Implementing Best Practices in Juvenile Justice Throughout the State of Georgia Volume 1

Transcription

1 Implementing Best Practices in Juvenile Justice Throughout the State of Georgia Volume 1 Submitted by Huskey & Associates August 20, 2011

2 Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Table of Contents VOLUME 1 Chapter 1: Executive Summary 1 Chapter 2 Key Trends Chapter 3: Strategies to Reduce Status Offenders, Low and Medium Risk from Confinement Chapter 4: Legislative Strategies to Refine Juvenile Code Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page i

3 Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Acknowledgements Commissioner Amy Howell Diana Aspinwall, Chief of Staff Jeff Minor, Deputy Commissioner, Division of Fiscal and Information Technology Doug Engle, Chief Information Officer Joshua Cargile, Operations Analysis Manager Dee Bell, Ph.D., Operations Manager Robert Rosenblum, Former Deputy Commissioner, Institutions and Community David F. Barry, Budget Administrator, Office of Budget Services Vita W. Jordan, Director, Office of Financial Services Jackie L. Kelsey, Program Director, Office of Classification & Transportation Joe Vignati, Justice Programs, Governor s Office for Children and Families Special acknowledgement goes to Doug Engle, Coordinator of this project, for his continued commitment and leadership throughout this project. Research Team Bobbie Huskey, MSW, Lead Researcher and Project Coordinator Paula Tomczak, Ph.D., Senior Research Scientist Elizabeth Donovan, Executive Assistant Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page ii

4 Chapter 1: Executive Summary

5 Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project 1.1 Executive Summary Chapter 1 The Best Practices Project was initiated by the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) in partnership with the Governor s Office of Children and Families. The goals of this project were to: 1. Document and inform constituent groups of the trends in the use of detention and state confinement for low and medium-risk youth. 2. Support Georgia s Strategic Plan by providing information and recommendations to enable The DJJ to provide services that make a positive difference in youth, to reduce the youth s recidivism rate, reduce the number of low DAI scores in the average RYDC, and to reduce the non-superior court RYDC average length of stay. 3. Provide strategies to reduce low and medium-risk youth from detention and secure confinement to use in developing joint policies among constituent groups. 4. Provide legislative strategies for the Juvenile Code revision. It is in Georgia s best interest to invest in policies, practices and programs that are based in science because these have proven through research to reduce future reoffending and lower costs. 1 Landenberger, N.A. & M.W. Lipsey (2005) found that youth treated in programs that met the criteria for effective programs had reduced recidivism rates between 10%-50%. 2 Examples of effective and promising programs are found on pages of this Volume and a description of performance measures that defines effective and promising programs is provided in Volume 1A: Supplemental Material. Governor Nathan Deal, Chief Justice Carol Hunstein and Speaker of the House David Ralston are leading the state toward implementing best practices in Georgia s correctional system, avoiding unnecessary confinement, reducing recidivism and avoiding the high costs of incarceration. Georgia s state and local juvenile justice officials cannot rely on anecdotal information to prove the need for its juvenile justice programs. To sustain existing programs in the future, DJJ is committed to providing high quality services that are research-based to improve outcomes. A sense of urgency exists to operate juvenile justice programs and practices that have proven to reduce future reoffending and to achieve successful outcomes for the youth, families and communities throughout Georgia. DJJ recognizes that continuing business as usual is no longer fiscally sustainable nor is it effective future policy. Continuing the current direction of detaining non-violent youth in Georgia s Regional Youth Detention Centers and its Youth Development Centers at a cost that exceeds $ a day when the costs of alternatives to confinement are $6.65-$ per day is both costly and harmful to the youth who are mixed in with violent youth. Detaining status offenders may also jeopardize $2.0-$4.1 million in federal funding because Georgia will be judged out of compliance with federal requirements. 1 Landenberger, N.A. & M.W. Lipsey. The positive effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for juvenile offenders: a meta-analysis of factors associated with effective treatment. In press. Journal of Experimental Criminology, Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Summary of Program Economics in the Comparative Costs and Benefits of Programs to Reduce Crime Ibid. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 1

