JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM ACT IMPLEMENTATION COMMISSION MEETING. February 21, 2011

Similar documents
Office of Criminal Justice Services

JANUARY 2013 REPORT FINDINGS AND INTERIM RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS. Legislative Budget Board Criminal Justice Forum October 4, 2013

Chairman Wolf, Ranking Member Fattah and Members of the Subcommittee,

Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of U.S. Department of Justice Fact Sheet

*Chapter 3 - Community Corrections

OVERVIEW OF THE COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS SYSTEM OF THAILAND

DATA SOURCES AND METHODS

Sacramento County Community Corrections Partnership. Public Safety Realignment Plan. Assembly Bill 109 and 117. FY Realignment Implementation

HOPE: Theoretical Underpinnings and Evaluation Findings

GENESEE COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER S OFFICE 2017 PROGRAM BUDGET

Statewide Criminal Justice Recidivism and Revocation Rates

2016 Community Court Grant Program

DISTRICT COURT. Judges (not County positions) Court Administration POS/FTE 3/3. Family Court POS/FTE 39/36.5 CASA POS/FTE 20/12.38

Criminal Justice Review & Status Report

Tarrant County, Texas Adult Criminal Justice Data Sheet

Chapter 13: Agreements Overview

WRITTEN TESTIMONY SUBMITTED BY DOUGLAS SMITH, MSSW TEXAS CRIMINAL JUSTICE COALITION

IC Chapter 2. State Grants to Counties for Community Corrections and Charges to Participating Counties for Confined Offenders

FY2017 Appropriations for the Department of Justice Grant Programs

Funding at 40. Fulfilling the JJDPA s Core Requirements in an Era of Dwindling Resources

Justice Reinvestment in Indiana Analyses & Policy Framework

Criminal Justice Division

Deputy Probation Officer I/II

Grants. The county budget system contains three grant funds that are effective over three different grant periods:

JUVENILE JUSTICE COMMISSION COMPREHENSIVE COUNTY FUNDING APPLICATION FOR CY 2016

APPA 2019 WINTER TRAINING INSTITUTE CALL FOR PRESENTERS

Proposal for Prosecutor s Substance Abuse Diversion Program

North Carolina Department of Public Safety

COMMISSIONERS COURT COMMUNICATION

Nevada County Mental Health Court. Policies and Procedures Table of Contents

TechShare.Juvenile. Frequently Asked Questions:

CHAPTER 63D-9 ASSESSMENT

New Directions --- A blueprint for reforming California s prison system to protect the public, reduce costs and rehabilitate inmates

WINDSOR COUNTY, VERMONT DUI TREATMENT DOCKET (WCDTD) FOR REPEAT OFFENSE IMPAIRED DRIVING CASES

Overview of Recommendations to Champaign County Regarding the Criminal Justice System

STATEWIDE CRIMINAL JUSTICE RECIDIVISM AND REVOCATION RATES

Defining the Nathaniel ACT ATI Program

Department of Public Safety Division of Juvenile Justice March 20, 2013

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

FY18 Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program

Chapter 5 COMMUNITY SUPERVISION. Introduction to Corrections CJC 2000 Darren Mingear

Department of Defense DIRECTIVE. SUBJECT: Mental Health Evaluations of Members of the Armed Forces

LOUISIANA COMMISSION ON LAW ENFORCEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE STRATEGIC PLAN

2 nd Circuit Court- District Division- Plymouth PARTICIPANT HANDBOOK 5/11/16

Second Chance Act $25 $100 $100 Federal Prison System $5,700 $6,200 $6,077 $6,760

Program Allocation. Allocation of General Fund. JUVENILE SERVICES Director: Michael Merringer

Enhancing Criminal Sentencing Options in Wisconsin: The State and County Correctional Partnership

Factors Impacting Recidivism in Vermont. Report to House and Senate Committees April 21, 2011

Marin County STAR Program: Keeping Severely Mentally Ill Adults Out of Jail and in Treatment

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AGENDA ITEM IMPLEMENTATION OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY REENTRY COURT PROGRAM (DISTRICT: ALL)

CTAS FY 2017: Funding Opportunities for VAWA Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction February 1, 2017

Agenda: Community Supervision Subgroup

2016 Implementation Sites Project Call for Applications

Criminal Justice Division

Recent Criminal Justice Reform Initiatives

THE AMHI CONSENT DECREE

PROPOSAL FAMILY VIOLENCE COURT

The Department of Juvenile Justice shall provide services for each Superior Court youth placed in a Youth Development Campus.

