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

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

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 16 46 68 Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page i

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

Chapter 1: Executive Summary

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 65-66 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 $230.00 a day when the costs of alternatives to confinement are $6.65-$181.84 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, 2005. Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Summary of Program Economics in the Comparative Costs and Benefits of Programs to Reduce Crime. 2001. 2 Ibid. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 1

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 200-300 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, 2005. 4 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, 2005. 5 Andrews, D.A. & J. Bonta (2010). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (Fifth Edition). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 2

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

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

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

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 www.fpg.unc.edu/~nirn/): 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) 10. 10 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), 435-450. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 6

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. 1.3.1 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. 12 6. Almost 46 percent of the females and nearly 40 percent of the males during FY08-FY10 had no prior admissions to detention. 1.3.2 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

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 2008-2010, 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 FY05-10. 8. 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

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project 1.3.3 Policy Recommendations to Reduce Recidivism, Reduce Confinement of Low and Medium Risk Youth and Reduce Costs 1.3.3.1 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 #3 129-226 $6.1-$10.7 million 306-403 beds Source: Department of Juvenile Justice. (101015.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

1.3.3.2 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 17.22. 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 362. 14 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

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. 110322.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 2014. 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% ((232-322)/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, 2005. 16 Andrews, D.A. & J. Bonta. The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (Fifth Edition). 2010. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 11

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 (110224.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

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

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

Chapter 2: Key Juvenile Justice Trends

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Chapter 2 2.1 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 5,000-2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 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 (100910.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

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project The number of youth detained on an average daily basis also declined during the past five years. Between FY05 and FY10, the total average daily population in detention decreased 6.4 percent. 1,400 Figure 2.2 Statewide RYDC ADP by Sex FY05-FY10 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200-2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Female 248 238 224 213 186 163 Male 942 929 985 1,009 1,002 950 Total 1,190 1,167 1,210 1,222 1,188 1,114 Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (100910.RYDC Data FY04-FY10.xls) Females decreased more than one-third while males in detention increased by less than one percent between 2005 and 2010. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 17

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Georgia s detention rate is higher than Florida, North Carolina, Missouri and Illinois and lower than two other southeastern states (South Carolina and Virginia). Table 2.1 Detention Rate (per 100,000 youth population) by State 2008 Population FY09 ADP Detention Rate (per State Total Population 10-17yrs 100,000) South Carolina 4,403,175 479,946 691 144.0 Virginia 7,698,738 816,066 939 115.1 Georgia 9,509,254 1,103,073 1,188 107.7 Florida 18,182,321 1,836,414 1,510 82.2 Illinois* 12,829,014 1,436,850 1,174 81.7 Missouri 5,874,327 646,176 229 35.4 North Carolina** 9,036,449 966,900 222 23.0 Source: US Census Bureau, 2006-2008. American Community Survey FL: Florida DJJ: Comprehensive Accountability Report 2008-2009 GA: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice *IL (CY07): Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority: Juvenile Justice System and Risk Factor Data - 2007 Annual Report MO: Missouri Juvenile and Family Division Annual Report CY2009 (Supreme Court of Missouri. Office of State Courts Administrator. **NC (FY10): Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Superior Court youth are transferred to adult jails. SC: South Carolina DJJ: Annual Statistical Report 2008-2009 VA: Virginia DJJ: Data Resource Guide FY2009 Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 18

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project 2.2 More Than One-Half of Georgia s Detained Youth Have Psychiatric, Trauma and Substance Abuse Disorders The U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Conditions of Confinement: Juvenile Detention and Corrections Facilities Report found the suicide rate of incarcerated youth is two to four times greater than the suicide rate of youth in the community. 17 Slightly more than one-half of the males and almost one-half of the females detained in Georgia s detention centers have psychiatric, trauma and substance abuse problems. This excludes conduct disorders and oppositional defiant disorders which would increase the prevalence of youth exhibiting any disorder. Figure 2.3 Number Youth in Georgia s Detention Centers with Psychiatric Disorders Male Average N = 10,410 Female Average N = 3,405 Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (101103.RYDC Diags.xlsx) 17 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. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 19

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Teplin, L.A. et al (2006) documented 66.3 percent of the males and 73.8 percent of the females had any disorder (including conduct disorder and oppositional defiant disorder) in the largest study in the U.S. of youth in detention. This study used an objective, standardized assessment instrument to determine the prevalence of disorders among 1,829 youth detained in the Cook County, IL Detention Center. 18 Disruptive behavior disorders (defined as conduct disorders and oppositional-defiant disorders) were documented to be 41.4 percent for males and 45.6 percent for females. Huskey, B (2007) found nearly one-half of detained youth in Maricopa County, AZ (Phoenix) Juvenile Detention Centers had a diagnosed psychiatric disorder. 19 Abram et al (2004) found that 3 out of every 4 youth in the juvenile justice system experienced severe trauma. 20 Arroyo, W. (2001) found that post-traumatic stress was higher among females than males (49 percent compared to 32 percent among males). 21 Ford et al (2007) found that trauma impairs a child s brain and personality development, ability to control their impulses and sustain relationships. 22 They also found that youth placed in traumatic environments (e.g. institutions) respond with indifference, aggression, anxiety and depression which are often interpreted by detention staff as defiance. 23 18 Teplin, L.A., Abram, K.M, McClelland, G.M, Mericle, A.A, Dulcan, M.K and Washburn, J.J. (April 2006). Psychiatric Disorders of Youth in Detention. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 19 Huskey, B. Huskey & Associates. (2007). Profile of Youth in Maricopa County Juvenile Detention Centers. Study commissioned by the Maricopa County, AZ Board of Supervisors. 20 Abram, K.M., Teplin, L.A., Charles, D.R., Longworth, S., McClelland, G. and Dulcan. M. (2004) Postraumatic stress disorder and trauma in youth in juvenile detention. Arch Gen Psychiatry, 61, 403-410. 21 Arroyo, W. (2001). PTSD in children and adolescents in the juvenile justice system. In review of Psychiatry Series: Vol. 20, Number 1, PTSD in Children and Adolescents. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing. 22 Ford, J.D., Chapman, J.J., Hawke, J. and Albert, D. (2007). Trauma among youth in the juvenile justice systems. Critical issues and new directions. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 23 Ibid. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 20

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Nearly 41 percent of the males in Georgia s detention centers and one-third of the females were documented with substance abuse issues. Figure 2.4 Percent of Juveniles Served with Substance Abuse Issues 2008-2010 Male Average N = 10,410 Female Average N = 3,405 Yes 40.9% Yes 33.9% No 59.1% No 66.1% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (101103.RYDC Diags.xlsx) The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in 2002 found 59.7 percent of all males arrested and brought to detention and 45.9 percent of all females tested positive for drug use. 24 24 National Institute of Justice. (2002). Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program. U.S. Department of Justice. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 21

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project 2.3 Georgia s Detention Centers Confine Disproportionate Number of Black Youth While Black youth represent only one-third of Georgia s youth population, they represent almost threequarters of the confined population in detention centers throughout Georgia 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. The Governor s Office of Children and Families reports that African-American youth are 2.3 times more likely to be arrested than White youth and 5.5 more times likely than white youth to have their case transferred to adult court. The greatest volume of disproportional continues to occur at the juvenile arrest and secure detention stages for African American youth (32,898 & 14,286) and this continues to be the focus of Georgia s DMC intervention efforts. 25 White 52.0% State of Georgia 10-17yr Population N=1,099,201 Figure 2.5 Georgia s Statewide 10-17yr Population vs. RYDC ADP by Race 2009 Black 34.0% Other 1.8% Hispanic 5.4% White 19.2% RYDC ADP N=1,188 Hispanic 9.0% Other 4.9% Black 73.6% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (100910.RYDC Data FY04-FY10.xls) 25 Governor s Office of Children and Families. Plan for Reducing the Disproportionate Representation of Minority Youth. 2010. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 22

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project The National Bureau of Economic Research found that African-American youth who spent some time incarcerated experienced five weeks less work a year compared to youth who had no history of incarceration. 26 Here are four counties that have reduced their disproportionate minority confinement rates through stakeholder and community collaboration and system reform. The number of youth of color dropped from 22 percent in Cook County, IL (Chicago) to as high as 82.9 percent in Multnomah County, OR (Portland). Figure 2.6 Source: Annie E. Casey Foundation. 2009.Two Decades of JDAI: A Progress Report. These reforms are also possible in every jurisdiction in Georgia when goals are established, when data are used to shape decisions, and when stakeholders and community organizations create alliances to solve social problems that affect their community. 26 Western, B. and Bechett, K. (1999). How Unregulated is the U.S. Labor Market? The Penal System as Labor Market Institution: The American Journal of Sociology, 104. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 23

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project 2.4 One Quarter Admissions to Secure Detention are Assessed Low and Medium Risk Over one-quarter (28.3 percent) of all detention admissions and 15.5 percent of the youth confined in detention centers 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. This is unnecessary incarceration and harmful to these youth. Figure 2.7 Percent Statewide RYDC Admissions and RYDC Average Daily Population by Risk Level FY05-FY10 Total Admissions N=124,430 Average ADP N=1,183 High 40.5% No DAI 4.8% Low 28.3% No DAI 0.8% Low 15.5% Medium 20.8% High 62.9% Medium 26.5% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (100910.RYDC Data FY04-FY10.xls) Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 24

Detaining low and medium risk youth is harmful for the following reasons: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Latessa, E.J. and Lowenkamp, C. (2004) found that detention of low and medium risk offenders was harmful because it increased their rate of recidivism. 27 Figure 2.8 Lowenkamp & Latessa (2004) Recidivism Rates for Ohio s Corrections Programs by Risk Category 4 2 0-2 -4-6 Low-Risk Low/Moderate-Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Total -8 % Recidivism Change Note: increase or decrease relative to comparison group (non-residential program) Western, B. and Bechett, K. (1999) found that youth who spent some time incarcerated experienced 3-5 weeks less work a year compared to youth who had no history of incarceration. 28 27 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. 28 Western, B. and Bechett, K. (1999). How Unregulated is the U.S. Labor Market? The Penal System as Labor Market Institution: The American Journal of Sociology, 104. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 25

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project 2.5 More than One Quarter of Youth Detained is Status Offenders and Technical Violators Status offenses represent 8.9 percent of all admissions. When violations of court order and status offenses are combined, they represent 28.7 percent of all admissions to detention compared to 25 percent nationally. 29 In contrast, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and New York have prohibited the confinement of youth charged with status offenses and violations of valid court orders. 30 The highest portion of all admissions to detention during FY08-10 were detained for property (23.3 percent) followed by violent/violent sex (22.0 percent). Public order offenses represent 13.7 percent of all admissions. Table 2.2 Total Admissions to All RYDCs by Most Serious Current Offense Type FY08 FY09 FY10 Total % Total Drug Selling 541 482 430 1,453 2.4% Drug Use 1,254 962 815 3,031 5.0% Null* 243 244 181 668 1.1% Property 4,997 4,857 4,260 14,114 23.3% Public Order 3,014 2,772 2,504 8,290 13.7% Sex Non-Violent 72 84 89 245 0.4% Status 2,004 1,736 1,625 5,365 8.9% Traffic 133 93 83 309 0.5% Violent 4,248 3,867 3,777 11,892 19.7% Violent Sex 500 455 417 1,372 2.3% VOP/VOAC/VOAP 4,032 4,080 3,879 11,991 19.8% Weapons Violation 741 550 444 1,735 2.9% Total 21,779 20,182 18,504 60,465 100.0% Source: GA DJJ (101023.RYDC Data FY04-FY10.xlsx)Note: *No offense listed 29 Sickmund, Melissa, Sladky, T.J., and Kang, Wei. (2008) Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement Databook: Offense Profile of Detained Residents by Sex and Race/Ethnicity of United States, 2006. 30 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 26

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project 2.6 Four Out of Ten Youth in Detention Have Not Been Detained Previously Almost 46 percent of the females and nearly 40 percent of the males during FY08-FY10 had no prior admissions to detention supporting the high number of low-risk youth admitted to detention. Figure 2.9 Percent of Total RYDC Admissions Who Had Previous RYDC Admissions FY08-FY10 Males N=44,517 Females N=14,413 6 to 10 6.9% >10 0.8% 6 to 10 5.5% >10 0.5% 2 to 5 31.9% None 39.7% 2 to 5 27.9% None 45.6% One 20.7% One 20.6% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (101014.FY08-FY10 RYDC Prev Adms.xls) Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 27

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project 2.7 Legal Status of Youth Detained These findings document that there are potential candidates for alternatives to detention. The following groups of youth could be considered: 1. Youth Waiting for Placement: These youth have already been assessed as not requiring secure confinement but they wait in detention until a bed is located. 2. Post Disposition Youth: These youth s disposition is suspended up to 30 days for the juvenile court to determine if they should be confined or released to alternatives to detention. In practice, these youth are getting a taste of confinement when they have not yet been found guilty of any crime. 3. Short-term Placement: Since many youth in detention have psychiatric and substance abuse disorders, secure detention is not equipped to treat these issues. 4. Pre-adjudicated Youth: The low and medium risk youth who wait for their disposition hearing to be completed could be released either with or without conditions. Total Admissions N=124,450 Figure 2.10 Percent Statewide ADP and Admissions by Legal Status FY05-FY10 Average ADP N=1,183 Screening 1.1% Pre Disp 6.4% STP 6.4% Sup Court 1.3% YDC 0.3% Waitting Placement 1.4% Sup Court 15.2% YDC 8.2% Waiting Placement 3.9% Pre Adj 41.9% STP 13.7% Pre Adj 83.0% Screening 4.7% Pre Disp 12.3% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (101023.RYDC Data FY04-FY10.xls) On a daily basis, 103 youth were waiting in detention to be admitted to a Youth Development Center during FY08-F10 and 97 for FY05-FY10 Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 28

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Trends in State Confinement in Georgia Compared to Other States 2.8 Number Youth Admitted and Confined in Georgia s Youth Development Centers Has Declined Overall, between FY05 and FY10, the total number of YDC admissions decreased 16.0 percent, or at an annual rate of 2.6 percent. Females declined 39.6 percent compared to 12.8 percent for males. Figure 2.11 Number Youth Admitted to Youth Development Centers by Sex FY05-FY10 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Female 101 133 100 101 98 61 Male 737 868 826 769 774 643 Total 838 1,001 926 870 872 704 Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110224.YDC Data FY05-FY10.xlsx) Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 29

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project 2.9 National Trends Support Declining Youth in State Custody and Juvenile Facilities Closing This is similar to national trends that document a decrease of 26 percent in the number of youth confined in state juvenile corrections facilities from 82,000 in 2004 to 60,723 on October 28, 2009. 31 During 2009, two dozen juvenile justice agencies reported closing a total of 2,455 state juvenile corrections beds. 32 This decline in population is due to a number of factors including the recession, system reform, expanded alternatives to secure confinement and phasing out of old facilities. 2.10 Number Youth Confined In Youth Development Centers Increased In contrast, the average daily population in Georgia s Youth Development Centers increased 6.5 percent between FY05 and FY10. Males increased 7.8 percent while females declined 5.7 percent. This is largely due to the number of designated felons that are housed in the Youth Development Centers, whereby DJJ has not had any discretion for conditional release. However, beginning July 1, 2011, designated felons will be eligible for discharge to community supervision at six months. 1,200 Figure 2.12 Statewide YDC ADP by Sex FY05-FY10 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Female 74 96 94 89 84 70 Male 716 843 872 864 872 772 Total 790 940 966 953 956 842 Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110224.YDC Data FY05-FY10.xlsx) 31 2010 Yearbook. Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators. 32 Ibid. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 30

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project 2.11 Georgia s Youth s Confinement Rate Exceeds Other States An analysis was conducted of similar size states, southeastern states and other states of interest to DJJ and the Governor s Office of Children and Families using comparable data in Georgia for October 2009 (only comparable data available). Georgia s youth confinement rate exceeds six other states (South Carolina, New Jersey, North Carolina, New York, Missouri and Michigan). The greatest variance occurs between Georgia and Michigan. Georgia s confinement rate is most similar to Ohio and Washington State. Table 2.3 Confinement Rate in Georgia and in Comparison States State 2009 Population Total Population 10-17yrs Number Confined Confinement Rate (per 100,000) Indiana 6,423,113 704,219 786 111.6 Illinois 12,910,409 1,401,050 1,350 96.4 Virginia 7,882,590 800,297 765 95.6 Washington 6,664,195 689,812 639 92.6 Ohio 11,542,645 1,233,614 1,129 91.5 Georgia 9,829,211 1,099,201 956 87.0 South Carolina 4,561,242 471,648 245 51.9 New Jersey 8,707,739 922,044 454 49.2 North Carolina 9,380,884 971,939 424 43.6 New York 19,541,453 1,998,506 752 37.6 Missouri 5,987,580 638,146 197 30.9 Michigan 9,969,727 1,095,995 127 11.6 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division Table 2. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex and Age: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2009 (SC-EST2009-02-13) 2010 CJCA Yearbook, youth confined as of October 28, 2009. Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110124.YDCDataFY05-FY10.xls) New York Division of Juvenile Justice and Opportunities for Youth. Number youth confined on October 26, 2009. Memo sent to B. Huskey on March 15, 2011 from Susan Steele. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 31

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project 2.12 Georgia Confines Status Offenders, Technical Violators and Misdemeanants in Youth Development Centers Georgia and Missouri accept technical violators and status offenders within its state facilities while New York and North Carolina have adopted a policy that does not accept technical violators or status offenders. Georgia also has the highest commitments for public order offenses among these states. Missouri has a higher acceptance rate of technical violators and status offenders than the other states. Missouri had the lowest commitments for property while North Carolina had the highest. New York had the highest commitments for person offenses followed by Missouri. Figure 2.13 Commitments by Type of Offense in Comparison States FY2009 Source (Georgia): Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110216.FY05-10 Commitments.xlsx). Note: Person includes sex non-violent, violent, violent sex, weapons violation; drug includes selling and use; public order includes traffic. Source (Missouri, New York, North Carolina): Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators. CJCA 2010 Yearbook. Note: Data represent committing offense distribution for residential care on October 28, 2009 Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 32

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Georgia uses state commitment for more of its youth adjudicated for technical violations and for public order than the nation. In 2006, there were 435 youth committed to GADJJ for technical violations, 120 for children s offenses (status) and 527 for public order. These are likely candidates for alternatives to confinement. Nearly one third of the youth committed to the GADJJ in 2006 were committed for property offenses, followed by 24.3 percent for violent, more than 15 percent for technical violations and nearly 19 percent for public order. National data for committing offenses was available for 2006. The most frequent committing offense for youth committed to state facilities nationally was person. In contrast, the most frequent committing offense for youth in Georgia in 2006 was property, some of whom are assessed as low and medium risk. Georgia s second most frequent offense was person. Figure 2.14 Percent Commitments by Most Serious Offense 2006 Georgia DJJ Nation N=2,827 N=64,558 Technical Violation 15.4% Status 4.2% Person 24.3% Technical Violation 13.0% Status 5.6% Person 35.6% Public Order 18.6% Drug 7.0% Property 30.4% Public Order 10.7% Drug 8.8% Property 26.3% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110216.FY05-10 Commitments.xlsx) Note: Person includes sex-nonviolent, violent, violent sex; drug includes selling and use; public order includes traffic and weapon violation Source: Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement Databook. 2006. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 33

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project 2.13 Georgia Commits Similar Proportion of Misdemeanants but Fewer Status Offenders to State Custody than the State of Missouri Like Missouri, Georgia commits the same percent of misdemeanants to its Department of Juvenile Justice. Unlike Missouri, Georgia commits fifty percent fewer status offenders than Missouri. Status offenders and misdemeanant offenders are likely candidates for community supervision in lieu of state custody. Figure 2.15 Percent of Georgia State Commitments to Missouri State Commitments by Offense Category 2009 Georgia DJJ N=2,390 Missouri N=1,092 Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110216.FY05-10 Commitments.xlsx) Source: Missouri Department of Social Services. Division of Youth Services. Annual Report FY2009. Note: Felony includes A, B, C, D and other felonies; Status = juvenile offense such as truancy and curfew violations; misdemeanor includes misdemeanor and other nonfelonies like probation violation and escape from custody. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 34

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project 2.14 Georgia Uses Secure Institutions More Than Other States Georgia places 8.5 percent more of its youth in secure institutions than the nation. Figure 2.16 Percent of DJJ Commitments by Placement Type 2009 Georgia DJJ N=2,390 Nation N=41,062 YDC 47.2% Secure Institutions 38.7% Other 52.8% Other 61.3% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110216.FY05-10 Commitments.xlsx) Source: CJCA 2010 Yearbook. October 28, 2009 Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 35

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project 2.15 More Than One-Third of Youth Committed to DJJ Are Assessed Low Risk More than one-third of the youth committed to state custody during FY05-FY10 was low risk and nearly one-third of the youth confined in secure YDCs are low-risk to reoffend according to DJJ s Comprehensive Risk and Needs Assessment. Another 38 percent are medium risk. Scarce secure beds are being used for low and medium risk youth. Latessa & Lowenkamp (2004) found that the confinement of low and medium risk youth as harmful because it increased their rate of recidivism. 33 Figure 2.17 Youth Committed to DJJ and Confined in Youth Development Centers by Risk Level DJJ Commitments Average Daily Population in Youth 2005-2010 Development Centers N=15,081 N=908 High 18.5% Unknown 0.2% Low 35.6% High 31.5% None 0.7% Low 29.7% Medium 45.7% Medium 38.1% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110216.FY05-10 Commitments and 110224.YDC Data FY05- FY10.xlsx). 33 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. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 36

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project While more than one-third of Georgia s juvenile commitments are low-risk, 4.2 percent of North Carolina s juvenile commitments are low-risk. Figure 2.18 Percent of Georgia State Commitments to North Carolina State Commitments by Risk Level High 18.0% Georgia DJJ N=2,188 FY 2010 Low 37.0% North Carolina N=357 CY 2010 Low 4.2% Medium 23.8% Medium 45.0% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110216.FY05-10 Commitments.xlsx). Data represent FY2010. High 72.0% Source: North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Data represent CY2010. Note: Excludes youth 16+ years. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 37

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project 2.16 More Than One-Third of the Designated Felons are Assessed as Low Risk During 2008-2010, nearly 38 percent of the youth confined 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. 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, but the designated felons have not been able to be released due to statutory restrictions. As of July 1, 2011, designated felons are eligible for release after six months of their incarceration. A t-test of statistical significance was performed between the two groups. There was a significant difference (p<0.01) between designated felons and regular commitments with respect to CRN risk level. Figure 2.19 Percent YDC Average Daily Population by Type of Commitment and CRN Risk Level FY08-FY10 Designated Felon N=791 Regular N=126 High 23.1% None 0.1% Low 37.7% None 0.5% Low 5.5% Medium 22.3% Medium 39.1% High 71.7% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110224.YDC Data FY05-FY10.xlsx) Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 38

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project 2.17 Four Out of Ten Youth Are Confined for a Non-Violent Offense On average, 44.4 percent of the males and 41.4 percent of the females were confined in an YDC statewide for a non-violent offense during FY05-10. Figure 2.20 Percent Statewide YDC Average Daily Population by Most Serious Offense Type and Sex FY05-FY10 Males Ave. ADP = 823 Females Ave. ADP = 84 Non- Violent 44.4% Non- Violent 41.1% Violent 55.6% Violent 58.9% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110224.YDC Data FY05-FY10.xlsx) Note: Violent includes drug selling, sex non-violent, violent, violent sex, weapons violation; Non-violent includes drug use, property, public order, status, traffic, VOP/VOAC, VOAP Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 39

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project 2.18 Eight out of Ten Youth Confined in YDC Had No Prior YDC Commitments 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). Figure 2.21 Percent YDC Average Daily Population by Number of Prior YDC Commitments FY05-FY10 N=908 One 14.6% 2 to 5 4.0% 6 to 10 0.0% None 81.4% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110224.YDC Data FY05-FY10.xlsx). Note: does not include prior RYDC admissions. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 40

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project 2.19 More Black Youth are Committed and Confined in a Youth Development Center than Any Other Ethnic Groups These graphs document disproportionate commitment and confinement of Black youth in Georgia s YDCs. These youth have higher commitment and confinement rates than other ethnic groups and races. Figure 2.22 Percent of Total DJJ Commitments and YDC Average Daily Population by Race 2005-2010 Total DJJ Commitments N=15,081 Average YDC ADP N=908 Hispanic 6.2% Other 1.7% White 22.2% Hispanic 5.0% Other 1.2% White 17.5% Black 70.0% Black 76.3% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110216.FY05-10 Commitments.xlsx) Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110224.YDC Data FY05-FY10.xlsx) The states of Pennsylvania and Illinois have implemented Disproportionate Minority Confinement (DMC) initiatives to analyze all nine key decision points in the system (arrest, court referral, informal processing, detention, petitioning, adjudication, probation, placement and waiver) to determine where the greatest disparity occurs and to develop policy reform recommendations with key stakeholders. The Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judge s Commission has approved a statewide data collection protocol for all courts to track ethnicity and race. 34 The Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission has directed funding to communities who commit to tracking ethnicity and race along the nine decision points, to raise public awareness about DMC, and to improve access to alternatives to incarceration for non-violent youth of color. 35 34 Ziedenberg, J. A Justice Policy Institute Report. Models for Change: Building Momentum for Juvenile Justice Reform. December 2006. 35 Ibid. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 41

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project 2.20 Sixty one Percent of All DJJ Commitments Come from 13 Counties This table shows that 61.3 percent of all DJJ commitments come from 13 counties. Two of these counties are dependent counties (Muscogee and Bibb), which means that DJJ has more control over these commitments than in the independent counties. However, DJJ has influence over the independent counties as well by helping these counties implement a risk and needs assessment, provide incentives to these counties to treat youth in local programs and provide training on the Principles of Effective Intervention. Two of the top 13 counties are shared (Coweta and Henry) and the remaining nine are independent counties where there is greater diversity in local practices. If these top 13 counties developed other options such as day treatment, intensive wraparound, residential treatment, the commitments to DJJ would show a dramatic decrease. Table 2.4 Top 13 Counties with the Highest Commitments to Georgia DJJ Counties 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2005-2010 Total % of Total Dekalb 196 252 361 302 246 206 1,563 10.4% Gwinnett 122 188 242 237 225 190 1,204 8.0% Cobb 175 181 196 157 144 142 995 6.6% Chatham 235 225 127 130 123 137 977 6.5% Fulton 119 135 136 194 174 150 908 6.0% Clayton 157 131 111 112 91 76 678 4.5% Troup 98 98 111 102 129 109 647 4.3% Dougherty 68 108 98 87 105 84 550 3.6% Muscogee 62 86 70 74 54 61 407 2.7% Bibb 35 42 49 66 74 97 363 2.4% Coweta 47 66 59 70 49 38 329 2.2% Henry 53 46 60 67 38 50 314 2.1% Floyd 65 82 59 38 34 29 307 2.0% Statewide 2,384 2,827 2,644 2,647 2,390 2,189 15,081 61.3% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110216.FY05-10 Commitments.xlsx) Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 42

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project The commitment rate for these 13 counties combined 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. The major population centers committed the highest number of youth to DJJ; however two of these counties had lower commitment rates (e.g. Cobb, Fulton) than the statewide rate. Table 2.5 DJJ Commitment Rate by Top 13 Committing Counties County 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2005-2010 Total % of Total 2005-2009 10-17yrs Population 2010 Commitment Rate (per 10,000) Troup 98 98 111 102 129 109 647 4.3% 7,330 148.7 Dougherty 68 108 98 87 105 84 550 3.6% 11,192 75.1 Chatham 235 225 127 130 123 137 977 6.5% 25,129 54.5 Bibb 35 42 49 66 74 97 363 2.4% 18,412 52.7 Muscogee 62 86 70 74 54 61 407 2.7% 21,152 28.8 Dekalb 196 252 361 302 246 206 1,563 10.4% 74,471 27.7 Floyd 65 82 59 38 34 29 307 2.0% 10,555 27.5 Coweta 47 66 59 70 49 38 329 2.2% 14,631 26.0 Clayton 157 131 111 112 91 76 678 4.5% 35,632 21.3 Henry 53 46 60 67 38 50 314 2.1% 26,016 19.2 Gwinnett 122 188 242 237 225 190 1,204 8.0% 99,006 19.2 Cobb 175 181 196 157 144 142 995 6.6% 79,609 17.8 Fulton 119 135 136 194 174 150 908 6.0% 100,933 14.9 Top 13 Committing Counties 1,432 1,640 1,679 1,636 1,486 1,369 9,242 61.3% 524,068 26.1 Statewide 2,384 2,827 2,644 2,647 2,390 2,189 15,081 1,099,201 19.9 Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 43

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project 2.21 Fifty-eight Percent of Total Commitments to DJJ Came from the Independent Counties A total of 15,081 commitments came from the 17 independent counties during FY05-FY10. Among the independent counties, 70.5 percent had 30 percent or more commitments that were assessed as low risk suggesting that these youth could have been dealt with in local programs rather than committing them to the state Department of Juvenile Justice. Some of the reasons for this trend may be lack of a uniform risk and needs assessment instrument among the juvenile courts, punitive philosophies driving policy, changes in prosecutors and judges, lack of a statewide admissions policy, lack of awareness of the research on evidence-based practices, untapped federal funding for programs and lack of resources to expand alternatives to commitment. Additionally, nearly 30 percent of the independent counties had 50 percent or more of their youth committed to DJJ who were assessed as medium risk to reoffend. (See Volume 1.A for the risk levels of each of the independent counties). 2.22 Number of Low-Risk Youth Committed to DJJ Have Increased There has been an 11.7 percent increase in the number of youth committed to DJJ who are assessed 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 change in philosophy of local prosecutors and judges, growing intolerance of juvenile male offenders, no valid risk and needs assessment, 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. Table 2.6 Total Commitments by CRN Risk Level 2005-2010 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Ave. Annual %Change 2005-2010 %change Low 725 925 1002 1021 885 810 3.2% 11.7% Medium 1176 1350 1153 1172 1062 984-3.0% -16.3% High 480 545 483 448 442 394-3.5% -17.9% Unknown 3 7 6 6 1 1 7.1% -66.7% Total 2,384 2,827 2,644 2,647 2,390 2,189-1.2% -8.2% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110216.FY05-10 Commitments.xlsx) Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 44

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project 2.23 Incidence of Psychiatric Disorders of Youth Confined in Youth Development Centers Like the detained population, nearly 60 percent of the youth confined in Youth Development Centers have a diagnosed psychiatric disorder and were receiving mental health services. This does not include youth diagnosed with conduct disorders and oppositional defiance disorders indicating that the incidence of mental health problems is more widespread. YDCs were not meant to treat these disorders long-term thus youth should be moved to specialized treatment centers as soon as feasible. Wasserman et al (2004) found that 59.8 percent of the youth housed in secure corrections centers in Illinois and in New Jersey were diagnosed with any disorder. 36 Figure 2.23 Percent Youth Confined in YDCs with Psychiatric Disorders and on Mental Health Caseload 2005-2010 N=2,446 Yes 59.4% No 40.6% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110224.YDC Data FY05-FY10.xlsx) 36 Wasserman, Gail A., Ko, Susan J. McReynolds, Larkin S. (August 2004). Assessing the Mental Health Status of Youth in Juvenile Justice Settings. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 45

Chapter 3: Strategies to Reduce Low and Medium Risk Youth from Detention and State Custody

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Chapter 3 This chapter proposes policy recommendations to reduce the population in RYDC and in Youth Development Centers by implementing best practices. 3.1 Strategies to Reduce Secure Detention A total of three policy recommendations are proposed to reduce status offenders, low and medium-risk youth from secure detention consistent with their assessed risk and public safety needs. The forecasts document the need for secure detention in some catchment areas and reduced needs in others (see Volume 1.A). Table 3.1 Summary of Impact of Three Proposed RYDC Policy Recommendations Detention Policy Recommendations Number Net Bed Savings from Recommendation 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 #3 129-226 $6.1-$10.7 million 306-403 beds Source: Department of Juvenile Justice. (101015.RYDC Pop Projections.xls) Huskey & Associates. Note: These recommendations cannot be added together as there is some overlap among each of these policies. The greatest number of net bed savings of 226 is seen with Policy Recommendation #3 because it reduces the length of stay of youth who would have otherwise spent a long time in a detention center. However, the greatest cost avoidance is seen with Policy Recommendation #2 because it assumes that youth will be released from the Assessment Center to their parents and not incurs additional costs. Because the youth in Policy Recommendation #2 are released within 24 hours, rather than transferred to alternatives to detention, there is minimal added cost thereby resulting in the greatest annual cost avoidance. 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. Two sets of projections were used to shape this chapter. Baseline projections were developed by the Department of Juvenile Justice. They assume that historical trends will continue in the future with no new policy changes or expansion of alternatives to detention due to unknown economic conditions and low Huskey & Associates Page 47

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project support by localities to alter local policies. These status quo projections are compared to an alternative projection developed by Huskey & Associates which assumes reduction in the detention of status offenders, technical violators and low and medium-risk youth. It is important to note that the need for secure detention is projected to decline by 2012 in both sets of projections thus producing bed and cost savings. Due to fixed costs in secure detention, the true cost savings occur when housing units and facilities are closed. DJJ has already begun closing some underutilized RYDCs, such as Griffin and Blakely thus it is on track with the projected decline. 3.1.2 Policy Recommendation #1: Reduction of Low Risk Youth from Secure Detention Based on the 2012 baseline projection, a total of 1,110 detention beds are required statewide thus resulting in 177 available beds statewide (1,287 FY10 design capacity minus 1,110=177). On the other hand, DJJ could adopt a policy that phases out the use of secure detention for low-risk offenders, including status offenders, and works with localities to place these youth into alternatives to detention according to their assessed risk and the public safety needs. Table 3.2 Beds Available Projected in Regional Youth Detention Centers 2012 Statewide Projection FY2010 RYDC Design Capacity 2012 Projection Average Daily Population 2012 Beds Available Baseline 1,287 1,110 177 Alternative Forecast 1,287 944 343 Source: Department of Juvenile Justice. (101015.RYDC Pop Projections.xls) Huskey & Associates. If this is accomplished, the state would need only 944 beds resulting in 343 beds freed up statewide. (See Volume 1.A for reduction of low risk youth in each RYDC). This table shows the net bed savings of 166 by implementing the new policy instead of continuing policies that are not best practices. Table 3.3 Net Bed Savings Projected in Regional Youth Detention Centers 2012 2012 Projected Baseline Average Daily Population Projected Alternative Average Daily Population 2012 2012 Net Bed Savings Statewide Projection 1,110 944 166 Source: Department of Juvenile Justice. (101015.RYDC Pop Projections.xls) Huskey & Associates. Huskey & Associates Page 48

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Cost Avoidance Model By adopting this policy recommendation, $10.4 million in annual cost savings can be realized. The cost avoidance of placing 166 low-risk youth, including status offenders, into alternatives to detention instead of housing these youth in secure detention is shown in Table 3.4. Table 3.4 Projected Cost Avoidance by Maximizing Alternatives to Detention for Low-Risk Youth In Lieu of Detention 2012 Annual Cost of Secure Detention Annual Cost of Alternatives to Detention Projected Annual Cost Avoidance $ 14.2 million $3.8 million $10.4 million Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Finance Division. FY10 Program Days & Costs (Func)-(Huskey & Associates.) Notes: Average perdiem cost of secure detention is based on $233.96 x 166 beds x 365=$14,175,636 compared to the perdiem cost of non-secure community services (NSD) @ $61.99 x 166 x 365=$3,755,974. Average annual cost avoidance is $10,419,662 (cost of detention minus cost of alternatives to detention). Impact on Individual Regional Youth Detention Centers Among the 22 RYDC facilities, 17 show a projected 2012 average daily population that is lower than their design capacity, thereby resulting in a total of 373 empty beds by 2012 if they maximized the use of alternatives to detention for low-risk youth. These 17 facilities and the number of empty beds are listed below. 1. Metro (96 beds) 2. Paulding (51 beds) 3. Bob Richards (42 beds) 4. Marietta (28 beds) 5. Augusta (23 beds) 6. Gainesville (22 beds) 7. Blakely (18 beds) 8. Crisp (18 beds) 9. Elbert Shaw (12 beds) 10. Martha Glaze (13 beds) 11. Savannah (18 beds) 12. Dekalb (9 beds) 13. Aaron Cohn (9 beds) 14. Sandersville (4 beds) 15. Gwinnett (1 bed) 16. Eastman (3 beds) 17. Macon (6 beds) Total: 373 beds Huskey & Associates Page 49