6 Best practices are defined by DJJ s Best Practices Project as: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Proven through research to increase prosocial behavior and to reduce future recidivism. Progressive organizational use of direct, current scientific evidence to guide and inform efficient and effective correctional services. Programs that meet the Principles of Effective Intervention. Recognized by a national organization as evidence-based or promising. To achieve reductions in recidivism, DJJ and its contract providers are recommended to deliver cognitive behavioral and prosocial skills training programs that can demonstrate fidelity with the Principles of Effective Intervention. 3 These principles are: Risk Principle: High risk youth offenders should be targeted for intensive interventions, moderate-risk youth should receive shorter duration and less dosage of programming and low-risk youth should receive minimal to no interventions. Landenberger and Lipsey (2005) found that low-risk youth require little intervention while moderate-risk youth required 100 hours of treatment and high-risk youth required hours of treatment. 4 Andrews and Bonta, (2010) lists the following eight risk factors that have been scientifically correlated with reoffending: 5 These factors need to be addressed in the youth s case plan and then targeted for intervention while they are on probation and aftercare supervision, and while they are housed in the Regional Youth Detention Center and in the Youth Development Center. 1. Antisocial/procriminal attitudes, values, beliefs and cognitive-emotional states 2. Procriminal associates and isolation from prosocial others 3. Temperamental and antisocial personality pattern conducive to criminal activity including: 4. A history of antisocial behavior 5. Family factors that include criminality and a variety of psychological problems in the family of origin including 6. Low levels of personal educational, vocational or financial achievement 7. Low levels of involvement in prosocial leisure activities 8. Abuse of alcohol and/or drugs 3 Andrews, D.A. & J. Bonta (2010). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (Fifth Edition). Cincinnati, OH:Anderson. Lowenkamp, C., & E.J. Latessa (2004). Understanding the risk principle: How and why correctional interventions can harm low-risk offenders. Topics in Community Corrections, 3-8. Landenberger, N.A. & M.W. Lipsey. The positive effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders: a meta-analysis of factors associated with effective treatment. In press, Journal of Experimental Criminology, Landenberger, N.A. & M.W. Lipsey. The positive effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders: a meta-analysis of factors associated with effective treatment. In press, Journal of Experimental Criminology, Andrews, D.A. & J. Bonta (2010). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (Fifth Edition). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 2

7 Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Need Principle: DJJ and its contract providers should target criminogenic risk/need factors that have shown to be significantly associated with recidivism. Gendreau, French and Taylor (2002) found that focusing on three or more criminogenic needs had the highest effect on reducing recidivism. 6 Criminogenic factors contribute to the child s dysfunctional and delinquent behavior such as: 1. Antisocial attitudes, values and beliefs 2. Antisocial friends 3. Impulsive behavior (e.g., risk taking, self-control issues) 4. Education/employment 5. Substance abuse Responsivity Principle: Responsivity is another important element of treatment planning. It means adapting the treatment plan to the youth s aptitude, reading ability, language, culture and degree of motivation. Andrews and Bonta (2010) found greater reductions in recidivism when the program adapted to the needs of the youth. 7 Fidelity Principle: The delivery of the program is important in achieving the results that were intended. Andrews and Bonta (2003) defined operating in accordance with fidelity when the instructor adheres to a standardized curriculum and delivers it consistently. 8 There are many brand programs that DJJ could consider that meet these five principles (Aggression Replacement Therapy, Multi-systemic Therapy, Functional Family Therapy, etc.). It is recommended that DJJ examine its current menu of programs to see if these principles are targeted and modify these programs or select from one of the brand programs/curricula. As will be seen in the examples on the following pages, states phased in the implementation of effective programming, because in reality, system reform takes between 2-4 years to achieve. These states (Tennessee, North Carolina, Illinois, Ohio, Missouri, California, Pennsylvania, New York) also partnered with local governments and service providers to develop performance metrics, to develop statewide policies and protocols and to participate in joint training on the Principles of Effective Intervention. This report demonstrates that by implementing best practices, Georgia could reduce its future detention admissions by 29 percent and its future admissions to Youth Development Centers by 28 percent through reduced recidivism during FY12-FY14. These strategies are estimated to result in an annual cost avoidance of $13.1-$28.7 million for the state. 9 In Georgia s current organizational structure, localities have no real incentive to reduce the size of the secure detention center or to increase the use of alternatives to detention when the state continues to pay for secure detention while the funding for alternatives to detention are reduced at the state and local levels. 6 Gendreau, P., French, S.A., and A.Taylor (2002). What Works (What Doesn t Work) Revised 202. Invited Submission to the International Community Corrections Association Monograph Series Project0 7 Andrews, D.A. & J. Bonta (2010). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (Fifth Edition). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson 8 Andrews, D.A & J. Bonta (2003). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (Third Edition). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. 9 Note: RYDC cost avoidance ranges from an average annual $6.1-$14.5 and YDC cost avoidance is estimated to be $7.0-$14.2 million on an annual basis. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 3