Office of Criminal Justice System Improvements Pretrial Drug and Alcohol Initiative. Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Solicitation

NORTH CAROLINA SENTENCING AND POLICY ADVISORY COMMISSION. CURRENT POPULATION PROJECTIONS FISCAL YEAR 2013 to FISCAL YEAR 2022

Criminal Justice Division

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT NO "Mental Health Services for At-Risk Children in Contra Costa County

Lethality Assessment Program Maryland Model (LAP)

CALL FOR PRESENTERS TRAINING INSTITUTE THEME

Medical personnel in places of detention: Ethical dilemmas Dual loyalty International standards.

COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONDS TO INCREASED GANG ACTIVITY

Steven K. Bordin, Chief Probation Officer

COORDINATOR OF SPECIALTY DOCKETS AND GRANTS

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA Session 2017 Legislative Incarceration Fiscal Note

FROM SENTENCING TO INCARCERATION TO RELEASE A BLUEPRINT FOR REFORMING CALIFORNIA S PRISON SYSTEM

County of Bucks DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 1730 South Easton Road, Doylestown, PA (215) Fax (215)

Texas Department of Criminal Justice

NO TALLAHASSEE, July 17, Mental Health/Substance Abuse

ALTERNATIVES FOR MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS

Integrated Children s Services Initiative Frequently Asked Questions July 20, 2005

NORTH CAROLINA SENTENCING AND POLICY ADVISORY COMMISSION. CURRENT POPULATION PROJECTIONS FISCAL YEAR 2012 to FISCAL YEAR 2021

Family Support Model Work Group Work Plan FY11

SUNSET ADVISORY COMMISSION. Texas Department of Criminal Justice Board of Pardons and Paroles Correctional Managed Health Care Committee

The Florida Legislature

Statewide Expansion Activities of the Indiana Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative to Date (April 2013)

FACT SHEET. The Nation s Most Punitive States. for Women. July Research from the National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Christopher Hartney

Sacramento County Community Corrections Partnership. Public Safety Realignment Act

5/25/2010 REENTRY COURT PROGRAM

April 16, The Honorable Shirley Weber Chair Assembly Budget, Subcommittee No. 5 on Public Safety State Capitol, Room 3123 Sacramento CA 95814

Adult Felony Drug Court Certification Application

NO TALLAHASSEE, July 17, Mental Health/Substance Abuse

2014 JAG APPLICATION PROGRAM NARRATIVE

LTC Jay Morse Written Statement to RSP

Justification Review

PRE-RELEASE TERMINATION AND POST-RELEASE RECIDIVISM RATES OF COLORADO S PROBATIONERS: FY2014 RELEASES

TJJD the Big Picture OBJECTIVES

Voluntary Services as Alternative to Involuntary Detention under LPS Act

No. 79. An act relating to reforming Vermont s mental health system. (H.630) It is hereby enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Vermont:

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA SENATE BILL

Dear Chairman Sanchez and Members of the House Ways and Means Committee,

Article 140a (New Provision) Case Management; Data Collection and Accessibility

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL FLORA D. DARPINO THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, UNITED STATES ARMY FOR THE RESPONSE SYSTEMS PANEL

Assessment of Disciplinary and Administrative Segregation Proposal

Medicaid Expansion + Reform: Impact for Trust Beneficiaries. March 8, 2018

REGISTERED OFFENDERS IN HEALTH CARE FACILITIES

Transcription:

JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM ACT IMPLEMENTATION COMMISSION MEETING February 21, 2011 The Louisiana District Attorneys Association (LDAA) is a non-profit corporation whose mission is to improve Louisiana s justice system and the office of the District Attorneys by enhancing the effectiveness and professionalism of Louisiana s district attorneys and their staffs through education, legislative involvement, liaison and information sharing. By law, Louisiana s District Attorneys handle the prosecution of juvenile delinquency cases and most are also involved in the handling of formal FINS and CINC proceedings. As a result, the LDAA has been and continues to be a willing partner in juvenile justice reform throughout the state. Even before the passage of Act 1225 of the 2003 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature, several District Attorneys, along with legislators, judges and other Louisiana officials, visited the state of Missouri, toured their facilities and received briefings on, the Missouri model. Those in attendance were impressed with the Missouri program and their facilities, and became advocates of reform. Mark Steward, the architect of the Missouri model, warned that the biggest mistake that could be made was to reduce the number of youth in secure care, without first implementing the entire reform program, which included a broad range of intermediate sanctions. Unfortunately, we in Louisiana have not heeded the warnings of Mr. Steward and our Missouri counterparts. While we have reduced the number of youth in secure care from a high of over 2,000 to between 400 and 500 currently, this reduction has not been accompanied by the implementation of a system of graduated sanctions such as those which exist in Missouri. Eight years after the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 2003, we are, playing catch-up in the construction of the regional residential facilities which are so vital to the success of Missouri-style reform. These small-scale facilities, which place juvenile offenders in groups of 12-14, with a high staff-to-offender ratio, in a therapeutic environment, have been the critical component in reducing recidivism in the State of Missouri. They are also crucial to our success, but have been a key missing component in our efforts to reduce recidivism among those violent and/or chronic offenders who require secure care. It is also important that these facilities be strategically located throughout the state, as in Missouri, so that kids can be placed close to home to facilitate visitation and the involvement of families in the therapeutic process. 1

Currently, many of our judicial districts have few, if any, community-based services to offer as alternatives to secure care placement. It will be critical to the success of juvenile justice reform that the State of Louisiana adequately fund and develop evidence-based, best practices programs to deliver the services which are so desperately needed in most of our communities. The lack of adequate mental health and substance abuse facilities and the shortage of community-based treatment must be addressed for there to be effective juvenile justice reform. Approximately 40% of the youth in secure care have been diagnosed with severe mental illness, and as many as 75% have a diagnosable substance abuse disorder. Unfortunately, our public mental health and substance abuse care system remains underfunded and understaffed, so that our courts lack suitable alternatives to secure care for those who cannot afford, or otherwise fail or refuse to seek private care. As you know, Dr. Mary Livers was selected to head the office of Juvenile Justice in October of 2008. Although she has only held that position for a little over two (2) years, much progress has been made under her watch. The LDAA appreciates the assistance, cooperation and open dialogue which it has received from Dr. Livers since becoming the head of OJJ. However, if we want to see the kind of youth outcomes experienced in Missouri, the State of Louisiana must provide adequate funding and support to implement the entire Missouri-style reform program here in Louisiana. The LDAA believes that by taking a Balanced Approach to juvenile justice issues, our state will achieve the most optimal outcomes for our youth. Under a Balanced Approach, the juvenile justice system focuses on three (3) distinct, yet often overlapping goals: community safety, competency development and offender accountability. This approach recognizes that balance is truly the key and that overemphasis on any one aspect has severe repercussions in other areas. For example, a policy which focuses solely on public safety by increasing the number of youth in secure care will, at least, temporarily reduce crime rates, but the consequences to offenders and financial costs to the State and our communities will rise. On the other hand, focusing solely on rehabilitation of offenders by substituting community services for secure care may decrease costs, but may also severely compromise public safety. Balancing each of these goals while managing limited financial resources is often a challenge. Research overwhelmingly supports an approach that utilizes a spectrum or continuum of judicial responses depending on both the severity of the offense and the needs of the youth. This graduated sanctions continuum broadly consists of the following categories: 2