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project In contrast, there is a shortfall of 30 beds in five facilities based on the 2012 alternative projected ADP for detention. 1. Judge Thomas Loftiss (9 beds) 2. Albany (9 beds) 3. Claxton (7 beds) 4. Griffin (1 bed) 5. Waycross (4 beds) Total: 30 beds In sum, statewide, there are 373 empty beds (from the 17 RYDCs) and a shortfall of 30 beds (from the five RYDCs), resulting in a net 343 beds freed up (373 30 = 343). Due to fixed costs within these detention centers, cost savings will only occur when housing units or facilities are closed. If this policy recommendation is accepted, DJJ could close 343 beds statewide. As of 2011, DJJ has already closed 60 RYDC beds. Similar to the statewide total forecasts, the number of statewide male beds is also projected to decline by 168-279 in 2012 in both the baseline and the alternative forecast. Table 3.5 Statewide Male Bedspace Capacity for 2012 Statewide Projection FY10 Design Capacity 2012 Projected Average Daily Population 2012 Beds Available Baseline 997 829 168 Alternative Forecast 997 718 279 Source: Department of Juvenile Justice. (101015.RYDC Pop Projections.xls Huskey & Associates. Similarly, a total of 10-61 female beds will not be needed based on the baseline and alternative forecasts, respectively. Huskey & Associates Page 50

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Table 3.6 Statewide Female Bedspace Capacity for 2012 Statewide Projection FY10 Design Capacity 2012 Projected Average Daily Population 2012 Beds Available Baseline 290 280 10 Alternative Forecast 290 229 Source: Department of Juvenile Justice. (101015.RYDC Pop Projections.xls Huskey & Associates. 61 3.1.3 Policy Recommendation #2: Community Assessment and Intervention Center This policy recommendation proposes to formally establish early screening, assessment and intervention services in existing public and private agencies to implement a Community Assessment Intervention Center (CAIC) to serve the Atlanta Metro jurisdictions. The target population for the CAIC is low and medium risk youth, including status offenders, but those charged with drug selling, violent or violent sex are excluded. This recommendation is estimated to save 178 detention beds per year with an estimated annual cost avoidance of $14.5 million. It is recommended that DJJ enter into a contract with existing private treatment agencies in several locations in these jurisdictions to provide assessment and intervention services. Dekalb and Fulton Juvenile Courts and DJJ have already developed a protocol to assess youth at intake and to refer youth with scores in the low and medium range on the Detention Assessment Instrument (DAI) to their parents. The CAIC concept builds on this experience and offers services prior to official probation intake. Law enforcement officers, the Court Services Office, Juvenile Court and DJJ will develop a protocol so that police officers know which youth will be 1) given a citation in the field and returned home 2) transported to the CAIC for screening, assessment and intervention or 3) transported to probation intake and to detention. The CAIC will enable law enforcement officers to deposit a youth at a safe place (CAIC) where they will receive a screening, assessment and a referral thus allowing the police officer to return to the street within 15 minutes, which police strongly support. (Note: see Volume 1.A for examples). While in the Community Assessment & Intervention Center (CAIC), the youth is screened for suicide potential, addiction and trauma using DJJ s Mental Health & Suicide Screening Tool or the GAIN Screening Tool. If a diagnosis is medically determined, the assessment and treatment will be paid for by the Early Periodic Screening Diagnostic and Treatment fund (EPSDT). An interview is conducted with their parents/guardian and they will be linked to local mental health and substance abuse treatment providers. If overnight is necessary, the Case Expediter/Assessment Specialist, along with Child Protective Services will locate a relative or a shelter bed currently under contract with DJJ using the Room Board Network. A case manager will be assigned to each youth to facilitate services upon discharge. Huskey & Associates Page 51

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project This table shows the detention projections in the Metro Atlanta area without the CAIC in existence compared to the projection with the CAIC in place thus resulting in a net bed savings for the Atlanta Metro area of 178 beds. Table 3.7 Net Bed Savings Projected in Seven Metro Atlanta Jurisdictions 2012 2012 Projected Baseline Average Daily Population in Metro Atlanta RYDCs 2012 Projected Alternative Average Daily Population in Metro Atlanta RYDCs 2012 Net Bed Savings 462 284 178 Source: Department of Juvenile Justice. (101015.RYDC Pop Projections.xls) Huskey & Associates. This table demonstrates that 56.8 percent of the total FY09-FY10 admissions to seven RYDCs in the Metro Atlanta area met all eligibility criteria for the CAIC. On average, 14 youth would be served daily in the Metro Atlanta CAIC. While most youth would stay between 1-6 hours based on experience in other states, it is necessary to project 24-hour available capacity because some youth would be admitted throughout a 24-hour period. RYDC Table 3.8 Projected Impact of Metro Atlanta Community Assessment Intervention Center (CAIC) # Youth Admissions Meeting Criteria (FY09- FY10) Total Admissions ( FY09- FY10) % of Total Admissions Who Meet Criteria (FY09-FY10) Youth Assessment Center ADP (based on 24 hr LOS) Martha Glaze (Clayton) 364 783 46.5% 1 Dekalb 552 1,166 47.4% 2 Griffin 345 658 52.5% 1 Gwinnett 774 1,095 70.7% 2 Marietta 1,154 1,617 71.4% 3 Metro 1,304 2,473 52.7% 4 Paulding 652 1,260 51.8% 2 Total 5,145 9,050 56.8% 14 Source: GA DJJ (101028.FY08-FY10 RYDC Prev Adms.xls) Note: Criteria include all low risk offenders and a portion of the medium offenders (excluding medium offenders with most serious offense type = drug selling, violent or violent sex) Note: Total admissions and number of admissions meeting criteria are an average based on FY09 and FY10 data. Note: ADP for CAIC was derived from admissions meeting criteria x 1 day/365 days. Huskey & Associates Page 52

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project 3.1.4 Projected Cost of a CAIC Services Unit The average cost of the CAIC is estimated at $171.00 per day (based on Salt Lake County, UT Juvenile Receiving Center that serves 14 youth per day). This model was used because it offers a variety of services, similar to the Metro Atlanta area. This compares with the average cost of $237.22 per youth for detention in the Metro Atlanta area detention centers in FY10. 37 Cost Avoidance Model By implementing this policy recommendation, $14.5 million in annual costs could be avoided as is shown in the table. Table 3.9 Projected Cost Avoidance by Using CAIC In Lieu of Detention Annual Cost of Metro Atlanta CAIC Annual Cost of Secure Detention Projected Annual Cost Avoidance $873,810 $15,412,183 $14,538,373 Notes: Cost of the Metro Atlanta CAIC=$873,810 (14 ADP x 365 x $171.00). Cost of detention in Metro Atlanta=$15,412,183 (178 bed savings x 365 x $237.22). Average Annual Cost Avoidance calculated by cost of detention minus cost of CAIC). A Basic Level of Care bed is $108.00 per day which would be additional cost if overnight is required. To reduce net widening, it is recommended that DJJ commit to pay for only 14 youth on a daily basis because these youth scored in the low and medium range, meaning that they could be released from detention. If the counties want to refer more youth that do not meet the profile of the CAIC youth, they can still partner with DJJ and supplement state funding with local/federal funding, a true partnership. Supplemental funding would enhance the services provided at the CAIC, thus benefiting all youth and their families. The Early Periodic Screening Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) fund would be available to fund the CAIC for youth with psychiatric, trauma and substance abuse diagnosis. A Memoranda of Agreement is recommended with the Department of Behavioral Health to pool funding from various state, local and federal sources. Due to fixed costs at these detention centers, cost savings will only occur when housing units or facilities are closed. If this policy scenario is accepted, a total of 279 beds could be closed in the Metro Atlanta area (563 design capacity for seven RYDCs 284 alternative projected ADP = 279). DJJ is advised to track the profile of youth being served in the CAIC against youth in detention and conduct an evaluation to determine whether the youth are true diversions. 37 Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Finance Division. FY10 Program Days & Costs (Func)-(Huskey & Associates). Huskey & Associates Page 53

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project There are three possible existing sites to pilot the CAIC concept: Dekalb Juvenile Court Fulton Juvenile Court Crisis Stabilization Center (GRN) 3.1.5 Policy Recommendation #3: Policy Recommendation # 3 provides four strategies to reduce future populations within the RYDCs through case processing innovations (see examples in Volume 1.A). The longer a pre-adjudicated youth spends in a detention center the greater length of time there is between the alleged offense and the consequences thus reducing the effectiveness of the juvenile justice response. Since youth confined in detention centers do not receive long-term treatment, lengthy detention stays for adjudicated youth only delays their rehabilitation. This recommendation is estimated to save 129-226 net bed savings at an annual cost avoidance of $6.1-$10.7 million per year. Length of Stay by DAI Score Based on Detention Assessment Instrument scores, low-risk youth are eligible for release without conditions while medium-risk youth are eligible for release with conditions. Using the DAI assessment scores, low-risk youth stayed as high as 19.8 days and the medium-risk youth stayed as high as 31.4 days even though both of these groups were assessed as eligible for release. Experience in other jurisdictions demonstrates that when a designated employee is given the authority to expedite court case processing, detention stays can be reduced by 10%-15%, at no cost to the juvenile court. If the length of stay for low and medium risk youth could be reduced by 15 percent through case processing innovations, detention beds could be freed up. These youths are eligible for release anyway based on the Detention Assessment Instrument and there is a high likelihood that their cases could be fast tracked through court process innovations. High-risk youth are likely to stay longer since their cases take longer to be resolved in the court system. During FY10, their length of stay was as high as 53.9 days. It is assumed that these cases will take longer to resolve in the court system thus their length of stay could be reduced by only 10 percent. Huskey & Associates Page 54

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Table 3.10 projects the impact of reducing the length of stay of detained youth based on their DAI score. This strategy demonstrates that instead of 1,110 detention beds that are forecasted for 2012, only 981 detention beds will be required due to case process innovations resulting in a net bed savings of 129 beds. Table 3.10 Potential Bed Savings Due to Reduced Length of Stay 2012 Projected 2012 Baseline ADP Projected 2012 Alternative ADP 2012 Potential Bed Savings Statewide RYDC 1,110 981 129 Source: GA DJJ (101015.RYDC Pop Projections.xls; 101023.RYDC Data FY040FY10.xls). Note: Reduction in LOS for following DAI Scores: unknown, low and medium = 15%, high = 10%. Based on FY10, the percent ADP reduction of total ADP applied to FY12 projected ADP. Note: Reduced LOS are as follows (statewide): low = 9.2 days, medium = 13.9 days and high = 32.7 days If this policy recommendation is accepted, a total of 306 detention beds could be closed based on the FY10 design capacity (1,287 design capacity - 981 projected alternative ADP =306). Policy Recommendation #3 proposes to adopt policy strategies with the Juvenile Courts, District Attorneys, Public Defenders and probation officers to reduce the length of stay of the following groups of youth to increase effectiveness of the juvenile justice system and to reduce detention crowding 38 : 1. Youth Waiting Placement: These youth have already been assessed to require non-secure placement but they wait in a RYDC bed because a non-secure placement has not yet been located by DJJ. Based on the analysis of DJJ s private provider contracts, there are beds available in the RBWO network that can be used at$125.96 cost avoidance per youth ($108.00 for basic shelter bed vs. $233.96 for secure detention). These beds could be paid for by Title IV, EPSDT and the Medicaid Rehabilitation Option if the youth has a psychiatric or substance abuse disorder. DJJ, in collaboration with the private providers, should develop a funding mechanism to access these beds. During FY05-FY10, the length of stay of this group was as high as 36.1 days. If the length of stay for these youth could be reduced by 50 percent, youth could be moved to the RBWO network at 18 days thus freeing up detention beds. 2. Pre-disposition Youth: While the State of Georgia law permits the suspension of a child s disposition for up to 30 days while they are detained, this practice is inconsistent with fair justice principles and due process protocols because in reality, it punishes youth before a final disposition has been reached. There is no evidence that this practice reduces recidivism. During FY05-FY10, these youth stayed in detention while waiting final disposition as high as 35 days. This policy should be phased out in the future. DJJ should require that the length of stay for these youth be reduced by 50 percent, or by 18 days. 38 Note: the length of stay data is aggregate and not the LOS for an individual youth. The data represents LOS by group for FY05-FY10. Huskey & Associates Page 55

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project 3. Short Term Program (STP) Youth: Nationally and throughout Georgia, detention centers are not designed as long-term treatment facilities. Detention centers do not have the physical capability or the resources to provide treatment; therefore, the longer the youth spends in a detention center the greater the delays are in the youth s rehabilitation. During FY05-FY10, the length of stay for this group was as high as 23.7 days. This policy should be phased out in the future. DJJ should require that the length of stay for these youth be reduced by 50 percent, or by 12 days. 4. Pre-adjudicated Youth: Bottlenecks within the court case handling process is common across the nation and within Georgia resulting in long detention stays. The effect of the consequences on youth is diminished when there are long delays between the alleged offense and the final disposition. During FY05-FY10, the length of stay for pre-adjudicated youth in detention has been as high as 21.3 days. Experience in other jurisdictions demonstrates that when a designated employee is given the full-time authority to expedite court case processing for the Juvenile Court, detention stays can decline by 10%- 15%, at no cost to the court system. This group s length of stay could be reduced by 15 percent through additional court case process innovations, or by 3.2 days. The impact of these four strategies on future RYDC confined populations is illustrated in Table 3.11. Instead of 1,110 beds needed in 2012, only 884 youth would be needed, thus resulting in a net 226 bed savings by reducing length of stay. Table 3.11 Impact of Four Reduced Length of Stay Policies 2012 Projected 2012 Baseline ADP Projected 2012 Alternative ADP 2012 Potential Bed Savings Statewide 1,110 884 226 Source: GA DJJ (101015.RYDC Pop Projections.xls; 101023.RYDC Data FY040FY10.xls) Note: Reduction in LOS for following legal status: Youth Waiting Placement (50%), Pre-Disposition (50%), STP (50%) and Pre-Adjudicated (15%) Based on FY10, the percent ADP reduction of total ADP applied to FY12 projected ADP. If this policy recommendation is accepted, a total of 403 detention beds could be closed based on the FY10 design capacity (1,287 design capacity 884 projected alternative ADP = 403). Huskey & Associates Page 56

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Cost Avoidance Model As described, between 129-226 bed savings is estimated due to reducing the length of stay of these four target groups or by DAI scores. From $6.1-$10.7 million is projected as the annual cost avoidance by expediting cases. Table 3.12 Projected Cost Avoidance by Reducing Length of Stay 2012 Annual Cost of Secure Detention Annual Cost of Removing Low Risk Youth Earlier From Secure Detention Projected Annual Cost Avoidance $11.0-$19.3 million $4.9-$8.6 million $6.1-$10.7 Notes: Cost of detention is based on $233.96 average cost statewide (129-226 x $233.96 x 365 days). Cost of alternatives to detention is based on the cost of Community Non-Secure Services (Combined) for FY10 of $104.48 (129-226 x $104.48 x 365 days). Average annual cost avoidance based on cost of secure detention compared to the cost of alternatives to detention. To implement these options, an agreement with the Juvenile Court, other court and probation officials and DJJ s Case Expediter need to be reached to target these populations for expediting through the juvenile court process. Local officials will also need to diversify their funding streams with Title IV-E, EPSDT and Medicaid options to supplement state and local funding so they can maximize the use of alternatives to detention. Huskey & Associates Page 57

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Strategies to Reduce Low and Moderate Risk Youth from Youth Development Centers 3.2 Reentry Strategies to Reduce Confined Population A total of three policy recommendations are proposed to reduce low and medium-risk youth 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. The following calculations are based on the projected impact of the implementation of a formal reentry program for designated felon youth since 38 percent of the designated felon youth housed in YDCs are low-risk. 3.3 Proposed Impact of Accelerated Release to Aftercare Supervision For Eligible Designated Felons House Bill 373 provides the Juvenile Court and the DJJ the discretion of releasing to aftercare supervision eligible designated felon youth after 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 reduce 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. 39 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 17.22. 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. 39 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 Page 58

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Table 3.13 on the following page projects that the average daily population of DF youth in the YDCs will be 432 by 2012 for a maximum bed savings of 362. Designated Felons: Currently, all DF youth stay in an YDC bed an average of 550 days and an additional 155 days in a RYDC for a combined total time in custody of 705 days, 628 days of which are postadjudicated. This scenario reduces the total combined custody time of adjudicated youth (RYDC + YDC) length of stay for each of the three risk levels and projects the amount remaining to be spent in an YDC bed using the following planning assumptions: 1. Youth waiting in a RYDC bed are assumed to be moved immediately upon disposition to an YDC bed because YDC beds will be freed up due to their reduced length of stay in YDCs. 2. It is estimated that the paperwork for sentence modification will be initiated prior to the one year of custody in order to expedite release to the community provided all other criteria are met. The total ADP in these estimates is based on bringing over the youth from RYDC as soon as they are adjudicated thus creating a potential pool of eligible youth. Low Risk DF: During FY08-FY10, nearly 38 percent of the DF youth in YDCs were low risk to reoffend again after discharge. Instead of being in custody for an average of 721 days (2.0 years combined RYDC and YDC), the goal for the low risk DF youth would be for them to achieve their treatment goals and demonstrate sufficient good behavior so they can be released within 365 days/1 year. We believe this is feasible since low risk youth are higher functioning and more compliant than other risk levels. Medium Risk DF: During FY08-FY10, 39 percent of the DF youth in YDCs were medium risk to reoffend again after discharge. Instead of being in custody for an average of 678 days (2.0 years combined RYDC and YDC), it is feasible to have as a goal 25 percent of this group would be eligible for release within 365 days while the other 75 percent would be expected to be confined longer and released to aftercare within 426 days/1.2 years. High Risk DF: During FY08-FY10, 23 percent of the DF youth in YDCs were high risk to reoffend again following discharge. Instead of being in custody for an average of 737 days (2.0 years combined RYDC and YDC), it is feasible to expect that these high-risk designated felons would be confined the longest; however, the goal for this population would be for them to be released to aftercare supervision within 547 days/1.5 years. By achieving these goals, this results in an estimated reduction in the average daily population within the YDCs to a maximum of 432 in 2012 thereby resulting in a maximum bed savings of 362. 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. Huskey & Associates Page 59

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project 2010 preadj ALOS in RYDC 1 2010 post-adj ALOS in RYDC 1 Table 3.13 Impact of Proposed Reentry Strategy 2010 ALOS in YDC 2 New Combined Total post-adj ALOS in YDC* Remaining Days to be Served in YDC** Average Number of RYDC Admissions to YDC FY08- FY10 1 Total Combined ADP*** Reduced ADP in YDC due to reduced ALOS**** Reduced ALOS Designated Felon: 77 78 550 628 462 794 432 362 Low 116 81 524 605 365 249 184 305 126 179 Medium 57 75 546 621 365-426 308-369 183 311 177 134 High 53 76 608 684 547 494 95 178 129 49 Source: GA DJJ (110715.RYDC Awaiting ALOS.xls 1 ; 110224.YDC Data FY05-FY10.xls 2 ) *Calculated: 2010 post-adj ALOS in RYDC + 2010 ALOS in YDC Beds Freed Up***** Huskey & Associates Page 60

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Table 3.14 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 resulted in reduced recidivism rates between 10%-50%. 40 Table 3.14 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. 110322.YDC Recidivism Rates. Landenberger, N.A. & M.W. Lipsey 2005 Assuming a conservative reduction in Georgia, we estimate a range of reduced recidivism rates of 4%-17% by 2013 with the anticipation that reduced recidivism rates will reach the national range by 2014. Andrews D.A. & Bonta, J (2010) found that higher-risk youth produced the highest reductions in recidivism. 41 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) resulting in an overall reduction in recidivism of 28% ((232-322)/322). 40 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, 2005. 41 Andrews, D.A. & J. Bonta. The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (Fifth Edition). 2010. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 61

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Cost Avoidance Model By achieving these policy goals, the average annual cost avoidance is estimated to be a maximum of $14.2 million and a minimum 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 that is eligible. Low Risk Designated Felons: The overall length of stay in RYDC and YDC for low-risk designated felons is estimated to be reduced to 365 days, 249 days of which will be spent in the YDC. The reduced length of stay (LOS) results in a reduced average daily population in the YDC of 126 instead of 305 (based on the potential pool of eligible youth). This results in a maximum bed savings of 179 beds (305-126=179). The average annual cost of 179 YDC beds for one year is $15,044,037. Instead, one-half or 90 Basic Level beds are estimated to be substituted for a YDC bed at $101.82 x 365 days and another one-half or 89 nonresidential program slots estimated to be substituted for a YDC bed at the cost of Multi-systemic Therapy at $112.71 per day x 365 days. The cost of these two alternatives to YDC confinement totals $7,006,171 instead of $15,044,037 for a projected annual maximum cost avoidance of $8,037,866. Medium Risk Designated Felons: The overall length of stay in RYDC and YDC for medium-risk designated felons is estimated to be reduced to 365 days for 25% of the population and 426 days (14 months) for 75% of the population, 308 and 369 days of which are spent in the YDC, respectively. The reduced LOS results in a reduced average daily population of 177 instead of 311 (based on the potential pool of eligible youth). This results in a maximum bed savings of 134 beds (311-177=134). The average annual cost of 134 YDC beds for one year is $11,262,017. Instead, one-half or 67 Additional Level beds are estimated to be substituted for a YDC bed at $128.98 x 365 days and another one-half or 67 non-residential programs is estimated to be substituted for a YDC bed at the cost of Multi-systemic Therapy at $112.71 per day x 365 days. The cost of these two alternatives to YDC confinement totals $5,910,529 instead of $11,262,017 for a projected annual maximum cost avoidance of $5,351,488. High Risk Designated Felons: The overall length of stay in RYDC and YDC for high-risk designated felons is estimated to be reduced to 547 days (18 months), 494 days of which are spent in the YDC. This results in a reduced average daily population of 129 instead of 178 (based on the potential pool of eligible youth). This results in a maximum bed savings of 49 beds (178-129=49). The average annual cost of 49 YDC beds for one year is $4,118,200. Instead, 49 Maximum Level beds are estimated to be substituted for an YDC bed at $181.84 x 365 days. The cost of the Maximum Level beds totals $3,252,208 instead of $4,118,200 for a projected annual maximum cost avoidance of $865,992. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 62

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project 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. Table 3.15 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 (110224.YDCData FY05-FY10). Huskey & Associates. A future policy is proposed that would target the 13 top committing counties and the independent counties to keep these low and medium risk youth in their localities. If the localities do not reduce their use of state custody, DJJ has the discretion of stepping down these youth to more appropriate options commensurate with their risk and treatment needs. By freeing up beds in the Youth Development Centers, 8.7 percent of the RYDC beds will also be freed up because the youth waiting for a YDC bed will be able to be admitted (1,110 RYDC ADP x.087=97). Other states have implemented similar population reduction scenarios with significant positive impacts: State of North Carolina implemented system reform by replacing its antiquated Youth Development Centers with smaller facilities, implemented its Community Commitment Act that provided the Department with the discretion to place low and moderate risk youth in community based treatment options at any time after DJJ admission. The NC DJJ implemented a statewide public awareness campaign to increase the knowledge and support for evidence-based practices. Since 2000, the state YDC commitments have declined 62.5 percent (from 975 in 2000 to 365 in 2009). 42 Only 2 percent of the youth referred to the DJJ are confined in an YDC. State of Illinois implemented Redeploy Illinois that provides incentive funding to localities who commit to reduce 25 percent of their low risk youth admissions. From 2001 to 2007, the pilot sites reduced commitments to IDJJ by 55 percent. 43 The state has realized $18.7 million in annual 42 North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2009). Annual Report. 43 Redeploy Illinois Oversight Board. (January 2010). Annual Report to the Governor and General Assembly. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 63

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project savings. For every dollar spent, the state realized a $4.00 savings. The Redeploy Illinois model was featured by the National Conference of State Legislatures at its 2009 multi-state juvenile justice reform symposium. State of Ohio implemented RECLAIM that provides incentive funding to localities to maintain low and moderate risk youth in localities. From a high of 2,600 in May 1992, the average daily population in Ohio s juvenile corrections centers in December 2010 was 800, a 69.2 percent reduction. 44 DYS has targeted six of the top committing counties for Targeted RECLAIM to reduce their commitments to secure custody by 20 percent. The actual decline in DYS admissions during 2009-2010 from these six counties was 39 percent (due to Target RECLAIM and Mental Health Juvenile Justice Reform). 45 State of Missouri implemented its Juvenile Court Diversion grant program whereby DYS provides funding to District Courts to implement alternatives to placement in DYS custody. In FY2009, of the 38 juvenile courts that received funding from DYS, 39 out of every 40 youth were maintained in local programs rather than sending them to DYS custody. 46 The Missouri Office of State Court Administrators has mandated a uniform Risk and Needs Assessment for all juvenile courts. In summary, the combined annual cost avoidance of reducing the length of stay of designated felons from YDCs and implementing best practices is in the range of $7.0-$14.2 million. These cost savings are considered realistic when compared to the outcomes documented in national research. The cost savings resulting from reducing unnecessary confinement can be reinvested in less costly interventions. 44 Ohio Department of Youth Services. (2010). Reclaim Ohio Statistics. www.dys.ohio.gov 45 Ohio Department of Youth Services. Plan for Regionalization. October 2010. 46 Missouri Division of Youth Services. FY 2009 Annual Report. Conversation on March 23, 2011 with Dennis Bragg, Deputy Director, DYS. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 64

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project This table shows the analysis conducted by the Washington State Institute of Public Policy on juvenile programs that reduce juvenile crime, create fewer victims of crime and reduce costs to the taxpayer. Table 3.16 Evidence-Based Models for Juvenile Offenders Estimated Change in Recidivism Rate & Program Economics Average Size of the Crime Reduction Effect Number of Program Effects in the Statistical Survey Net Cost Benefit Per Offender Cost Specific "Off the Shelf" Programs Multi-Systemic Therapy -0.31 3 $131,918 $4,743 Functional Family Therapy -0.25 7 $59,067 $2,161 Aggression Replacement Training -0.18 4 $33,143 $738 Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care -0.37 2 $87,622 $2,052 Adolescent Diversion Project -0.27 5 $27,212 $1,138 General Types of Treatment Programs Diversion with Services (vs. regular juvenile court processing) -0.05 13 $5,679 -$127 Intensive Probation (vs. regular probation caseloads) -0.05 7 $6,812 $2,234 Intensive Probation (as alternative to incarceration) -0.00 6 $18,854 -$18,478 Intensive Parole Supervision (vs. regular parole caseloads) -0.04 7 $6,128 $2,635 Coordinated Services -0.14 4 $14,831 $603 Scared Straight Type Programs -0.13 8 -$24,531 $51 Other Family-Based Therapy Approaches -0.17 6 $30,936 $1,537 Juvenile Sex Offender Treatment -0.12 5 $23,602 $9,920 Juvenile Boot Camps -0.10 10 -$3,587 $15,424 Source: Summary of Program Economics found in The Comparative Costs and Benefits of Programs to Reduce Crime, 2001. Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Note: The summary effect size shown on this table for each area is the weighted average standardized men difference effect size. For those studies with bi0avriate outcome measures, the mean difference effect sizes are approximated using the arcsine transformation as described in Lipsey & Wilson (2000), Table B10, Formula 22. The individual study effect sizes are adjusted suing the Hedges correction for small sample sizes as described in Lipsey & Wilson (2000), page 49, Equation 3.22. The weights are the inverse variance weights as described in Lispey & Wilson (2000), page 49, Equations 3.23 and 3.24. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 65

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project This table provides an additional analysis of costs and benefits prepared by the Coalition of Evidencebased Policy for the California Governor s Office of Gang and Youth Policy. Table 3.17 Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 66

Chapter 4: Legislative Strategies to Refine Juvenile Code Revision

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Chapter 4 Legislative Strategies for Juvenile Code Revision 4.1 Executive Summary This chapter summarizes the key elements of legislation in other states that have promoted best practices at the state and local levels. It would be in the best interest of Georgia s state and local policy makers to consider these legislative initiatives in the Juvenile Code revision. These states have already demonstrated reductions in the confinement of low and medium risk youth, in recidivism and in cost savings by implementing best practices. These states were chosen because they have passed laws that require the state s department of juvenile justice and its service providers to implement effective programs that meet scientific standards resulting in reductions in low and medium risk youth from detention and state commitments. They have accomplished this goal through improved collaboration, greater use of objective risk and needs assessments, effective case planning, and they have expanded the number and type of local alternatives to detention and state commitment. 4.2 Definitions To lead the state toward implementing best practices and programs, the Georgia Children s Cabinet, the Governor s Office of Children and Families and Just Georgia should include a policy statement in the Juvenile Code revision defining and promoting best practices and research-based programs. A few of Georgia s agencies have already defined best practices. The Governor s Office of Children and Families provide funding to local jurisdictions that employ evidenced-based practices and target their interventions according to the established principles of risk, need, responsibility and dosage. 47 See Volume 1.A of this report for a description of the Principles of Effective Intervention. Georgia s Promising Practices Network (PPN) defines best practices and programs as: A practice describes either the way a service is delivered or any component/element of a service program and helps answer "how" a program delivers services. Practices include specific elements, activities, procedures, techniques, approaches, concepts, philosophies, and policies. For example, "promote strong ties with a caring adult" is one of many practices employed by programs that work to prevent teen pregnancy. 48 A program is a comprehensive set of practices that are designed to achieve one or more desired indicators/outcomes for children, families or communities. Any program may use a number of practices, and any particular practice can be combined with others to make up a program. 49 The PPN ranks programs according to evidence levels proven, promising or screened. 50 47 Governor s Office of Children and Families. System of Care Grant Program Request for Proposal. April 2011. 48 Promising Practices Network on Children, Families and Communities. http://www.promisingpractices.net/glossary.asp#practice 49 Ibid. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 68

Proven and Promising Programs Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Programs are rated as "Proven" or "Promising" based on the degree to which they meet evidence criteria established by PPN. Other programs are identified as "Screened Programs." These are programs that have not undergone a full review by PPN, but evidence of their effectiveness has been reviewed by one or more credible organizations that apply similar evidence criteria. Screened Programs may be determined to be Proven or Promising after additional research. Nationally, best practices/programs has become a widely-used concept in the juvenile justice field to describe the science of reducing recidivism in juvenile offenders. Best practices have been defined by DJJ s Best Practices project as: o Proven through research to increase prosocial behavior and to reduce recidivism. o Progressive organizational use of direct, current scientific evidence to guide and inform efficient and effective correctional services. o Programs that meet the Principles of Effective Intervention. o Programs may have been recognized by a national organization as evidence-based or promising In Volume 1.A of this report, the typology used by eight national organizations to define best practices and to rank effective programs is included. Programs delivered by Georgia s Department of Juvenile Justice and its public and private treatment providers do not need to be only brand programs (e.g. Multi-systemic Therapy, Functional Family Therapy) to be evaluated as effective and considered to be best practices. However, each program serving delinquents is recommended to adhere to the scientific Principles of Effective Intervention to be rated as effective. 51 Increasingly, states have defined best practices in their juvenile justice reform legislation, and it would be in Georgia s best interest to define these concepts in its new Juvenile Code to lead state and local agencies in achieving effective programming that reduces recidivism. Here are some of the definitions of best practices found within other states legislation that illustrate general consensus: State of Tennessee s Evidence-Based Law: Evidence is defined as 1) a program or practice that is governed by a manual or protocol that specifies the nature, quality and amount of service that constitutes the program; and 2) that scientific research using at least two separate client samples has demonstrated improvement in the client outcomes that are central to the program. Pilot projects which lack the required number of research samples that meet the definition for being evidence-based are allowed for evaluation 50 Ibid. 51 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, 2005. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 69

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers purposes. 52 To meet scientific standards, the research must compare the results of a control group (youth not receiving services) to youth who receive services (treatment group). The Department of Children Services (DCS) is required to fund and provide language in all of its contracts serving juvenile justice youth that the contractor will deliver only evidence-based services; and, the Department shall provide monitoring, through existing quality assurance methods to ensure that applicable program manuals or protocols are being followed. Additionally, DCS will work with the provider on the development and implementation of corrective action when existing monitoring uncovers weaknesses in the provision of evidence-based practices. State of North Carolina Juvenile Justice Reform Act: The intent of the legislation is to fund programs that the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention determines are effective in preventing delinquency and recidivism, and not to fund programs that have proven to be ineffective. 53 State of California Juvenile Justice Community Re-entry (JJCR) Law: The JJCR is administered by the Department of Juvenile Justice, in consultation with the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA), for the purpose of 1) improving the performance and cost-effectiveness of reentry programming for juvenile parolees, 2) reducing the recidivism rates of juvenile offenders, and 3) piloting evidence-based, innovative reentry programs consistent with the division s focus on a rehabilitative treatment model. 54 State of Pennsylvania Act 148: The intent of the Act is to fund cost-effective treatment programs that have demonstrated to be effective in reducing recidivism and in reducing the confinement of low and moderate risk youth in detention and in state facilities. The Pennsylvania Department of Human Services and the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency fund 10 Blueprints for Violence Prevention model programs that have proven to reduce violent crime, aggression, delinquency and/or substance abuse. 55 New York State Re-Direct New York: The intent of this bill is to fund services or programs which are aimed at reducing arrest rates of youth participating in such programs. 56 The Governor s Executive Budget will provide increased funding to localities that focus on effective, research-based community-based programs that serve low-risk youth in the community and will generate long-term state and local savings. 57 State of Illinois Redeploy Illinois: In each plan, the Act requires documentation of the research or evidence that qualifies the proposed services and programs as proven or promising practices. 58 52 Tennessee Code. Title 37. Chapter 5-121. 53 Juvenile Justice Reform Act, S.L. 1998-202 (S1260) 54 California Welfare and Institutions Code. Section 749.5-749.95 55 Keystones for Reform: Promising Juvenile Justice Policies and Practices in Pennsylvania. (2005). Models for Change. MacArthur Foundation. Section 704.1 of the Public Welfare Code (62 P. S. 704.1). 56 New York State Bills. S5711/A10253. 57 State of New York. 2011-2012 Executive Budget. Accessed through http://www.governor.ny.gov/20112012executive 58 Public Act 93-0641 Redeploy Illinois. www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 70

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Ohio RECLAIM: Prohibits the use of state funds for programs that the research has shown to be ineffective. 59 Washington State Community Juvenile Accountability Act: The intent of the Act is to 1) create a continuum of community-based programs that emphasize the juvenile offender s accountability for his or her actions while assisting him or her in the development of skills necessary to function effectively and positively in the community in a manner consistent with public safety; and 2) to fund programs that costeffectively reduce recidivism and crime rates in Washington state. 60 4.3 New Admissions Policies A key element in other states juvenile code revision is the establishment of new admissions policies that defines who should not be accepted into state juvenile correctional institutions and into secure detention. Examples of the language in other states legislation are: State of California Juvenile Justice Realignment Act (SB81): SB81 prohibits the commitment of non- 707 b (non-violent) juvenile offenders to the state Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). It limits the use of state commitment to the most violent offenders and sex offenders, prohibits non-violent youthful offenders from being committed to the state system, and provides funding to the counties to operate secure and nonsecure alternatives in lieu of state commitment of these youth. State of Illinois Redeploy Act: Requires the reduction of admissions of non-violent juvenile offenders to the state Department of Juvenile Justice by 25 percent. State of New York: The Governor s Executive Budget supports a Capped Detention Program that funds 50% of the cost of housing only high-risk youth who pose a threat to public safety. 61 The State of Georgia could consider similar admissions policies outlined in its Juvenile Code revision that realigns the population in its detention and youth development centers to include 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. Experience within the state and throughout the nation shows that these policies will not be realized unless they become law. The implementation of these new policies should be phased in over three years and other options need to be substituted. A blended funding mechanism consisting of local, state and federal incentives is recommended to fund alternatives to detention and state custody. 59 Ohio Chapter 5139-67. 60 Washington State RCW 13.40.500. 61 State of New York. 2011-2012 Executive Budget. Accessed through http://www.governor.ny.gov/20112012executive Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 71

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers 4.4 Screening and Assessment Policies To facilitate the implementation of these new admissions policies, the State of Georgia should consider including in its Juvenile Code revision a statewide policy of screening and assessment of juvenile offenders prior to official probation intake such as at an 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 after 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. Based on the results of the screening, an objective, validated risk and needs assessment, that include assessment of trauma, should be conducted to help the juvenile court determine a disposition and the probation officer to determine a case plan. If the youth has special needs, treatment providers should conduct objective, validated mental health, trauma, substance abuse, sex offender and gang assessment instruments to determine the elements of the treatment plan. These objective assessments are intended to supplement the professional discretion of the juvenile court, probation officer and treatment provider, and they are not recommended to take the place of professional judgment. Many states recognize these policies in their juvenile code. Examples include: State of North Carolina: 62 Predisposition Report The new code requires that a risk and needs assessment be conducted and attached to the disposition report. The assessment must contain information about the juvenile's social, medical, psychiatric, psychological, and educational history and factors indicating the probability that the juvenile will commit further delinquent acts. Another new provision allows the court to proceed with a dispositional hearing without a predisposition report if no report is available and the court makes a written finding that one is not needed. Screening and Prevention Programs The Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (DJJDP) must ensure that programs provide screenings that identify delinquency risk factors. In addition, the DJJDP must evaluate screening and prevention programs and identify any legal or policy bars to effective cooperation. Plan for Community-Based Dispositions The DJJDP must develop a cost-effective plan for statewide community-based dispositional alternatives for delinquent juveniles. The plan must include a funding strategy to encourage communities to provide local resources, services, and treatment options. In developing the plan, the DJJDP must consider specified 62 Juvenile Justice Reform Act, S.L. 1998-202 (S1260) Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 72