8 Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project The goal is to create a partnership whereby it is in the mutual interest of the localities and the state to reduce the confinement of low and medium-risk youth, target the highest risk youth in confinement and invest in alternatives to detention for low and medium-risk youth. This policy frees up beds that can be used to confine only violent youth who pose a risk to public safety. Federal funding claiming mechanisms through Medicaid, Title IV-E, and Early Periodic Screening Diagnostic Treatment (EPSDT) are opportunities largely untapped for alternatives to detention and placement in Georgia. Through blended funding mechanisms, costs will be reduced for the state and for each locality. DJJ could administratively mandate that service providers deliver research-based programs and report routinely their performance outcomes into a statewide database. However, since the State of Georgia is rewriting its Juvenile Code, this is an excellent opportunity to include these policy directions in the revision. This report features states that have legislatively and administratively mandated this policy direction with promising results. 1.2 Accomplishments of the Best Practices Steering Committee A Steering Committee was formed consisting of representatives from the Governor s Office of Children and Families (GOCF), the Department of Juvenile Justice, Huskey & Associates, and it was influenced by the continuing work of the Georgia s Children s Cabinet Juvenile Forum. The Steering Committee was charged with documenting the characteristics of youth confined in the state s Regional Youth Detention Centers and in the Youth Development Centers, recommending a policy framework and strategies for implementing best practices and recommending legislative strategies that could inform Just Georgia as it continues to refine Georgia s Juvenile Code. This research is intended to provide national research that will support the implementation of the Department s FY2012-FY2014 Strategic Plan. This background information could be synthesized and incorporated into the Department s Public Information and Media Campaign and presented to the Governor s Children s Cabinet, the Affinity Groups formed as a result of the Cabinet s 2010 Juvenile Forum, Voices for Children, Just Georgia, the General Assembly, and to numerous state and local organizations. The Steering Committee and key legislators worked toward and achieved passage of H.B. 373 (the Good Behavior Bill) that permits designated felons to be eligible for community supervision under DJJ staff after one year. This legislation is estimated to free up beds in the Youth Development Centers thus also freeing up beds in the Regional Youth Detention Centers. An internal working group was formed at DJJ to explore Early Periodic Screening and Diagnostic Treatment funding to expand alternatives to detention and placement. A statewide database to document the use of alternatives to detention and Youth Development Centers was initiated by DJJ. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 4

