1 / 93

Community Programs and Court Services Overview and Strategic Direction

Community Programs and Court Services Overview and Strategic Direction Teresa Price, Deputy Secretary of Community Programs, Michael Rieder , Deputy Secretary of Court Services, and William Lassiter, Director of Communications. Presentation Objectives.

sara-glenn
Download Presentation

Community Programs and Court Services Overview and Strategic Direction

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. Community Programs and Court Services Overview and Strategic Direction Teresa Price, Deputy Secretary of Community Programs, Michael Rieder, Deputy Secretary of Court Services, and William Lassiter, Director of Communications

  2. Presentation Objectives • Provide an overview of the current structure of community programs and court services • Current needs in each DJJDP section • What changes would be necessary to successfully implement HB 1414

  3. Department Overview

  4. Department Vision and Mission Our Vision A seamless, comprehensive juvenile justice system which provides the most effective services to youth and their families at the right time in the most appropriate settings. Our MissionTo promote public safety and juvenile delinquency prevention, intervention, and treatment through the operation of a seamless, comprehensive juvenile justice system.

  5. Department Goals: • To promote public safety as the cornerstone of North Carolina's juvenile justice system. • To promote juvenile delinquency prevention, intervention, and treatment at the state and community levels so that juvenile crime and delinquency are reduced. • To further develop and maintain a comprehensive, quality-focused juvenile justice system driven by research and evidence-based practices in all budgetary components of the department.

  6. Overview of Comprehensive Strategy for Juvenile Justice

  7. DJJDP System Overview • Staff of 1,905 after our most recent RIF. • 1,628 in the field in various positions to include: • 595 Court Services (Court Counselors, Supervisors, Chiefs, Area Administrators, and Support staff) • 10 Regional Consultants for Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils/Community Programs (there are 99 JCPC’s and a myriad of community “placement” options)

  8. DJJDP System Overview • 1,161 – Staff associated with Facilities • Includes Professional Staff both regionally and in the facilities • And, ancillary and other staff across the Dept (including maintenance, cooks, Business Officers, transportation drivers, processing and administrative assistants, etc.) • 149 in the Central Office to support the field (7.8% of workforce supporting 92% of field services)

  9. DJJDP System Overview • 99 Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils • 582 programs plus an additional 65 gang assessments/programs that employ approximately 1,250 people • Served nearly 30,000 juveniles statewide in FY 08-09 • These programs along with other community initiatives have been able to prevent juvenile crime which is at a ten year low

  10. Complaints Received: CY 2000-2008(Delinquent and Undisciplined Complaints) 8.9% Decrease

  11. Juvenile Crime Rate: CY 2000 - 2008Rate is of Delinquent Complaints Received per 1,000 juveniles age 6-15.Juvenile Crime Rate in NC has decreased 12% from 2000 to 2008.

  12. NC Juvenile Crime Facts • Approximately 2-3% of juvenile crime each year are for A-E felonies • Approximately 69% of complaints received are for misdemeanor offenses; and 12% are for infractions or status offenses • Of complaints received annually, approximately 75% are committed by males

  13. Complaints Received Offenses: CY 2008N=43,797

  14. Top Ten Juvenile CrimesCY 2008 The top 10 juvenile crimes account for 47% of charged offenses in 2008.

  15. Time of Juvenile Crime Offense Times on Complaints Received, CY 2008 N = 38,894

  16. Detention Admissions: CY 2002 – CY 2008Approximately 5,000 distinct juveniles per year are admitted to detention. These numbers reflect admissions to State and County facilities.

  17. YDC Commitment Trends and Rate:CY 1998-2008Rate = YDC Commitments per 1,000 juveniles age 10-17.

  18. YDC Trends • The average length of stay in Youth Development Centers 10 years ago (1998) was 248 days. By 2008, the average had increased to 357 days • The average daily population in 1998 was 925 juveniles. YDC commitments have drastically decreased, as the 2008 average daily population was 439 • The average rate of commitment is 0.48 per 1,000 juveniles age 10-17

  19. Risks of Juveniles Disposed in Court*All totals are approximate and fluctuate 1-2 percentage points each year; and 2% on average are not assessed The overall needs level of juveniles disposed in court each year is approximately: • Low Risk – 42% • Medium Risk – 41% • High Risk – 15% • It is therefore imperative that prevention and intervention programs remain in place to ensure that the proportion of high risk offenders remains small.

