Force to address the challenges of delinquent youth who suffer from serious mental illness or emotional and behavioral disorders.

30. Six (6) month Task Force – Report due 3.31.2012 • Representatives include: • Ohio Supreme Court • Governor’s Office • House • Senate • ODYS • ODMH • Juvenile Judges • Public Defenders • Prosecutors • Academic institutions • Other experts

31. Appointments to Task Force • 9-30-11 Appointments by Governor • Terry Russell of West Jefferson (Madison County) • Patrick J. Kanary of Cleveland Heights (Cuyahoga County) • Marjorie A. Cook of Akron (Summit County) • Anita Moreno of North Ridgeville (Lorain County) • Michelle D. Stratman of Columbus (Franklin County)

32. Juvenile Justice Continuum • A community-based service delivery system that is designed to provide appropriate services and supports for youth by matching risk level with the least restrictive program setting

33. Efforts to Enhance the Continuum of Care for Youth • Ohio Youth Assessment System (OYAS) • Community-Based Services and Programs • Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) • Reform Release Authority Process • Strengthen Parole Services

34. In Our Facilities • Population • New Freedom-Phoenix Curriculum • Strength-based Behavioral Management System (SBBMS) • Family Engagement • Closure of Ohio River Valley JCF • Circleville JCF Superintendent

35. Grants to Support Re-entry of Youth • Over $1 Million in “Second Chance Act” grants from U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs • $600,000+ for Juvenile Mentoring • Nearly $500,000 for Career Technology Training

36. Not a perfect document • Legislation came with a lot of compromise • SYOs • Gun Specifications • Mandatory Bindovers • Competency Issues • RECLAIM – shall be EBP

37. Phase II • Implementation and Training • Tweak legislation

38. Clean-up Issues • Section 2152.12(B)(3)(a) • Mandatory SYO upon return bindover • Requires juvenile court upon the return of a juvenile to juvenile court to impose a SYO dispositional sentence. • Judges want it to be permissive

39. Clean-up Issues • Sections 2152.12 and 2152.121 • Return bindovers for 14 and 15 year olds • Currently, return bindovers are only available for 16 and 17 year olds, should be available for 14 and 15 year olds. • history

40. Clean-up Issues • Sections 2152.121(B)(2) and (B)(3) • Juvenile waiver • Provide provision giving juvenile the right to waive the return bindover procedure if satisfied with sentence/plea agreement from general division • concerns

41. Clean-up issues • Competency Statute • Presumed competence age too high • Time limits are restrictive • Implementation costs

42. Clean-up Issues • Sections 2301.27 and 2301.271 • Clarify that DRC provides standards and training to adult probation officers • Needs a distinction between juvenile and adult probation officers

43. Clean-up Issues • Sections 5139.41 • Make improvements to the RECLAIM funding formula • Use a 10-year average for felony adjudications (instead of a 4-year average) to provide greater consistency in funding to courts

44. Thank you