9 Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project The Steering Committee recommends the following best practices to be considered by state and local constituent groups: 1. Future policies and programs should be research-informed and consistent with the science on best practices. 2. Formal screening, assessment, and intervention services should be piloted to provide additional options to law enforcement so they do not have to take status offenders, CHINS and non-violent youth into secure custody. 3. Secure detention should be phased out for status offenders, low and medium risk youth. 4. When secure detention is necessary, youth should be maintained in facilities in their home communities to permit access to them by their families, attorneys and other community members. Video conferencing capacity will be made available to five Juvenile Courts to make this a reality. 5. Underutilized detention and youth development centers should be closed. 6. Future detention and youth development centers should be no larger than 100 beds and housing units should not be constructed or operated with more than 16 youth in accordance with the national standards of the American Correctional Association (ACA). 7. Detention and youth development centers should operate at their safe operating capacity, which maintains 10 percent of the capacity reserved for special need youth. This policy is best practices as it protects special need youth from harm. Maricopa County, AZ Juvenile Detention Centers in Phoenix notify the Juvenile Court when the facilities reach their safe operating capacity. 8. A stakeholder and public education campaign, including staff and service provider involvement, should be developed and implemented to raise awareness and build broad-based support for best practices. 1.3 Implementation Process We recommend a Best Practices Implementation Team to be formed consistent with Goal 4 of the FY2012- FY2014 Strategic Plan consisting of DJJ staff working on implementing the DJJ Strategic Plan. We recommend supplementing this Implementation Team with DJJ s external stakeholders to enhance the collaboration with the Governor s Office of Children and Families and other key stakeholders (e.g. members from the Affinity Groups, DJJ contracted providers) and to strengthen DJJ s relationships with its stakeholders (DJJ s Strategic Goal as a Premier Customer Service Organization ). At a minimum, five Best Practices Strategic Project Teams are recommended to be formed: 1. Detention and Probation Strategic Project Team: Issues for this Team could include uniformity of the Detention Assessment Instrument statewide, risk and need assessment once a youth is placed in a housing unit, diversion, detention center core intervention programs and cognitivebehavioral curricula, discharge planning, new probation programs and alternatives to detention. 2. Youth Development Center Strategic Project Team: Issues for this Team could include responsivity assessments (assessments that address criminal thinking errors, mental health, substance abuse and trauma needs), and core intervention programs and cognitive-behavioral curricula for all YDCs. 3. Reentry Strategic Project Team: Issues for this Team could include reentry assessment, reentry preparation and aftercare supervision programming for youth released from a detention center, residential facility and a Youth Development Center. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 5

10 Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project 4. Juvenile Code Revision Strategic Project Team: This Team could review the states highlighted in this Report that have implemented revisions in their Juvenile Code to promote high quality services through the use of best practices. 5. Alternative Funding Strategic Project Team: This Team could review the Federal funding claiming mechanisms through Medicaid, Title IV-E, and Early Periodic Screening Diagnostic Treatment (EPSDT) as additional funding for alternatives to detention and placement in Georgia. Through blended funding mechanisms, costs will be reduced for the state and for each locality. According to national research on successful implementation, we recommend that these innovations follow the Six Stages of Implementation as defined by the National Implementation Research Network (see 1. Exploration: Review research and recommendations in this report and other research to support these five strategic project teams. 2. Installation: Select cognitive-behavioral and prosocial skills training curricula that demonstrate fidelity to the Principles of Effective Intervention (PEI), train staff, establish quality review of staff s deliverance of the programs, establish pre and posttest measures, and develop protocols to implement policy innovations in each of the strategic project teams. Create the communications and monitoring system to ensure that these innovations are regularly examined for fidelity with PEI. 3. Initial Implementation: Select two RYDC, two YDCs, and two DJJ contract providers to pilot the cognitive-behavioral and prosocial skills training curricula and protocol, evaluate its use to establish fidelity with PEI and make modifications before going to the next stage. 4. Full Implementation: When 50 percent of the staff are proficient at implementing the cognitivebehavioral and prosocial skills training curricula and protocol according to fidelity measures, ramp up to all facilities and continue to evaluate. 5. Innovation: Refine/fine tune the curricula and protocols and solicit the assistance of coaches to examine the degree to which the new innovations are being implemented according to fidelity of PEI. 6. Sustainability: Establish stable and adequate funding; maintain stakeholder support. The Implementation Team and the Strategic Project Teams are recommended to provide quarterly reports to the Executive Staff of the DJJ. The Implementation Team and the Strategic Project Teams should develop a timeline for implementation and incorporate it into the DJJ Strategic Plan. We recommend the Department name a Best Practices Coordinator to guide the change effort because of the complexity and size of this change effort and to coach staff through the change process. We also recommend an independent party evaluate the effectiveness of the innovations in order to ensure fidelity with PEI (see Petrosino, A & Soydan, H. (2005) Petrosino, A., & Soydan, H. (2005). The impact of program developers as evaluators on criminal recidivism: Results from meta-analyses of experimental and quasi-experimental research. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(4), Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 6