  20. Risks of Juveniles Disposed in Court(cont)*All totals are approximate and fluctuate 1-2 percentage points each year; and 2% on average are not assessed • 11% of juveniles were under 12 when they received their first referral • 27% had some type of assault history prior to the current complaint • 32% had some type of substance abuse history that is being treated or needs further assessment/treatment

  21. Risks of Juveniles Disposed in Court(cont)*All totals are approximate and fluctuate 1-2 percentage points each year; and 2% on average are not assessed • 61% reportedly had serious problems; 21% had moderate problems; and 8% had minor problems in school • 13% of assessments revealed gang membership or association (overall this number is about 9% of distinct juveniles) • 34% of parents were either unwilling or unable to supervise their own children

  22. School-Based Complaints: FY 08-09N=40,621 The proportion of school-based offenses increased 2% since CY 2008.

  23. School-Based Complaints: FY 08-09N=17,037

  24. Suspension and Expulsion Data National Data Over 3 million students are suspended per year (3.3 million in 2006). The average number of suspensions per state is over 64,000. The average number of suspensions and expulsions as a percent of enrollment is 6.9%. Source : National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 2008 http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009020.pdf

  25. Suspension and Expulsion Data North Carolina 2007-08 One out of every 10 students were suspended from North Carolina public schools A total of 308,010 short-term suspensions given to 156,072 different students A total of 5,225 long-term suspensions given to 4,182 different students Source: N.C. DPI Consolidated Data Report: 2007-08 http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/docs/research/discipline/reports/consolidated/2007-08.pdf

  26. Suspension and Expulsion Data Minority Suspension Trends Black / Multiracial students received over half of all short-term suspensions since the 2000-2001 school year Source: N.C. DPI Consolidated Data Report: 2007-08 http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/docs/research/discipline/reports/consolidated/2007-08.pdf

  27. Suspension and Expulsion Data Minority Suspension Trends Black males are the most likely of any single group to be suspended Black males make up 15.7% of the student population in the state and accounted for 55% of all short-term suspensions Source: N.C. DPI Consolidated Data Report: 2007-08 http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/docs/research/discipline/reports/consolidated/2007-08.pdf

  28. From Risk and Needs to Current Practices One of the most significant legislative changes made this past session was the mandatory closing of many Level III and IV mental health youth group homes. According to a survey done through the Court Services Division of DJJDP, there are a potential 500+ youth that will need an alternative, long-term, residential placement. Court Counselors are already working hard through Child and Family Support Teams to try and find immediate, appropriate placement options.

  29. DJJDP’s Current Budget • 2009-11 Certified Budget: • 2009 = $148,752,858 (8% reduction from 2008) • An Additional 4% was held back by The Office of Budget and Management or an additional $5.92 Million. Remaining allocation $142,672,000 • 2010 = $147,183,945 (9% reduction from 2008)

  30. DJJDP’s Budget History

  31. Youth Population and DJJDP Allocation Trends: 1999-2008

  32. DJJDP Budget Cuts • What we lost in the 2009 – 2011 budget? • Support Our Students (statewide afterschool programming) • Governor’s One-on-One (statewide mentoring for at-risk and court-involved youth) • Center for the Prevention of School Violence (statewide technical assistance to schools for violence prevention and crisis planning)

  33. DJJDP Budget Cuts • 2 Eckerd Wilderness Camps • 2 Multipurpose Group Homes • Critical Youth Development Center/Central Office/Court staff positions • Cuts to other contractors (Project Challenge, Boys and Girls’ Club, Juvenile Assessment Center) • Substantial & critical losses in operating capital (continuation funding), repairs / renovations funds, training dollars, & all capital for the 5th new YDC

  34. Good News • New additions to DJJDP via the Governor’s Office and Commerce through ARRA (“Recovery”) funding – • $6 million gang reduction/intervention pilot program. Involves 2 regions in the state and 2 YDC’s (Cabarrus/Jackson and Edgecombe) • $5 million in JCPC/county funding targeting gang prevention, intervention and assessments

  35. Good News (cont) • $1.5 million for time-limited Court Counselors and supervisors (new staff) • $950,000 in Dept. of Labor / Workforce Development funding for vocational services in YDC’s • Other GCC & ARRA dollars to improve / overhaul our grants management, reporting, client tracking and web interaction services

  36. DMC

  37. Relative Rate Index for Minority Youth for Complaints Petitioned (Approved) for Court FY 05-06 Legend Relative Rate Index by County Complaints Petitioned (Approved) for Court • Description of the Relative Rate Index • A relative rate index value that is: • Less than 1 indicates that minority youth were less likely to be represented at that decision point • Exactly 1 indicates that white and minority youth were equally likely to be represented at that decision point • More than 1 indicates that minority youth were more likely to represented at that decision point