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers community-based alternatives and recommend which judicial districts with high crime rates should have nonresidential day reporting centers to provide intensive supervision for juveniles. Washington State: As a condition of funding, the jurisdiction must include assessment methods to determine services, programs, and intervention strategies most likely to change behaviors and norms of juvenile offenders. 63 State of Illinois: Requires assessment and evaluation services to provide the juvenile justice system with accurate individualized case information on each juvenile offender including mental health, substance abuse, educational, and family information. 64 State of California: Promotes risk and needs assessment tools and evaluations to assist in the identification of appropriate youthful offender dispositions and reentry plans. 65 4.5 Disproportionate Confinement of Youth of Color As has been documented in this report, Georgia confines a disproportionate number of youth of color in its detention and youth development centers. The Governor s Office of Children and Families has stated in its 2011-2012 funding priorities to provide funding to localities to enable them to reduce the overrepresentation of minority youth in the State secure juvenile facilities and in the juvenile justice system as a whole. 66 Other states have included this goal in their statewide plans. Examples include: State of North Carolina: The Juvenile Justice Reform Act requires the development of a statewide plan for training and professional development for juvenile justice personnel where statistics indicate a disproportionate presence of minority youth in juvenile facilities develop and recommend strategies to ensure fair and equal treatment in the juvenile justice system. State of New York: The State of New York Task Force on Transforming Juvenile Justice listed as one of the state s reform goals to reduce disproportionate representation of youth of color institutional placement. 67 Georgia should affirm in its Juvenile Code revision 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. 63 Washington State RCW 13.40.500. 64 Public Act 93-0641 Redeploy Illinois. www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts 65 California Welfare & Institutions Code. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0051-0100/sb_81_bill_20070824_chaptered.pdf 66 Governor s Office of Children and Families. System of Care Grant Program Request for Proposal. April 2011. 67 New York Task Force on Transforming Juvenile Justice. A Report of Governor David Paterson. Charting a New Course: A Blueprint for Transforming Juvenile Justice in New York State. December 2009. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 73

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers 4.6 Administrative Responsibility for Population Realignment There are a number of organizations ultimately responsible for realigning the population of the state s detention and youth development centers. First, it is the General Assembly of Georgia, the Governor s Office, the Georgia Children s Cabinet, the Governor s Office of Children and Families, Board of Juvenile Justice and the Department of Juvenile Justice. However, these entities cannot succeed without the support and participation of individual judges, district attorneys, public defenders, sheriffs, probation officers, local planning organizations such as the Local Interagency Teams, Regional Teams, KIDSNET Collaborative, Georgia Care Connections, community-based treatment providers, advocacy organizations such as Voices for Children and Just Georgia and state organizations such as the Council of Juvenile Court Judges., Prosecuting Attorneys Council, Public Defender s Standards Council, Office of the Child Advocate Sheriff s Association, Chiefs of Police, and Association of County Commissioner s of Georgia, just to name a few. To implement broad-based systems change, other states have recognized that a combination of legislative initiatives, state standards, statewide performance metrics, funding incentives, local planning councils, public education and monitoring and evaluation must be included in their juvenile code. Examples include: Funding Mechanism: All of the states profiled in this report have developed their own funding mechanism to incentivize independent localities to implement programs that are effective in preventing delinquency and recidivism, and not to fund programs that have proven to be ineffective. Georgia could incentivize their independent counties with a blended funding mechanism that combines federal, state and local funding to expand alternatives to detention and state commitment. Federal claiming options through Title IV-E, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Medicaid have been underutilized for juvenile justice alternatives to confinement. Georgia should consider a similar strategy to that in Pennsylvania. Each participating entity partnering on expanding alternatives to detention and state custody should exhaust federal claiming options through Title IV-E, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Medicaid before being eligible for state funding. The Georgia s Children Cabinet should take the lead in encouraging the use of these options to fund alternatives to detention and state confinement. Examples include: Title IV-E Funding Reasonable Efforts Language: Title IV-E has many procedural requirements designed to ensure children are only removed from their home when absolutely necessary, that every effort is made to prevent the removal of the child and once removed, to arrange a permanent living situation as quickly as possible. Here are a few requirements related to the reasonable efforts standard: 1. There must be a judicial determination of reasonable efforts to prevent a child s removal from the home within 60 days of the removal occurring (1). 2. There must be a judicial determination annually that reasonable efforts have been made to finalize the child s permanency plan (1). Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 74

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers 3. There are some circumstances that reasonable efforts are not required if there is judicial determination that the parent has subjected the child to aggravated circumstances (1). 4. Judicial determination of reasonable efforts must be explicitly documented and must be made on a case-by-case basis and so stated in the court order (1) and (2). Early Periodic Screening Assessment Diagnostic and Treatment Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment ( EPSDT ) is a mandate for children 21 years old and under to receive all Medicaid-covered services that are medically necessary. Georgia is obligated to provide mental health services to Medicaid-eligible youth when it is determined that it is medically necessary even if those services are not actually listed in the state plan. The types of services range from screening, assessment, case management and rehabilitative services. The EPSDT mandate provides youth both mandatory and optional services under the Rehabilitation Option, 42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)(13); targeted case-management services, 1396d(a)(19); physician services, 1396d(a)(5)(A); home health care services, 1396d(a)(7); and clinic services, 1396d(a)(9). The following wraparound services can be funded through EPSDT as a mental health and substance abuse service under the following Medicaid categories: Strengths and needs assessments Crisis stabilization Wraparound Team Formation Wraparound Plan Development Wraparound Service Plan Implementation Engagement of the Child and Family Ongoing Crisis and Safety Planning Tracking and Adapting the Wraparound Service Plan Transition Statewide Public Education Campaign: The Juvenile Code should include a recommendation for on-going education of juvenile justice officials and other key stakeholders to make people more aware of the recent research on the Principles of Effective Interventions and the elements of best practices. The urgency for system change should be created. Greater buy-in should be evident among system stakeholders that crowding is a systemic problem and not DJJ s problem. At a minimum, an annual Juvenile Forum should be held building on the October 2010 Forum of the Georgia s Children s Cabinet. Other states have found that a statewide campaign to educate key stakeholders is necessary to facilitate system change. Georgia s public education campaign could be initiated by the Governor s Office of Children and Families and involve the key groups described earlier in this chapter. This campaign should include town meetings in each region of the state with trained facilitators, editorial board meetings in these regions, media interviews and individual briefings of legislators and state and regional organizations. Fact sheets, concept papers, backgrounders, and written news releases should be prepared for dissemination. Performance Metrics: Without clear measurements, the State of Georgia will not achieve the results as intended. It is recommended that the Juvenile Code include at a minimum the following performance metrics: Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 75

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Phase out over three years the confinement of status offenders, technical violators, low and medium risk youth in RYDC and in YDC. Target high-risk youth for intensive interventions and reduce the supervision of low and medium risk youth. Evidence that each service provider operates programs with state funding that has proven to be effective in reducing recidivism. Evidence of improvement of a seamless continuity of care from one system to the other. Reduce the bounce-back of CHINS/status offenders between Department of Family and Children Services and DJJ. Create a multi-disciplinary plan that addresses the youth who are being served by multiple systems. Establish an on-going mechanism for regional dialogue to increase the constituency for best practices and to increase the coordination among system stakeholders. Create a long-range vision and Master Plan for Children and Youth in Georgia that key groups can participate in developing and promoting statewide. A statewide database and monitoring system should be developed to track the progress in implementing best practices. Other states have included specific performance metrics in their juvenile codes. Examples include: Washington State: The Juvenile Accountability Act measures whether the programs cost-effectively reduce recidivism and crime rates in Washington State. The Washington State Institute for Public Policy was established to evaluate the costs and benefits of the Act. The findings of the Institute s evaluation are: 68 When Functional Family Therapy is delivered effectively, youth has a reduction in felony recidivism by 38 percent. The cost-benefit analysis found that FFT results in $10.69 in savings through avoided crime costs for each one dollar spent. When Aggression Replacement Training is delivered effectively, youth have a 24 percent reduction in felony recidivism 18 months following completion with a benefit to cost ratio of $11.66 for every dollar spent. Coordination of Services resulted in a reduction of felony recidivism 12 months following completion and a benefit to cost ratio of $7.89 for every dollar spent. 68 Washington State Institute for Public Policy. (2004). Outcome Evaluation of Washington State s Research-Based Programs for Juvenile Offenders. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 76

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Figure 4.1 shows the 18-month recidivism rate by various offenses for youth who received services from the Functional Family Therapy program compared to youth who were assessed for the program but did not receive the services (control group). The felony recidivism rate for the youth who did not receive services was 27 percent compared to 24 percent for the FFT treatment group. There were no statistically significant differences for the three types of recidivism. Figure 4.1 Adjusted 18-Month Recidivism Rates FFT vs. Control Group Source: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 77

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Table 4.1 shows the statistical correlation between recidivism rates of three interventions (Functional Family Therapy, Aggression Replacement Training and Coordination of Services). It also measures the statistical significance of the knowledge and skills of the therapists delivering these interventions. Youth treated by competent therapists had reductions in average felony recidivism rates from -24.2 percent to - 38.1 percent than youth being seen by not competent therapists. In fact, youth being seen by not competent therapists had increased their recidivism rate between 6.9 percent and 16.7 percent. Table 4.1 Summary of Outcome Evaluation Findings State of North Carolina: By April 1 of each year, the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention must report to the General Assembly on the effectiveness and cost benefit of every program operated and contracted by the DJJDP. The State of North Carolina has a state confinement rate of 43.6 per 100,000 youth population housed in state facilities compared to Georgia s confinement rate of 87.0 per 100,000. North Carolina implemented its Juvenile Justice Reform Act in 1998 and a companion Community Commitment Act in 2003 that provided the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention with the discretion to place low and moderate risk youth in community based treatment options at any time after DJJDP admission. Huskey & Associates worked with the Department to also downsize its facilities to a 32-bed rehabilitative treatment model. To gain statewide support for these initiatives, DJJDP implemented, in association with Huskey & Associates a statewide public awareness campaign to increase the knowledge and support for researchbased practices that led to the reduction of low and moderate risk youth in state facilities. The Juvenile Justice Reform Act also mandated an on-going evaluation of its state-funded programs to ensure that treatment providers were delivering effective, research-based programs. Since these two laws have been in place, state commitments have continued to decline. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 78

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Since 2000, the state s youth development center commitments declined 62.5 percent (from 975 in 2000 to 365 in 2009). 69 Figure 4.2 North Carolina Youth Development Center Commitments From 1998-2009 Source: North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Annual Report. 2009. The findings from the March 2011 Evaluation concluded that since the implementation of the Juvenile Justice Reform Act, intensive case management providing wraparound services to the juvenile and their family are effective and cost-efficient. 70 At six and twelve months after exiting the Alternatives to Commitment Programs, recidivism rates for youth served in the programs were lower than the research predicts for Level III and most serious Level II dispositions. Table 4.2 Recidivism Data for Youth at 6 and 12 Months after Termination from North Carolina Alternatives to Commitment Programs 6 Month Percent 12 Month Percent Adult Warrants 11 16.42% 17 25.4% Juvenile Complaints 7 10.45% 9 13.4% No Complaints or Warrants 49 73.13% 41 61.2% Totals 67 100% 67 100% Sources: North Carolina On-Line Information Network (NC-JOIN), and CJ Leads Databases. 69 North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2009). Annual Report. 70 North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Alternatives to Commitment Programs. Annual Evaluation Report. March 2011. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 79

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers The data indicate that the Alternative to Commitment Programs continue to be effective and cost-efficient for committed youth at the local level while addressing unmet gaps in the continuum of services within communities. State of Illinois: The performance measurement for the Redeploy Act is the reduction by 25 percent of commitments to the Department of Juvenile Justice measured in state confinement days. From 2001-2007, overall commitments to IDJJ declined 55% from the pilot sites. There was a 94% reduction in the counties use of DJJ commitment for conducting court evaluations (risk and need assessments), one of the primary reduction goals of Redeploy Illinois. 71 Table 4.3 Illinois has realized an $18.7 million in annual savings. For every dollar spent, the state realized a $4.00 savings. Instead of $70,827 for every youth confined in a state correctional facility per year, the per capita cost for treating a youth under Redeploy Illinois is $3,000-$10,000 on an annual basis. The Redeploy Illinois model has been showcased by the Justice Policy Institute and the National Conference of State Legislatures as promising approaches for other states. 72 Approximately 400 youth have been diverted from commitment to the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice since its inception. As of April 7, 2011, IDJJ had 1,201 youth secure custody, down from 1,418 in 2005 (a 15.3 percent decline between these two years). 73 71 Redeploy Illinois Oversight Board. (January 2010). Annual Report to the Governor and General Assembly. 72 Redeploy Fact Sheet. Illinois Department of Human Services. Bureau of Youth Services & Delinquency Prevention. Division of Community Health & Prevention. 73 Memo from Ronald. Smith, Deputy Director of Facilities, Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 80

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers State of California: the Juvenile Justice Realignment Act and the Juvenile Justice Community Reentry Program have a common performance measurement: reduce recidivism and reduce confinement of low and medium risk youth in state custody. Specific outcome measures being tracked include, but are not limited to: 74 (1) Annual recidivism rates, including technical parole violations and new offenses. (2) The number and percent of participants successfully completing parole. (3) The number and percent of participants engaged in part-time or full-time employment, enrolled in higher education or vocational training, receiving drug and substance abuse treatment, or receiving mental health treatment. (4) The number and percent of participants that obtain stable housing, including the type of housing. The combined effect of these initiatives has reduced California s state juvenile population by 72 percent, from a high of 4,400 in 2003 to 1,232 as of March 31, 2011. 75 According to DJJ, this dramatic decline in population is due to the following reasons: Majority of youth are directed to county programs, enabling direct access and closer proximity to their homes, families, social programs and services, and other support systems Counties have received increased federal funding to build additional treatment facilities Change in fees counties paid to house youths in DJJ facilities based upon the classification of a youths commitment offense 5,000 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 Figure 4.3 Juvenile Confined Population California Youth Authority 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Youth Confined 4,400 3,436 2,881 2,517 2,115 1,568 1,499 1,254 1,232 74 California Welfare and Institutions Code: Section 749.5-749.95 75 http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/juvenile_justice/research_and_statistics/index.html. Population Overview. Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 81

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers State of Missouri: The Missouri Division of Youth Services administers its Juvenile Court Diversion grant program whereby DYS provides funding to District Courts to implement alternatives to placement in DYS custody. The measurement used to evaluate success is the reduction of state commitments by each county funded. In FY2009, of the 38 juvenile courts that received funding from DYS, 39 out of every 40 youth were maintained in local programs rather than sending them to DYS custody. 76 The Juvenile Court Diversion program diverted 4,080 youth from commitment to state care in FY09 at a cost of $961 per youth. 77 At a much-reduced cost to Missouri taxpayers, these programs provide local intervention services, allowing the courts to work with at-risk youth and their families in their home communities. 78 State of Pennsylvania: Act 148 is measured by the reduction in the use of state institutions for low and moderate risk youth. Since the passage of Act 148, Pennsylvania s state institutional commitments have declined by 24 percent and community placements increased by 20 percent. 76 Conversation on March 23, 2011 with Dennis Bragg, Deputy Director, DYS. 77 Missouri Division of Youth Services. FY 2009 Annual Report. 78 http://www.dss.mo.gov/dys/ Huskey & Associates Volume 1 Page 82

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

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Table of Contents VOLUME 1A Supplemental Material Chapter 1: 1 Chapter 2 10 Chapter 3 49 Chapter 4 66 Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page i

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project 1.1 Definitions Chapter 1 Research-based programs and best practices have become widely used concepts in the juvenile justice field to describe the science that is now known that reduces recidivism in juvenile offenders Research-Based Program: These programs have undergone extensive and multiple evaluations using rigorous research designs with high levels of fidelity, including, but not limited to, randomized controlled samples or matched control samples. Examples of organizations that have identified programs as evidence-based include: U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration, Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Center for Evidence Based Corrections, Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy, University of Cincinnati and Vanderbilt University Institute for Public Policy Studies. Promising Programs: Implemented with minimal fidelity, demonstrate promising but inconsistent empirical findings using a reasonable conceptual framework and a limited evaluation design (single group, pre-posttest). Examples of organizations that have identified programs as promising include: U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Center for Evidence Based Corrections, and Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy. The following eight national organizations have defined a framework for defining and measuring effective juvenile justice programming. Table 1.1 National Sources and their Measures for Determining Program Effectiveness Source Measurements of Effectiveness How Programs are Rated Reduction of problem behavior Exemplary: Implemented with a Reduction of risk factors high degree of fidelity, related to problem behavior demonstrate robust empirical Enhancement of protective findings using a reputable factors to reduce problem conceptual framework and an behavior experimental design Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Model Program Guide. Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice Effective: Implemented with sufficient fidelity, demonstrate adequate empirical findings using a sound conceptual framework and a quasiexperimental design Promising: Implemented with minimal fidelity, demonstrate promising but inconsistent empirical findings using a reasonable conceptual Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 1

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Table 1.1 National Sources and their Measures for Determining Program Effectiveness Source Measurements of Effectiveness How Programs are Rated framework and a limited evaluation design (single group, pre-posttest) SAMHSA s National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration Reduction in substance abuse Retention in treatment Reduction in psychiatric hospitalizations Reduction in incarcerations Obtaining and retaining a job Evidence-Based: Approaches to prevention or treatment that are based in theory and have undergone scientific evaluation such as controlled clinical studies but other methods of establishing evidence are considered valid. Scale of 0.0-4.0 with 4.00 receiving the highest rating. Selection Criteria are: Quality of research Readiness for dissemination Experimental/Quasi- Experimental/Pre-experimental Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence: Blueprints for Violence Prevention University of Colorado Prevention and reduction in violence/childhood aggression/conduct disorder) Prevention and reduction of delinquency Prevention and reduction of drug use Successful completion at the end of treatment phase Sustained effects one year beyond treatment and from one developmental period to the next Capability of being replicated to another site Evidence of change in the risk or protective factors mediates the change in violent behavior Evidence that the costs are reasonable and are not greater than the benefits Model Program: Must demonstrate effects on problem behaviors through a rigorous experimental design, show that its effects are sustained after the youth leaves the program and is successfully replicated at least once. Promising Program: Must demonstrate effects using a rigorous experimental design. Selection Criteria are: Strong Research Design: Experimental design with random assignment or quasiexperimental design with matched control groups Sustained Effects: Effects are sustained at least one year beyond treatment with no subsequent evidence that this Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 2

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Table 1.1 National Sources and their Measures for Determining Program Effectiveness Source Measurements of Effectiveness How Programs are Rated effect is lost. Multiple Site Replication Capacity: Minimum of one replication with demonstrated effects. Mediating Factors: Changes in risk and protective factors are linked to change in violent behavior Costs and Benefits: Program costs are less or not any greater than the program s expected benefits Coalition for Evidence- Reduction in juvenile crime Top Tier Designation: Welldesigned Based Policy Reduction in substance use randomized Reduction in antisocial behavior controlled trials showing sizeable, sustained effects on In at least 2 trials using a important outcomes. strong research design Proven Programs: Brand name programs shown to reduce delinquency and recidivism, substance use or antisocial behavior in at least two trials by using a strong research design. Proven Strategies: Generic strategies that have been shown through meta-analysis of scientifically credible evaluations to reduce recidivism. Promising Programs: Brand name programs that have been shown to reduce delinquency and recidivism, substance use or antisocial behavior in at least two trials by using a strong research design but outcomes have not yet been replicated. Washington State Institute of Public Policy Crime-related factors: Arrests and conviction after release from the program by 40 Control or Comparison group: Random assignment and nonrandomly assigned control Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 3

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Table 1.1 National Sources and their Measures for Determining Program Effectiveness Source Measurements of Effectiveness How Programs are Rated offense categories groups; studies with Non-crime related factors: Change in participants throughout treatment compared with similar classes of persons who did not reasonable comparability between treatment and comparison groups on conditions such as age, gender and prior criminal history participate University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Effect size: degree to which a program has proven to change an outcome for participants relative to a comparison group Fewer victims For each dollar spent, the benefits of the program s crime reduction exceed its costs Program Leadership and Development Effect size: Statistically significant reduction in crime outcomes; standardized mean difference effect size statistic; effect that the program has on the number of crimes a person commits in each year; effect that evidence-based programs have on prison populations; estimated recidivism probability by participating in an evidencebased program; average amount of change in crime compared to no treatment or treatment as usual Rating scale ranking: Programs that rank at 3 or above on a 5-point scale are determined model Criminal justice system costs: Estimate of the costs of criminal justice resources paid by taxpayers for each component of the system (estimated operating costs of police, sheriff, superior courts, county prosecutors, juvenile detention centers, jails, state corrections) Victim costs: Monetary costs and quality of life cost estimates Cost savings: Reduction in recidivism generates life-cycle benefits 1= Highly Effective (65% or higher) Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 4

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Table 1.1 National Sources and their Measures for Determining Program Effectiveness Source Measurements of Effectiveness How Programs are Rated Staff Characteristics 2=Effective (55-64) Offender Assessment 3=Needs Improvement (46- Treatment Characteristics 54%) Quality Assurance 4=Ineffective (45% or higher) Reduction in recidivism due to Economic performance of program intervention programs are rated using a Net social profitability Monetary Standard Ranking: Behavior change compares the monetary values Skill building of benefits to monetary costs; Cost per participant in social profitability is the intervention difference between the benefits Cost for arrest, investigation, and costs or the ratio of prosecution and incarceration benefits to costs Criminal justice costs: Based on a survey of departments in Utah, costs were calculated of arrests by police and sheriff; prosecution by district attorneys and courts; cost of incarceration; cost of rehabilitation Research Evidenced Based Correctional Assessment (CPC) Questionnaire Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice Vanderbilt University Institute for Public Policy Studies Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) Reduction in delinquency Compares the degree to which a program s characteristics: o Primary Type of Service o Supplemental Services o Duration and Frequency of Service o Quality of Service o Risk Level of Juveniles Served Victim costs of crime: Monetary and Quality of Life Calculation of effect size (reduction in recidivism) Taxpayer benefits: estimate of savings from reduced crime Likelihood of reductions in recidivism of offenders Effective, and above average Effective, and about average Effective, but below average High Effect on Recidivism Moderate Effect on Recidivism Low Effect on Recidivism Programs receive a score between 15 and 85; the higher the score the more effective the program Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 5

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Table 1.1 National Sources and their Measures for Determining Program Effectiveness Source Measurements of Effectiveness How Programs are Rated matches those programs that have already been determined to be a best practices model Analyzed and compiled by Huskey & Associates. Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 6

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Principles of Effective Intervention Programs delivered by Georgia s Department of Juvenile Justice and its public and private treatment providers do not need to be only brand programs (e.g. Multi-systemic Therapy, Functional Family Therapy) to be evaluated as effective and considered to be best practices. However, each program serving delinquents must adhere to the scientific Principles of Effective Intervention to be rated as effective. 1 These principles are: Risk Principle: High risk offenders should be targeted for intensive interventions while low and moderate risk should be targeted for 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 200-300 hours of treatment. 2 Andrews and Bonta, (2010) lists the following eight risk factors that have been scientifically correlated with reoffending: 3 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 Need Principle: Treatment interventions should target criminogenic risk/need factors that have shown to be significantly associated with recidivism. 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 1 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, 2005. 2 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, 2005. 3 Andrews, D.A. & J. Bonta (2010). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (Fifth Edition). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 7

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project 5. Substance abuse These criminogenic factors are dynamic and can be modified through effective intervention. These are unlike static factors such as one s sex, age, current and prior offense or number of prior detention stays that cannot be changed. Gendreau, French and Taylor (2002) found that focusing on three or more criminogenic needs had the highest effect on reducing recidivism. 4 These focus areas must be included in the child s treatment plan with specific objectives for the child and their family to achieve. While some clinicians believe that anxiety, depression and low self-esteem contribute to criminal behavior, most researchers have found that these are non-criminogenic factors that have no effect on recidivism reduction. 5 Landenberger and Lipsey (2005) found that offenders involved in cognitive behavioral treatment had a one and one half times greater likelihood of not recidivating after discharge from correctional supervision than those who were not involved in this type of treatment. 6 Cognitive behavioral treatment has the following features: Teaches pro-social values, attitudes, thinking and behavior patterns Rehearses and role plays these new skills Instructor provides feedback and models the new skills The features of these cognitive behavioral programs differ profoundly from treatment approaches that are based on the medical/disease model, that are aimed at merely increasing self-awareness, self-esteem and insight and that are non-directive and client centered. 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 4 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 5 Andrews, D.A., J. Bonta, & J.S. Wormith (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime & Delinquency. Vol. 52 No.1. 6 Landenberger, N.A. & M.W. Lipsey. The positive effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders: a metaanalysis of factors associated with effective treatment. In press, Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2005. 7 Andrews, D.A. & J. Bonta (2010). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (Fifth Edition). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 8

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project 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 8 Andrews, D.A & J. Bonta (2003). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (Third Edition). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 9

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Chapter 2 Figure 2.1 Percent Statewide RYDC Admissions and RYDC Average Daily Population by Sex FY05-FY10 Total Admissions N=124,430 Average ADP N=1,182 Female 25.5% Female 18.0% Male 74.5% Male 82.0% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (100910.RYDC Data FY04-FY10.xls) Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 10

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Figure 2.2 Percent Statewide RYDC Admissions and RYDC Average Daily Population by Age FY05-FY10 Total RYDC Admissions N=124,430 Average RYDC ADP N=1,182 17+yrs 7.3% 8-10yrs 0.2% 11-13yrs 12.8% 17+yrs 5.5% 8-10yrs 0.2% 11-13yrs 10.8% 14-16yrs 79.7% 14-16yrs 83.6% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (100910.RYDC Data FY04-FY10.xls) Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 11

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Figure 2.3 Percent Statewide RYDC Admissions and RYDC Average Daily Population by Race FY05-FY10 Total Admissions N=124,430 Average ADP N=1,182 White 25.5% Other 1.7% White 20.9% Other 1.8% Hispanic 6.5% Black 66.2% Hispanic 5.6% Black 71.8% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (100910.RYDC Data FY04-FY10.xls) Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 12

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Figure 2.4 Percent Youth Confined in Georgia Youth Development Centers by Sex FY05-FY10 N=908 Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110224.YDC Data FY05-FY10.xlsx) Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 13

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Figure 2.5 Percent Youth Confined in YDCs by Age N=908 11-13yrs 2.4% 17+yrs 38.9% 14-16yrs 58.6% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110224.YDC Data FY05-FY10.xlsx) Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 14

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project While the greatest percent of male admissions is for property offenses (26.6 percent), VOP/VOAC/VOAP offenses are most common among females (23.1 percent). However, violent/violent sex offenses comprise the greatest percent of ADP for both males (37.2 percent) and females (25.9 percent) during FY08-FY10. (see Tables 2.1 and 2.2). Table 2.1 Total Male Admissions to All RYDCs by Most Serious Current Offense Type Male Admissions by Most Serious Current Offense Type FY08 FY09 FY10 Total % Total Drug Selling 484 437 365 1,286 2.8% Drug Use 1,066 819 699 2,584 5.6% Null 143 156 111 410 0.9% Property 4,288 4,203 3,673 12,164 26.6% Public Order 2,264 2,081 1,871 6,216 13.6% Sex Non-Violent 49 59 73 181 0.4% Status 910 828 728 2,466 5.4% Traffic 109 83 67 259 0.6% Violent 3,153 2,782 2,828 8,763 19.1% Violent Sex 493 438 405 1,336 2.9% VOP/VOAC/VOAP 2,880 2,929 2,785 8,594 18.8% Weapons Violation 646 480 386 1,512 3.3% Total 16,485 15,295 13,991 45,771 100.0% Source: GA DJJ (101023.RYDC Data FY04-FY10.xlsx) Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 15

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Table 2.2 Total Female Admissions to All RYDCs by Most Serious Current Offense Type Female Admissions by Most Serious Current Offense Type FY08 FY09 FY10 Total % Total Drug Selling 57 45 65 167 1.1% Drug Use 188 143 116 447 3.0% Null 100 88 70 258 1.8% Property 709 654 587 1,950 13.3% Public Order 750 691 633 2,074 14.1% Sex Non-Violent 23 25 16 64 0.4% Status 1,094 908 897 2,899 19.7% Traffic 24 10 16 50 0.3% Violent 1,095 1,085 949 3,129 21.3% Violent Sex 7 17 12 36 0.2% VOP/VOAC/VOAP 1,152 1,151 1,094 3,397 23.1% Weapons Violation 95 70 58 223 1.5% Total 5,294 4,887 4,513 14,694 100.0% Source: GA DJJ (101023.RYDC Data FY04-FY10.xlsx) This compares with 23.3 percent of the total youth admitted were for property and 22.0 percent were for violent/violent sex and 19.8 percent were for VOP/VOAC/VOAP. Similarly, the most frequent offenses for which youth are detained are violent/violent sex (35.4 percent) followed by property (23.7 percent) and VOP/VOAC/VOAP (15.0 percent). The most frequent prior offense of all detention admissions was null (48.3 percent) followed by property (20.2 percent), violent/violent sex (13.4 percent) and public order (7.0 percent). This holds true for male admissions. However, violent/violent sex admissions were greater than property admissions for females. Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 16

Profile of Youth Detained in Georgia's Regional Youth Detention Centers Table 2.3 shows that 35 counties have admissions assessed as low risk representing at least 30 percent of total admissions by counties. These low-risk youth are eligible for release without conditions. A total of 13 counties have admissions of 40 percent and greater that is assessed as low risk. Cook County has the lowest percent (2.2 percent). There are 54 counties that have at least 30 percent moderate risk youth admitted to detention. These youth are eligible for release with conditions. Echols County has the highest percent of moderate risk admissions (61.1 percent) compared to Crawford County which has the lowest percent of moderate risk admissions (8.0 percent). Table 2.3 Total County Admissions to RYDCs by Risk Score County 2008 2009 2010 Total % of Total Appling 28 18 28 74 100.0% No DAI 0 0 1 1 1.4% Low 7 7 4 18 24.3% Moderate 8 5 6 19 25.7% High 13 6 17 36 48.6% Atkinson 3 8 4 15 100.0% Low 0 2 0 2 13.3% Moderate 0 1 1 2 13.3% High 3 5 3 11 73.3% Bacon 11 1 4 16 100.0% Low 1 0 1 2 12.5% Moderate 2 0 2 4 25.0% High 8 1 1 10 62.5% Baker 4 3 4 11 100.0% Low 0 1 1 2 18.2% Moderate 2 1 1 4 36.4% High 2 1 2 5 45.5% Baldwin 147 112 130 389 100.0% No DAI 1 0 0 1 0.3% Low 44 40 46 130 33.4% Moderate 52 40 48 140 36.0% High 50 32 36 118 30.3% Banks 14 9 7 30 100.0% Low 3 2 1 6 20.0% Moderate 3 1 2 6 20.0% Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 17

Profile of Youth Detained in Georgia's Regional Youth Detention Centers Table 2.3 Total County Admissions to RYDCs by Risk Score County 2008 2009 2010 Total % of Total High 8 6 4 18 60.0% Barrow 149 88 85 322 100.0% No DAI 0 3 0 3 0.9% Low 29 20 36 85 26.4% Moderate 36 19 17 72 22.4% High 84 46 32 162 50.3% Bartow 136 148 139 423 100.0% No DAI 0 0 2 2 0.5% Low 37 39 45 121 28.6% Moderate 59 59 51 169 40.0% High 40 50 41 131 31.0% Ben Hill 68 68 57 193 100.0% Low 8 13 7 28 14.5% Moderate 21 17 13 51 26.4% High 39 38 37 114 59.1% Berrien 22 19 31 72 100.0% No DAI 0 0 1 1 1.4% Low 3 2 0 5 6.9% Moderate 6 3 4 13 18.1% High 13 14 26 53 73.6% Bibb 651 659 574 1,884 100.0% No DAI 7 4 8 19 1.0% Low 141 158 112 411 21.8% Moderate 172 186 149 507 26.9% High 331 311 305 947 50.3% Bleckley 32 30 13 75 100.0% No DAI 1 0 0 1 1.3% Low 3 6 1 10 13.3% Moderate 14 9 3 26 34.7% High 14 15 9 38 50.7% Brantley 13 16 7 36 100.0% No DAI 0 0 1 1 2.8% Low 1 0 1 2 5.6% Moderate 3 2 2 7 19.4% Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 18

Profile of Youth Detained in Georgia's Regional Youth Detention Centers Table 2.3 Total County Admissions to RYDCs by Risk Score County 2008 2009 2010 Total % of Total High 9 14 3 26 72.2% Brooks 30 37 42 109 100.0% Low 3 5 13 21 19.3% Moderate 4 10 8 22 20.2% High 23 22 21 66 60.6% Bryan 59 64 38 161 100.0% No DAI 3 2 2 7 4.3% Low 13 11 11 35 21.7% Moderate 13 14 11 38 23.6% High 30 37 14 81 50.3% Bulloch 93 74 87 254 100.0% No DAI 3 1 0 4 1.6% Low 8 5 3 16 6.3% Moderate 13 15 13 41 16.1% High 69 53 71 193 76.0% Burke 38 29 42 109 100.0% No DAI 3 0 2 5 4.6% Low 6 6 4 16 14.7% Moderate 6 9 15 30 27.5% High 23 14 21 58 53.2% Butts 70 90 64 224 100.0% No DAI 0 2 0 2 0.9% Low 28 46 33 107 47.8% Moderate 22 19 13 54 24.1% High 20 23 18 61 27.2% Calhoun 9 11 13 33 100.0% Low 2 4 5 11 33.3% Moderate 1 1 2 4 12.1% High 6 6 6 18 54.5% Camden 63 62 42 167 100.0% No DAI 1 0 0 1 0.6% Low 7 14 10 31 18.6% Moderate 14 14 14 42 25.1% High 41 34 18 93 55.7% Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 19

Profile of Youth Detained in Georgia's Regional Youth Detention Centers Table 2.3 Total County Admissions to RYDCs by Risk Score County 2008 2009 2010 Total % of Total Candler 11 11 11 33 100.0% Low 3 1 0 4 12.1% Moderate 5 2 1 8 24.2% High 3 8 10 21 63.6% Carroll 298 222 294 814 100.0% No DAI 20 1 13 34 4.2% Low 122 103 136 361 44.3% Moderate 75 71 87 233 28.6% High 81 47 58 186 22.9% Catoosa 63 71 50 184 100.0% No DAI 1 0 0 1 0.5% Low 9 17 9 35 19.0% Moderate 10 23 13 46 25.0% High 43 31 28 102 55.4% Charlton 2 7 5 14 100.0% No DAI 0 1 0 1 7.1% Moderate 0 0 3 3 21.4% High 2 6 2 10 71.4% Chatham 1,426 1,472 1,330 4,228 100.0% No DAI 98 123 117 338 8.0% Low 401 341 231 973 23.0% Moderate 413 391 325 1,129 26.7% High 514 617 657 1,788 42.3% Chattahoochee 8 9 13 30 100.0% No DAI 1 0 3 4 13.3% Low 1 0 4 5 16.7% Moderate 0 4 3 7 23.3% High 6 5 3 14 46.7% Chattooga 42 29 25 96 100.0% No DAI 2 0 0 2 2.1% Low 21 13 14 48 50.0% Moderate 8 10 2 20 20.8% High 11 6 9 26 27.1% Cherokee 215 181 188 584 100.0% Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 20