11 Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project 1.4 Key Findings Should Inform Future Policy The following findings present a compelling case for developing more effective and less costly options for dealing with the low and medium-risk youth that are currently confined in Georgia s secure facilities Key Trends Involving Detained Youth 1. Youth confined in detention centers declined 6.4 percent between FY05 and FY10 with females declining the greatest documenting new policies regarding females. However, Georgia s detention rate per 100,000 youth population still exceeds other states. 2. More than one-half of Georgia s detained youth have psychiatric, trauma and substance abuse disorders. The suicide rate among incarcerated youth is two to four times greater than the suicide rate of youth in the community. 11 Detention centers are not equipped to treat these disorders, thus youth should be moved out of detention as quickly as is feasible. 3. While Black youth represent only one-third of Georgia s youth population, they represent almost threequarters of the confined population in detention centers documenting disproportionate use of detention according to race. In contrast, while Hispanic youth represent 9.0 percent of the total youth in Georgia s population, only 5.4 percent Hispanic youth are detained. Additionally, White youth represent 52 percent of Georgia s youth population but only 19.2 percent of the detained youth population. 4. Over one-quarter (28.3 percent) of all detention admissions and 15.5 percent of the youth confined during FY05-FY10 were assessed as low risk and eligible for release without conditions according to the Detention Assessment Instrument, a validated assessment tool developed by an independent researcher retained by the Governor s Office of Children and Families. Another 26.5 percent of the admissions and 20.8 percent of the youth detained were assessed as medium risk and eligible for release with conditions. Detaining low-risk youth is unnecessary to protect public safety, it is costly and national research documents that it is also harmful. 5. More than one quarter (28.7 percent) of the youth admitted to detention centers during FY08-FY10 are status offenders and technical violators. In contrast, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and New York prohibit the confinement of youth charged with status offenses and violations of valid court orders Almost 46 percent of the females and nearly 40 percent of the males during FY08-FY10 had no prior admissions to detention Key Trends for Youth Confined in Youth Development Centers 1. Similar to national trends, the number of youth committed to DJJ custody has declined consistent with national trends. However, like detention trends, Georgia s youth confinement rate exceeds other states. 2. Georgia uses state commitment for more of its youth adjudicated for technical violations and for public order offenses than the nation. 3. Georgia places 8.5 percent more of its youth in secure institutions than the nation. 4. There has been an 11.7 percent increase in the number of youth committed to DJJ who are assessed 11 Parent, D.G., Leiter, V., Kennedy.S., Livens, L. Wentworth, D. and Wilcox, S. (1994). Conditions of Confinement: Juvenile Detention and Corrections Facilities. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 12 Arthur, P. (2008). The Incarceration of Status Offenders Under the Valid Court Order Exception to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. National Center for Youth Law. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 7

12 Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project as low risk in the past five years while the number of youth assessed as medium and high risk have declined. Some of the reasons for this trend may be a change in the philosophy of local prosecutors and judges, growing intolerance of juvenile male offenders, no valid risk and needs assessment tool, lack of available alternatives to state commitment, lack of available funding at the local level to fund alternatives and untapped Medicaid, Early Periodic Screening Diagnostic Treatment (EPSDT) and Title IV-E funding. 5. During , nearly 38 percent of the youth confined in an YDC as a designated felon were assessed as low-risk for reoffending while almost 6 percent of the regular commitments were low risk. Another 39 percent of the designated felons and 22 percent of the regular commitments were medium risk to reoffend. 6. Youth assessed as low and medium risk for reoffending are confined in secure beds which is unnecessary and harmful. Many of these youth have achieved their treatment goals and are eligible for community-based wraparound services. 7. More than 44 percent of the males and 41.4 percent of the females were confined in an YDC for a nonviolent offense during FY Eight out of ten youth confined in a long-term secure institution in Georgia had no prior YDC commitments indicating that they are not chronic offenders (defined as three or more commitments to a state institution). 9. Sixty one percent (61.3 percent) of all DJJ commitments come from 13 counties. The commitment rate for these 13 counties is 26.1 per 10,000 compared to 19.9 statewide. Nine of the top 13 committing counties have a commitment rate that exceeds the state s commitment rate. 10. Fifty-eight percent of total commitments to DJJ came from the independent counties. Seventy percent of the independent counties had 30 percent or more commitments that were assessed as low risk. These findings show that there is a pool of low and medium-risk youth confined with high-risk youth thus exposing them to criminal attitudes and behaviors. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 8