  38. Relative Rate Index for Minority Youth for Detention Admissions FY 05-06 Legend Relative Rate Index by County Detention Admissions • Description of the Relative Rate Index • A relative rate index value that is: • Less than 1 indicates that minority youth were less likely to be represented at that decision point • Exactly 1 indicates that white and minority youth were equally likely to be represented at that decision point • More than 1 indicates that minority youth were more likely to represented at that decision point

  39. Relative Rate Index for Minority Youth for YDC Commitments FY 05-06 Legend Relative Rate Index by County Youth Development Center • Description of the Relative Rate Index • A relative rate index value that is: • Less than 1 indicates that minority youth were less likely to be represented at that decision point • Exactly 1 indicates that white and minority youth were equally likely to be represented at that decision point • More than 1 indicates that minority youth were more likely to represented at that decision point

  40. Relative Rate Index for Minority Youth for Complaints Received by the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention FY 05-06 Legend Relative Rate Index by County Complaints Received • Description of the Relative Rate Index • A relative rate index value that is: • Less than 1 indicates that minority youth were less likely to be represented at that decision point • Exactly 1 indicates that white and minority youth were equally likely to be represented at that decision point • More than 1 indicates that minority youth were more likely to represented at that decision point

  41. Adding 16 and 17 Year Olds

  42. Population Pathways Arrests of Persons 16 and 17 Years of Age 30,702 Detention 3,611 (12%) Detention 5,913 (19%) Outcomes of Serving in Juvenile System 30,702 Outcomes of Serving in Adult System 30,702 Age 16- 1,625 Age 16- 2,661 Deferred Prosecution **555 (2%) Dismissal 19,767 (65%) Closure 6,157 (20%) Diversion 5,324 (17%) Adjudication 9,270 (30%) Dismissal 9,876 (32%) Adjudication 10,935 (35%) Age 16- 4,921 Age 16– 8,895 Age 16– 4,444 Age 16- 4,205 Age 16- 2,771 Age 16- 2,396 Community Supervision 8,720 (28%) Commitment (YDC) 550(2%) Community Supervision 4,555 (15%) Prison/Jail 1,825 (6%) Unsupervised Probation 3,495 (11%) Other e.g., Com. Svc, Restitution) 1,060 (3%) Age 16- 2,050 Age 16- 821 Age 16- 281 Age 16- 1,573 Age 16- 3,924 Age 16- 477 Post-release Supervision 550 (2%) Post-release Supervision 288 (1%) Total receiving services*: 14,594(48%) Total receiving services*: 6,935 (23%) Transfers to Adult Jurisdiction 40 (< 1%) Age 16- 281 Age 16- 130 * Includes services prior to and after adjudication. Does not include unsupervised probation, as it is not a service; also does not include detention. Because it was not possible to separate out the proportion of offenders receiving community service or restitution, this category has not been counted. Does not include post-release services because this would double count services. The juvenile calculation excludes persons transferred to the adult system. ** It is unclear whether these persons ultimately were prosecuted; therefore, deferred prosecution is calculated as an additional cost and not a population pathway. If these persons were prosecuted, they would be included in the adjudication population; if they were not, they would be included in the dismissal pathway. 42

  43. Community Programs

  44. Community Programs Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils Multipurpose Juvenile Homes Eckerd Wilderness Education Program Project Challenge Juvenile Assessment Center SOS (Support Our Students) Governor’s One-on-One Center for the Prevention of School Violence Boys and Girls’ Clubs

  45. DJJDP Community Programs FY 09-10 Programs eliminated Programs cut Programs not cut

  46. Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils

  47. Part 6. Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils § 143B‑543.  Legislative intent. It is the intent of the General Assembly to prevent juveniles who are at risk from becoming delinquent. The primary intent of this Part is to develop community‑based alternatives to youth development centers and to provide community‑based delinquency, substance abuse, and gang prevention strategies and programs. Additionally, it is the intent of the General Assembly to provide noninstitutional dispositional alternatives that will protect the community and the juveniles.

  48. JCPC Funded Programs • Keeping 1% of those served by JCPC funded programs out of YDCs represents a cost savings equal to more than the total budget for JCPCs.

  49. Youth Population and JCPC Allocation Trends: 1999-2008

  50. Overview of Comprehensive Strategy for Juvenile Justice

More Related