Profile of Youth Detained in Georgia's Regional Youth Detention Centers Table 2.3 Total County Admissions to RYDCs by Risk Score County 2008 2009 2010 Total % of Total No DAI 3 5 1 9 1.5% Low 45 29 37 111 19.0% Moderate 55 56 57 168 28.8% High 112 91 93 296 50.7% Clarke 190 182 155 527 100.0% No DAI 2 1 0 3 0.6% Low 10 23 22 55 10.4% Moderate 23 30 24 77 14.6% High 155 128 109 392 74.4% Clay 31 11 15 57 100.0% Low 2 1 1 4 7.0% Moderate 19 7 3 29 50.9% High 10 3 11 24 42.1% Clayton 735 727 697 2,159 100.0% No DAI 58 34 36 128 5.9% Low 188 171 159 518 24.0% Moderate 204 181 195 580 26.9% High 285 341 307 933 43.2% Clinch 12 16 16 44 100.0% Low 0 3 1 4 9.1% Moderate 2 5 6 13 29.5% High 10 8 9 27 61.4% Cobb 1,589 1,614 1,563 4,766 100.0% No DAI 61 14 18 93 2.0% Low 718 717 763 2,198 46.1% Moderate 394 475 426 1,295 27.2% High 416 408 356 1,180 24.8% Coffee 61 78 77 216 100.0% Low 7 13 6 26 12.0% Moderate 12 21 27 60 27.8% High 42 44 44 130 60.2% Colquitt 67 52 60 179 100.0% No DAI 0 2 0 2 1.1% Low 6 5 2 13 7.3% Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 21

Profile of Youth Detained in Georgia's Regional Youth Detention Centers Table 2.3 Total County Admissions to RYDCs by Risk Score County 2008 2009 2010 Total % of Total Moderate 13 9 14 36 20.1% High 48 36 44 128 71.5% Columbia 162 138 154 454 100.0% No DAI 12 2 7 21 4.6% Low 60 54 71 185 40.7% Moderate 43 50 46 139 30.6% High 47 32 30 109 24.0% Cook 22 38 33 93 100.0% Low 1 1 0 2 2.2% Moderate 3 11 7 21 22.6% High 18 26 26 70 75.3% Coweta 223 176 168 567 100.0% No DAI 20 7 3 30 5.3% Low 41 49 42 132 23.3% Moderate 73 51 62 186 32.8% High 89 69 61 219 38.6% Crawford 9 6 10 25 100.0% Low 2 2 3 7 28.0% Moderate 1 1 0 2 8.0% High 6 3 7 16 64.0% Crisp 80 64 75 219 100.0% No DAI 1 0 0 1 0.5% Low 11 7 2 20 9.1% Moderate 11 22 17 50 22.8% High 57 35 56 148 67.6% Dade 10 20 9 39 100.0% Low 2 3 0 5 12.8% Moderate 2 4 7 13 33.3% High 6 13 2 21 53.8% Dawson 27 13 18 58 100.0% Low 4 4 8 16 27.6% Moderate 12 5 4 21 36.2% High 11 4 6 21 36.2% Decatur 134 71 73 278 100.0% Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 22

Profile of Youth Detained in Georgia's Regional Youth Detention Centers Table 2.3 Total County Admissions to RYDCs by Risk Score County 2008 2009 2010 Total % of Total No DAI 1 1 0 2 0.7% Low 12 10 13 35 12.6% Moderate 21 11 18 50 18.0% High 100 49 42 191 68.7% Dekalb 1,945 1,641 1,354 4,940 100.0% No DAI 66 29 35 130 2.6% Low 478 404 415 1,297 26.3% Moderate 450 412 305 1,167 23.6% High 951 796 599 2,346 47.5% Dodge 70 60 68 198 100.0% No DAI 0 0 2 2 1.0% Low 15 9 14 38 19.2% Moderate 25 15 16 56 28.3% High 30 36 36 102 51.5% Dooly 15 14 6 35 100.0% No DAI 1 0 0 1 2.9% Low 2 3 1 6 17.1% Moderate 6 3 2 11 31.4% High 6 8 3 17 48.6% Dougherty 476 446 434 1,356 100.0% No DAI 21 19 13 53 3.9% Low 73 87 71 231 17.0% Moderate 171 134 145 450 33.2% High 211 206 205 622 45.9% Douglas 464 366 329 1,159 100.0% No DAI 10 2 2 14 1.2% Low 84 89 89 262 22.6% Moderate 134 96 107 337 29.1% High 236 179 131 546 47.1% Early 38 18 18 74 100.0% No DAI 7 0 0 7 9.5% Low 3 6 1 10 13.5% Moderate 11 3 10 24 32.4% High 17 9 7 33 44.6% Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 23

Profile of Youth Detained in Georgia's Regional Youth Detention Centers Table 2.3 Total County Admissions to RYDCs by Risk Score County 2008 2009 2010 Total % of Total Echols 4 6 8 18 100.0% Low 2 0 1 3 16.7% Moderate 1 3 7 11 61.1% High 1 3 0 4 22.2% Effingham 86 74 69 229 100.0% No DAI 2 3 1 6 2.6% Low 10 6 7 23 10.0% Moderate 19 23 21 63 27.5% High 55 42 40 137 59.8% Elbert 23 22 24 69 100.0% No DAI 1 0 1 2 2.9% Low 2 2 0 4 5.8% Moderate 4 4 8 16 23.2% High 16 16 15 47 68.1% Emanuel 32 27 23 82 100.0% No DAI 1 0 0 1 1.2% Low 4 4 4 12 14.6% Moderate 11 10 9 30 36.6% High 16 13 10 39 47.6% Evans 31 39 21 91 100.0% Low 1 7 3 11 12.1% Moderate 13 5 6 24 26.4% High 17 27 12 56 61.5% Fannin 38 34 45 117 100.0% Low 9 5 10 24 20.5% Moderate 8 10 13 31 26.5% High 21 19 22 62 53.0% Fayette 120 93 94 307 100.0% No DAI 5 3 3 11 3.6% Low 34 29 28 91 29.6% Moderate 42 39 33 114 37.1% High 39 22 30 91 29.6% Floyd 316 342 273 931 100.0% No DAI 9 2 4 15 1.6% Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 24

Profile of Youth Detained in Georgia's Regional Youth Detention Centers Table 2.3 Total County Admissions to RYDCs by Risk Score County 2008 2009 2010 Total % of Total Low 124 123 119 366 39.3% Moderate 89 136 83 308 33.1% High 94 81 67 242 26.0% Forsyth 116 117 134 367 100.0% No DAI 1 0 0 1 0.3% Low 37 38 50 125 34.1% Moderate 30 36 38 104 28.3% High 48 43 46 137 37.3% Franklin 13 27 16 56 100.0% Low 3 10 5 18 32.1% Moderate 5 6 5 16 28.6% High 5 11 6 22 39.3% Fulton 2,742 2,259 1,984 6,985 100.0% No DAI 74 66 102 242 3.5% Low 806 726 682 2,214 31.7% Moderate 712 510 445 1,667 23.9% High 1,150 957 755 2,862 41.0% Gilmer 78 74 72 224 100.0% No DAI 2 1 1 4 1.8% Low 20 6 10 36 16.1% Moderate 28 22 21 71 31.7% High 28 45 40 113 50.4% Glascock 2 0 1 3 100.0% Low 1 0 1 2 66.7% High 1 0 0 1 33.3% Glynn 186 209 186 581 100.0% No DAI 1 0 5 6 1.0% Low 51 22 15 88 15.1% Moderate 65 87 61 213 36.7% High 69 100 105 274 47.2% Gordon 27 37 37 101 100.0% No DAI 0 1 0 1 1.0% Low 2 10 14 26 25.7% Moderate 15 13 13 41 40.6% Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 25

Profile of Youth Detained in Georgia's Regional Youth Detention Centers Table 2.3 Total County Admissions to RYDCs by Risk Score County 2008 2009 2010 Total % of Total High 10 13 10 33 32.7% Grady 27 29 21 77 100.0% No DAI 0 1 0 1 1.3% Low 3 1 5 9 11.7% Moderate 11 9 2 22 28.6% High 13 18 14 45 58.4% Greene 22 60 51 133 100.0% No DAI 0 0 2 2 1.5% Low 8 17 7 32 24.1% Moderate 9 22 27 58 43.6% High 5 21 15 41 30.8% Gwinnett 1,069 1,043 820 2,932 100.0% No DAI 8 5 8 21 0.7% Low 479 444 259 1,182 40.3% Moderate 291 305 306 902 30.8% High 291 289 247 827 28.2% Habersham 48 61 86 195 100.0% No DAI 1 0 0 1 0.5% Low 11 17 16 44 22.6% Moderate 11 23 19 53 27.2% High 25 21 51 97 49.7% Hall 350 361 446 1,157 100.0% No DAI 6 0 4 10 0.9% Low 104 123 148 375 32.4% Moderate 128 131 164 423 36.6% High 112 107 130 349 30.2% Hancock 31 26 6 63 100.0% Low 6 5 1 12 19.0% Moderate 11 7 3 21 33.3% High 14 14 2 30 47.6% Haralson 38 41 23 102 100.0% No DAI 2 3 1 6 5.9% Low 9 5 5 19 18.6% Moderate 11 16 5 32 31.4% Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 26

Profile of Youth Detained in Georgia's Regional Youth Detention Centers Table 2.3 Total County Admissions to RYDCs by Risk Score County 2008 2009 2010 Total % of Total High 16 17 12 45 44.1% Harris 20 23 17 60 100.0% Low 2 5 7 14 23.3% Moderate 7 6 4 17 28.3% High 11 12 6 29 48.3% Hart 17 23 12 52 100.0% No DAI 2 0 0 2 3.8% Low 2 1 0 3 5.8% Moderate 2 4 1 7 13.5% High 11 18 11 40 76.9% Heard 13 8 9 30 100.0% Low 3 2 2 7 23.3% Moderate 1 3 3 7 23.3% High 9 3 4 16 53.3% Henry 606 526 522 1,654 100.0% No DAI 102 105 32 239 14.4% Low 181 145 198 524 31.7% Moderate 118 117 129 364 22.0% High 205 159 163 527 31.9% Houston 311 333 234 878 100.0% No DAI 8 4 0 12 1.4% Low 86 110 64 260 29.6% Moderate 75 80 58 213 24.3% High 142 139 112 393 44.8% Irwin 14 10 27 51 100.0% No DAI 1 0 0 1 2.0% Low 3 4 10 17 33.3% Moderate 4 3 13 20 39.2% High 6 3 4 13 25.5% Jackson 82 47 43 172 100.0% Low 16 10 9 35 20.3% Moderate 17 15 9 41 23.8% High 49 22 25 96 55.8% Jasper 17 24 28 69 100.0% Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 27

Profile of Youth Detained in Georgia's Regional Youth Detention Centers Table 2.3 Total County Admissions to RYDCs by Risk Score County 2008 2009 2010 Total % of Total Low 3 3 6 12 17.4% Moderate 7 13 11 31 44.9% High 7 8 11 26 37.7% Jeff Davis 24 15 21 60 100.0% No DAI 1 0 1 2 3.3% Low 2 2 1 5 8.3% Moderate 10 1 4 15 25.0% High 11 12 15 38 63.3% Jefferson 40 30 32 102 100.0% Low 7 1 3 11 10.8% Moderate 4 6 6 16 15.7% High 29 23 23 75 73.5% Jenkins 14 14 25 53 100.0% Low 0 2 1 3 5.7% Moderate 4 3 8 15 28.3% High 10 9 16 35 66.0% Johnson 30 21 18 69 100.0% No DAI 2 1 0 3 4.3% Low 8 2 9 19 27.5% Moderate 7 9 4 20 29.0% High 13 9 5 27 39.1% Jones 50 35 37 122 100.0% No DAI 0 0 1 1 0.8% Low 15 8 16 39 32.0% Moderate 14 4 8 26 21.3% High 21 23 12 56 45.9% Lamar 45 51 55 151 100.0% Low 13 25 25 63 41.7% Moderate 11 6 9 26 17.2% High 21 20 21 62 41.1% Lanier 16 12 13 41 100.0% Low 2 2 2 6 14.6% Moderate 2 1 3 6 14.6% High 12 9 8 29 70.7% Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 28

Profile of Youth Detained in Georgia's Regional Youth Detention Centers Table 2.3 Total County Admissions to RYDCs by Risk Score County 2008 2009 2010 Total % of Total Laurens 166 185 205 556 100.0% No DAI 4 5 5 14 2.5% Low 29 32 55 116 20.9% Moderate 49 50 57 156 28.1% High 84 98 88 270 48.6% Lee 34 38 27 99 100.0% No DAI 0 0 1 1 1.0% Low 3 5 4 12 12.1% Moderate 9 9 1 19 19.2% High 22 24 21 67 67.7% Liberty 89 112 90 291 100.0% No DAI 0 2 1 3 1.0% Low 8 16 2 26 8.9% Moderate 27 29 28 84 28.9% High 54 65 59 178 61.2% Lincoln 3 1 1 5 100.0% Moderate 0 1 1 2 40.0% High 3 0 0 3 60.0% Long 10 17 5 32 100.0% Low 1 0 0 1 3.1% Moderate 2 7 2 11 34.4% High 7 10 3 20 62.5% Lowndes 315 274 270 859 100.0% No DAI 5 4 0 9 1.0% Low 88 88 84 260 30.3% Moderate 75 68 72 215 25.0% High 147 114 114 375 43.7% Lumpkin 35 37 31 103 100.0% Low 11 8 7 26 25.2% Moderate 10 12 11 33 32.0% High 14 17 13 44 42.7% Macon 19 9 4 32 100.0% Low 4 0 1 5 15.6% Moderate 2 1 2 5 15.6% Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 29

Profile of Youth Detained in Georgia's Regional Youth Detention Centers Table 2.3 Total County Admissions to RYDCs by Risk Score County 2008 2009 2010 Total % of Total High 13 8 1 22 68.8% Madison 26 19 15 60 100.0% Low 6 3 4 13 21.7% Moderate 9 6 8 23 38.3% High 11 10 3 24 40.0% Marion 3 7 2 12 100.0% No DAI 0 0 1 1 8.3% Low 0 2 0 2 16.7% Moderate 1 2 0 3 25.0% High 2 3 1 6 50.0% McDuffie 36 39 34 109 100.0% Low 6 1 8 15 13.8% Moderate 4 12 7 23 21.1% High 26 26 19 71 65.1% McIntosh 23 28 26 77 100.0% No DAI 1 0 1 2 2.6% Low 6 6 1 13 16.9% Moderate 6 9 7 22 28.6% High 10 13 17 40 51.9% Meriwether 65 63 44 172 100.0% Low 21 23 12 56 32.6% Moderate 22 18 20 60 34.9% High 22 22 12 56 32.6% Miller 5 7 12 24 100.0% No DAI 2 0 0 2 8.3% Low 0 3 1 4 16.7% Moderate 1 1 5 7 29.2% High 2 3 6 11 45.8% Mitchell 70 48 30 148 100.0% No DAI 1 0 0 1 0.7% Low 4 9 4 17 11.5% Moderate 24 9 8 41 27.7% High 41 30 18 89 60.1% Monroe 82 53 62 197 100.0% Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 30

Profile of Youth Detained in Georgia's Regional Youth Detention Centers Table 2.3 Total County Admissions to RYDCs by Risk Score County 2008 2009 2010 Total % of Total No DAI 1 0 0 1 0.5% Low 38 29 23 90 45.7% Moderate 25 14 15 54 27.4% High 18 10 24 52 26.4% Montgomery 17 21 15 53 100.0% No DAI 0 0 1 1 1.9% Low 2 2 2 6 11.3% Moderate 2 9 4 15 28.3% High 13 10 8 31 58.5% Morgan 39 27 32 98 100.0% Low 8 11 9 28 28.6% Moderate 18 11 13 42 42.9% High 13 5 10 28 28.6% Murray 99 86 92 277 100.0% No DAI 3 1 1 5 1.8% Low 47 42 38 127 45.8% Moderate 23 22 23 68 24.5% High 26 21 30 77 27.8% Muscogee 515 431 425 1,371 100.0% No DAI 2 1 3 6 0.4% Low 91 77 55 223 16.3% Moderate 122 108 131 361 26.3% High 300 245 236 781 57.0% Newton 181 197 148 526 100.0% No DAI 1 3 0 4 0.8% Low 38 35 31 104 19.8% Moderate 48 53 40 141 26.8% High 94 106 77 277 52.7% Oconee 16 17 13 46 100.0% Low 4 3 2 9 19.6% Moderate 5 4 5 14 30.4% High 7 10 6 23 50.0% Oglethorpe 19 15 10 44 100.0% Low 3 3 1 7 15.9% Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 31

Profile of Youth Detained in Georgia's Regional Youth Detention Centers Table 2.3 Total County Admissions to RYDCs by Risk Score County 2008 2009 2010 Total % of Total Moderate 3 0 1 4 9.1% High 13 12 8 33 75.0% Paulding 224 247 259 730 100.0% No DAI 10 4 4 18 2.5% Low 50 52 57 159 21.8% Moderate 87 88 86 261 35.8% High 77 103 112 292 40.0% Peach 51 43 35 129 100.0% No DAI 2 0 2 4 3.1% Low 15 17 16 48 37.2% Moderate 13 10 8 31 24.0% High 21 16 9 46 35.7% Pickens 79 39 52 170 100.0% No DAI 2 0 0 2 1.2% Low 20 5 14 39 22.9% Moderate 24 12 14 50 29.4% High 33 22 24 79 46.5% Pierce 11 19 14 44 100.0% Low 2 1 0 3 6.8% Moderate 1 3 5 9 20.5% High 8 15 9 32 72.7% Pike 12 5 16 33 100.0% No DAI 2 0 0 2 6.1% Low 5 0 7 12 36.4% Moderate 3 1 3 7 21.2% High 2 4 6 12 36.4% Polk 70 54 32 156 100.0% No DAI 3 0 0 3 1.9% Low 16 11 11 38 24.4% Moderate 15 19 9 43 27.6% High 36 24 12 72 46.2% Pulaski 19 26 29 74 100.0% Low 4 7 9 20 27.0% Moderate 8 7 8 23 31.1% Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 32

Profile of Youth Detained in Georgia's Regional Youth Detention Centers Table 2.3 Total County Admissions to RYDCs by Risk Score County 2008 2009 2010 Total % of Total High 7 12 12 31 41.9% Putnam 31 34 39 104 100.0% Low 11 13 12 36 34.6% Moderate 9 11 11 31 29.8% High 11 10 16 37 35.6% Quitman 0 5 3 8 100.0% Low 0 2 0 2 25.0% Moderate 0 0 1 1 12.5% High 0 3 2 5 62.5% Rabun 17 19 6 42 100.0% Low 5 4 0 9 21.4% Moderate 7 6 1 14 33.3% High 5 9 5 19 45.2% Randolph 19 16 19 54 100.0% Low 1 1 4 6 11.1% Moderate 3 1 5 9 16.7% High 15 14 10 39 72.2% Richmond 409 368 337 1,114 100.0% No DAI 9 5 4 18 1.6% Low 80 69 68 217 19.5% Moderate 108 99 90 297 26.7% High 212 195 175 582 52.2% Rockdale 287 297 260 844 100.0% No DAI 7 2 1 10 1.2% Low 128 153 134 415 49.2% Moderate 84 67 67 218 25.8% High 68 75 58 201 23.8% Schley 4 8 6 18 100.0% Moderate 0 3 1 4 22.2% High 4 5 5 14 77.8% Screven 19 22 28 69 100.0% Low 2 3 3 8 11.6% Moderate 5 7 11 23 33.3% High 12 12 14 38 55.1% Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 33

Profile of Youth Detained in Georgia's Regional Youth Detention Centers Table 2.3 Total County Admissions to RYDCs by Risk Score County 2008 2009 2010 Total % of Total Seminole 32 31 18 81 100.0% Low 11 11 10 32 39.5% Moderate 11 8 5 24 29.6% High 10 12 3 25 30.9% Spalding 167 148 140 455 100.0% No DAI 14 17 2 33 7.3% Low 48 49 51 148 32.5% Moderate 51 39 35 125 27.5% High 54 43 52 149 32.7% Stephens 50 51 43 144 100.0% Low 13 17 17 47 32.6% Moderate 12 15 11 38 26.4% High 25 19 15 59 41.0% Stewart 10 6 5 21 100.0% Low 3 0 0 3 14.3% Moderate 0 3 1 4 19.0% High 7 3 4 14 66.7% Sumter 110 78 57 245 100.0% No DAI 4 2 0 6 2.4% Low 12 7 7 26 10.6% Moderate 20 20 9 49 20.0% High 74 49 41 164 66.9% Talbot 7 10 12 29 100.0% Low 1 3 3 7 24.1% Moderate 3 5 5 13 44.8% High 3 2 4 9 31.0% Taliaferro 2 2 0 4 100.0% Moderate 1 0 0 1 25.0% High 1 2 0 3 75.0% Tattnall 36 24 31 91 100.0% No DAI 1 0 1 2 2.2% Low 2 3 8 13 14.3% Moderate 10 9 5 24 26.4% High 23 12 17 52 57.1% Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 34

Profile of Youth Detained in Georgia's Regional Youth Detention Centers Table 2.3 Total County Admissions to RYDCs by Risk Score County 2008 2009 2010 Total % of Total Taylor 19 15 5 39 100.0% Low 4 2 2 8 20.5% Moderate 1 4 1 6 15.4% High 14 9 2 25 64.1% Telfair 46 44 34 124 100.0% Low 5 6 3 14 11.3% Moderate 22 19 10 51 41.1% High 19 19 21 59 47.6% Terrell 34 62 48 144 100.0% Low 6 17 9 32 22.2% Moderate 10 19 16 45 31.3% High 18 26 23 67 46.5% Thomas 55 56 70 181 100.0% No DAI 0 0 1 1 0.6% Low 15 7 11 33 18.2% Moderate 9 18 16 43 23.8% High 31 31 42 104 57.5% Tift 140 154 144 438 100.0% No DAI 1 3 0 4 0.9% Low 27 35 42 104 23.7% Moderate 41 35 41 117 26.7% High 71 81 61 213 48.6% Toombs 59 56 55 170 100.0% No DAI 3 5 1 9 5.3% Low 4 4 4 12 7.1% Moderate 18 9 14 41 24.1% High 34 38 36 108 63.5% Towns 4 1 6 11 100.0% Low 1 1 1 3 27.3% Moderate 2 0 2 4 36.4% High 1 0 3 4 36.4% Treutlen 13 3 7 23 100.0% Low 2 1 1 4 17.4% Moderate 2 0 4 6 26.1% Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 35

Profile of Youth Detained in Georgia's Regional Youth Detention Centers Table 2.3 Total County Admissions to RYDCs by Risk Score County 2008 2009 2010 Total % of Total High 9 2 2 13 56.5% Troup 191 193 171 555 100.0% No DAI 9 11 7 27 4.9% Low 39 43 45 127 22.9% Moderate 49 57 47 153 27.6% High 94 82 72 248 44.7% Turner 26 19 20 65 100.0% No DAI 1 0 1 2 3.1% Low 6 2 6 14 21.5% Moderate 5 3 8 16 24.6% High 14 14 5 33 50.8% Twiggs 24 15 16 55 100.0% No DAI 2 0 1 3 5.5% Low 5 5 3 13 23.6% Moderate 7 5 6 18 32.7% High 10 5 6 21 38.2% Union 14 17 21 52 100.0% Low 4 7 8 19 36.5% Moderate 6 6 7 19 36.5% High 4 4 6 14 26.9% Upson 55 49 45 149 100.0% No DAI 0 1 2 3 2.0% Low 20 16 16 52 34.9% Moderate 19 21 9 49 32.9% High 16 11 18 45 30.2% Walker 53 64 60 177 100.0% No DAI 1 1 1 3 1.7% Low 11 8 9 28 15.8% Moderate 11 28 20 59 33.3% High 30 27 30 87 49.2% Walton 177 137 100 414 100.0% No DAI 3 0 0 3 0.7% Low 41 37 25 103 24.9% Moderate 57 49 36 142 34.3% Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 36

Profile of Youth Detained in Georgia's Regional Youth Detention Centers Table 2.3 Total County Admissions to RYDCs by Risk Score County 2008 2009 2010 Total % of Total High 76 51 39 166 40.1% Ware 73 72 48 193 100.0% No DAI 0 1 1 2 1.0% Low 8 13 7 28 14.5% Moderate 17 7 9 33 17.1% High 48 51 31 130 67.4% Warren 4 6 12 22 100.0% Low 1 1 4 6 27.3% Moderate 2 2 3 7 31.8% High 1 3 5 9 40.9% Washington 41 25 27 93 100.0% No DAI 1 0 0 1 1.1% Low 13 3 2 18 19.4% Moderate 9 11 5 25 26.9% High 18 11 20 49 52.7% Wayne 32 49 25 106 100.0% No DAI 1 1 0 2 1.9% Low 9 11 5 25 23.6% Moderate 8 12 10 30 28.3% High 14 25 10 49 46.2% Webster 2 1 0 3 100.0% Moderate 0 1 0 1 33.3% High 2 0 0 2 66.7% Wheeler 2 1 4 7 100.0% Low 1 0 1 2 28.6% Moderate 0 0 1 1 14.3% High 1 1 2 4 57.1% White 20 25 22 67 100.0% Low 5 6 5 16 23.9% Moderate 4 5 5 14 20.9% High 11 14 12 37 55.2% Whitfield 318 271 252 841 100.0% No DAI 12 6 2 20 2.4% Low 138 127 107 372 44.2% Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 37

Profile of Youth Detained in Georgia's Regional Youth Detention Centers Table 2.3 Total County Admissions to RYDCs by Risk Score County 2008 2009 2010 Total % of Total Moderate 100 68 88 256 30.4% High 68 70 55 193 22.9% Wilcox 12 16 14 42 100.0% No DAI 0 2 0 2 4.8% Low 1 3 1 5 11.9% Moderate 5 8 4 17 40.5% High 6 3 9 18 42.9% Wilkes 6 4 5 15 100.0% Moderate 3 3 1 7 46.7% High 3 1 4 8 53.3% Wilkinson 8 19 15 42 100.0% No DAI 1 0 0 1 2.4% Low 3 5 6 14 33.3% Moderate 2 6 3 11 26.2% High 2 8 6 16 38.1% Worth 55 73 52 180 100.0% No DAI 2 0 1 3 1.7% Low 12 15 19 46 25.6% Moderate 11 22 10 43 23.9% High 30 36 22 88 48.9% Source: GA DJJ (101023.RYDC Data FY04-FY10.xlsx) Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 38

Profile of Youth Detained in Georgia's Regional Youth Detention Centers Among the 17 independent counties, there were 31.8 percent low risk and 27.2 percent medium risk admissions to detention during 2008-2010. In contrast, the number of low risk admissions was lower (23.6 percent) in the 134 dependent and 8 shared counties together and 27.1 percent were moderate risk. Among the 17 independent counties, Glynn County has the smallest percentage of youth admissions assessed as low risk (15.1 percent) and Cobb County has the highest percentage of admissions that are low risk (46.1 percent). A total of 13 counties have admissions of 40 percent and greater that is assessed as low risk. Table 2.4 Total Independent County Admissions to RYDC by DAI Score County 2008 2009 2010 Total % of Total Chatham 1,426 1,472 1,330 4,228 100.0% No DAI 98 123 117 338 8.0% Low 401 341 231 973 23.0% Moderate 413 391 325 1,129 26.7% High 514 617 657 1,788 42.3% Clayton 735 727 697 2,159 100.0% No DAI 58 34 36 128 5.9% Low 188 171 159 518 24.0% Moderate 204 181 195 580 26.9% High 285 341 307 933 43.2% Cobb 1,589 1,614 1,563 4,766 100.0% No DAI 61 14 18 93 2.0% Low 718 717 763 2,198 46.1% Moderate 394 475 426 1,295 27.2% High 416 408 356 1,180 24.8% Columbia 162 138 154 454 100.0% No DAI 12 2 7 21 4.6% Low 60 54 71 185 40.7% Moderate 43 50 46 139 30.6% High 47 32 30 109 24.0% Crawford 9 6 10 25 100.0% Low 2 2 3 7 28.0% Moderate 1 1 0 2 8.0% High 6 3 7 16 64.0% Dekalb 1,945 1,641 1,354 4,940 100.0% Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 39

Profile of Youth Detained in Georgia's Regional Youth Detention Centers Table 2.4 Total Independent County Admissions to RYDC by DAI Score County 2008 2009 2010 Total % of Total No DAI 66 29 35 130 2.6% Low 478 404 415 1,297 26.3% Moderate 450 412 305 1,167 23.6% High 951 796 599 2,346 47.5% Dougherty 476 446 434 1,356 100.0% No DAI 21 19 13 53 3.9% Low 73 87 71 231 17.0% Moderate 171 134 145 450 33.2% High 211 206 205 622 45.9% Floyd 316 342 273 931 100.0% No DAI 9 2 4 15 1.6% Low 124 123 119 366 39.3% Moderate 89 136 83 308 33.1% High 94 81 67 242 26.0% Fulton 2,742 2,259 1,984 6,985 100.0% No DAI 74 66 102 242 3.5% Low 806 726 682 2,214 31.7% Moderate 712 510 445 1,667 23.9% High 1,150 957 755 2,862 41.0% Glynn 186 209 186 581 100.0% No DAI 1 0 5 6 1.0% Low 51 22 15 88 15.1% Moderate 65 87 61 213 36.7% High 69 100 105 274 47.2% Gordon 27 37 37 101 100.0% No DAI 0 1 0 1 1.0% Low 2 10 14 26 25.7% Moderate 15 13 13 41 40.6% High 10 13 10 33 32.7% Gwinnett 1,069 1,043 820 2,932 100.0% No DAI 8 5 8 21 0.7% Low 479 444 259 1,182 40.3% Moderate 291 305 306 902 30.8% High 291 289 247 827 28.2% Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 40

Profile of Youth Detained in Georgia's Regional Youth Detention Centers Table 2.4 Total Independent County Admissions to RYDC by DAI Score County 2008 2009 2010 Total % of Total Hall 350 361 446 1,157 100.0% No DAI 6 0 4 10 0.9% Low 104 123 148 375 32.4% Moderate 128 131 164 423 36.6% High 112 107 130 349 30.2% Peach 51 43 35 129 100.0% No DAI 2 0 2 4 3.1% Low 15 17 16 48 37.2% Moderate 13 10 8 31 24.0% High 21 16 9 46 35.7% Spalding 167 148 140 455 100.0% No DAI 14 17 2 33 7.3% Low 48 49 51 148 32.5% Moderate 51 39 35 125 27.5% High 54 43 52 149 32.7% Troup 191 193 171 555 100.0% No DAI 9 11 7 27 4.9% Low 39 43 45 127 22.9% Moderate 49 57 47 153 27.6% High 94 82 72 248 44.7% Whitfield 318 271 252 841 100.0% No DAI 12 6 2 20 2.4% Low 138 127 107 372 44.2% Moderate 100 68 88 256 30.4% High 68 70 55 193 22.9% TOTAL 32,595 100.0% No DAI 1,142 3.5% Low 10,355 31.8% Moderate 8,881 27.2% High 12,217 37.5% Source: GA DJJ (101023.RYDC Data FY04-FY10.xlsx) Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 41

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Table 2.5 Total Independent County Commitments by Committing County and CRN Risk Level 2005-2010 Total % of Total CHATHAM 977 100.0% Low 151 15.5% Medium 499 51.1% High 325 33.3% Unknown 2 0.2% CLAYTON 678 100.0% Low 232 34.2% Medium 321 47.3% High 123 18.1% Unknown 2 0.3% COBB 995 100.0% Low 426 42.8% Medium 444 44.6% High 117 11.8% Unknown 8 0.8% COLUMBIA 18 100.0% Low 7 38.9% Medium 9 50.0% High 2 11.1% CRAWFORD 7 100.0% Low 4 57.1% Medium 2 28.6% High 1 14.3% DEKALB 1,563 100.0% Low 645 41.3% Medium 715 45.7% High 201 12.9% Unknown 2 0.1% DOUGHERTY 550 100.0% Low 114 20.7% Medium 291 52.9% High 145 26.4% FLOYD 307 100.0% Low 66 21.5% Medium 162 52.8% High 79 25.7% FULTON 908 100.0% Low 470 51.8% Medium 361 39.8% Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 42

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Table 2.5 Total Independent County Commitments by Committing County and CRN Risk Level 2005-2010 Total % of Total High 71 7.8% Unknown 6 0.7% GLYNN 226 100.0% Low 48 21.2% Medium 103 45.6% High 75 33.2% GORDON 38 100.0% Low 16 42.1% Medium 18 47.4% High 4 10.5% GWINNETT 1,204 100.0% Low 728 60.5% Medium 415 34.5% High 60 5.0% Unknown 1 0.1% HALL 138 100.0% Low 36 26.1% Medium 82 59.4% High 20 14.5% PEACH 34 100.0% Low 16 47.1% Medium 11 32.4% High 7 20.6% SPALDING 187 100.0% Low 67 35.8% Medium 84 44.9% High 36 19.3% TROUP 647 100.0% Low 203 31.4% Medium 320 49.5% High 124 19.2% WHITFIELD 278 100.0% Low 91 32.7% Medium 132 47.5% High 55 19.8% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110216.FY05-10 Commitments.xlsx) Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 43

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers The following tables illustrate the secure juvenile corrections facilities operated by or under contract with the state department of juvenile justice. Of significance are the size of the facilities and the average length of stay. Most of the following states have small facilities and small housing units consistent with national trends. In contrast, six of Georgia s facilities exceed 100 beds and the housing units in the older facilities are 20 beds. Roush, D. (2002) conducted a partial review of the literature on facility and housing unit size. He reported that there was sufficient evidence that juvenile facilities which are smaller than 150 beds and those that operate with small housing units result in increased safety and quality of interaction and treatment. 9 In 2009, youth in six of Georgia s eight facilities spent an average of less than one year. Table 2.6 Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (2009) Source: CJCA 2010 Yearbook. Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators. 9 Roush, D. (2002). The Relationship Between Group Size and Outcomes in Juvenile Corrections: A Partial Review of the Literature. Journal for Juvenile Justice and Detention Services. Vol. 17, Number 1, Spring 2002. Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 44

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers None of the secure facilities in Missouri have a rated capacity that exceeds 50 beds. Youth housed in 24 of the 25 facilities spend less than one year. Table 2.7 Missouri Division of Youth Services Source: CJCA 2010 Yearbook. Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators. Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 45

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Eight of New York s 12 secure facilities are less than 100 beds. (note: his is rated capacity). Four of New York s 12 secure facilities exceed 100 beds. (note: rated capacity). Youth in 8 out of the 12 secure facilities spend less than one year. Table 2.8 New York Division of Juvenile Justice and Opportunities for Youth Source: CJCA 2010 Yearbook. Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators. Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 46

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers All juvenile facilities in North Carolina are rated at less than 100 beds. Youth in four facilities stay less than one year while youth in five facilities stay more than 1 year. Table 2.9 North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Source: CJCA 2010 Yearbook. Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators. Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 47

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Connecticut, Maryland, New Hampshire New Mexico, and Oregon implement all evidence-based models. In contrast, Georgia, Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, Puerto Rico, Utah and Vermont lag behind other states in implementing evidence-based models. Table 2.10 Evidenced-Based Treatments Provided by Agencies Source: CJCA 2010 Yearbook. Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators. Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 48

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Chapter 3 Table 3.1 Statewide Regional Youth Detention Center Shortfall and Available Beds Baseline and Alternative Forecast Projection 2012 Total Design Capacity 2012 Projected ADP Projected Total ADP by Catchment RYDC 2012 Bed Shortfall Judge Thomas Loftiss 30 43 13 Reduction of low risk 39 9 Gwinnett 49 61 12 Reduction of low risk 48 1 Albany 30 41 11 Reduction of low risk 39 9 Claxton 30 38 8 Reduction of low risk 37 7 Griffin 30 37 7 Reduction of low risk 31 1 Waycross 30 35 5 Reduction of low risk 34 4 Sandersville 30 30 0 Reduction of low risk 26 4 Eastman 30 29 1 Reduction of low risk 27 3 Elbert Shaw 30 24 6 Reduction of low risk 18 12 Blakely 30 14 16 Reduction of low risk 12 18 Macon 64 68 4 Reduction of low risk 58 6 Dekalb 64 63 1 Reduction of low risk 55 9 Aaron Cohn 64 60 4 Reduction of low risk 55 9 Martha Glaze 50 44 6 Reduction of low risk 37 13 Savannah 100 93 7 Reduction of low risk 82 18 Marietta 70 59 11 Reduction of low risk 42 28 Crisp 64 53 11 Reduction of low risk 46 18 2012 Beds Available Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 49

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Total Design Capacity 2012 Projected ADP Projected Total ADP by Catchment RYDC 2012 Bed Shortfall 2012 Beds Available Gainesville 64 47 17 Reduction of low risk 42 22 Augusta 64 44 20 Reduction of low risk 41 23 Bob Richards 64 29 35 Reduction of low risk 22 42 Paulding 100 60 40 Reduction of low risk 49 51 Metro 200 138 62 Reduction of low risk 104 96 Source: Department of Juvenile Justice. (101015.RYDC Pop Projections.xls Huskey & Associates. Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 50