13 Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Policy Recommendations to Reduce Recidivism, Reduce Confinement of Low and Medium Risk Youth and Reduce Costs Detention Policy Recommendations A total of three detention policy recommendations are proposed to reduce status offenders, low and medium-risk youth from secure detention consistent with their assessed risk and the public s safety needs. Each of the three policy recommendations documents a net bed savings and annual cost avoidance by implementing best practices. Table 1.1 Summary of Impact of Three Proposed Detention Policy Recommendations Detention Policy Recommendations Number Net Bed Savings from Recommendations Projected Annual Cost Avoidance Projected Number of Beds That Could Be Closed Policy Recommendation #1 166 beds $10.4 million 343 beds Policy Recommendation #2 178 beds $14.5 million 279 beds Policy Recommendation # $6.1-$10.7 million beds Source: Department of Juvenile Justice. ( RYDC Pop Projections.xls) Huskey & Associates. Note: These recommendations cannot be added together as there is some overlap among each of these policies. Overall, DJJ could reduce its future RYDC admissions by 29 percent by implementing best practices. 13 The following recommendations are based on phasing out by year 2014 the detention of status offenders, youth who score low and medium risk on the Detention Assessment Instrument, on implementing new case processing innovations that reduce the length of stay of detained youth and on implementing best practices and programs that are research-based. 13 Huskey & Associates multiplied the total low, medium and high risk RYDC admissions for 2012 by the one-year recidivism rates using the YDC recidivism rates after one year discharge for each risk level (only recidivism data available) minus the projected one year recidivism rate for low (21%), medium risk (31%) and high risk (32%) from implementing best practices divided by the existing recidivism rate for low (25%), medium risk (42%) and high risk (49%). Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 9

14 Youth Development Center Policy Recommendations Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project A total of three policy recommendations are proposed to reduce low and medium risk from confinement in the Youth Development Centers (YDCs) consistent with the reentry principles, the passage of H.B. 373, the youth s assessed risk and the public s safety needs. 1. All low-risk youth are recommended to be diverted at the disposition hearing to intensive wraparound services or to community residential care in lieu of YDC confinement. 2. Low and medium-risk regular commitments should be released to aftercare supervision once they demonstrate achievement of their treatment goals. 3. Designated Felon youth are recommended to be released to aftercare supervision after one year based on them achieving their treatment goals and demonstrating good behavior. House Bill 373 provides the Juvenile Court and the DJJ the discretion of releasing to aftercare supervision eligible designated felon youth within one year based on their demonstrated achievement of treatment goals and good behavior. This new policy is based on built-in incentives that will reward youth for their achievements. It is also assumed that the Juvenile Court and DJJ will work together to achieve targeted goals to fully implement best practices that reduces the harm of low and medium risk youth in institutions. Lowenkamp, C. & E.J. Latessa (2004) found that low and medium risk youth had higher recidivism rates when placed in highly restrictive and punitive settings such as secure institutions and electronic monitoring. 14 To reduce harm and to lower costs, it is in the best interest of Georgia officials to consider alternatives. The impact of this new law was calculated based on achieving these goals. It is recommended that the CRN Risk and Needs Score be considered prior to disposition so the Juvenile Court will have an additional source of information upon which to formulate their disposition decision. This instrument has already been scientifically determined to measure risk to reoffend and the youth s criminogenic needs. Using the CRN Scores, the potential pool of youth eligible for further consideration can be determined. Secondly, the number of youth who are suitable should be determined using DJJ s Policy Experience in other states demonstrates that for every two youth who are potentially eligible, one is suitable. A pilot phase of six months is recommended to determine the actual acceptance rate in Georgia. Due to unknowns at this time, the following calculated impact is based on the maximum impact that could result for Georgia s youth and its juvenile justice system. We recognize that DJJ has no direct control over when youth are released by the Juvenile Court. However, we recommend that DJJ and the Juvenile Court develop mutual policy goals regarding these populations to reduce harm, expand incentives for good behavior and lower costs. The projections are based on applying what if scenarios, which are customary in projecting the impact of various policy choices. Our calculations project that the average daily population of DF youth in the YDCs will be 432 by 2012 for a maximum bed savings of Lowenkamp, C. & E.J. Latessa. (2004). Understanding the risk principle: How and why correctional interventions can harm low-risk offenders. Topics in Community Corrections. National Institute of Corrections. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 10