IMMEDIATE SANCTIONS (Diversion) where the majority of youth who are assessed to be low risk, many of whom are first-time offenders, are typically assigned to a diversion program where they often receive some form of counseling that keeps youth from formally entering the justice system. These youth are sanctioned for their behavior, usually through community service or restitution and, if compliant, do not have charges filed against them. Youth who are assessed to have service needs are referred to services within the community INTERMEDIATE SANCTIONS where the majority of youth who are assessed to be medium risk are assigned to a variety of community based corrections programs. These youth are usually those who have either continued to offend following diversion, or those who, based on the nature of their offense, are a more serious risk to the community. Intermediate community based programs include: home detention, intensive supervision, day and evening reporting centers, electronic monitoring and residential programs. Many of these programs also include a treatment aspect that utilizes a variety of intervention protocols to address the youth s underlying issues and reduce the chance of future offending. SECURE CARE when a juvenile offender is assessed to pose a high risk to the community, secure care may be the only reasonable option. RE-ENTRY programs provided during the period of supervision following release from secure care to prepare the youth to assimilate into the community. Throughout the reform process, the LDAA has collaborated whenever possible with stakeholder agencies to support juvenile justice reform. In keeping with this dedication to reform, LDAA accepted a Mac Arthur Foundation Models For Change grant in 2008. The LDAA appreciates the opportunity to have been chosen for such a grant and acknowledges the importance that the Mac Arthur Foundation has played in moving Louisiana along in its efforts to bring about meaningful juvenile justice reform. This grant enabled LDAA to further enhance its role in the reform process. The primary goals of the grant include: 1) evaluating the current availability and use of diversion and community based graduated sanctions in Louisiana; 2) educating District Attorneys and other juvenile justice professionals on best practices in diversion and graduated sanctions, and; 3) developing juvenile diversion guidelines and recommendations on graduated sanctions in Louisiana. 3

In order to effectively achieve these goals, LDAA developed a ten member Juvenile Justice Task Force, consisting of four (4) elected District Attorneys and six (6) Assistant District Attorneys. As a result of the Mac Arthur Foundation Models For Change grant, the LDAA has developed and approved juvenile diversion guidelines and a toolkit for dissemination to its memberships statewide. It will also offer hands-on technical assistance to those District Attorneys and juvenile justice professionals who request it. Additionally, I was fortunate enough to be selected to serve on a national advisory board that recently received and evaluated a comprehensive juvenile diversion guidebook, outlining sixteen (16) steps for planning and/or evaluating a juvenile diversion program. This guidebook is in the final stages of completion and should be available for nationwide distribution within the next six (6) months. The LDAA has made a commitment to assist in the dissemination of this product to its membership. The LDAA has also offered several training opportunities to its membership covering a wide range of juvenile justice issues, which training opportunities have been well attended and received by the membership. In the days ahead, we will be working toward the completion of two (2) very important training goals. The first is to create a training module for juvenile prosecutors. The module is contemplated to include handouts, legal forms, resource materials and power point presentations for each topic that can be accessed and used by the various District Attorney offices in this state. The LDAA recognizes the need to train newly elected District Attorneys and offers a Newly Elected District Attorney orientation Seminar every six (6) years. This is especially important in those election years which result in a significant turnover among elected District Attorneys. The LDAA will add a detailed juvenile justice component to this seminar. The training for the District Attorneys and their assistants would include topics such as alternatives to formal processing, adolescent development, evidence based practices, data and reporting, case screening and charging and juvenile criminal law and procedure. The Juvenile Justice Task Force of the LDAA has recently completed its evaluation of and recommendations regarding Graduated Community-Based Alternatives To Secure Care and anticipates that it will be approved by the LDAA at its upcoming mid-year meeting of the elected District Attorneys, scheduled for next month. Finally, I would point out that many of the District Attorneys throughout Louisiana operate or are deeply involved in the operation of informal FINS programs, truancy programs, such as TASC or prosecutor early intervention programs, such as that operated by District Attorney Phil Haney. Each of these programs are rapid response, early intervention programs that rely upon case managers charged with the responsibility of matching youth and their families with appropriate service providers. These programs 4

are important alternatives to formal court processing designed to avoid penetration of those youth into the deeper, more costly end of the juvenile justice system. It is imperative that the State of Louisiana continue to fund these efforts and provide adequate, appropriate and timely services to the youth participating in those programs, especially in the rural areas of the state. Without those expenditures and services, we will see more and more youth penetrating the deeper, more costly end of the juvenile justice system. If that occurs, the cost of that deeper penetration will far exceed the monies that need to be spent on expanding these programs and the services they access. The District Attorneys of this state remain committed to the development and implementation of a complete system of graduated sanctions from FINS, truancy programs, appropriate diversion, early intervention, and community-based services, to secure care in a therapeutic environment, when necessary. As constitutional elected representatives of the public, District Attorneys must weigh and balance the following factors when considering the disposition of juvenile cases: 1) the interest of victims; 2) the safety of our communities, and; 3) the demands of justice, including deterrence and punishment where appropriate. As a state, we must continue with our efforts to strike an appropriate balance, among those often competing interests, even in these difficult financial times that we are facing. 5