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Table 3.2 Male Offender Regional Youth Detention Center Shortfall and Available Beds Baseline and Alternative Forecast Projection 2012 Projected Male ADP by Catchment RYDC Total Male Design Capacity 2012 Projected ADP 2012 Bed Shortfall 2012 Beds Available Judge Thomas Loftiss 22 35 13 Reduction of low risk 33 11 Gwinnett 38 50 12 Reduction of low risk 41 3 Albany 22 34 12 Reduction of low risk 32 10 Claxton 22 31 9 Reduction of low risk 30 8 Griffin 22 30 8 Reduction of low risk 26 4 Waycross 22 29 7 Reduction of low risk 28 6 Sandersville 22 24 2 Reduction of low risk 21 1 Eastman 22 24 2 Reduction of low risk 23 1 Elbert Shaw 22 20 2 Reduction of low risk 15 7 Blakely 22 12 10 Reduction of low risk 9 13 Macon 48 56 8 Reduction of low risk 50 2 Dekalb 64 70 6 Reduction of low risk 61 3 Aaron Cohn 48 49 1 Reduction of low risk 46 2 Martha Glaze 40 36 4 Reduction of low risk 30 10 Savannah 84 77 7 Reduction of low risk 68 16 Marietta 60 48 12 Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 51

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Projected Male ADP by Catchment RYDC Total Male Design Capacity 2012 Projected ADP 2012 Bed Shortfall 2012 Beds Available Reduction of low risk 36 24 Crisp 48 43 5 Reduction of low risk 39 9 Gainesville 48 39 9 Reduction of low risk 35 13 Augusta 48 36 12 Reduction of low risk 34 14 Bob Richards 48 24 24 Reduction of low risk 18 30 Paulding 75 49 26 Reduction of low risk 41 34 Metro 150 96 54 Reduction of low risk 73 77 Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 52

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Table 3.3 Female Offender Regional Youth Detention Center Shortfall and Available Beds Baseline and Alternative Forecast Projection 2012 Projected Female ADP by Catchment RYDC Total Female Design Capacity 2012 Projected ADP 2012 Bed Shortfall 2012 Beds Available Judge Thomas Loftiss 8 12 4 Reduction of low risk 11 3 Gwinnett 11 17 6 Reduction of low risk 12 1 Albany 8 12 4 Reduction of low risk 11 3 Claxton 8 11 3 Reduction of low risk 10 2 Griffin 8 10 2 Reduction of low risk 8 0 Waycross 8 10 2 Reduction of low risk 9 1 Sandersville 8 8 0 Reduction of low risk 7 1 Eastman 8 8 0 Reduction of low risk 7 1 Robert Shaw 8 7 1 Reduction of low risk 4 4 Blakely 8 4 4 Reduction of low risk 4 4 Macon 16 19 3 Reduction of low risk 15 1 Aaron Cohn 16 17 1 Reduction of low risk 15 1 Martha Glaze 10 12 2 Reduction of low risk 10 0 Savannah 16 26 10 Reduction of low risk 23 7 Marietta 10 16 6 Reduction of low risk 11 1 Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 53

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Projected Female ADP by Catchment RYDC Policy Recommendation #2 Methodology Total Female Design Capacity 2012 Projected ADP 2012 Bed Shortfall 2012 Beds Available Crisp 16 15 1 Reduction of low risk 12 4 Gainesville 16 13 3 Reduction of low risk 11 5 Augusta 16 12 4 Reduction of low risk 11 5 Bob Richards 16 8 8 Reduction of low risk 6 10 Paulding 25 17 8 Reduction of low risk 12 13 Metro 50 56 6 Reduction of low risk 41 9 Youth admitted to all RYDCs during FY09-FY10 were examined to determine the number of youth who were assessed as Low and Moderate Risk (Columns 1-4). This number was further reduced by excluding all medium risk youth who were picked up on drug selling, violent and violent sex charges It is assumed that all status offenders and non-violent youth would be transported by law enforcement to the Metro Atlanta Community Assessment & Intervention Center (s) (CAIC) based on an agreed-upon protocol. Two options could be considered: 1) contract with public and private agencies at more than one location in the county or 2) a separate stand-alone service centrally located in the Metro Atlanta area. Law enforcement, the Court Services Office and DJJ will develop a protocol so that police officers know which youth will be 1) given a citation in the field and returned home 2) transported to the CAIC or 3) transported to detention. On average, 14 youth would be served daily at the Metro Atlanta CAIC. 10 While most youth would stay between 1-6 hours based on experience in other states, it is necessary to project 24-hour capacity because some youth would be admitted throughout a 24-hour period. 10 Note: A separate calculation was conducted including unknowns but excluding all felons. The projected CAIC capacity based on these additional criteria is 11 youth per day vs. 14 youth per day; 128 bed reduction vs. 178; 229 bed excess in these 7 facilities vs. 279. The consultant does not recommend excluding offenders based on offense alone but recommends implementing a scientific model using an objective and valid Risk and Needs Assessment. Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 54

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers The average bed savings by implementing this Community Assessment & Intervention Center (CAIC) is based on reducing the length of stay for low and moderate risk youth in the detention center. The method is (admissions x 1 day at the CAIC instead of 10.8 days for low risk and 16.4 days for moderate risk youth). The projected impact of the CAIC on current RYDC bed capacity in these 7 facilities was calculated to be a 279 total bed excess. Advantages of Community Assessment Intervention Center The following advantages are expected as a result of the CAIC: 1. The CAIC is a strategic option for Georgia; it meets DJJ s core principles for immediate assessment, intervention and referral to community-based services. 2. Provides the Juvenile Court additional options for status offenders, non-violent and CHINS instead of detention. 3. The CAIC provides substitute service capacity (178 slots) for the 60 detention beds that have been closed in Griffin (30 beds) and Blakely (30 beds). 4. The CAIC provides law enforcement another option between 1) returning the youth home with a citation or 2) taking them into custody. The CAIC relieves law enforcement by giving them a safe drop off so they can return to the street immediately. 5. Enables private providers and Child Protective Services another access point to provide services to youth and families in need of intervention services. 6. Enables the Department of Community Health and Behavioral Health to expand its services to youth with psychiatric, addiction and trauma disorders or to continue services to youth who may already be on their caseload. 7. The CSB can bill EPSDT for CAIC slots when there is a medically determined diagnosis. 8. Expands early identification for youth who have undiagnosed emotional, addiction and trauma disorders. 9. When using existing capacity at a private or public agency (e.g. Crisis Stabilization Center), the cost is likely to be reduced than if a stand-alone center was created. Net widening may be minimized if existing capacity is used instead of constructing new capacity (this avoids if you build it, they will come practice ). A Request for Proposal could be developed to compare costs among various agencies. 10. Using private and public agencies at a number of locations in the community will provide greater access to law enforcement rather than creating one CAIC in one community. The potential drawbacks to the proposed CAIC are: 1. Net widening if the localities choose to use the CAIC for non-detention bound youth. 2. Law enforcement protocols may not be agreed-to by all police officers thus inappropriate youth may fill up slots thus reducing the capacity for youth who are detention-bound. Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 55

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers EXAMPLES OF YOUTH ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION CENTERS Salt Lake County Juvenile Receiving Center Dr. Roger Gisseman, Associate Director 177 W. Price Avenue Salt Lake City, UT 84115 801-269-7541 Target Population: Primarily status and delinquent offenders arrested and brought into custody. Types of delinquent offenses include property, drug possession, public order and are primarily misdemeanor offenses. Brief Description: The JRC is a Salt Lake County agency that provides early intervention services to status offenders and offenders charged with a minor delinquent offense 24 hours a day. The goal is to reduce delinquency and to provide support services to family. Approximately 5,000 youth are served by the JRC in a year. The JRC is located in two sites in Salt Lake County. Youth and families are assessed using the following assessment instruments: Youth Outcome Survey Parent Inventory Survey Risk and Protective Survey A baseline is established on the youth and family at intake and then they are post tested at discharge. The following services are provided on site at the JRC: 2 beds for Social Detoxification Substance Abuse - Regular Outpatient (12 sessions, once a week) Substance Abuse - Intensive Outpatient (6 hours a week) Day Treatment for mentally ill youth (8 hours for 60 days) Case Management Parenting classes (8-10 sessions) Family Preservation (intensive wraparound services in lieu of out of home placement for status offenders, caseload of 1:6 families, 3-30 hours a week for 2 months) Truancy Center Youth stay an average of 6 hours in the JRC before their parents are located or before they are referred to the Division of Family and Children or to Detention. A variety of performance measures are used to measure program impact: Risk reduction and protective factor increase Pre and post test on the Youth Outcome Survey and Parent Inventory Survey Client satisfaction by youth and family Partnering agency satisfaction survey The JRC is funded through a pooling of direct and in-direct funds from the following sources: Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 56

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Division of Substance Abuse Division of Family and Children School District Medicaid through Valley Mental Health Runaway and Homeless Youth Federal Grant Title IV-E Department of Youth Corrections Salt Lake County General Fund Cost Per Day for JRC: Approximately $171.42 (14 youth per day) Cost Per Day for Crisis Residential Center: $108.00 per bed (24 beds) Notes: Both JRC Centers and CR Center daily costs include the personnel costs of the group home supervisors, the case managers, and the youth workers and the program operating costs. Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 57

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Community Assessment Referral Center Denise Coleman Huckleberry House San Francisco, CA (415) 567-8078 Target Population: Delinquent offenders charged with minor offenses, not 707b offenses, no pending warrants and not from another county. Brief Description: The Community Assessment and Referral Center concept was initiated as part of the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI). It is a partnership between the Mayor s Office of Criminal Justice, the Sheriff s Office, Department of Public Health, Probation Department, Huckleberry House and three non-profit agencies representing the Asian, African-American and Latino neighborhoods. Huckleberry House is the non-profit service provider contracted with by the Mayor s Office of Criminal Justice to administer the program. HH provides day-of-arrest assessment, crisis intervention, case management and referral. Case managers attend probation hearings and expulsion hearings, take clients to appointments, make arrangements for needed services and monitor services to the youth and family. The target population is delinquent offenders charged with a 602 offense who would not likely to be detained. Sixty percent of the youth are charged with misdemeanor offenses while 40% are charged with minor felony offenses. Prior to the CARC s inception, the Juvenile Probation Intake was backlogged with these cases, some of these minor cases ended up in the Juvenile Hall and many were closed with no support services thus being referred again. The goal is to reduce the number of youth charged with minor offenses who were referred to Juvenile Intake to allow Probation to focus their resources on the serious, violent youth. It is designed to be an alternative to Juvenile Intake processing for misdemeanors and minor felony offenders. Approximately 650 minor delinquent offenders are brought into the CARC in a year (represents one-quarter of the total arrests). CARC is administered by Huckleberry House, a non-profit agency with the Sheriff s Office providing security, the Department of Public Health providing health screenings, Probation Officer representing the Juvenile Court, and the case management provided by Huckleberry and the three nonprofit agencies representing the Asian, Latino and African-American community. Youth are arrested and brought to the CARC location (in a YMCA building separate from the Juvenile Hall) for assessment and case management. CARC can close the case or assign the case to an on-going caseload with a case manager. Youth are given a health screening and a strengths and needs assessment which has been validated on the City s youth. Youth will stay up to six hours, have a meal and wait until their parent or guardian comes to pick them up. Each youth is assigned a case manager who will work with the family, develop a case plan, coordinate services for the family and monitor referrals to local service providers. If the youth is referred to detention intake, the case manager continues to work with the family. The duration of the case management is an average of 90 days but the range is one month to 18 months. Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 58

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Families receive services in their own home, at the school or at the CARC office. CARC is open from 10:00 a.m.-12:00 midnight. Funding for CARC is though a variety of sources, including, Juvenile Justice Crime Act, Local Law Enforcement Block Grant or the General Fund. Each participating agency provides in-kind staff to the CARC. Outcomes The number of referrals to Juvenile Intake for 2002 dropped 11% from 4139 to 3675. 55% of the youth served at CARC were not cited to Juvenile Hall in 2002 65% of youth receiving CARC case management demonstrated improvement in school grades, attendance, behavior, attitude and/or placement 73% of CARC youth satisfied the terms and conditions of their probation In FY 2002, 71% of CARC youth were not rearrested in the subsequent 12 months Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 59

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers CITY OF NORMAN COMMUNITY INTERVENTION CENTER Operator: Crossroads Youth and Family Services Contract: Contract with the City of Norman and the Office of Juvenile Affairs Capacity: 12 youth Number Youth Served Last Year: 995 Target Population: Youth ages 10-17; charged with status offenses; misdemeanor offenses and non-violent felony offenses. Referral Agencies: Law enforcement, including School Police Officers, Lake Patrol, Highway Patrol Length of Process: Police are in the building for 15 minutes and return to the street after turning them over to Crossroads. If the youth is seriously intoxicated, police will transport them to a nearby hospital. Intake Process: YFS Caseworker conducts the initial screening and the Problem Behavior Inventory is conducted if the parent and child agree to participate in counseling. Length of Time On Site: Youth waits an average 6.5 hours Activities During On-Site: 30 minutes spent in screening; an additional 1 hour if the Problem Behavior Inventory is conducted. The youth is given a snack, given a hygiene kit to wash off and is placed in a group holding room to wait until their parents pick them up. The highest number of youth in the holding room is 9 youth. Physical Plant Features: Located in a house that was donated by the City and renovated by YFS as a CIC. Each youth receives 35 SF of space. One individual room is available for youth who are not suitable for group holding. The Director believes that individual rooms are necessary because some youth may be out of control and cannot wait in a group holding room without harming themselves or others. No open waiting is available as in other facilities for youth who are not disruptive and do not require secure holding. Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 60

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers CITY OF WOODWARD COMMUNITY INTERVENTION CENTER Operator: Youth and Family Services Contract: Contract with the City of Woodward and the Office of Juvenile Affairs Capacity: 6 youth. A total of 15 on-call CIC workers are available to monitor the youth while they are in the CIC. Number Youth Served Last Year: 161 Target Population: Youth ages 9-17 juveniles arrested by law enforcement which includes misdemeanor offenses, ordinance violations, non-violent felony offenses or someone in DHS custody. Referral Agencies: Woodward Police Department and the Woodward Sheriff s Office. Length of Process: Police are in the CIC for 9 minutes and return to the street. Intake Process: An Intake Caseworker is assigned by Youth and Family Services to receive calls from the police of the youth being transported and to conduct intake. The CIC caseworker walks to the area of the agency where the CIC is located to meet the police, they accept the youth and they conduct the initial screening. Police have administered a breathalyzer prior to being brought to the agency to determine if the youth needs to be transported to the hospital. YFS staff will grant the Promise to Appear once the family arrives. Length of Time On Site: Youth waits an average of 1 hour. Activities During On-Site: The youth is given drink and a snack and is placed in a group holding room sized for 6 youth to wait until their parents pick them up. If the child requires shelter, they will be transported to the Shelter Facility. Parents are offered counseling for a minimum of once a week for three months. Physical Plant Features: The CIC is located in the Youth and Family Services agency building. One holding room is sized for 6 youth for temporary holding. One calming room is available for youth who need to be separated from the group. Two private offices are available for YFS Caseworkers to conduct intake with the youth and their family. One area is available for refrigerator, sink, water cooler, pantry, and microwave. Storage was not planned and is needed. Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 61

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Table 3.4 FY10 Average Length of Stay by DAI Score by Facility RYDC Low Medium High Albany 10.6 15.6 34.3 Augusta 7.7 16.1 53.9 Blakely 19.8 31.4 50.7 Claxton 7.8 14.1 28.9 Martha Glaze (Clayton) 12.5 16.3 30.7 Aaron Cohn (Columbus) 12.2 18.1 46.2 Crisp 15.5 21.8 49.9 Elbert Shaw (Dalton) 11.6 15.5 22.4 Dekalb 8.4 13.2 30.4 Eastman 7.5 15.5 29.0 Gainesville 6.0 10.1 22.9 Griffin 11.5 14.9 24.9 Gwinnett 9.2 11.9 28.3 Macon 12.5 17.7 38.2 Marietta 7.6 13.1 30.8 Metro 14.2 18.2 40.4 Paulding 10.6 16.8 40.0 Bob Richards (Rome) 12.1 21.0 47.8 Sandersville 13.4 18.4 27.9 Savannah 12.4 19.1 42.0 Judge Thomas Loftiss (Thomasville) 13.5 18.9 30.2 Waycross 7.5 17.5 30.6 Statewide 10.8 16.4 36.4 Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice. LOS by risk level and facility 11-26-10.xlsx Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 62

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Table 3.5 shows the impact of reducing the length of stay of detained youth in each facility. A total of 16 facilities will have empty beds based on targeting selected populations for case expediting. Table 3.5 Policy Scenario 3: Reduced LOS by DAI Score RYDC Total Design Capacity Baseline 2012 ADP Reduced 2012 ADP Bed Shortfall Beds Available Judge Thomas Loftiss 30 43 38 8 Albany 30 41 37 7 Claxton 30 38 34 4 Gwinnett 49 61 53 4 Griffin 30 37 32 2 Waycross 30 35 31 1 Macon 64 68 60 4 Sandersville 30 30 26 4 Eastman 30 29 26 4 Dekalb 64 63 56 8 Elbert Shaw 30 24 21 9 Aaron Cohn 64 60 53 11 Martha Glaze 50 44 39 11 Savannah 100 93 83 17 Crisp 64 53 47 17 Blakely 30 14 12 18 Marietta 70 59 52 18 Gainesville 64 47 42 22 Augusta 64 44 39 25 Bob Richards 64 29 25 39 Paulding 100 60 53 47 Metro 200 138 122 78 Source: GA DJJ (101023.RYDC Data FY040FY10.xls). Note: Based on reduced LOS, reduction in ADP for the following DAI Scores as follows: low, medium and unknown = 15%, high = 10%. Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 63

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Table 3.6 shows the impact on individual facilities by reducing length of stay. A total of 19 RYDCs can free up beds while only three RYDCs have shortfall. Table 3.6 Policy Scenario 3: Reduced LOS by Legal Status RYDC Total Design Capacity Projected 2012 ADP Reduced 2012 ADP Bed Shortfall Beds Available Judge Thomas Loftiss 30 43 35 5 Albany 30 41 33 3 Claxton 30 38 32 2 Griffin 30 37 29 1 Waycross 30 35 27 3 Gwinnett 49 61 46 3 Sandersville 30 30 24 6 Eastman 30 29 23 7 Macon 64 68 56 8 Dekalb 64 63 53 11 Elbert Shaw 30 24 17 13 Martha Glaze 50 44 35 15 Blakely 30 14 11 19 Aaron Cohn 64 60 45 19 Crisp 64 53 44 20 Gainesville 64 47 38 26 Augusta 64 44 37 27 Savannah 100 93 73 27 Marietta 70 59 42 28 Bob Richards 64 29 22 42 Paulding 100 60 50 50 Metro 200 138 112 88 Source: GA DJJ (101015.RYDC Pop Projections.xls; 101023.RYDC Data FY040FY10.xls) Note: Reduction in LOS for following legal status: Youth Waiting Placement (50%), Pre-Disposition (50%), STP (50%) and Pre-Adjudicated (15%) Based on FY10, the percent ADP reduction of total ADP applied to FY12 projected ADP. Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 64

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Table 3.7 illustrates evidence of case processing reform initiatives implemented in other jurisdictions. Table 3.7 Case Processing Reforms in Other Jurisdictions Jurisdiction Case Process Reforms Outcomes Sacramento County Multnomah County, OR Cook County, IL Case Process Expediter Detention Early Resolution Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council Implemented New Court Calendar for VOP Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee Juvenile Intervention Services Center Police Pre-Screen Special Court for Out-of-Custody Minors Written & Phone Notification New Summons Category (Detention Not Mandatory) Juvenile Justice Committee MacArthur Models for Change Source: Annie E. Casey Foundation. JDAI Huskey & Associates From 25 court days to 15 Days for Detained Cases 38% Drop in Days for Non- Detained Cases Decline from 7 to 3 Days for Youth Waiting for their Probation Violation Hearings 12% Increase in Diversion Decline in Detention Admissions Decline from 8 to 3 Weeks (Arrest & First Appearance) 52% Cases Disposed of At Initial Hearing Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 65

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Chapter 4 New York State Task Force Recommendations and Strategies 11 1. The Fundamentals of Reform Reduce the use of institutional placement, downsize or close underutilized facilities, and reinvest in communities. Reduce disproportionate representation of youth of color in institutional placement. Ensure that New York State operates a unified and cohesive system of care that keeps all youth in its custody safe, whether in private or state-operated facilities. 2. Keeping More Kids at Home: A Shift to Community-based Services Reserve institutional placement for youth who pose a significant risk to public safety, and ensure that no youth is place in a facility because of social service needs. Develop and expand community-based alternatives to institutional placement. Redirect cost savings into neighborhoods that are home to the highest number of youth in the juvenile justice system. 3. Rethinking Institutional Placement Place youth close to home. Develop a standard process to accurately assess a youth s risk and needs. Require all facilities culture and physical environments to be conducive to positive youth development and rehabilitation. Fund and provide services and programs, including education and mental health treatment, which prepare youth for release. Support and invest in staff. Provide localities with equal reimbursements for youth who are placed in OCFS-custody, regardless of the type of facility. 4. Ensuring Successful Reentry Limit the amount of time youth spend in institutional facilities. Begin reentry planning and preparation at the time of disposition, and actively engage different stakeholders in this process. Ensure that reentry plans are individualized and provide for seamless, well-supported transitions from facilities back to the community. 5. Creating System Accountability and Transparency Improve and expand the use of data and other performance measures to guide decision making, enhance accountability, and drive system improvement. Track and report disproportionate representation of youth of color at every system point. Ensure that allegations of abuse and staff misconduct in facilities are thoroughly investigated and handled appropriately. Establish and fund an independent, external oversight body to monitor and report OCFS s juvenile justice policies and practices. 11 New York Task Force on Transforming Juvenile Justice. A Report of Governor David Paterson. Charting a New Course: A Blueprint for Transforming Juvenile Justice in New York State. December 2009. Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 66

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Provide regular progress reports on the status of implementing the Task Force s recommendations. State of Illinois Juvenile Justice Master Plan Recommendations OVERVIEW State of Illinois was selected by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation as a Models for Change state. A Project Advisory Committee was formed to provide input into the development of the state s Master Plan. Members were Dr. Paula Wolff, Metropolis 2020, Betsy Clark, Juvenile Justice Initiative, Judge Curtis Heaston, Dr. Gene Griffith, Northwestern University, Malcolm Young, Director of the John Howard Association, Kurt Friedenauer, Director of the Department of Juvenile Justice, John Platt, Planner and former director of DJJ, and Bobbie Huskey, Huskey & Associates. Key Recommendations from the Master Planning Process Reduce the number of non-violent youth confined in secure Illinois Youth Centers by 50% with a $185.0 million capital cost avoidance and a $14.5-$28.0 million operational cost avoidance. The DJJ may be eligible to receive approximately $13.1 million in federal reimbursement for its aftercare system. Reduce by 25% the rate of court commitments/court evaluations from secure custody. o Reduce re-commitment of rule violators o Reduce commitment of non-violent youth with no prior adjudications o Reduce commitments of youth committed for 90 days or less Expand the number of non-residential wraparound programs and regional transitional centers under contract with treatment providers as an integral component of the statewide reentry plan. Implement a graduated reentry system to step down youth from Illinois Youth Centers to intensive wraparound services supported by Functional Family Therapy, Multi-systemic Family Therapy, and Mentors. Upgrade the aftercare services to ensure that they reflect proven evidence-based research and practices and maintain a workload standard of 1:25 for case managers. Contract with qualified treatment providers to provide skills-based cognitive behavioral treatment for youth and their families such as: o Functional Family Therapy o Brief Strategic Family Therapy o Multi-systemic Family Therapy o Intensive Wraparound o Day Treatment o Evening Reporting Transform the culture of aftercare and upgrade the staff credentials/knowledge and skill sets. Reentry case planning should begin at the time of admission and the youth and family should be active participants. Implement a validated risk and assessment protocol for all youth committed to the DJJ and consider low and moderate risk youth for community-based programs immediately after the reception and diagnostic process. Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 67

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Implement an objective, validated Functional Assessment System based on strengths and needs and measure the growth in youth s core competencies over the entire period of intervention. Implement a trauma-informed juvenile services delivery model. The physical conditions found within most Illinois youth centers make these facilities functionally obsolete and costly to maintain in the long-range. Existing IYC physical plants should be replaced in order to meet contemporary juvenile justice environmental and resident living standards. A new staffing plan is recommended for 1:8 youth. Reduce the size of future secure juvenile facilities to 32 beds. Living units are recommended not to exceed 16 beds. Elements recommended for these centers are: o Child-Friendly and Home Like o Normative Culture o Cognitive Behavioral Programming o Engage Private Providers For Specialized Services Relocate youth with significant mental health disorders and substance abusing youth out of Kewanee Youth Center and to other therapeutic facilities closer to their home. All youth should receive some level of mental health treatment because of the chronic trauma and mental health needs of youth in the system. Offer all youth mental health services and eliminate the Level 1 Mental Health Care (no mental health services). Huskey & Associates Volume 1A Page 68

State and Local Partnerships to Advance Best Practices Volume 2 Submitted by Huskey & Associates June 13, 2011

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Chapter 2 Washington State Community Juvenile Accountability Act Chapter 3: Tennessee Evidence-Based Law Chapter 4: North Carolina Juvenile Justice Reform Laws Chapter 5: California Juvenile Justice Community Reentry Law Chapter 6: Pennsylvania Act 148 Chapter 7: New York Juvenile Justice Reform Bills Chapter 8: Appendix 11 20 24 32 39 45 55 Huskey & Associates Page i

Chapter 1: Introduction

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Introduction This report is Part 2 of a summary of states that have passed landmark legislation that reduces low and moderate risk youth in detention and state facilities through the implementation of research-based policies, practices and programs. These states are Washington, Tennessee, North Carolina, California and Pennsylvania. The State of New York is also included even though their proposed bills did not become law. These states were chosen because they have passed laws that require service providers to implement effective programs that meet scientific standards resulting in reductions in low and moderate risk youth from detention and state commitments. They have accomplished this goal through improved collaboration, greater use of objective risk and needs assessments, effective case planning, and they have expanded the number and type of local alternatives to detention and state commitment. This research was conducted through a review of data and reports as reported on each state s websites and a review of legislation from each state. 1.2 Definitions Research-based practices/programs have become a widely used concept in the juvenile justice field to describe the science that is now known that reduces recidivism in juvenile offenders. Evidence-based has been defined by this project as: o Proven through research to increase prosocial behavior and to reduce recidivism. o Progressive organizational use of direct, current scientific evidence to guide and inform efficient and effective correctional services. o Programs that meet the Principles of Effective Intervention. o Programs may have been recognized by a national organization as evidence-based or promising: Research-Based Programs: These programs have undergone extensive and multiple evaluations using rigorous research designs with high levels of fidelity, including, but not limited to, randomized controlled samples or matched control samples. Examples of organizations that have identified programs as evidence-based include: U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration, Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Center for Evidence Based Corrections, Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy, University of Cincinnati and Vanderbilt University Institute for Public Policy Studies. Promising Programs: Implemented with minimal fidelity, demonstrate promising but inconsistent empirical findings using a reasonable conceptual framework and a limited Huskey & Associates Page 1

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project evaluation design (single group, pre-posttest). Examples of organizations that have identified programs as promising include: U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Center for Evidence Based Corrections, and Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy. The following eight national organizations have defined a framework for defining and measuring effective juvenile justice programming. National Sources and their Measures for Determining Program Effectiveness Source Measurements of Effectiveness How Programs are Rated Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Model Program Guide. Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice SAMHSA s National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration Reduction of problem behavior Reduction of risk factors related to problem behavior Enhancement of protective factors to reduce problem behavior Reduction in substance abuse Retention in treatment Reduction in psychiatric hospitalizations Reduction in incarcerations Obtaining and retaining a job Exemplary: Implemented with a high degree of fidelity, demonstrate robust empirical findings using a reputable conceptual framework and an experimental design Effective: Implemented with sufficient fidelity, demonstrate adequate empirical findings using a sound conceptual framework and a quasiexperimental design Promising: Implemented with minimal fidelity, demonstrate promising but inconsistent empirical findings using a reasonable conceptual framework and a limited evaluation design (single group, pre-posttest) Evidence-Based: Approaches to prevention or treatment that are based in theory and have undergone scientific evaluation such as controlled clinical studies but other methods of establishing evidence are considered valid. Scale of 0.0-4.0 with 4.00 receiving the highest rating. Selection Criteria are: Quality of research Readiness for dissemination Huskey & Associates Page 2

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Source Measurements of Effectiveness How Programs are Rated Experimental/Quasi- Experimental/Pre-experimental Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence: Blueprints for Violence Prevention University of Colorado Prevention and reduction in violence/childhood aggression/conduct disorder) Prevention and reduction of delinquency Prevention and reduction of drug use Successful completion at the end of treatment phase Sustained effects one year beyond treatment and from one developmental period to the next Capability of being replicated to another site Evidence of change in the risk or protective factors mediates the change in violent behavior Evidence that the costs are reasonable and are not greater than the benefits Coalition for Evidence- Reduction in juvenile crime Reduction in substance use Model Program: Must demonstrate effects on problem behaviors through a rigorous experimental design, show that its effects are sustained after the youth leaves the program and is successfully replicated at least once. Promising Program: Must demonstrate effects using a rigorous experimental design. Selection Criteria are: Strong Research Design: Experimental design with random assignment or quasiexperimental design with matched control groups Sustained Effects: Effects are sustained at least one year beyond treatment with no subsequent evidence that this effect is lost. Multiple Site Replication Capacity: Minimum of one replication with demonstrated effects. Mediating Factors: Changes in risk and protective factors are linked to change in violent behavior Costs and Benefits: Program costs are less or not any greater than the program s expected benefits Top Tier Designation: Welldesigned randomized Huskey & Associates Page 3

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Source Measurements of Effectiveness How Programs are Rated Based Policy Reduction in antisocial behavior In at least 2 trials using a strong research design Washington State Institute of Public Policy Crime-related factors: Arrests and conviction after release from the program by 40 offense categories Non-crime related factors: Change in participants throughout treatment compared with similar classes of persons who did not participate Effect size: degree to which a program has proven to change an outcome for participants relative to a comparison group Fewer victims For each dollar spent, the benefits of the program s crime reduction exceed its costs controlled trials showing sizeable, sustained effects on important outcomes. Proven Programs: Brand name programs shown to reduce delinquency and recidivism, substance use or antisocial behavior in at least two trials by using a strong research design. Proven Strategies: Generic strategies that have been shown through meta-analysis of scientifically credible evaluations to reduce recidivism. Promising Programs: Brand name programs that have been shown to reduce delinquency and recidivism, substance use or antisocial behavior in at least two trials by using a strong research design but outcomes have not yet been replicated. Control or Comparison group: Random assignment and nonrandomly assigned control groups; studies with reasonable comparability between treatment and comparison groups on conditions such as age, gender and prior criminal history Effect size: Statistically significant reduction in crime outcomes; standardized mean difference effect size statistic; effect that the program has on the number of crimes a person commits in each year; effect that evidence-based programs have on prison populations; estimated recidivism probability Huskey & Associates Page 4

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Source Measurements of Effectiveness How Programs are Rated University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research Evidenced Based Correctional Assessment (CPC) Questionnaire Program Leadership and Development Staff Characteristics Offender Assessment Treatment Characteristics Quality Assurance by participating in an evidencebased program; average amount of change in crime compared to no treatment or treatment as usual Rating scale ranking: Programs that rank at 3 or above on a 5-point scale are determined model Criminal justice system costs: Estimate of the costs of criminal justice resources paid by taxpayers for each component of the system (estimated operating costs of police, sheriff, superior courts, county prosecutors, juvenile detention centers, jails, state corrections) Victim costs: Monetary costs and quality of life cost estimates Cost savings: Reduction in recidivism generates life-cycle benefits 1= Highly Effective (65% or higher) 2=Effective (55-64) 3=Needs Improvement (46-54%) 4=Ineffective (45% or higher) Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice Reduction in recidivism due to program intervention Net social profitability Behavior change Skill building Cost per participant in intervention Cost for arrest, investigation, prosecution and incarceration Economic performance of programs are rated using a Monetary Standard Ranking: compares the monetary values of benefits to monetary costs; social profitability is the difference between the benefits and costs or the ratio of benefits to costs Criminal justice costs: Based on a survey of departments in Huskey & Associates Page 5

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Source Measurements of Effectiveness How Programs are Rated Vanderbilt University Institute for Public Policy Studies Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) Reduction in delinquency Compares the degree to which a program s characteristics: o Primary Type of Service o Supplemental Services o Duration and Frequency of Service o Quality of Service o Risk Level of Juveniles Served Utah, costs were calculated of arrests by police and sheriff; prosecution by district attorneys and courts; cost of incarceration; cost of rehabilitation Victim costs of crime: Monetary and Quality of Life Calculation of effect size (reduction in recidivism) Taxpayer benefits: estimate of savings from reduced crime Likelihood of reductions in recidivism of offenders Effective, and above average Effective, and about average Effective, but below average High Effect on Recidivism Moderate Effect on Recidivism Low Effect on Recidivism Programs receive a score between 15 and 85; the higher the score the more effective the program matches those programs that have already been determined to be a best practices model Analyzed and compiled by Huskey & Associates. Huskey & Associates Page 6

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Programs delivered by Georgia s Department of Juvenile Justice and its private treatment providers do not need to be only brand programs (e.g. Multi-systemic Therapy, Functional Family Therapy) to be evaluated as effective, but each program serving delinquents must adhere to the scientific Principles of Effective Intervention to be rated as effective. 1 These principles are: Risk Principle: High risk offenders should be targeted for intensive interventions while low and moderate risk should be targeted for 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 200-300 hours of treatment. 2 Andrews and Bonta, (2010) lists the following eight risk factors that have been scientifically correlated with reoffending: 3 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 Need Principle: Treatment interventions should target criminogenic risk/need factors that have shown to be significantly associated with recidivism. 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 These criminogenic factors are dynamic and can be modified through effective intervention. These are unlike static factors such as one s sex, age, current and prior offense or number of prior detention stays that cannot be changed. 1 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, 2005. 2 Landenberger, N.A. & M.W. Lipsey. The positive effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders: a metaanalysis of factors associated with effective treatment. In press, Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2005. 3 Andrews, D.A. & J. Bonta (2010). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (Fifth Edition). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. Huskey & Associates Page 7

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Gendreau, French and Taylor (2002) found that focusing on three or more criminogenic needs had the highest effect on reducing recidivism. 4 These focus areas must be included in the child s treatment plan with specific objectives for the child and their family to achieve. While some clinicians believe that anxiety, depression and low self-esteem contribute to criminal behavior, most researchers have found that these are non-criminogenic factors that have no effect on recidivism reduction. 5 Landenberger and Lipsey (2005) found that offenders involved in cognitive behavioral treatment had a one and one half times greater likelihood of not recidivating after discharge from correctional supervision than those who were not involved in this type of treatment. 6 Cognitive behavioral treatment has the following features: Teaches pro-social values, attitudes, thinking and behavior patterns Rehearses and role plays these new skills Instructor provides feedback and models the new skills The features of these cognitive behavioral programs differ profoundly from treatment approaches that are based on the medical/disease model, that are aimed at merely increasing self-awareness, self-esteem and insight and that are non-directive and client centered. 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 4 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 5 Andrews, D.A., J. Bonta, & J.S. Wormith (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime & Delinquency. Vol. 52 No.1. 6 Landenberger, N.A. & M.W. Lipsey. The positive effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders: a metaanalysis of factors associated with effective treatment. In press, Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2005. 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. Huskey & Associates Page 8

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project 1.3 Proposal No longer can the Department of Juvenile Justice rely on anecdotal information to prove the effectiveness of its programs. To sustain its current programs and to position the DJJ for future expansion, it would be in the DJJ s best interest to examine its programs through the lens of science. Fortunately, there are numerous research studies that DJJ can use to evaluate its service providers and improve their effectiveness. Currently, no one really knows how effective the service providers are in providing services to DJJ youth because there is no consensus on the performance metrics to be used to evaluate their services. Further, there is no uniform method of reporting their performance outcome, nor is there a protocol for translating these data into day-to-day practice.. 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 in it the contemporary policy directions highlighted in other states juvenile codes and promoted by juvenile justice advocates in Georgia. This opportunity will not likely come around again for a long time in the future. It would be unfortunate to miss the opportunity to encourage agencies working with the youth in Georgia to implement effective programs in accordance with science. This report features states that have legislatively and administratively mandated this policy direction with promising results. It is not recommended that DJJ prescribe specific brand programs, but rather to encourage the policy of developing and implementing policies, programs and practices that have proven to be effective in reducing recidivism and improving efficiency and cost effectiveness. As will be seen in the examples on the following pages, states phased in the implementation of effective programming. They also partnered with local government and the service provider network to develop performance metrics, to develop statewide policies and protocols and to participate in joint training on the Principles of Effective Intervention. Huskey & Associates Page 9