15 Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Table 1.2 illustrates the reduction in recidivism that will occur when DJJ and its service providers fully implement best practices for Georgia s youth consistent with national research. Landenberger, N.A. & M.W. Lipsey (2005) found that youth treated in programs that met the criteria for effective programs had reduced recidivism rates between 10%-50%. 15 Table 1.2 Existing and Projected Recidivism Rates of Georgia Youth Discharged from Youth Development Centers after One Year Risk Level Existing One-Year Follow-up Projected One-Year Follow-up Low 25% 21% Medium 42% 31% High 49% 32% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice, JCargile YDC Recidivism Rates. Landenberger, N.A. & M.W. Lipsey 2005 Assuming a conservative reduction in Georgia, we estimate a range of reduced recidivism rates between 4%-17% by 2013 with the anticipation that reduced recidivism rates will reach the national range by Andrews D.A. & Bonta, J (2010) found that higher-risk youth produced the highest reductions in recidivism. 16 By 2013, DJJ could reduce its future YDC admissions by 28 percent by fully implementing best practices. Huskey & Associates used the average number of total admissions to YDCs during FY08-FY10 (815) and applied the existing recidivism rates (25% low, 42% medium, 49% high risk), which resulted in 322 new admissions within a year due to reoffending,. This was compared with reduced recidivism rates in 2013 of 21% for the low-risk, 31% medium-risk, and 32% for high-risk. These rates were applied to 815 average admissions to YDC during FY08-FY10, resulting in 232 new admissions within a year due to reoffending. This projection produced 90 fewer new YDC admissions due to reoffending (within a year following discharge) resulting in an overall reduction in recidivism of 28% (( )/322). By achieving these policy goals, the average annual cost avoidance is estimated to be a maximum of $14.2 million and a low of $7.0 million. The cost avoidance is based on freeing up a maximum of 362 beds by reducing the overall length of stay in the YDCs and utilizing community supervision options instead of maintaining youth in YDC beds. The maximum cost avoidance is demonstrated in the following table for designated felons by risk level. The realistic estimated annual cost avoidance ranges from $7.0-$14.2 million based on the assumption that the Juvenile Court will accept 50 percent of the potential pool of youth who are eligible. 15 Landenberger, N.A. & M.W. Lipsey. The positive effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for juvenile offenders: a meta-analysis of factors associated with effective treatment. In press. Journal of Experimental Criminology, Andrews, D.A. & J. Bonta. The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (Fifth Edition) Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 11

16 Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Table 1.3 Projected Cost Avoidance by Reducing Length of Stay of Designated Felons Potential Annual Cost of YDC Potential Annual Cost of Releasing Youth Earlier From YDC Projected Maximum Annual Cost Avoidance Low Risk: $ 15.0 million $7.0 million $8.0 million Medium Risk: $11.3 million $5.9 million $5.4 million High Risk: $4.1 million $3.3 million $865,992 Total: $30.4 million $16.2 million $14.2 million Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice ( YDCData FY05-FY10). Huskey & Associates. It is recommended that the community residential centers under contract with DJJ through the RBWO network be used to permit youth to be placed back in their home community/region thus expediting their reentry with their families. There were a total of 2,099 community residential center beds available in 2010 throughout the RBWO network (1,097 basic, 305 additional and 697 maximum level beds). In reality, some of these beds are not available for all special need youth in every community throughout Georgia; however, it is assumed that more of these beds could be used in lieu of an YDC bed. When these youth are conditionally released to these facilities, their treatment becomes eligible for Title IV-E and Medicaid funding, including Early Periodic Screening Diagnostic Treatment (EPSDT) because the youth is no longer confined in a correctional facility. These costs and benefits are considered realistic based on national research on the outcomes of best practices and research-based programs. Table 1.4 shows the cost comparison of detention, state custody and alternatives to confinement in Georgia that is used in this report. Table 1.4 Annual Cost Comparison for Juvenile Justice Programs in Georgia Annual Cost of Secure Detention Per Child Annual Cost of Secure Confinement in Youth Development Center Per Child Annual Cost of Various Alternatives to Confinement Per Child $85,395 $84,045 $22,626: Non-Secure Detention $37,164: Basic Level Bed $38,135: Non-Secure Community Services Combined $41,139: Multi-systemic Family Therapy $47,078: Additional Level Bed $62,415: Community Assessment Center $66,372: Maximum Level Bed Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Finance Division. FY10 Program Days & Costs (Func)-(Huskey & Associates). FY 2010 Executed RBWO. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 12