Chapter 2: Washington State Community Juvenile Accountability Act

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Washington State Community Juvenile Accountability Act Washington State mandated the implementation of research-based programs beginning in 1997 with the passage of the Community Juvenile Accountability Act (CJAA). Washington State joined a handful of states at that time that used research evidence to inform the development of new policy and program options. The goal of the CJAA is to fund only those policies and programs that have proven to be effective in achieving key policy outcomes and reduce recidivism. The legislature established the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (Institute) to evaluate the programs that the Act funded. The first evaluation found that these research-based programs reduced recidivism only when delivered according to fidelity (in accordance with the way the program was intended to be delivered and consistently delivered by trained and experienced staff). Consistent with other research, Washington State found that when programs are delivered poorly, recidivism increases. As a result of this evaluation, the legislature mandated the development of outcome standards to ensure the effective implementation of the programs. The 2003 legislature directed the Institute to develop standards pertaining to: hiring, training and retaining qualified providers, managing and overseeing the delivery of treatment services, and developing quality assurance measures. The department shall utilize these standards to assess program effectiveness. The courts shall also utilize these standards in determining their continued use of these alternatives. The courts shall not continue to use programs that do not comply with these standards. 1 The findings of the Institute s evaluation are: 2 When Functional Family Therapy is delivered effectively, youth has a reduction in felony recidivism by 38 percent. The cost-benefit analysis found that FFT results in $10.69 in savings through avoided crime costs for each one dollar spent. When Aggression Replacement Training is delivered effectively, youth have a 24 percent reduction in felony recidivism 18 months following completion with a benefit to cost ratio of $11.66 for every dollar spent. Coordination of Services resulted in a reduction of felony recidivism 12 months following completion and a benefit to cost ratio of $7.89 for every dollar spent. The Institute found that the elements of effective intervention were: 1. Delivering the program as prescribed 2. Delivered by trained and experienced staff 3. On-going review and monitoring to achieve effectiveness 1 Washington State Institute for Public Policy. (2003). Recommended Quality Control Standards: Washington State Research-based Juvenile Offender Programs. 2 Washington State Institute for Public Policy. (2004). Outcome Evaluation of Washington State s Research-Based Programs for Juvenile Offenders. Huskey & Associates Page 11

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project The Washington State Legislature required the Institute to determine which of the programs funded by the CJAA funded reduced recidivism. The Institute measured the 18-month felony recidivism rate of youth in a control group (assessed for services but did not receive services funded by the CJAA) compared to youth participating in the program. 3 For example, Exhibit 1 shows the 18-month recidivism rate by various offenses for youth who received services from the Functional Family Therapy program compared to youth who were assessed for the program but did not receive the services (control group). The felony recidivism rate for the youth who did not receive services was 27 percent compared to 24 percent for the FFT treatment group. There were no statistically significant differences for the three types of recidivism. Exhibit 1 Adjusted 18-Month Recidivism Rates FFT vs. Control Group Source: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. 3 Washington State Institute for Public Policy. (2004). Outcome Evaluation of Washington State s Research-Based Programs for Juvenile Offenders. Huskey & Associates Page 12

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project The next exhibit shows the statistical correlation between recidivism rates of three interventions (Functional Family Therapy, Aggression Replacement Training and Coordination of Services). It also measures the statistical significance of the knowledge and skills of the therapists delivering these interventions. Youth treated by competent therapists had reductions in average felony recidivism rates from -24.2 percent to - 38.1 percent than youth being seen by not competent therapists. In fact, youth being seen by not competent therapists had increased their recidivism rate between 6.9 percent to 16.7 percent. Exhibit 2 Summary of Outcome Evaluation Findings Huskey & Associates Page 13

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Recidivism was measured for youth being seen by competent vs. not competent Family Functional therapists by type of offense 18 months following discharge. As this exhibit shows, youth being seen by competent therapists had lower 18-month recidivism rates than other youth (between 3 percent to 44 percent compared to as high as 54 percent for youth being seen by not competent therapists). Exhibit 3 Adjusted 18-Month Recidivism Rates: Control vs. Not Competent and Competent FFT Therapist Groups Source: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Huskey & Associates Page 14

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project This exhibit shows the analysis conducted by the Washington State Institute of Public Policy on other juvenile programs that reduce juvenile crime, create fewer victims of crime and reduce costs to the taxpayer. Exhibit 4 Evidence-Based Models for Juvenile Offenders Estimated Change in Recidivism Rate & Program Economics Average Size of the Crime Reduction Effect Number of Program Effects in the Statistical Survey Net Cost Benefit Per Offender Cost Specific "Off the Shelf" Programs Multi-Systemic Therapy -0.31 3 $131,918 $4,743 Functional Family Therapy -0.25 7 $59,067 $2,161 Aggression Replacement Training -0.18 4 $33,143 $738 Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care -0.37 2 $87,622 $2,052 Adolescent Diversion Project -0.27 5 $27,212 $1,138 General Types of Treatment Programs Diversion with Services (vs. regular juvenile court processing) -0.05 13 $5,679 -$127 Intensive Probation (vs. regular probation caseloads) -0.05 7 $6,812 $2,234 Intensive Probation (as alternative to incarceration) -0.00 6 $18,854 -$18,478 Intensive Parole Supervision (vs. regular parole caseloads) -0.04 7 $6,128 $2,635 Coordinated Services -0.14 4 $14,831 $603 Scared Straight Type Programs -0.13 8 -$24,531 $51 Other Family-Based Therapy Approaches -0.17 6 $30,936 $1,537 Juvenile Sex Offender Treatment -0.12 5 $23,602 $9,920 Juvenile Boot Camps -0.10 10 -$3,587 $15,424 Source: Summary of Program Economics found in The Comparative Costs and Benefits of Programs to Reduce Crime, 2001. Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Note: The summary effect size shown on this table for each area is the weighted average standardized men difference effect size. For those studies with bi0avriate outcome measures, the mean difference effect sizes are approximated using the arcsine transformation as described in Lipsey & Wilson (2000), Table B10, Formula 22. The individual study effect sizes are adjusted suing the Hedges correction for small sample sizes as described in Lipsey & Wilson (2000), page 49, Equation 3.22. The weights are the inverse variance weights as described in Lispey & Wilson (2000), page 49, Equations 3.23 and 3.24. Huskey & Associates Page 15

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Washington State RCW 13.40.500 Community juvenile accountability programs Findings Purpose. The legislature finds that meaningful community involvement is vital to the juvenile justice system s ability to respond to the serious problem of juvenile crime. Citizens and crime victims need to be active partners in responding to crime, in the management of resources, and in the disposition decisions regarding juvenile offenders in their community. Involvement of citizens and crime victims increase offender accountability and build healthier communities, which will reduce recidivism and crime rates in Washington state. The legislature also finds that local governments are in the best position to develop, coordinate, and manage local community prevention, intervention, and corrections programs for juvenile offenders, and to determine local resource priorities. Local community management will build upon local values and increase local control of resources, encourage the use of a comprehensive range of community-based intervention strategies. The primary purpose of RCW 13.40.500 through 13.40.540, the community juvenile accountability act, is to provide a continuum of community-based programs that emphasize the juvenile offender s accountability for his or her actions while assisting him or her in the development of skills necessary to function effectively and positively in the community in a manner consistent with public safety. Notes: Evaluation Report 1997 c 338 60-64: The Washington state institute for public policy shall evaluate the costs and benefits of the programs funded in sections 60 through 64 of this act. The evaluation must measure whether the programs cost-effectively reduce recidivism and crime rates in Washington state. The institute shall submit reports to the governor and the legislature RCW 13.40.510 Community juvenile accountability programs Establishment Proposals Guidelines. (1) In order to receive funds under RCW 13.40.500 through 13.40.540, local governments may, through their respective agencies that administer funding for consolidated juvenile services, submit proposals that establish community juvenile accountability programs within their communities. These proposals must be submitted to the juvenile rehabilitation administration of the department of social and health services for certification. (2) The proposals must: (a) Demonstrate that the proposals were developed with the input of the local law and justice councils established under RCW 72.09.300; Huskey & Associates Page 16

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project (b) Describe how local community groups or members are involved in the implementation of the programs funded under RCW 13.40.500 through 13.40.540; (c) Include a description of how the grant funds will contribute to the expected outcomes of the program and the reduction of youth violence and juvenile crime in their community. Data approaches are not required to be replicated if the networks have information that addresses risks in the community for juvenile offenders. (3) A local government receiving a grant under this section shall agree that any funds received must be used efficiently to encourage the use of community-based programs that reduce the reliance on secure confinement as the sole means of holding juvenile offenders accountable for their crimes. The local government shall also agree to account for the expenditure of all funds received under the grant and to submit to audits for compliance with the grant criteria developed under RCW 13.40.520. (4) The juvenile rehabilitation administration, in consultation with the Washington association of juvenile court administrators and the state law and justice advisory council, shall establish guidelines for programs that may be funded under RCW 13.40.500 through 13.40.540. The guidelines must: (a) Target diverted and adjudicated juvenile offenders; (b) Include assessment methods to determine services, programs, and intervention strategies most likely to change behaviors and norms of juvenile offenders; (c) Provide maximum structured supervision in the community. Programs should use natural surveillance and community guardians such as employers, relatives, teachers, clergy, and community mentors to the greatest extent possible; (d) Promote good work ethic values and educational skills and competencies necessary for the juvenile offender to function effectively and positively in the community; (e) Maximize the efficient delivery of treatment services aimed at reducing risk factors associated with the commission of juvenile offenses; (f) Maximize the reintegration of the juvenile offender into the community upon release from confinement; (g) Maximize the juvenile offender s opportunities to make full restitution to the victims and amends to the community; (h) Support and encourage increased court discretion in imposing community-based intervention strategies; (i) Be compatible with research that shows which prevention and early intervention strategies work with juvenile offenders; (j) Be outcome-based in that it describes what outcomes will be achieved or what outcomes have already been achieved; (k)include an evaluation component; and (l)recognize the diversity of local needs. (5) The state law and justice advisory council may provide support and technical assistance to local governments for training and education regarding community-based prevention and intervention strategies. Huskey & Associates Page 17

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project RCW 13.40.520 Community juvenile accountability programs Grants. (1) The state may make grants to local governments for the provision of community-based programs for juvenile offenders. The grants must be made under a grant formula developed by the juvenile rehabilitation administration, in consultation with the Washington association of juvenile court administrators. (2) Upon certification by the juvenile rehabilitation administration that a proposal satisfies the application and selection criteria, grant funds will be distributed to the local government agency that administers funding for consolidated juvenile services. RCW 13.40.530 Community juvenile accountability programs Effectiveness standards. The legislature recognizes the importance of evaluation and outcome measurements of programs serving juvenile offenders in order to ensure cost-effective use of public funds. The Washington state institute for public policy shall develop standards for measuring the effectiveness of juvenile accountability programs established and approved under RCW 13.40.510. The standards must be developed and presented to the governor and legislature not later than January 1, 1998. The standards must include methods for measuring success factors following intervention. Success factors include, but are not limited to, continued use of alcohol or controlled substances, arrests, violations of terms of community supervision, convictions for subsequent offenses, and restitution to victims. RCW 13.40.540 Community juvenile accountability programs Information collection Report. (1) Each community juvenile accountability program approved and funded under RCW 13.40.500 through 13.40.540 shall comply with the information collection requirements in subsection (2) of this section and the reporting requirements in subsection (3) of this section. (2) The information collected by each community juvenile accountability program must include, at a minimum for each juvenile participant: (a) The name, date of birth, gender, social security number, and, when available, the juvenile information system (JUVIS) control number; (b) an initial intake assessment of each juvenile participating in the program; (c) a list of all juveniles who completed the program; and (d) an assessment upon completion or termination of each juvenile, including outcomes and, where applicable, reasons for termination. (3) The juvenile rehabilitation administration shall annually compile the data and report to the legislature on: (a) The programs funded under RCW 13.40.500 through 13.40.540; (b) the total cost for each funded program and cost per juvenile; and (c) the essential elements of the program. Huskey & Associates Page 18

Chapter 3: Tennessee Evidence-Based Law

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Tennessee Evidence-Based Law (T.C.A. 37-5-121) 1 Tennessee s PC 585 was enacted into law in 2007 and was referred to as the evidence-based law (T.C.A. 37-5-121). One of the reasons for enacting this legislation was to provide the Department of Children s Services (DCS) a tool to evaluate the effectiveness of programs the Department funded. The evidencebased law requires providers receiving funding from the DCS to implement practices and programs that have been scientifically proven through research and theory to reduce juvenile delinquency. The evidence-based law requires the Department of Children s Services, Department of Mental Health, the Department of Education, the Division of Mental Retardation Services, and the Department of Labor and Workforce to expend state funds on juvenile justice programs that are evidence-based. Evidence-based is defined as 1) a program or practice that is governed by a manual or protocol that specifies the nature, quality and amount of service that constitutes the program; and 2) that scientific research using at least two separate client samples has demonstrated improvement in the client outcomes that are central to the program. Pilot projects which lack the required number of research samples that meet the definition for being evidence-based are allowed for evaluation purposes. 2 To be approved for funding, the program must demonstrate through statistical data that the performance metrics have been achieved. To meet scientific standards, the research must compare the results of a control group (youth not receiving services) to youth who receive services (treatment group). DCS is required to provide language in all of its contracts serving juvenile justice youth that the contractor will deliver only evidence-based services; and, the Department shall provide monitoring, through existing quality assurance methods to ensure that applicable program manuals or protocols are being followed. Additionally, DCS will work with the provider on the development and implementation of corrective action when existing monitoring uncovers weaknesses in the provision of evidence-based practices. This law is being implemented in two phases. During 2009-2010, DCS demonstrated that twenty-five percent (25%) of the funds expended for delinquent juveniles were on evidence-based programs. During phase 2, (beginning in FY 2011-2013), 100% of all delinquency programs shall meet the statutory requirements for being evidence-based. 1 Progress Toward Evidence-Based Practices in DCS Funded Juvenile Justice Programs.. Report to Governor Phil Bredesen and the Tennessee General Assembly Pursuant to Public Chapter 585. December 31, 2008. 2 Ibid. Huskey & Associates Page 20

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Tennessee Code Title 37. Chapter 5-121 37-5-121. Pilot programs Evidence-based programs for the prevention, treatment or care of delinquent juveniles. (a) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires: (1) Evidence-based means a program or practice that meets the following requirements: (A) The program or practice is governed by a program manual or protocol that specifies the nature, quality, and amount of service that constitutes the program; and (B) Scientific research using methods that meet high scientific standards for evaluating the effects of such programs must have demonstrated with two (2) or more separate client samples that the program improves client outcomes central to the purpose of the program; (2) Pilot program means a temporary research-based or theory-based program or project that is eligible for funding from any source to determine whether or not evidence supports its continuation beyond the fixed evaluation period. A pilot program shall provide for and include: (A) Development of a program manual or protocol that specifies the nature, quality, and amount of service that constitutes the program; and (B) Scientific research using methods that meet high scientific standards for evaluating the effects of such programs must demonstrate on at least an annual basis whether or not the program improves client outcomes central to the purpose of the program; (3) Research-based means a program or practice that has some research demonstrating effectiveness, but that does not yet meet the standard of evidence-based; and (4) Theory-based means a program or practice that has general support among treatment providers and experts, based on experience or professional literature, may have anecdotal or case-study support, and has potential for becoming a research-based program or practice. (b) The department of children's services, and any other state agency that administers funds related to the prevention, treatment or care of delinquent juveniles, shall not expend state funds on any juvenile justice program or program related to the prevention, treatment or care of delinquent juveniles, including any service model or delivery system in any form or by any name, unless the program is evidence-based. The department shall continue the ongoing research and evaluation of sound, theory-based and researchbased programs with the goal of identifying and expanding the number and type of available evidencebased programs, and to that end the department may engage in and fund pilot programs as defined in this section. (c) Implementation of programs shall be accompanied by monitoring and quality control procedures designed to ensure that they are delivered as prescribed in the applicable program manual or protocol and that corrective action shall be taken when those standards are not met. Huskey & Associates Page 21

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project (d) The department shall include in any contract with a provider of services related to prevention, treatment or care of delinquent juveniles a provision affirming that the provider shall provide only evidencebased services, except for services that are being provided pursuant to a pilot program as defined in this section, and that the services shall be accompanied by monitoring and quality control procedures that ensure that they are delivered according to the applicable standards. The department may use performance requirements or incentives in determining the amounts payable in contracts or grants. (e) In order to prevent undue disturbance to existing department programs, the department shall ensure that twenty-five percent (25%) of the funds expended for delinquent juveniles meet the requirements of this section during fiscal year 2009-2010, that fifty percent (50%) of such funds meet the requirements of this section during fiscal year 2010-2011, that seventy-five percent (75%) of such funds meet the requirements of this section during fiscal year 2011-2012, and that one hundred percent (100%) of such funds meet the requirements of this section during fiscal year 2012-2013 and each fiscal year thereafter. (f) The department of children's services, in conjunction with a representative of the administrative office of the courts and a representative of the Tennessee commission on children and youth, and with ongoing consultation of appropriate research experts and representatives of treatment providers who are appointed by the commissioner of children's services to provide the consultation, shall determine which of its current programs are evidence-based, research-based and theory-based programs, and shall provide a report of those findings, including an explanation of the support for those findings, to the governor, the general welfare, health and human resources committee of the senate, the children and family affairs committee of the house of representatives, and the select committee on children and youth of the general assembly by no later than January 1, 2009. (g) The commissioner is authorized to promulgate rules and regulations to effectuate the purposes of this section. The rules and regulations shall be promulgated in accordance with the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, compiled in title 4, chapter 5. Acts 2007, ch. 585, 1-3. Huskey & Associates Page 22

Chapter 4: North Carolina Juvenile Justice Reform Laws

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Evidence-Based Practices Project North Carolina Juvenile Justice Reform Act, S.L. 1998-202 (S 1260) (the Act) and the Community Commitment Act The State of North Carolina has a state confinement rate of 43.6 per 100,000 youth population housed in state facilities compared to Georgia s confinement rate of 87.0 per 100,000. North Carolina implemented its Juvenile Justice Reform Act in 1998 and a companion Community Commitment Act in 2003 that provided the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention with the discretion to place low and moderate risk youth in community based treatment options at any time after DJJDP admission. The Department also downsized its facilities to a 32-bed rehabilitative treatment model. To gain statewide support for these initiatives, DJJDP implemented a statewide public awareness campaign to increase the knowledge and support for research-based practices that led to the reduction of low and moderate risk youth in state facilities. The Juvenile Justice Reform Act also mandated an on-going evaluation of its state-funded programs to ensure that treatment providers were delivering effective, research-based programs. In 2003 the Department began a pilot program with $500,000 to divert youth who were committed to an alternative to a youth development center titled the Community Commitment Act (Alternatives to Commitment Program). The 2010 appropriation was $750,000. 1 A motion in court must be filed stating reasons why a youth is a good candidate for a community commitment. The committing judge must approve the motion before the placement begins. If it is determined by the treatment team that a youth is non-compliant with the community commitment program, the decision can be made to return the youth to their assigned youth development center. By statute, there are three disposition levels for adjudicated youth in North Carolina: Level I, Community Dispositions; Level II, Intermediate Dispositions; and Level III, Commitment. The intent of the 2003 legislation was that programs be established to serve youth who were at either a Level II or Level III disposition. 1 North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (March 2011). Alternatives to Commitment Programs. Annual Evaluation Report Huskey & Associates Page 24

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Evidence-Based Practices Project Since these two laws have been in place, state commitments have continued to decline. Since 2000, the state s youth development center commitments declined 62.5 percent (from 975 in 2000 to 365 in 2009). 2 Exhibit 1 North Carolina Youth Development Center Commitments From 1998-2009 Source: North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Annual Report. 2009. The findings from the March 2011 Evaluation to the North Carolina Legislature concluded that since the implementation of the Juvenile Justice Reform Act, intensive case management providing wrap around services to the juvenile and family are effective and cost-efficient programs. 3 The Alternatives to Commitment Programs (funded under the Community Commitment Act) delivered somewhat similar intensive case management services that wrapped services around the juvenile and their family. Typical services included family counseling, individual counseling, tutoring, mentoring, interpersonal skill-building, behavior management, cognitive behavior training, structured day, after-school programming, tutoring and electronic monitoring. Alternatives to Commitment Programs serve high-risk youth who are in need of intensive interventions to be successfully served in the community. Without the programs these youth may have been served in a youth development center. Noteworthy outcomes of the programs are: 4 Eighty-three percent (83%) of the youth discharged from these programs completed their programming at a high or acceptable level of participation and achievement of behavior improvement goals. 2 North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2009). Annual Report. 3 North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Alternatives to Commitment Programs. Annual Evaluation Report. March 2011. 4 Ibid. Huskey & Associates Page 25

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Evidence-Based Practices Project The average annual cost per youth in the Alternatives for Commitment Programs was $7,064 while the average annual cost per youth in a youth development center was $102,854. [NOTE: Youth Development Center amounts represent costs to the Department for FY 2008-2009.] Alternatives to Commitment Programs served 91 youth during FY 2009-2010. During that time period, new admissions totaled 59 and exits from the program totaled 67. Of the 67 youth who exited the programs in FY 2009-2010, 56 completed the program meeting the goals of the program with a high or acceptable level of participation and achievement of behavior improvement goals. At six and twelve months after exiting the Alternatives to Commitment Programs, recidivism rates for youth served in the programs were lower than the research predicts for Level III and most serious Level II dispositions. Table 1 Recidivism Data for Youth at 6 and 12 Months After Termination 6 Month Percent 12 Month Percent Adult Warrants 11 16.42% 17 25.4% Juvenile Complaints 7 10.45% 9 13.4% No Complaints or Warrants 49 73.13% 41 61.2% Totals 67 100% 67 100% Sources: North Carolina On-Line Information Network (NC-JOIN), and CJ Leads Databases. The data indicate that Alternative to Commitment Programs continue to be effective and cost-efficient for committed youth at the local level while addressing unmet gaps in the continuum of services within communities. Huskey & Associates Page 26

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Evidence-Based Practices Project Juvenile Justice Reform Act, S.L. 1998-202 (S 1260) (the Act) The Juvenile Justice Reform Act, S.L. 1998-202 (S 1260) (the Act), represents the first complete review and revision of the state's juvenile laws since 1979. The Act has the following overall goals: assist local governments and private service agencies in developing juvenile court and delinquency prevention services; develop a match-based formula for funding juvenile court and delinquency prevention services, based on counties' relative abilities to fund community-based programs; assist the Criminal Justice Information Network Governing Board with the administration of a comprehensive juvenile justice information system; develop a statewide plan for training and professional development for juvenile justice personnel where statistics indicate a disproportionate presence of minority youth in juvenile facilities, develop and recommend strategies to ensure fair and equal treatment in the juvenile justice system; develop a comprehensive delinquency and substance abuse prevention plan, coordinate with county Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils (described below) for implementation of a continuum of community-level services and programs, and report the plan to the State Advisory Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (described below); by April 1 each year, beginning in 2000, report to the General Assembly on the effectiveness and cost benefit of every program operated and contracted by the DJJDP. Funding Mechanism The Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (DJJDP) is required to develop a funding mechanism for local programs that meet state standards, to fund programs that it determines are effective in preventing delinquency and recidivism, and not to fund programs that have proven to be ineffective. It must develop a funding formula that ensures that even the smallest counties will be able to provide basic prevention and alternative services. The DJJDP is directed to allow and encourage local flexibility to determine how best to allocate prevention and alternatives funds and to allow and encourage counties to combine resources and services. It also must ensure that local Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils (described below) evaluate all state-funded programs and services on an ongoing basis. County Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils Creation and Membership The Act requires the board of commissioners of each county, as a prerequisite for receiving funding for juvenile court services and delinquency prevention programs, to appoint a Juvenile Crime Prevention Council to act as a local juvenile justice planning body. Two or more counties may establish a multicounty council, with a membership that is representative of each participating county. A council may consist of no more than twenty-five members, must reflect the racial and socioeconomic diversity of the community, and should include, if possible, the following: the local school superintendent(s) (or designee), a chief of police, Huskey & Associates Page 27

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Evidence-Based Practices Project the local sheriff (or designee), the district attorney (or designee), the chief court counselor (or designee), the director of the area mental health, developmental disabilities, and substance abuse authority (or designee), the director of the county department of social services or consolidated human services agency (or designee), the county manager (or designee), a substance abuse professional, a member of the faith community, a county commissioner, a person under the age of twenty-one, a juvenile defense attorney, the chief district court judge (or a district court judge designated by that person), a member of the business community, the local health director (or designee), a representative from the United Way or other nonprofit agency, a representative of a local parks and recreation program, and up to seven members of the public. Members serve staggered, renewable two-year terms. A council must meet at least once a month and elect a chair and vice-chair annually. Duties of Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils Each council must (1) annually review the needs of juveniles in the county who are at risk of delinquency, or who have been adjudicated undisciplined or delinquent, and the resources available to address the needs; (2) develop and advertise a request-for-proposal process and submit a written plan of action for the expenditure of juvenile justice funds to the board of county commissioners for its approval and submission to the OJJ; and (3) ensure that appropriate intermediate dispositional options are available and prioritize funding for intermediate and community-level dispositions. (Dispositional levels are described below.) Councils may consider joint program development between counties within the same judicial district. The local councils are required, on an ongoing basis, to: assess the needs of juveniles in the community, evaluate available resources, and develop or propose ways to address unmet needs; evaluate the performance of juvenile services and programs in the community; increase public awareness of the causes of delinquency and strategies to reduce the problem; develop strategies to respond to and treat the needs of juveniles at risk for delinquency; provide funds for treatment, counseling, or rehabilitation services for juveniles and their families, including court-ordered parenting responsibility classes; and plan for the establishment of a permanent funding stream for delinquency prevention services. Huskey & Associates Page 28

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Evidence-Based Practices Project Predisposition Report The new code requires that a risk and needs assessment be conducted and attached to the disposition report. The assessment must contain information about the juvenile's social, medical, psychiatric, psychological, and educational history and factors indicating the probability that the juvenile will commit further delinquent acts. Another new provision allows the court to proceed with a dispositional hearing without a predisposition report if no report is available and the court makes a written finding that one is not needed. Screening and Prevention Programs The DJJDP must ensure that programs providing screenings that can identify delinquency risk factors continue to be used in a consistent, coordinated, and cost-effective way. In addition, the DJJDP must evaluate screening and prevention programs and identify any legal or policy bars to effective cooperation. Plan for Community-Based Dispositions The DJJDP must develop a cost-effective plan for statewide community-based dispositional alternatives for delinquent juveniles. The plan must include a funding strategy to encourage communities to provide local resources, services, and treatment options. In developing the plan, the DJJDP must consider specified community-based alternatives and recommend which judicial districts with high crime rates should have nonresidential day reporting centers to provide intensive supervision for juveniles. Pilot On-Track Program The DJJDP was directed to establish a phased-in, ten-county pilot On Track program as an additional probation option for certain delinquent juveniles who are subject to Level 2 dispositions. Each juvenile in the program will receive supervision and intense intervention from a special On Track court counselor and will be assigned a trained mentor. Other components of the program include risk and needs assessments, responsibility contracts, restitution requirements, parental accountability, counseling, and graduation upon a juvenile's completion of the program. Criminal Justice Information Network The act amended G.S. 143-661(a) to expand the purpose of the Criminal Justice Information Network to include the sharing of juvenile justice information among law enforcement, judicial, and corrections agencies. It requires the Criminal Justice Information Network Governing Board to: develop a juvenile justice information plan for creation of the juvenile justice information system, to ensure that the system will enable the state to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the juvenile justice system as well as to monitor and evaluate the progress of individual juveniles; develop a comprehensive juvenile justice information system pursuant to the plan, including a system to collect specified data and information about every juvenile alleged to be delinquent; study the most appropriate methods and procedures for obtaining, retaining, and releasing fingerprints and photographs of juveniles alleged to be delinquent; and consider issues relating to the expunction of juvenile records. Huskey & Associates Page 29

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Evidence-Based Practices Project Community Commitment Act SESSION LAW 2003-53 HOUSE BILL 950 The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts: SECTION 1. G.S. 7B-2513 (e) reads as rewritten: "(e) A commitment order accompanied by information requested by the Department shall be forwarded to the Department. The Department shall place the juvenile in the youth development center that would best provide for the juvenile's needs and shall notify the committing court. The Department may assign a juvenile committed for delinquency to any institution of the Department or licensed by the Department, which program is appropriate to the needs of the juvenile. The Department, after assessment of the juvenile, may provide commitment services to the juvenile in a program not located in a youth development center or detention facility. If the Department recommends that commitment services for the juvenile are to be provided in a setting that is not located in a youth development center or detention facility, the Department shall file a motion, along with information about the recommended services for the juvenile, with the committing court prior to placing the juvenile in the identified commitment program. The Department shall send notice of the motion to the District Attorney, the juvenile, and the juvenile's attorney. Upon receipt of the motion filed by the Department, the court may enter an order without the appearance of witnesses and without hearing if the court determines that the identified commitment program is appropriate and a hearing is not necessary. The court must hold a hearing if the juvenile or the juvenile's attorney requests a hearing. If the court notifies the Department of its intent to hold a hearing, the date for that hearing shall be set by the court and the Department shall place the juvenile in a youth development center or detention facility until the determination of the court at that hearing." Huskey & Associates Page 30

Chapter 5: California Juvenile Justice Community Reentry Law

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Evidence-Based Practices Project California Juvenile Justice Community Re-entry Law In February 2010, California counties began to receive youth discharged from the Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) as a result of the recently enacted AB 1628 (Chapter 729, Statutes of 2010). The Juvenile Justice Community Reentry Challenge Grant Program (JJCRC) provides funds to counties to enable them to develop programs for these youth. Counties and community based treatment providers are required as a condition of funding to deliver research-based programs that are proven to be effective in reducing recidivism. The JJCRC is administered by DJJ, in consultation with the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA), for the purpose of 1) improving the performance and cost-effectiveness of reentry programming for juvenile parolees, 2) reducing the recidivism rates of juvenile offenders, and 3) piloting evidence-based, innovative reentry programs consistent with the division s focus on a rehabilitative treatment model. The primary purpose of AB 1628 is to eliminate DJJ parole by July 2014 and shift this population to county supervision and aftercare. Funding provided via AB 1628 is intended to cover all local costs incurred by counties for the supervision of AB 1628 youth. Counties are prohibited from using AB 1628 funds to supplant existing funds. Counties are required to deliver evidence-based supervision and detention practices as a condition of funding. County probation departments receive $15,000 annually for the supervision and treatment of each youth discharged from DJJ for up to two years. For discharged youth who are transferred to a local juvenile facility for violating a condition of court-ordered supervision, counties receive $115,000 annually for each youth. By July 10 each year, DJJ must report to the Department of Finance (DOF) the number of youth transferred to county jurisdiction as a result of AB 1628. The DOF calculates the funding allocation for each county. Eligible reentry services/programs that can be funded by the Juvenile Justice Community Reentry Challenge Grant Program may include, but are not limited to the following: 1. Transitional or step-down housing, including but not limited to group homes subject to WIC Section 18987.62. 2. Occupational development and job placement. 3. Outpatient mental health services. 4. Substance abuse treatment services. 5. Education. 6. Life skills counseling. 7. Restitution and community service. 8. Case management. 9. Intermediate sanctions for technical violations of conditions of parole. Eligible Applicants: An applicant must be either a county agency or a nonprofit organization (501 I(3)). Statewide and regional projects may be proposed. In the case of a multi-county application (i.e., one in Huskey & Associates Page 32

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Evidence-Based Practices Project which several counties are collaborating) one agency either county or nonprofit must be designated as the applicant. Eligible Service Populations: Youthful offenders returning to the community after a period of commitment or out of home placement are the target population for JJCRC grant projects. At least 75 percent of these youth must be DJJ parolees; the remainder, youthful offenders under the jurisdiction of the county or local juvenile court, may not exceed 25 percent of the grant-funded population. Reentry Plan Elements To be eligible for consideration, applicants shall submit a program plan that includes, but is not limited to, the following: 1. The target population. 2. The type of housing (if applicable) and wrap-around services provided. 3. A parole and community reentry plan for each parolee. 4. Potential sanctions for a parolee s failure to observe the conditions of the program. 5. Coordination with local probation and other law enforcement agencies. 6. Coordination with other service providers and community partners. Huskey & Associates Page 33

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Evidence-Based Practices Project California has also implemented the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act and the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund to enable California to expand effective programs at the local level. The combined effect of these initiatives has reduced California s state juvenile population by 72 percent, from a high of 4,400 in 2003 to 1,232 as of March 31, 2011. 1 According to DJJ, this dramatic decline in population is due to the following reasons: Majority of youth are directed to county programs, enabling direct access and closer proximity to their homes, families, social programs and services, and other support systems Counties have received increased federal funding to build additional treatment facilities Change in fees counties paid to house youths in DJJ facilities based upon the classification of a youths commitment offense Exhibit 1 Juvenile Confined Population California Youth Authority 5,000 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Youth Confined 4,400 3,436 2,881 2,517 2,115 1,568 1,499 1,254 1,232 Source: California Department of Juvenile Justice. Population Overview. 1 http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/juvenile_justice/research_and_statistics/index.html. Population Overview. Huskey & Associates Page 34

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Evidence-Based Practices Project CALIFORNIA WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE SECTION 749.5-749.95 749.5. This article shall be known and may be cited as the Juvenile Justice Community Reentry Challenge Grant Program. 749.6. It is the intent of the Legislature to support the systematic and cultural transformation of the Division of Juvenile Justice into a rehabilitative model that improves youthful offender outcomes and reduces recidivism. As a key component of meeting these goals, it is further the intent of the Legislature to support the development of local infrastructure that provides comprehensive reentry services for juvenile parolees. These services shall be complementary to, and consistent with, the long-term objective of providing a continuum of state and local responses to juvenile delinquency that enhance public safety and improve offender outcomes. 749.7. (a) The Juvenile Justice Community Reentry Challenge Grant Program shall be administered by the Division of Juvenile Justice, in consultation with the Corrections Standards Authority, for the purpose of improving the performance and cost-effectiveness of post-custodial reentry supervision of juvenile parolees, reducing the recidivism rates of juvenile offenders, and piloting innovative reentry programs consistent with the division's focus on a rehabilitative treatment model. (b) This program shall award grants on a competitive basis to applicants that demonstrate a collaborative and comprehensive approach to the successful community reintegration of juvenile parolees, through the provision of wrap-around services that may include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) Transitional or step-down housing, including, but not limited to, group homes subject to Section 18987.62. (2) Occupational development and job placement. (3) Outpatient mental health services. (4) Substance abuse treatment services. (5) Education. (6) Life skills counseling. (7) Restitution and community service. (8) Case management. (9) Intermediate sanctions for technical violations of conditions of parole. (c) To be eligible for consideration, applicants shall submit a program plan that includes, but is not limited to, the following: (1) The target population. (2) The type of housing and wrap-around services provided. (3) A parole and community reentry plan for each parolee. (4) Potential sanctions for a parolee's failure to observe the conditions of the program. (5) Coordination with local probation and other law enforcement agencies. (6) Coordination with other service providers and community partners. 749.8. (a) The Division of Juvenile Justice, in consultation with the Corrections Standards Authority, shall award grants that provide funding for three years on a competitive basis to counties and nonprofit organizations. Huskey & Associates Page 35

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Evidence-Based Practices Project (b) A minimum of 75 percent of the grant award shall be for providing program services to individuals on parole from the Division of Juvenile Justice. The remainder of the grant award may additionally be used for providing program services to youthful offenders under the jurisdiction of the county or local juvenile court who are transitioning from out-of-home placements back into the community. (c) The division shall award grants in a manner that maximizes the development of meaningful and innovative local programs to provide comprehensive reentry services for juvenile parolees. (d) For any grant award, the division shall work with the juvenile court and the probation department of the county or counties in the grant service area to identify state and local case supervision responsibilities that are appropriate for the effective operation and management of the reentry programs supported by the grant. These responsibilities shall be incorporated into a case supervision plan for the grant that shall describe the role of local courts and probation departments in facilitating individual reentry plans, in assigning or removing parolees from grantfunded programs, and in meeting evaluation criteria for the grant. 749.9. The Division of Juvenile Justice, in consultation with the Corrections Standards Authority, the Chief Probation Officers of California, and experts in the field of California juvenile justice programs, shall establish minimum standards, funding schedules, and procedures for awarding grants, which shall take into consideration, but not be limited to, all of the following: (a) The size of the eligible population. (b) A demonstrated ability to administer the program. (c) A demonstrated ability to develop and provide a collaborative approach to improving parolee success rates that includes the participation of nonprofit and community partners. (d) A demonstrated ability to provide comprehensive services to support improved parolee outcomes, including housing, training, and treatment. (e) A demonstrated ability to provide effective oversight and management of youthful offenders or young adults who have been committed to a detention facility, and parolees that require reentry supervision and control. (f) A demonstrated history of maximizing federal, state, local, and private funding sources. 749.95. (a) Each grant recipient shall be required to establish and track outcome measures, including, but not limited to: (1) Annual recidivism rates, including technical parole violations and new offenses. (2) The number and percent of participants successfully completing parole. (3) The number and percent of participants engaged in part-time or full-time employment, enrolled in higher education or vocational training, receiving drug and substance abuse treatment, or receiving mental health treatment. (4) The number and percent of participants that obtain stable housing, including the type of housing. (b) The Division of Juvenile Justice, in consultation with the Corrections Standards Authority, the Chief Probation Officers of California, and experts in the field of California juvenile justice programs, shall create an evaluation design for the Juvenile Justice Community Reentry Challenge Grant Program that will assess the effectiveness of the program. The division shall develop an interim report to be submitted to the Legislature on or before March 1, 2009, and a Huskey & Associates Page 36

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Evidence-Based Practices Project final analysis of the grant program in a report to be submitted to the Legislature on or before March 1, 2011. Huskey & Associates Page 37

Chapter 6: Pennsylvania Act 148

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Evidence-Based Practices Project Pennsylvania Act 148 Pennsylvania has a tradition of supporting research-based programs at the local level. State officials were introduced to these concepts at a National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges conference in 1994. Pennsylvania places a high priority on funding cost-effective treatment programs that have demonstrated to be effective in reducing recidivism and in reducing the confinement of low and moderate risk youth in detention and in state facilities. The Pennsylvania Department of Human Services and the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency fund Blueprints for Violence Prevention model programs that have proven to be effective and save taxpayer money. The Blueprints for Violence Prevention began at the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (CSPV) as an initiative of the State of Colorado, with funding from the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD). The initial purpose of the project was to identify successful programs that could be replicated within Colorado. However, Pennsylvania officials recognized the importance of this research to the field and to Pennsylvania. The Blueprints project conducted a meta-analysis of 500 programs to document the elements of effective programming. 1 Effectiveness is defined by the University of Colorado as evidence of a strong research design (random assignment or the use of control groups), evidence of sustained effects (effects that remain after the intervention has ended), multiple site replication, and cost-effectiveness were among the criteria used to evaluate the programs. Researchers ranked programs either as model programs, if they met all the criteria, or promising, if they met some of the criteria. Ten Blueprint programs consistently produce reliable results in reducing adolescent violent crime, aggression, delinquency, and/or substance abuse. The target populations for each of the programs vary, ranging from programs that target low income first-time mothers to youth already in the juvenile justice system. Pennsylvania earmarks funds for the following Blueprint programs. 2 Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC) is an alternative to group or residential treatment, incarceration, or hospitalization for adolescents who have problems with chronic antisocial behavior, emotional disturbance, and delinquency. Community families provide MTFC-placed adolescents with treatment and intensive supervision. The program targets teenagers with histories of chronic and severe criminal behavior at risk of incarceration. Evaluations of MTFC have demonstrated that youth spend 60% fewer days incarcerated at a 12-month follow-up, and have significantly fewer arrests. 1 Keystones for Reform: Promising Juvenile Justice Policies and Practices in Pennsylvania. (2005). Models for Change. MacArthur Foundation. 2 Ibid. Huskey & Associates Page 39

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Evidence-Based Practices Project Multi-systemic Therapy Multi-systemic Therapy (MST) is an intensive family- and community-based treatment that addresses the multiple reasons behind the serious antisocial behavior of juvenile offenders. MST targets chronic, violent, or substance-abusing male or female juvenile offenders, ages 12 to 17, at high risk of out-of-home placement, and the offenders families. Evaluations of MST have demonstrated reductions of 25 to 70% in recidivism and reductions of 47 to 64% in out-of-home placements for serious juvenile offenders. Functional Family Therapy Functional Family Therapy (FFT) is an outcome-driven prevention/intervention program for youth who have demonstrated the entire range of maladaptive, acting out behaviors and related syndromes. The program targets youth, aged 11 to 18, at risk for and/or presenting with delinquency, violence, substance use, and conduct and behavioral disorders. Clinical trials have demonstrated that FFT is capable of effectively treating adolescents with Conduct Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Disruptive Behavior Disorder, alcohol and other drug abuse disorders, and who are delinquent and/or violent. FFT also interrupts the path of these adolescents into more restrictive, higher cost services. Pennsylvania s Act 148 encourages the use of locally operated community programs to reduce the use of state institutions for low and moderate risk youth. The overall objectives of Act 148 are to: 3 1. Encourage counties to expand the range of services provided to children and youths and their families; 2. Provide financial incentives for the provision of community-based services and disincentives for institutional care; 3. Encourage local planning and coordination of service provision; and 4. Assist county commissioners/administration in managing the number of out-of-home placements. Counties are charged 40 percent of the cost of confining a youth in a state institution from their jurisdiction. Counties are reimbursed by the Department for the cost of implementing the following services: 4 Adoption Services: 100% Shelter Care: 90% Emergency In-Home Services: 80% Foster Care: 80% Community Residential Care: 80% Supervised Independent Living: 80% Community-Based Alternative Treatment Programs: 80% Institutional Services (except Detention): 60% Administrative Costs relating to Child Welfare: 60% 3 Pennsylvania Three Year Plan. Accessed through http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?parentname=searchresult&space=searchresult&in_tx_query=act+14 8&parentid=4&in_hi_userid=2&control=bannerstart&cached=false 4 Keystones for Reform: Promising Juvenile Justice Policies and Practices in Pennsylvania. (2005). Models for Change. MacArthur Foundation. Huskey & Associates Page 40

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Evidence-Based Practices Project Juvenile Detention: 50% Each county develops a Needs-Based Budget Plan and submits it to the state. Counties are required to exhaust federal claiming options through Title IV-E, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Medicaid before seeking Act 148 funding. Since the passage of Act 148, Pennsylvania s state institutional commitments have declined by 24 percent and community placements increased by 20 percent. Huskey & Associates Page 41

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Evidence-Based Practices Project Section 704.1 of the Public Welfare Code (62 P. S. 704.1) REIMBURSEMENT FOR SERVICES 3140.21. General. (a) Under section 704.1 of the Public Welfare Code (62 P. S. 704.1), the Department reimburses expenses incurred by the county for children and youth social services, including services to alleged and adjudicated dependent and delinquent children according to an approved county plan and budget estimate up to the amount of State funds allocated to the county under section 709.3 of the Public Welfare Code (62 P. S. 709.3). (b) Reimbursement is made: (1) At varying percentages based on the type of service or activity for which the expenditure was incurred. (2) According to allowable cost requirements established in Chapter 3170 (relating to allowable costs and procedures for county children and youth programs). (c) The following costs will not be considered as reimbursable costs: (1) The cost of mental health or mental retardation treatment services. (2) The cost of medical and dental services when the client is eligible for other funding or has private resources. (3) The cost of basic education programs. (4) The cost of services for children placed outside this Commonwealth in other states: (i) If the placements are not made according to the requirements of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children in section 761 of the Public Welfare Code (62 P. S. 761) in states which are signatories to the compact. (ii) If the placements are not made according to sections 746 765 of the Public Welfare Code (62 P. S. 746 765) in states which are not signatories to the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children in section 761 of the Public Welfare Code (62 P. S. 761). (5) The cost of care, maintenance and treatment of children placed in facilities which do not meet the requirements of 3130.39 (relating to services and facilities which may be used). (6) The cost of county probation office staff. (7) The cost of juvenile court staff. (8) The cost of county social service staff not a part of the county agency. 3140.23. Reimbursement of costs incurred in proceedings under the Juvenile Act. The Department reimburses 50% of the reasonable costs of: (1) Medical and other examinations and treatment of a child ordered by the court under 42 Pa.C.S. Chapter 63 (relating to the Juvenile Act). (2) A guardian pendente lite, summons, warrants, notices, subpoenas, travel expenses of witnesses, transportation of the child and other similar expenses incurred in proceedings under 42 Pa.C.S. 6301 6365. Huskey & Associates Page 42

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Evidence-Based Practices Project 3140.47. Deduction for youth development center and forestry camp. (a) The Department will deduct from each quarterly payment to the county the amount that the county owes to the Department for its share of the cost of care and maintenance for adjudicated delinquent children committed to State-operated youth development centers and youth forestry camps. (b) The amount deducted is based on monthly statements of placements which are aggregated quarterly and sent to each county. The deduction is computed from the monthly statements and interim per diem rates for services in each facility. (c) The Department will maintain a record of facility costs and days of care for certification by the Auditor General in determining the actual average daily cost for service in each facility. Quarterly payments will be adjusted for the difference between actual costs and interim billings after the costs are certified by the Auditor General. (d) The interim and actual per diem rates are determined in accordance with a cost allocation procedure published in the Department s Administrative Manual. Huskey & Associates Page 43

Chapter 7: State of New York

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Evidence-Based Practices Project State of New York Reform Bills The Task Force on Transforming Juvenile Justice recommended that New York State reduce reliance on out of home placement by encouraging localities to develop high quality alternatives to placement programs. 1 The New York State Juvenile Justice Advisory Group (JJAG) recommended that New York implement policies and programs that are proven through research to be effective. According to the JJAG, in the last ten years, a substantial body of research and practice has demonstrated that what s really tough on crime is an approach that focuses on rehabilitation, not punishment. Less, not more, incarceration for low and medium risk children works better to reduce reoffending. Moreover, there is a rigorous and tested program of activities and treatment that specifically works for adolescents. 2 New York State has for many years reimbursed local jurisdictions for 50 percent of the cost of secure detention and 50 percent of the cost of placing a youth in a state operated facility. However, the state provided localities nothing to defray the cost of alternatives to detention and in and out of state placement. 3 ReDirect NY establishes a 65 percent reimbursement to fund these alternatives to incarceration programs. The key provisions of this bill are: 4 65/35 reimbursement mechanism for counties that reduce usage of detention and incarceration for juveniles by 25%. Accountability measures that ensure only successful alternative programs will be funded. Return of half of saved funds to the county for reinvestment in community-based alternative programs and community-based prevention and early prevention programs. This bill was supported by the Governor s Task Force and the Juvenile Justice Advisory Group; however, this bill did not become law. It has been reintroduced in the current session (S6711/A10253). Another proposed bill being considered by the 2011 General Assembly is Reinvest NY. This bill requires the state to reinvest savings realized from closing under-utilized juvenile correctional centers into community-based alternative programs. (S6710/A10253). 5 This bill creates a sustainable funding stream that counties can access to develop more alternatives to detention and alternatives to state commitment. The Governor has proposed $29 million for performance-focused, community based programs at a 62% state/ 38% local match. In addition, the Governor proposes to cap detention reimbursement and limit it to only high risk youth. 1 Governor David Paterson s Task Force on Transforming Juvenile Justice. Charting a New Course: A Blueprint for Transforming Juvenile Justice in New York State. December 2009. 2 New York State Juvenile Justice Advisory Group. Tough on Crime: Promoting Public Safety by Doing What Works. December 2010. 3 Ibid. 4 Fight Crime: Invest in Kids New York. Accessed through http://www.fightcrime.org/state/new-york/legislation 5 http://www.cssny.org/userimages/downloads/urban%20agenda%204.29%20.10%20- %20Senator%20Montgomery%20Agenda%20to%20Save%20Young%20People%20Lives.pdf Huskey & Associates Page 45

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Evidence-Based Practices Project A final proposal is the Alternatives to Residential Placement which requires Family Court judges to place youth in alternatives to residential programs unless the judge finds that a youth poses a threat to public safety (S6709/A10449). 6 These proposed legislative initiatives are aimed at reducing youth recidivism by providing effective, research-based interventions. The cost of state confinement is $210,000 per child per year. The Task Force estimated that if New York diverted 15% of the youth in state custody to alternatives to placement, the State would save nearly $3 million in taxpayer money. 7 The state s reform efforts have also focused on right sizing the residential capacity of the state-operated system to reflect the decreasing demand. Since 2007, the Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) has closed 16 facilities and another 180 beds are scheduled to be closed in the current fiscal year 2011. These closings have resulted in an estimated $65 million in savings through the end of the current state fiscal year, with a projected additional savings of $54 million in 2011-2012. Despite these reductions in capacity, OCFS-operated facilities continue to function with significant excess capacity. 8 In April 2010, OCFS announced $4 million in community reinvestment funding to provide services for approximately 1,200 juvenile delinquents in their own communities, avoiding costly and less effective placements far from home. In July 2010, the state agreed to a settlement with DOJ by agreeing to change OCFS policy, including improving or creating better systems to ensure protection from harm and access to mental health care. In October 2010, Phase I of the statewide juvenile justice strategic planning process was launched. The Governor s Executive Budget supports the following statewide reform initiatives: 9 Restructure State Funding for Local Secure and Non-Secure Detention Local detention costs for high risk youth will be supported through a new Capped Detention Program that will support 50 percent of detention costs for high risk youth who pose a threat to public safety. This financing reform will provide stronger incentives for local officials to focus on effective programs that serve youth in the community and will generate long-term State and local savings. (2011-12 Value: $23 million; 2012-13 Value: $51 million) 6 Ibid. 7 Governor David Paterson s Task Force on Transforming Juvenile Justice. Charting a New Course: A Blueprint for Transforming Juvenile Justice in New York State. December 2009. 8 State of New York. 2011-2012 Executive Budget. Accessed through http://www.governor.ny.gov/20112012executivebudget 9 Ibid. Huskey & Associates Page 46

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Evidence-Based Practices Project Invest in Performance-Based Supervision and Treatment Services for Juveniles Program A significant increase in funding will be available for local governments to support performance-focused, community-based alternatives to placing lower-risk youth in State youth facilities and local detention centers. This funding will replace and enhance existing alternatives to detention and residential placement program funding. (2011-12 Value: $29 million; 2012-13 Value: $46 million) Reduce Youth Facility Capacity This proposal would reduce capacity from 1,209 beds to 833 beds. To allow for more effective management and swifter achievement of savings for State taxpayers, the Executive Budget also proposes to eliminate the 12-month statutory notification requirement that OCFS must adhere to before closing a facility.(2011-12 Value: $22 million; 2012-13 Value: $22 million) Enhance Youth Facility Services. This investment would support improvements in mental health, education, counseling, direct care and other services at OCFS facilities throughout the State. The investment would build upon efforts that began in 2010. (2011-12 Value: $14 million; 2012-13 Value: $24 million) Huskey & Associates Page 47

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Evidence-Based Practices Project New York Section 529-b 10 S6711/A10253 ReDirect NY AN ACT to amend the executive law, in relation to reimbursement for alternatives to detention and alternative to residential placement programs: Section 1. The executive law is amended by adding a new section 529-b to read as follows: S 529-B. Reimbursement for alternatives to detention and alternative to residential placement programs. 1. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, to the extent funds are specifically appropriated therefor, the Office Of Children and Family Services shall reimburse a political subdivision, or county outside of the City of New York, sixty-five percent of funds expended in alternatives to detention and alternative to residential placement programs. 2. As used in this section, the term alternatives to detention shall mean community based services, approved by the political subdivision or county, which are meant to help keep youth awaiting trial in family court pursuant to article three or seven of the family court act, or awaiting trial in criminal court, out of detention. Such services may include, but not be limited to: (A) services or programs which are aimed at helping deter youth from committing acts, that if committed by an adult would constitute a crime under the penal law; (B) services or programs which are aimed at helping ensure that the youth appears in court on scheduled return dates; explanation--matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets [ ] is old law to be omitted. LBD15200-06-0 S. 6711--B2 (C) Services or programs which provide or facilitate support for mental health disorders, substance abuse problems or learning disabilities; (d) Services or programs which are family-focused; (E) Services or programs which are capable of replication across multiple sites; (F) Services or programs which are aimed at reducing arrest rates of youth participating in such programs; and (G) Services or programs which are aimed at producing positive outcomes from youth participating in such programs. 3. As used in this section, the term Alternative to Residential Placement Programs shall mean, community based programs or services, approved by a political subdivision or county outside of the City of New York, which are meant to prevent residential placements of youth pursuant to paragraph (a) of subdivision one of section 352.2 of the Family Court Act. Such services or programs may include but not be limited to: (A) Services or programs which provide or facilitate support for mental health disorders, substance abuse problems and learning disabilities; (B) Services or programs which provide post-release support within the youth's community; (C) Services or programs which are capable of replication across multiple sites; 10 http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/s64-2011 Huskey & Associates Page 48

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Evidence-Based Practices Project (D) Services or programs which are family-focused; (E) Services or programs aimed at reducing recidivism; (F) Services or programs which are aimed at reducing arrest rates of youth participating in such programs; and (G) Services or programs which are aimed at producing positive outcomes from youth participating in such programs. 4. (A) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, a political subdivision or county outside of the City of New York shall be eligible for prospective reimbursement in accordance with subdivision one of this section, from the Office of Children and Family Services for alternatives to detention and alternative to residential placement programs funded by such political subdivision or county. (B) (I) In order for a political subdivision or county to receive prospective reimbursement pursuant to this subdivision, such political subdivision or county must submit a plan to the Office of Children and Family Services detailing how alternatives to detention and alternative to residential placement services shall be provided within the political subdivision or county. (II) Provided however, that each year following the implementation of this section, the political subdivision or county shall submit in the plan required pursuant to this subdivision information for the most recent preceding year for which such political subdivision or county received funding pursuant to this section. Such information shall include, but not be limited to: (A) The number of youth served in alternative to detention or residential placement programs which receive funding pursuant to this section, if known; and (B) The number of reductions in detention and residential placements, that resulted from services or programs funded pursuant to this section if known. (C) The Office of Children and Family Services shall review plans submitted pursuant to paragraph (b) of this subdivision and approve or disapprove of such plans submitted. (I) If the Office of Children and Family Services disapproves of a plan submitted pursuant to this paragraph, the political subdivision or county shall have sixty days to submit an amended plan. (II) Upon approval of such plan, the Office of Children and Family Services shall: (A) Make allocations to a political subdivision or county in accordance with subdivision one of this section; and (B) Post on their website the political subdivision or county's approved plan. S 2. This act shall take effect immediately and shall be deemed to have been in full force and effect on and after April 1, 2010; provided however, that effective immediately, the addition, amendment and/or repeal of any rule or regulation necessary for the implementation of this act on its effective date are authorized and directed to be made and completed. Huskey & Associates Page 49

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Evidence-Based Practices Project New York State Task Force Recommendations and Strategies 11 1. The Fundamentals of Reform Reduce the use of institutional placement, downsize or close underutilized facilities, and reinvest in communities. Reduce disproportionate representation of youth of color in institutional placement. Ensure that New York State operates a unified and cohesive system of care that keeps all youth in its custody safe, whether in private or state-operated facilities. 2. Keeping More Kids at Home: A Shift to Community-based Services Reserve institutional placement for youth who pose a significant risk to public safety, and ensure that no youth is place in a facility because of social service needs. Develop and expand community-based alternatives to institutional placement. Redirect cost savings into neighborhoods that are home to the highest number of youth in the juvenile justice system. 3. Rethinking Institutional Placement Place youth close to home. Develop a standard process to accurately assess a youth s risk and needs. Require all facilities culture and physical environments to be conducive to positive youth development and rehabilitation. Fund and provide services and programs, including education and mental health treatment, which prepare youth for release. Support and invest in staff. Provide localities with equal reimbursements for youth who are placed in OCFS-custody, regardless of the type of facility. 4. Ensuring Successful Reentry Limit the amount of time youth spend in institutional facilities. Begin reentry planning and preparation at the time of disposition, and actively engage different stakeholders in this process. Ensure that reentry plans are individualized and provide for seamless, well-supported transitions from facilities back to the community. 5. Creating System Accountability and Transparency Improve and expand the use of data and other performance measures to guide decision making, enhance accountability, and drive system improvement. Track and report disproportionate representation of youth of color at every system point. Ensure that allegations of abuse and staff misconduct in facilities are thoroughly investigated and handled appropriately. Establish and fund an independent, external oversight body to monitor and report OCFS s juvenile justice policies and practices. Provide regular progress reports on the status of implementing the Task Force s recommendations. 11 New York Task Force on Transforming Juvenile Justice. A Report of Governor David Paterson. Charting a New Course: A Blueprint for Transforming Juvenile Justice in New York State. December 2009. Huskey & Associates Page 50

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Evidence-Based Practices Project Citizens Committee for Children Proposal Fixing New York s Broken Juvenile Justice System Starts with Downsizing and Reinvestment As Governor Andrew Cuomo passionately explained in his 2011 State of the State Address, it is a violation of children s civil rights to incarcerate them so that adults can have jobs. New York s Juvenile Justice System Is Broken: NY s System Does Not Protect Public Safety: OCFS, the responsible state agency, has found that the rearrest rate for boys is over 80% after they leave their care. NY s System Does Not Produce Good Outcomes for Youth: In addition to the unacceptable recidivism rate, the health and mental health care needs of youth in placement facilities are often not met and their education credits do not always transfer, leaving them further behind in school. In addition, due to the abuse (documented by the US Department of Justice) and criminogenic environment, youth outcomes are actually worse, rather than better. NY s System Places Youth Far From Their Families and Communities: While the majority of youth in the system are from NYC, most youth are placed in facilities far from home, which makes it difficult for youth to maintain family ties, engage in programming that strengthens families, and transition back home to their communities. NY s System Is Extremely Expensive: While the State Juvenile Justice System is not meeting either of its goals (to protect the community and to rehabilitate youth) it is also extremely expensive. It costs approximately $220,000-$350,000 per year to incarcerate a child. NY s System is Extremely Inefficient: Every night, there are over 350 beds in the State s Juvenile Justice system that are empty, but being paid for. Currently, when the State determines a facility is to be closed, State Law requires that it remain open for 12 months even if there are no children there. My Administration will commit to a policy of reforming the system making sure our troubled youth populations are best served with meaningful programming, so they may go on to live productive lives, Andrew Cuomo, January 5, 2011. Citizens Committee for Children Supports Governor Cuomo s Vision to Reform New York s Juvenile Justice System and we urge that the following action must be taken: Downsize the System By Closing Underutilized Facilities and Repealing the 12-Month Notification Rule: CCC Supports Governor Cuomo s proposal to reduce state facility capacity from 1,209 beds to 833 beds without waiting 12 months. Improve OCFS Facility Care at OCFS Facilities by investing in improvements in mental health, education, counseling, direct care and other services at OCFS facilities. Huskey & Associates Page 51

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Evidence-Based Practices Project Reinvest Savings Into Alternatives to Detention and Incarceration Programs (ATD/ATI) Through a Sustainable Funding Stream That Counties Have the Funds To Access: Reducing the use of detention and facility care will require counties to develop more ATD/ATI programs. The Governor s proposed Supervision and Treatment Services for Juveniles Program would provide $29 million in SFY 11-12 for performance-focused, community based programs at a 62% state/ 38% local match. In addition, the Governor proposes to cap detention reimbursement and limit it to high risk youth. To truly reduce the use of detention (and not just shift costs) counties must have the resources to draw down funds from this new program. To Achieve Juvenile Justice Reform CCC Supports These Proposals, but to Strengthen the Governor s Plan we ask for the Following Amendments Achieving Juvenile Justice Reform Requires Approval of Governor Cuomo s Plans With the Following Additions/Amendments: Strategically Downsize the System By Closing Underutilized Facilities and Repealing the 12-Month Notification Rule: CCC Supports Governor Cuomo s proposal to reduce state facility capacity from 1,209 beds to 833 beds without waiting 12 months. These closures must be done strategically and carefully so that a) youth are placed in facilities close to their homes and b) the elimination of non-secure beds does not result in a cost shift to the localities who pay for private placements out of the Foster Care Block Grant. Improve the Care Provided to All Youth in OCFS Facilities: The youth who need to be incarcerated should be in facilities close to their homes and communities, and they should receive therapeutic services delivered through a trauma-based intervention that incorporates principles of youth development rather than the corrections-based approach employed in the adult system. Implement the capped Detention Block Grant for high risk youth and the Supervision and Treatment Services for Juvenile Program in a manner that ensures counties are able to invest in community-based alternatives and can decrease their use of detention. CCC agrees with the Governor that youth who can be safely served in their homes and communities should remain out of detention facilities. Given the anticipated local budget deficits, cost-shifts of mandated services created throughout the Executive Budget and the potential increase in detention costs to counties, CCC wants to ensure that counties are in the position to develop the additional community-based programs (and the infrastructure to support them in counties that do not currently have them) that will truly decrease the use of detention. CCC suggests the following amendments: o For counties that do not currently have community-based alternative programs: Enable these counties to access a portion of their allocation from the Performance-based Supervision and Treatment Program funds without a required match during the first year of implementation. This would provide these counties with start-up funds to develop an infrastructure, create new programs and train all parties and judges. o For counties that have already invested local dollars in community-based alternative programs: Allow these counties to use their current, existing locally invested dollars as the required county match (but legally prohibit the counties from reducing their local investment to prevent the supplanting of local dollars with state dollars). This would enable localities that have already been innovative and have demonstrated their willingness to invest local resources into these programs, to expand their county s services without Huskey & Associates Page 52

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Evidence-Based Practices Project investing new local dollars and ensure that they too can increase their community-based alternative programs capacity. o Stagger the effective dates of the capped detention block grant and the state s the Performance-based Supervision and Treatment Program so that counties have the opportunity to invest in and develop alternative programs while still receiving their current levels of detention reimbursement. Ensure there is effective, independent oversight of the Juvenile Justice system, both for youth in OCFS placements and private placements. Keep Youth out of the Juvenile Justice System by protecting and maintaining investments in proven programs, by rejecting the proposed Primary Prevention Incentive Fund, TANF cuts and steep cost shifts to Human Services: Investments in home visiting, child care, child abuse and neglect prevention services, after school and summer youth employment have proven time and again to keep children and youth on the right path. The proposed PPIP will eliminate funding for home visiting, Runaway and Homeless Youth Services, after school programs, and additional by preventive programs by almost $50 million, require a county match with funds they do not have budgeted and minimize the state s commitment to cost-effective services proven to produce good outcomes for children and youth. Huskey & Associates Page 53

Chapter 8: Appendix

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Evidence-Based Practices Project The following article is written by the President of the Illinois States Attorneys Association on the juvenile justice reform in Illinois. He and the Association has been a leader in promoting evidencebased policies and programs in the State of Illinois. Huskey & Associates Page 55

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Evidence-Based Practices Project Huskey & Associates Page 56

State and Local Partnerships to Reduce Low and Medium Risk Youth from Detention and State Commitment Volume 3 Submitted by Huskey & Associates April 8, 2011

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Chapter 2 Ohio RECLAIM and TARGETED RECLAIM Chapter 3: Redeploy Illinois Chapter 4: California Juvenile Justice Realignment Act Chapter 5: Wisconsin Youth Aids and Community Intervention Program Chapter 6: Missouri Juvenile Court Diversion Program 3 15 22 29 38 Huskey & Associates Page i

Chapter 1: Introduction

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Introduction This report is Part 1 of a summary of state and local partnerships in the states of Ohio, Illinois, California, Wisconsin and Missouri. These states were chosen because they have demonstrated reductions in low and moderate risk youth from detention and state commitments. They have accomplished this goal through improved collaboration, greater use of objective risk and needs assessments, effective case planning, and they have expanded the number and type of local alternatives to detention and state commitment. Even in this economy, state aid to counties continues. This suggests that the legislatures in these states find a way to fund these legislative initiatives. Missouri s grant program is not legislatively mandated; however, it is included in this report because it has contributed to a reduction in low risk youth commitments to the state Division of Youth Services. Re-direct New York is not included in this report because the legislation was not passed by the General Assembly. The research was conducted through a review of data and reports as reported on each state s websites, review of legislation from each state and supplemented by telephone interviews with departments of juvenile justice and other key agencies in each state. 1.2 Proposal It would be in the best interest of the State of Georgia to consider these legislative initiatives to create a partnership between state agencies, local governments and Juvenile Courts to expand the use of objective risk and needs assessments, alternatives to detention and alternatives to state commitment of low and moderate risk youth. Currently, the counties and Juvenile Courts have little incentive to develop these local options since the state pays for these youth in Regional Youth Detention Centers and Youth Development Centers. To create these incentives, all of the state s juvenile justice agencies, but more specifically the Department of Juvenile Justice, and local governments and Juvenile Courts should create a mutually agreeable partnership. For every low and moderate risk youth that localities/juvenile Courts maintain in public or privately operated alternatives to detention and commitment, the state should incentivize them. Incentives can be through the following mechanisms: 1. Block grant 2. Local match 3. Federal claiming mechanism for DJJ s treatment providers so they can claim reimbursement from Medicaid, Early Periodic Screening Diagnostic Treatment, Medicaid Rehabilitation, Title IV-E and Title IV-B. 4. Training and technical assistance 5. Performance measure development and monitoring to enhance their effectiveness Huskey & Associates Page 1

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project As juvenile facilities close, the savings that occur should be reinvested into the communities/private treatment providers. Legislation such as is described in this document will require the recipients of these funds to implement objective risk and needs assessments, create case plans based on the results of these assessments, implement evidence-based practices, policies and programs and develop performance metrics and monitoring systems to ensure that these funds are used for programs that meet the Principles of Effective Intervention (risk, needs, responsivity and fidelity). Huskey & Associates Page 2

Chapter 2: Ohio RECLAIM AND TARGETED RECLAIM

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Introduction Ohio RECLAIM and TARGETED RECLAIM 1 The State of Ohio administers through its Department of Youth Services RECLAIM that provides incentive funding to localities to maintain low and moderate risk youth in local programs. From a high of 2,600 in May 1992, the average daily population in Ohio s juvenile corrections centers in December 2010 was 800, a 69.2 percent reduction. 2 DYS has targeted six of the top committing counties for Targeted RECLAIM to reduce their commitments to secure custody by 20 percent. The actual decline in DYS admissions during 2009-2010 from these six counties was 39 percent (due to Target RECLAIM and Mental Health Juvenile Justice Reform). 3 RECLAIM Ohio has helped to improve the relationship between the Ohio Department of Youth Services (DYS) and local juvenile court judges by creating shared ownership and responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice. RECLAIM Ohio enables local juvenile courts to respond immediately and effectively to youth misbehavior by developing their own local community-based disposition programs or contracting with private and nonprofit organizations to establish them. RECLAIM Ohio was piloted in 9 Ohio counties in 1994 and became available to all 88 of Ohio's counties in January 1995. Several factors led to the enactment of the RECLAIM Ohio legislation in 1993. Prior to the development of RECLAIM, county judges operated with the perception that committing a youth to a DYS secure facility was free, since sending youth to DYS was no cost to the county. There was a fiscal incentive for the counties to commit youth to secure juvenile facilities, no matter how nonviolent the crime for which they had been adjudicated. RECLAIM Ohio was designed to provide more local autonomy in the administration of juvenile justice by incentivizing local juvenile courts to develop or contract for a range of community-based sanctions options. The program goals of RECLAIM are: 1) to empower local judges with more sentencing options and disposition alternatives for the juvenile offender and 2) to improve DYS' ability to treat and rehabilitate youthful offenders. Counties receive a funding allocation based on the number of youth adjudicated for acts in the previous 4 years that would have been felonies if committed by adults. Each month, a county's allocation is charged 75 percent of the daily costs for youth housed in secure DYS institutions and 50 percent of the daily costs for youth placed in DYS community corrections facilities. Community corrections facilities are State-funded, locally operated, dispositional alternatives for juvenile offenders who commit acts that would be considered felonies if committed by adults and who are in need of treatment in a residential facility but whose offenses do not warrant a long-term commitment to a secure DYS facility. DYS rebates the remainder of the allocation, after the debits, to the counties each month. With those funds, counties contract for or develop community-based programs for youth adjudicated delinquent who would 1 www.dys.ohio.gov. 2 Ohio Department of Youth Services. (2010). Reclaim Ohio Statistics. www.dys.ohio.gov 3 Ohio Department of Youth Services. Plan for Regionalization. October 2010. Huskey & Associates Page 3

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project have otherwise been committed to DYS facilities. Examples of the programs in operation in Ohio counties include day treatment, intensive probation, electronic monitoring, home-based services, offense-specific programs, residential treatment, and reintegration or transitional programs. The only current limitations on the use of RECLAIM Ohio funds are that they must be funneled into programs serving youth who have been before the juvenile courts and that they cannot be used for construction, renovation, or supplanting local funds. RECLAIM Ohio includes a provision for "public safety beds" for which counties are not debited. As a result, the counties are not charged against their RECLAIM Ohio allocation for youth committed to DYS for enumerated violent crimes, such as murder, rape, manslaughter, and certain firearms offenses. Under the RECLAIM Ohio program, the responsibility for crowding in juvenile facilities and the delivery of services to delinquent youth is not a State or a local problem but a systems issue. Localities lacked resources to treat some juvenile offenders locally and DYS found it could not provide all of the services necessary to accommodate the entire range of offenders in its secure facilities. By recreating the process by which juvenile sanctions are funded, RECLAIM Ohio has achieved its goal of allowing local juvenile courts to design juvenile corrections to fit community needs. DYS benefited as well from the creation of environments that best serve young offenders. In an effort to continue the positive relationships between DYS and local courts, a RECLAIM Ohio conference is held every year, and program meetings occur every other month for all counties that wish to participate. Both venues offer an opportunity for RECLAIM Ohio participants to discuss successes and challenges in the program's implementation. According to DYS officials, staff spend a significant amount of time in the field, offering counties technical assistance with the administration of their programs. The training and technical assistance is aimed at continuing to foster close relationships and to provide data to help enhance the performance of local programs. Huskey & Associates Page 4

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Ohio Administrative Code Department of Youth Services Chapter 5139-67 Grant Funding for Youth Services and Facilities 5139-67-01 Definitions. For the purpose of implementing Chapter 5139-67 of the Administrative Code, the following terms have the following definitions: (A) Administrative costs means those costs related to the overall administration of the grant. (B) Base allocation means the amount of state subsidy grant (youth services grant) funds a county will be eligible to receive, based on the formula found in section 5139.34 of the Revised Code. (C) Capital construction projects means the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, remodeling, renovation, enlargement or improvement of capital facilities as defined in section 154.01 of the Revised Code. (D) Chargeable bed days means the number of bed days in an institution or community corrections facility for which reductions are made in the computation of the court s variable allocation; these do not include bed days which fall under the definition of public safety beds in section 5139.01 of the Revised Code; these do include the first five days of a youth s absence from an institution of the department or a community corrections facility. (E) Commitment means the transfer of the physical and legal custody of a youth who is at least ten years of age but less than eighteen years of age from the court to the department for having committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would be a felony. (F) Community corrections facility means a state funded facility operated for the sole purpose of providing treatment and rehabilitation to juvenile felony delinquents in lieu of a commitment to the department, as defined in section 5139.36 of the Revised Code. (G) Department means the Ohio department of youth services. (H) Fair market value means the cost of equipment, property, or services which would be paid by a prudent buyer in a given community. Prudence is based on comparison shopping and selection. Payment rates should conform closely to the going rate in the community for a given service. (I) Felony delinquent means any child who is adjudicated a delinquent for having committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would be a felony. This includes any adult who is between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one and who is in the legal custody of the department for having committed an act as a Juvenile that, if committed by an adult, would be a felony. (J) Felony delinquent care and custody fund (FDCC) means the fund into which Reclaim Ohio (variable allocation) and youth services grant funds (base allocation) are deposited and from which they are disbursed. (K) Fiscal agent means the county fiscal representative responsible for oversight of department grant funds. (L) Fiscal year means the state fiscal year period of July first through June thirtieth. (M) Funding application means a document completed by a county/juvenile court which reflects projected expenditures according to the established standard program areas in standard budget categories and is used to allocate and disburse funds under section 5139.34 and 5139.43 of the Revised Code. (N) Grant means funds disbursed to the counties in accordance with sections 5139.34 and 5139.43 of the Revised Code. Huskey & Associates Page 5