17 Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project 1.5 Legislative Recommendations It is recommended that the Georgia Children s Cabinet, the Governor s Office of Children and Families and Just Georgia consider including in the new Juvenile Code the following elements: 1. Definition and promotion of best practices and research-based programs (see Chapter 4 and Volume 1A: Supplemental Material). 2. Initiate a new admissions policy that realigns the population in the detention and youth development centers to include only violent youth charged with felony offenses and serious misdemeanant offenses who pose a risk to public safety. This would prohibit the confinement of status offenders, technical violators, youth who score low and medium risk on the Detention Assessment Instrument and on the Comprehensive Risk and Need assessment instrument. 3. Promote a statewide policy of screening and assessment of juvenile offenders prior to official probation intake such as at a Community Intake and Assessment Center, at probation intake, at admission to detention and prior to admission to a youth development center or to an out-of-home placement. All youth should be screened immediately upon arrest and at admission to detention to determine if the youth should be detained or released to their parent/guardian. The existing Detention Assessment Instrument has already been validated on Georgia s youth, and this should be used throughout the independent counties like it is in the dependent counties. 4. Affirm that fair and equal treatment be provided to all youth. A goal statement should be included to reduce the disproportionate number of youth of color in Georgia s detention and Youth Development Centers. 5. Develop and implement a formal reentry strategy for designated felons and regular commitments to facilitate their successful reentry. 6. Foster formal collaborations among state and local constituent groups to work together toward system change. 7. Initiate blended funding mechanisms that combine federal, state and local funding to expand alternatives to detention and state commitment. 8. Conduct on-going education of juvenile justice officials, service providers and other key stakeholders to make them aware of juvenile justice trends, research on effective programming that reduces recidivism and cost effective policies. 9. Develop performance metrics to measure the effectiveness of implementing best practices in Georgia and establish an on-going monitoring and evaluation system to track progress. Final Report Organization This Final Report is divided into Five Volumes: Volume 1: Implementing Best Practices in Juvenile Justice Throughout the State of Georgia: Contains the summary of detention and secure confinement practices in the State and offers final recommendations for DJJ s consideration. Volume 1A: Supplemental Material: Provides back up material for Volume 1. Volume 2: State and Local Partnerships to Advance Best Practices: Summary of states that have passed landmark legislation to advance best practices. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 13

18 Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Volume 3: State and Local Partnerships to Reduce Low and Medium Risk Youth from Detention and State Commitment: Summary of states that have passed landmark legislation to reduce low and medium risk youth and expand alternatives to confinement through incentive legislation. Volume 4: Profile of Youth Committed to and Confined in Georgia s Youth Development Centers: Characteristics of the youth confined in the Youth Development Centers and recommendations. Volume 5: Profile of Youth Detained in Georgia s Regional Youth Detention Centers Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 14

19 Chapter 2: Key Juvenile Justice Trends

20 Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Chapter Number of Youth Admitted and Detained in the Regional Youth Detention Centers Has Declined but Georgia s Detention Rate Still Exceeds Other States Historical trends in the last five years demonstrate a decline in the number of admissions to Regional Youth Detention Centers (RYDC). Between FY05 and FY10, the total number of RYDC admissions decreased 10.3 percent, or at an annual rate of 2.0 percent. 25,000 Figure 2.1 Statewide RYDC Admissions by Sex FY05-FY10 20,000 15,000 10,000 5, Female 5,847 5,696 5,466 5,294 4,887 4,512 Male 14,756 15,866 16,354 16,485 15,295 13,972 Total 20,603 21,562 21,820 21,779 20,182 18,484 Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice ( RYDC Data FY04-FY10.xls) Female admissions declined the greatest between FY05 and FY10 (at 22.8 percent) documenting the implementation of new policies regarding females compared to 5.3 percent for males. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 16