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project (O) Indirect cost means a fixed charge by the county for handling the grant and providing payroll and other related services; (P) Institution means a state facility created by the general assembly that is under the management and control of the department or a private facility with which the department has contracted for the institutional care and custody of felony delinquents, except for youth placed in accordance with section 5139.38 of the Revised Code. (Q) Minority youth means any youth that is not Caucasian. (R) Program amendment means a programmatic or budgetary change in a program. (S) Public safety beds means a county s variable allocation is not adversely affected by bed days for any youth who are committed for a category I or II offense (aggravated murder, attempted aggravated murder, murder, attempted murder, kidnapping, rape, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter (F1), felonious sexual penetration, and aggravated arson) as defined in sections 2151.26 and 5139.01 of the Revised Code with the exception of aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery; felony delinquents who are subject to and serving a three year period of commitment pursuant to divisions (A) and (B) of section 2152.17 of the Revised Code for an act other than a violation of 2911.11 of the Revised Code that would be a category I or II offense; felony delinquents committed to the department by the juvenile court of a county that has had one-tenth of one percent or less of the statewide adjudications for felony delinquents as averaged for the past four fiscal years for which data is available and who are in the custody of an institution or a community corrections facility; youth adjudicated and recommitted for the commission of an offense committed while in a department institution; youth serving disciplinary time as defined in section 5139.01 of the Revised Code; or youth who have violated the terms and conditions of their supervised release, have had that release revoked, and are serving time beyond the initial thirty day period of institutionalization as defined in section 5139.01 of the Revised Code. (T) Recommitment means the commitment for a new period of incarceration in an institution for a youth who is already in the legal custody of the department. (U) Revocation means the legal process through which a juvenile court returns a youth, who has violated the post-release terms and conditions, to the department for institutionalization pursuant to the applicable divisions of section 5139.52 of the Revised Code. (V) Standard program area means the categories established by the department from which programs are developed and data reported. (W) Supplanting means using grant funds to take the place of county money to fund the juvenile court s budget or related programs. Funds must be used to increase or enhance services to youth, and may not be used to pay for services which are already provided with county funds. Local funds for these services may not be decreased as a result of these grant funds. (X) Variable allocation means the Reclaim Ohio allocation. R.C. 119.032 review dates: 08/01/2007 and 08/01/2012 Promulgated Under: 119.03 Statutory Authority: 5139.04(D) Rule Amplifies: 5139.01, 5139.34, 5139.36, 5139.41, 5139.43, 5139.44 Prior Effective Dates: 8/1/97, 10/25/02, 2/17/06 5139-67-02 Responsibilities of the department. In administering the program, the department shall do all of the following: (A) Establish procedures and time frames for submitting grant agreement and funding applications and other documents as required by this grant; (B) Determine each juvenile court s base and variable allocations and notify each juvenile court of its allocations; Huskey & Associates Page 6

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project (C) Review and approve each grant agreement and funding application based on compliance with the Administrative Code and the Revised Code; (D) Provide technical assistance and training to the juvenile courts relative to all rules and procedures of the grant; and assist in planning, program development, implementation and evaluation of this grant; (E) Disburse the base allocation to the counties in accordance with the requirements of section 5139.34 of the Revised Code, if all required reports have been received; (F) Disburse the variable funds to the counties in accordance with section 5139.43 of the Revised Code if all required reports have been received; (G) Monitor the court s grant funded programs for compliance. R.C. 119.032 review dates: 08/01/2007 and 08/01/2012 Promulgated Under: 119.03 Statutory Authority: 5139.04(D) Rule Amplifies: 5139.34, 5139.36, 5139.41, 5139.43, 5139.44 Prior Effective Dates: 8/1/97, 10/25/02, 2/17/06 5139-67-03 Responsibilities of the county. Grant funds received by the county: (A) Shall not be commingled with any other funds; (B) Shall be deposited in the felony delinquent care and custody fund; (C) May be used to fund capital construction projects: only in an amount that does not exceed fifteen per cent of the base allocation amount for the current fiscal year; (D) Shall be disbursed for use by the juvenile courts as follows: (1) For use in the provision of programs and services for delinquent, unruly and juvenile traffic offenders; (2) For use in prevention, early intervention, diversion, treatment and rehabilitation programs that are provided for alleged or adjudicated unruly or delinquent children or children at risk of becoming unruly and delinquent children, and juvenile traffic offenders. (E) Shall not revert to the county general fund at the end of any fiscal year; (F) Shall carry over from the end of any fiscal year to the next fiscal year in the felony delinquent care and custody fund; (G) Shall be in addition to, and not be used to reduce, any usual annual increase in country funding that the juvenile court is eligible to receive or the current level of county funding of the juvenile court and of any programs or services for delinquent children, unruly children, juvenile traffic offenders or non-adjudicated youth supported by county moneys; (H) Shall be in addition to, and not be used to supplant, county funds. Effective: 06/26/2008 R.C. 119.032 review dates: 08/01/2012 Promulgated Under: 119.03 Statutory Authority: 5139.04(D) Rule Amplifies: 5139.34, 5139.36, 5139.41, 5139.43, 5139.44 Prior Effective Dates: 8/1/97, 10/25/02, 2/17/06 5139-67-04 Responsibilities of the juvenile court. The juvenile court shall: (A) Submit a signed grant agreement and funding application by a date determined by the department; (B) Submit financial expenditure reports, other fiscal reports, program reports, statistical reports, and other information on forms and according to the time frame established by the department; (C) Deposit grant funds into the felony delinquent care and custody fund; Huskey & Associates Page 7

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project (D) Provide treatment and rehabilitation programs and services for adjudicated felony delinquents that are alternatives to commitments to the department; (E) Provide early intervention, treatment and rehabilitation programs for youth adjudicated delinquent, unruly, and juvenile traffic offenders; (F) Provide out of home placement of youth only in detention centers, community rehabilitation centers, or community corrections facilities approved by the department pursuant to standards adopted by the department; licensed by an authorized state agency; or accredited by a national organization, such as the American correctional association, and recognized by the department; (G) Develop effective programs for youth which preserve their rights and dignity. Program activities must be safe, productive, humane, and adequately supervised; (H) Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of all programs funded through the grant; (I) Maintain records as needed to allow the department to conduct program monitoring and evaluation and fiscal audits; (J) Participate in any program and fiscal monitoring and evaluation conducted by or on behalf of the department; (K) Be required to have on file for auditing purposes any written agreements with contractors or other service agreements; (L) Refer to standard program areas as defined by the department when developing programs. If the court wishes to develop a program not found in the standard program areas, they shall contact subsidy staff to request the establishment of a new standard program area; (M) Ensure equal access of minority youth to the programs funded through this grant; (N) If the juvenile court fails to submit the required funding application and grant agreement, fiscal reports, statistical reports or other required reports, the department shall not make base or variable allocation payments to the county until the information is received; (O) In the event that a variable allocation payment is withheld under the conditions of paragraph (N) of this rule or section 5139.43 of the Revised Code, and the juvenile court does not comply with the conditions of paragraph (N) of this rule or section 5139.43 of the Revised Code within one hundred eighty days of the due date established by the department, the payment shall not be made to the county; (P) Not use grant funds to support programs or services that do not comply with the core requirements of the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002, 42 U.S.C. 5633 ; (Q) Not use grant funds to support programs or services that research has shown to be ineffective. (R) Not use grant funds to support programs or services, such as sex offender programs, that do not meet applicable standards as established in the Administrative Code. Effective: 06/26/2008 R.C. 119.032 review dates: 08/01/2012 Promulgated Under: 119.03 Statutory Authority: 5139.04(D) Rule Amplifies: 5139.34, 5139.36, 5139.41, 5139.43, 5139.44 Prior Effective Dates: 8/1/97, 10/25/02, 2/17/06 5139-67-05 Fiscal restrictions and requirements. (A) All expenditures must be directly related to approved programs and must be in accordance with the approved funding application; (B) All obligations must be incurred within the grant period and liquidated by September thirtieth of the following state fiscal year, only excepting unemployment and worker s compensation expenses, which are recognized in the year that they are paid; Huskey & Associates Page 8

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project (C) If any cash balance remains at the end of the fiscal year, it shall be carried over into the next fiscal year within the felony delinquent care and custody fund and shall not be reverted to the county s general fund; (D) All purchases are subject to county purchasing policies and procedures, except that purchases of direct service for youth do not have to be competitively bid pursuant to section 121.37 of the Revised Code. If no county purchasing procedures exist, state purchasing procedures shall be followed; (E) Cost of equipment, property, services or any other budgeted items must be at fair market value, or that which would be paid by a prudent buyer in a given community. Prudence is based on comparison shopping or selection. Payment rates should conform closely to the going rate in the community for a given service; (F) Should a county employee be employed and paid by the subsidy grant in addition to his/her full time job, the work must be performed on the employee s own time outside his/her full time job and compensation must be reasonable and consistent with fair market value. Hours worked for both jobs must be clearly documented; (G) Any overtime premiums paid to court employees must be prorated among the various activities of the employee and not charged exclusively to grant funds unless the employee works full time on the grant. Overtime rates can be paid only if, and in proportion to the time, the employee worked on the grant during the relevant time period; (H) Funds provided shall be in addition to, and shall not be used to supplant, existing county funding or any usual annual increase in county funding of the juvenile court or any program or service for delinquent children, unruly children, juvenile traffic offenders or non-adjudicated youth funded by the county; (I) The department shall suspend funding to a subsidy grant funded program if it finds failure to comply with the administrative rules promulgated by the department; (J) Administrative costs are limited to those essential to the management of the grant and should be reflected in the program administration standard program area. Indirect costs are unallowable within the grant; (K) All costs incurred in fund-raising activities are unallowable within the grant; (L) All costs for awards and social functions for staff are unallowable within the grant; (M) Contributions and donations are unallowable within the grant; (N) All costs related to licensing, professional fees, or dues for personnel, unless required by the job, are unallowable within the grant; (O) College tuition reimbursement for employees is unallowable within the grant; (P) All costs for staff amusement, social activities, and incidental costs relating thereto, such as meals, beverages, lodging, rentals, transportation and gratuities are unallowable within the grant; (Q) Reimbursement for travel expenses for training and the costs of training are limited to that related to court services to youth. Records for travel and training expenses which clearly identify the trainees, locations of travel, and breakdown of expenses shall be maintained; (R) Capital construction projects are not allowable except as noted under section 5139.34 of the Revised Code; (S) Checking accounts are a non-allowable expense with grant funds in accordance with state auditor sections 307.55 and 319.16 of the Revised Code; (T) If a court receives a reimbursement from an outside entity for an expense for which costs were shared, the reimbursed funds shall be deposited in to the felony delinquent care and custody fund with a clear audit trail denoting the original expense; (U) Expenditures shall not exceed an approved program or an approved line item by twenty per cent or five thousand dollars, whichever is less. A funding application amendment must be submitted for the department s prior approval for any expenses which would exceed these limits or if the expenditure would alter the nature of the 5139-67-05 2 program; Huskey & Associates Page 9

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project (V) Up to one thousand dollars may be moved between or within programs into existing line items of programs in a funding application. In such cases, the juvenile court will submit amended budget forms to the department. Transfers of more than one thousand dollars require that a funding application amendment be submitted to the department for approval prior to the transfer; (W) At the time of separation from employment, the department will only recognize accrued vacation/sick leave expense liability in proportion to the percentage of the employment period during which the employee was employed in programs funded by the subsidy grant and paid from grant funds, pursuant to statutory and county policy limits; (X) In the event that a county s application is not approved by July first of the fiscal year, then the county is still approved for allowable expenses and programs that were approved in the previous fiscal year; however, no new programs and expenditures are allowable until the application for the new fiscal year has been approved. Effective: 06/29/2009 R.C. 119.032 review dates: 08/01/2012 Promulgated Under: 119.03 Statutory Authority: 5139.04(D) Rule Amplifies: 5139.34, 5139.36, 5139.41, 5139.43, 5139.44 Prior Effective Dates: 8/1/97, 10/25/02, 2/17/06, 10/20/07, 6/26/08 5139-67-06 Audit requirements and record retention. The department and the county shall adhere to the following: (A) Each county receiving grant funds shall in writing request the auditor of state, or an accounting firm authorized by the auditor of state, to perform additional procedures as part of the audit performed under section 117.11 of the Revised Code. The cost of performing the additional audit procedures shall be paid from the felony delinquent care and custody fund; (1) The scope of the additional procedures shall include legal compliance with section 5139.34 and division (C) of section 5139.43 of the Revised Code; (2) The scope of the additional procedures shall also include examination of revenues and expenses, cash balance, outstanding obligations and internal controls; (3) The county will provide a copy of applicable sections of the audit report upon request of the department; (B) It shall be the responsibility of the department to perform the following auditing functions: (1) Pre-audit the grant applications, program amendments, and requests for funds to ensure that the fiscal forms have been submitted and completed in accordance with fiscal guidelines of the department; (2) Interim exceptions. Within sixty days of the date of the filing of the reports under rule 5139-67-04 of the Administrative Code, the department shall, in writing, notify the administrative juvenile judge and the board of county commissioners of its intention to take interim exceptions to any of the actual and projected costs therein reported. The department shall include in this notification a sum certain by which it proposed to either increase or decrease the budget and/or expenditures incurred during the fiscal year covered by this report; (C) The department may perform an audit of the county felony delinquent care and custody fund; (D) When a county is selected for audit, per the department s audit schedule, the department will perform an audit of the fiscal records in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, including such tests of the funding records and such auditing procedures considered necessary under the circumstances. The scope of the audit will encompass, but may not be limited to the following: (1) An examination of financial transactions, funds, and reports pertaining to the approved funding application; (2) An evaluation of compliance with the established rules; Huskey & Associates Page 10

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project (E) Upon the completion of the audit examination, an audit report shall be issued which shall include a statement regarding: (1) The expenditures of funds, and; (2) Compliance with applicable regulations and the approved funding application, with approved revisions and amendments; (F) Audit and actual exceptions. Within one hundred twenty days of the date the department conducts an audit as required under paragraph (D) of this rule, the department shall, in writing, notify the administrative juvenile judge and board of county commissioners of its intention to take exception to any of the actual costs therein reported. The county fiscal agent shall be required to refund to the department from the county general revenue fund the amount of the exception to the reported costs within forty-five days of notification unless an appeal of the exception is filed; (G) Appeal of exceptions: if within forty-five days of the date of department notification to take exception under paragraph (A) or (B) of this rule, the administrative juvenile judge or the board of county commissioners does not file with the department a request for appeal, the action proposed in the department of youth services notification to take exception shall be final and binding. If an appeal is filed, the director of the department shall notify the court of the decision regarding the appeal within forty-five days. The actions proposed in the department s notification to take exception may be made final and binding before the expiration of the forty-five days within which the county may appeal if the administrative juvenile judge and board of county commissioners waive, in writing, the provisions of this paragraph. If the determination is made that the appeal of the exception is denied, the county fiscal agent shall be required to refund to the department from the county general revenue fund the amount of the exception to the reported costs within thirty days of notification of the appeal decision; (H) With reasonable advance notice, provide the department access to records, including any or all documents related to the felony delinquent care and custody fund; (I) Maintain accurate fund records which indicate all income and expenditures for the felony delinquent care and custody fund; (J) Keep the records current and legible; (K) Support all income and expenditures with documentation to provide a clear audit trail for every financial transaction; (L) Proper inventory schedules must be maintained for all equipment items purchased with grant funds. Inventories must include the following information for all equipment: number, purchase price, date of acquisition, vendor, condition and location; (M) County-established guidelines will be used for the salvage of unusable, damaged, and/or unrepairable equipment taken out of the juvenile court or projects funded by the youth services grant. If no county guidelines exist, state guidelines shall be followed; (N) The administrative juvenile court judge and board of county commissioners must maintain all records related to this chapter until the department has accepted a final closing expenditures report for the last year for which the record documents or supports a cost or expenditure, or for three years, whichever is longer. R.C. 119.032 review dates: 08/01/2007 and 08/01/2012 Promulgated Under: 119.03 Statutory Authority: 5139.04(D) Rule Amplifies: 5139.34, 5139.36, 5139.41, 5139.43, 5139.44 Prior Effective Dates: 8/1/97, 10/25/02, 2/17/06 Huskey & Associates Page 11

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project 5139-67-07 Reconciliation. (A) If the juvenile court believes there are errors in the calculation of chargeable bed days, the juvenile court shall submit a bed day reconciliation form to the department s bureau of subsidies. No corrective adjustments can be made without this form being received; (B) If an error is found during the same fiscal year in which the error took place, the adjustment will be made in the current fiscal year s total of chargeable bed days; (C) If an error is found following the fiscal year in which the error took place and if the error is found prior to May of the following fiscal year, then the adjustment shall be made to the prior fiscal year s total of chargeable bed days. R.C. 119.032 review dates: 08/01/2007 and 08/01/2012 Promulgated Under: 119.03 Statutory Authority: 5139.04(D) Rule Amplifies: 5139.34, 5139.36, 5139.41, 5139.43, 5139.44 Prior Effective Dates: 8/1/97, 10/25/02, 2/17/06 5139-67-08 Internal control. It shall be the responsibility of the juvenile court to evaluate its systems of internal accounting and administrative controls on an ongoing basis to provide assurance that: (A) Resources are utilized efficiently, effectively and in compliance with applicable law; (B) Obligations and costs are in compliance with applicable law; (C) Funds, property and other assets and resources are safeguarded against waste, loss, unauthorized use and misappropriation; (D) Revenues, expenditures and transfers of assets, resources, or funds applicable to operations are properly recorded and accounted for to permit the preparation of accounts and reliable financial and statistical reports, and to maintain accountability over the state s resources. R.C. 119.032 review dates: 08/01/2007 and 08/01/2012 Promulgated Under: 119.03 Statutory Authority: 5139.04(D) Rule Amplifies: 5139.34, 5139.36, 5139.41, 5139.43, 5139.44 Prior Effective Dates: 8/1/97, 10/25/02 5139-67-09 Responsibilities of the advisory committee. The Reclaim advisory committee shall: (A) Be comprised of the following members: (1) Two juvenile judges appointed by the Ohio association of juvenile court judges; (2) The director of the Department of Youth Services, or his designee; (3) The director of the Office of Budget and Management, or his designee; (4) A member of the senate committee dealing with finance or criminal justice issues, appointed by the president of the senate; (5) A member of the house of representatives committee dealing with finance or criminal justice, appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives; (6) A member of the board of county commissioners, appointed by the county commissioners association of Ohio; (7) Two juvenile court administrators, appointed by the Ohio association of juvenile court judges; (B) Meet at least once during each quarter of the calendar year, or more frequently at the call of the chairman, to conduct the business of the committee set forth in sections 5139.41 and 5139.44 ; Huskey & Associates Page 12

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project (C) Advise the Department of Youth Services, Office of Budget and Management, and the general assembly on any changes that the committee believes should be made to the Reclaim Ohio program. R.C. 119.032 review dates: 08/01/2007 and 08/01/2012 Promulgated Under: 119.03 Statutory Authority: 5139.04(D) Rule Amplifies: 5139.34, 5139.36, 5139.41, 5139.43, 5139.44 Prior Effective Dates: 2/17/06 5139-67-10 Withholding and reallocation of funds. (A) The maximum balance carry over at the end of each respective fiscal year in the felony delinquent care and custody fund in any county, from funds allocated to the county pursuant to sections 5139.34 and 5139.41 of the Revised Code in previous years, shall not exceed an amount to be calculated as provided in the formula set forth in section 5139.43 of the Revised Code, unless that county has applied by the due date established by the department for, and been granted, an exemption by the department after considering the following factors, supported by a written plan to bring the court into compliance with this rule on forms and according to the time frame established by the department: (1) Changes in the number of charged bed days; (2) Fluctuation in moneys allocated by the department; (3) Fluctuation in moneys expended by the county; (4) Fluctuation in community resources, grant match funds and county funding levels; (5) Interruptions in programming; (6) Program start-up; (7) Use of funds to support initiatives of the department, such as re-entry services for youth on parole, cognitive-behavioral therapy centers or initiatives to address disproportionate minority contact; (8) Extraordinary circumstances that the juvenile court could not have anticipated; (B) Any moneys exceeding the maximum balance carry over shall be withheld from future payments, unless an exemption has been granted, and reallocated by the department as approved by the director in consultation with the reclaim advisory committee; (C) If a payment is made to a county juvenile court and it is later determined through fiscal reports submitted by the county to the department that the payment should have been withheld, the department shall notify the court in writing and the county shall refund, within thirty days of notification, the amount that should have been withheld. Replaces: 5139-67-10 Effective: 06/29/2009 R.C. 119.032 review dates: 06/26/2013 Promulgated Under: 119.03 Statutory Authority: 5139.04(D) Rule Amplifies: 5139.34, 5139.36, 5139.41, 5139.43, 5139.44 Prior Effective Dates: 6/26/2008 Huskey & Associates Page 13

Chapter 3: Redeploy Illinois

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Redeploy Illinois INTRODUCTION The State of Illinois administers through its Department of Human Services Redeploy Illinois that provides incentive funding to localities who agree to reduce by 25 percent their admissions to the Department of Juvenile Justice. To date, nine Redeploy Illinois programs have served youth in over 20 counties. From 2001 to 2007, the pilot sites reduced commitments to IDJJ by 55 percent. 1 The state has realized an $18.7 million in annual savings. For every dollar spent, the state realized a $4.00 savings. The Redeploy Illinois model has been showcased by the Justice Policy Institute and the National Conference of State Legislatures as promising approaches for other states. 2. Approximately 400 youth have been diverted from commitment to the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice since its inception. In FY10, $2,053,000 was allocated for distribution to the counties. 3 As of April 7, 2011, IDJJ had 1,201 youth secure custody, down from 1,418 in 2005 (a 15.3 percent decline between these two years). 4 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The primary target population eligible to receive services through Redeploy Illinois is those youth facing a possible sentence to the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice for an offense other than Murder or a Class X Forcible Felony. Redeploy Illinois is viewed as a last resort for these youth. Each pilot site may further restrict eligibility into the program. However, they may never accept a youth into the program that is being charged with Murder or a Class X Forcible Felony. Local jurisdictions that participate as a Redeploy Illinois pilot site are required to develop plans for community-based treatments for juvenile offenders that protect their communities, promote accountability for the harm caused their victims and communities, and equip youth with the necessary competencies to live responsibly and productively. Each county includes in their contract the goal to reduce by 25% the number of commitments to IDJJ. Redeploy Illinois funds a range of assessment, treatment, and follow-up services that Include: Risk and Needs Assessment Aggression Replacement Training (ART) Cognitive education and treatment Community restorative boards 1 Redeploy Illinois Oversight Board. (January 2010). Annual Report to the Governor and General Assembly. 2 Redeploy Fact Sheet. Illinois Department of Human Services. Bureau of Youth Services & Delinquency Prevention. Division of Community Health & Prevention. 3 Ibid. 4 Memo from Ronald. Smith, Deputy Director of Facilities, Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice. Huskey & Associates Page 15

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Employment-related services Gender-specific services Global positioning system monitoring Home detention Housing Individualized staffing and case management plans Mental health treatment Multidisciplinary case review meetings Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST) Parent/family support services Positive recreational and mentoring services Psychological and psychiatric evaluation Substance abuse treatment Teen court Tele-psychiatry Transportation Tutoring and educational advocacy Victim-related services Washington Aggression Interruption Training (WAIT). From 2001-2007, overall commitments to IDJJ declined 55% from the pilot sites. There was a 94% reduction in the counties use of DJJ commitment for conducting a court evaluations (risk and need assessments), one of the primary goals of Redeploy Illinois. 5 Source: Redeploy Illinois Annual Report January 2010 Figure 1 summarizes the extent to which the Redeploy Illinois pilot sites had utilized local juvenile detention from 2001 to 2007. The Redeploy Illinois pilot sites did not show an overall increase in the number of local detention days following the implementation of Redeploy Illinois. 5 Redeploy Illinois Oversight Board. (January 2010). Annual Report to the Governor and General Assembly. Huskey & Associates Page 16

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Source: Redeploy Illinois Annual Report January 2010 Conclusions and Recommendations The most recent data available indicate that the per capita cost for a 12-month juvenile commitment to IDJJ is $70,827, according to information provided by IDJJ. IDJJ also reports that the average length of stay in IDJJ for a delinquency commitment is 8.8 months, and the average length of stay for a court evaluation commitment is 3.5 months. Applying these lengths of stay estimates to the annual cost of an IDJJ commitment reveals that the State of Illinois spends approximately $51,940 for each delinquency commitment, and $20,658 for each court evaluation commitment. Current estimates suggest that, depending on several factors regarding the intensity of local treatment services, the per capita cost for treating a youth locally under Redeploy Illinois ranges from $3,000 to $10,000. 6 According to the Redeploy Oversight Board, Redeploy Illinois continues to improve the Illinois juvenile justice system and provide a more cost effective option than youth incarceration while maintaining public safety. The initial pilot sites continue to operate effective community-based treatment and intervention programs and maintain reductions in the use of youth incarceration. The Phase II Redeploy Illinois sites have successfully implemented new, innovative approaches to the local challenges they face regarding juvenile delinquency. The Phase II sites, according to evidence from the implementation studies, are programmatically sound and operating in accordance with legislative intent and local program goals and objectives. 7 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid. Huskey & Associates Page 17

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Public Act 93-0641 Redeploy Illinois 8 AN ACT in relation to juvenile offenders, which may be referred to as the Redeploy Illinois Program amendments. Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly: Section 5. The Probation and Probation Officers Act is amended by adding Section 16.1 as follows: (730 ILCS 110/16.1 new) Sec.16.1. Redeploy Illinois Program. (a) The purpose of this Section is to encourage the deinstitutionalization of juvenile offenders establishing pilot projects in counties or groups of counties that reallocate State funds from juvenile correctional confinement to local jurisdictions, which will establish a continuum of local, communitybased sanctions and treatment alternatives for juvenile offenders who would be incarcerated if those local services and sanctions did not exist. The allotment of funds will be based on a formula that rewards local jurisdictions for the establishment or expansion of local alternatives to incarceration, and requires them to pay for utilization of incarceration as a sanction. This redeployment of funds shall be made in a manner consistent with the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 and the following purposes and policies: (1) The juvenile justice system should protect the community, impose accountability to victims and communities for violations of law, and equip juvenile offenders with competencies to live responsibly and productively. (2) Juveniles should be treated in the least restrictive manner possible while maintaining the safety of the community. (3) A continuum of services and sanctions from least restrictive to most restrictive should be available in every community. (4) There should be local responsibility and authority for planning, organizing, and coordinating service resources in the community. People in the community can best choose a range of services which reflect community values and meet the needs of their own youth. (5) Juveniles who pose a threat to the community or themselves need special care, including secure settings. Such services as detention, long-term incarceration, or residential treatment are too costly to provide in each community and should be coordinated and provided on a regional or statewide basis. (6) The roles of State and local government in creating and maintaining services to youth in the juvenile justice system should be clearly defined. The role of the State is to fund services, set standards of care, train service providers, and monitor the integration and coordination of services. The role of local government should be to oversee the provision of services. (b) Each county or circuit participating in the pilot program must create a local plan demonstrating how it will reduce the county or circuit's utilization of secure confinement of juvenile offenders in the Illinois Department of Corrections or county detention centers by the creation or expansion of individualized services or programs that may include but are not limited to the following: 8 www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts Huskey & Associates Page 18

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project (1) Assessment and evaluation services to provide the juvenile justice system with accurate individualized case information on each juvenile offender including mental health, substance abuse, educational, and family information; (2) Direct services to individual juvenile offenders including educational, vocational, mental health, substance abuse, supervision, and service coordination; and (3) Programs that seek to restore the offender to the community, such as victim offender panels, teen courts, competency building, enhanced accountability measures, restitution, and community service. The local plan must be directed in such a manner as to emphasize an individualized approach to providing services to juvenile offenders in an integrated community based system including probation as the broker of services. The plan must also detail the reduction in utilization of secure confinement. The local plan shall be limited to services and shall not include costs for: (i) capital expenditures; (ii) renovations or remodeling; (iii) personnel costs for probation. The local plan shall be submitted to the Department of Human Services. (c) A county or group of counties may develop an agreement with the Department of Human Services to reduce their number of commitments of juvenile offenders, excluding minors sentenced based upon a finding of guilt of first degree murder or an offense which is a Class X forcible felony as defined in the Criminal Code of 1961, to the Department of Corrections, and then use the savings to develop local programming for youth who would otherwise have been committed to the Department of Corrections. The county or group of counties shall agree to limit their commitments to 75% of the level of commitments from the average number of juvenile commitments for the past 3 years, and will receive the savings to redeploy for local programming for juveniles who would otherwise be held in confinement. The agreement shall set forth the following: (1) a Statement of the number and type of juvenile offenders from the county who were held in secure confinement by the Illinois Department of Corrections or in county detention the previous year, and an explanation of which, and how many, of these offenders might be served through the proposed Redeploy Illinois Program for which the funds shall be used; (2) a Statement of the service needs of currently confined juveniles; (3) a Statement of the type of services and programs to provide for the individual needs of the juvenile offenders, and the research or evidence base that qualifies those services and programs as proven or promising practices; (4) a budget indicating the costs of each service or program to be funded under the plan; (5) a summary of contracts and service agreements indicating the treatment goals and number of juvenile offenders to be served by each service provider; and (6) a Statement indicating that the Redeploy Illinois Program will not duplicate existing services and programs. Funds for this plan shall not supplant existing county funded programs. (d) (Blank). (e) The Department of Human Services shall be responsible for the following: (1) Reviewing each Redeploy Illinois Program plan for compliance with standards established for such plans. A plan may be approved as submitted, approved with modifications, or rejected. No plan shall be considered for approval if the circuit or county is not in full compliance with all regulations, standards and guidelines pertaining to the delivery of basic probation services as established by the Supreme Court. (2) Monitoring on a continual basis and evaluating annually both the program and its fiscal activities in all counties receiving an allocation under the Redeploy Illinois Program. Any program or Huskey & Associates Page 19

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project service that has not met the goals and objectives of its contract or service agreement shall be subject to denial for funding in subsequent years. The Department of Human Services shall evaluate the effectiveness of the Redeploy Illinois Program in each circuit or county. In determining the future funding for the Redeploy Illinois Program under this Act, the evaluation shall include, as a primary indicator of success, a decreased number of confinement days for the county's juvenile offenders. (f) Any Redeploy Illinois Program allocations not applied for and approved by the Department of Human Services shall be available for redistribution to approved plans for the remainder of that fiscal year. Any county that invests local moneys in the Redeploy Illinois Program shall be given first consideration for any redistribution of allocations. Jurisdictions participating in Redeploy Illinois that exceed their agreed upon level of commitments to the Department of Corrections shall reimburse the Department of Corrections for each commitment above the agreed upon level. (g) Implementation of Redeploy Illinois. (1) Planning Phase. (i) Redeploy Illinois Oversight Board. The Department of Human Services shall convene an oversight board to develop plans for a pilot Redeploy Illinois Program. The Board shall include, but not be limited to, designees from the Department of Corrections, the Administrative Office of Illinois Courts, the Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission, the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, the Department of Children and Family Services, the State Board of Education, the Cook County State's Attorney, and a State's Attorney selected by the President of the Illinois State's Attorney's Association. (ii) Responsibilities of the Redeploy Illinois Oversight Board. The Oversight Board shall: (A) Identify jurisdictions to be invited in the initial pilot program of Redeploy Illinois. (B) Develop a formula for reimbursement of local jurisdictions for local and community-based services utilized in lieu of commitment to the Department of Corrections, as well as for any charges for local jurisdictions for commitments above the agreed upon limit in the approved plan. (C) Identify resources sufficient to support the administration and evaluation of Redeploy Illinois. (D) Develop a process and identify resources to support on-going monitoring and evaluation of Redeploy Illinois. (E) Develop a process and identify resources to support training on Redeploy Illinois. (F) Report to the Governor and the General Assembly on an annual basis on the progress of Redeploy Illinois. (iii) Length of Planning Phase. The planning phase may last up to, but may in no event last longer than, July 1, 2004. (2) Pilot Phase. In the second phase of the Redeploy Illinois program, the Department of Human Services shall implement several pilot programs of Redeploy Illinois in counties or groups of counties as identified by the Oversight Board. Annual review of the Redeploy Illinois program by the Oversight Board shall include recommendations for future sites for Redeploy Illinois. Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon becoming law. Effective Date: 12/31/03 Huskey & Associates Page 20

Chapter 4: California Juvenile Justice Realignment Act

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project California Juvenile Justice Realignment Act SB81 Summary This Act realigned the type of youth that the counties could send to state commitment with the goal to reduce the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) population by 40 percent within two years. 1 SB81 prohibits the commitment of non-707 b (non-violent) juvenile offenders to the state Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). It limits the use of state commitment to the most violent offenders and sex offenders, prohibits non-violent youthful offenders from being committed to the state system, and provides funding to the counties to operate secure and non-secure alternatives in lieu of state commitment of these youth. According to state officials, this legislation reversed the incentive that provided localities unlimited access to state institutions while it left the entire burden of funding community based programs on localities. It expanded local responsibility for adjudicated youth by restricting non-violent youthful offenders from being sent to state facilities as well as by equipping the counties with funding to support those youth. 2 The Act also established the Youthful Offender Block Grant mechanism to permit the state to grant counties funds to serve this target population in locally operated rehabilitative and supervision services in lieu of committing them to DJJ. The State appropriates up to $100 million in youthful offender rehabilitative facility construction funding through state lease-revenue bonds. 3 The Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) administers the funding, uses a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) process for determining awards, reviews applications and reports on the outcomes by county. Grant funding is calculated by the Department of Finance (DOF) based on 1) juvenile population and 2) number of felony dispositions. After one year of implementation, CSA reports the following outcomes: 4 More youth receive an objective, validated risk and needs assessment Counties expanded their programs California s state juvenile population declined from 2,211 in 2008 to 1,232 as of March 31, 2011 (a 44.2 percent decline). 5 According to DJJ, this dramatic decline in population is due to the following reasons: Counties have received increased federal funding to build additional treatment facilities Change in fees counties paid to house youths in DJJ facilities based upon the classification of a youths commitment offense Majority of youth are directed to county programs, enabling direct access and closer proximity to their homes, families, social programs and services, and other support systems 1 Little Hoover Commission. (2008). Juvenile Justice Reform: Realigning Responsibilities. 2 Ibid. 3 www.cdcr.ca.gov/csa/cpp/grants/yobg. 4 Bushard, Kim. Corrections Standards Authority. Field Representative. 5 http://www.cdcr.ca.gov. Population Overview. Huskey & Associates Page 22

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project An evaluation was conducted by CSA of the first year of the YOBG consisting of 1,011 youth who received one or more YOBG-funded services during the one-year following their date of disposition of the adjudicated felony offense. These youth were compared with non-yobg funded youth. This evaluation found that of the youth who received one or more YOBG funded services, 19.8 percent received a subsequent juvenile felony adjudication and only 1.8 percent had an adult felony conviction. Of those youth who received a risk and needs assessment, 16.7 percent of them received a new felony adjudication in juvenile court. This compares with 6.4 percent of the non-yobg funded youth received an adult felony conviction and 12.4 percent of these youth received a subsequent juvenile felony adjudication. 6 A higher percentage of YOBG-funded youth were enrolled in school or graduated from high school during the one year follow-up period. According to state officials, those involved with the realignment report that so far the process appears successful and marks an important first step in improving California s juvenile justice system. 7 Examples of Programs Funded by YOBG 8 Risk and Needs Assessment Instrument Evidence Based Practices Implementation Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Aggression Replacement Training Mentoring Gang Intervention Training Family Counseling Group Counseling Gender-specific Counseling Alcohol and Drug Counseling School Based Probation Intensive Probation Supervision Secure Treatment Female Unit Secure Treatment Male Unit Reentry Supervision Electronic Monitoring Afterschool Services Day and Evening Treatment Program Parenting Education Drug and Alcohol Counseling/Mental Health Diagnosis Life/Independent Living Skills Training Anger Management Counseling/Treatment 6 Bushard, Kim. Corrections Standards Authority. First Annual Report to the Legislature. March 2011. 7 Little Hoover Commission. (2008). Juvenile Justice Reform: Realigning Responsibilities. 8 Corrections Standards Authority. YOBG Summary. http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/ Huskey & Associates Page 23

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Functional Family Therapy (FFT) Transitional Living Services Pro-Social Skills Training Vocational Training Huskey & Associates Page 24

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Article 1. General Provisions California Welfare and Institutions Code Chapter 1.5 California Youthful Offender Block Grant Program 9 The purpose of this chapter is to enhance the capacity of local communities to implement an effective continuum of response to juvenile crime and delinquency. (a) There is hereby established the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund. (b) Allocations from the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund shall be used to enhance the capacity of county probation, mental health, drug and alcohol, and other county departments to provide appropriate rehabilitative and supervision services to youthful offenders subject to Sections 731.1, 733, 1766, and 1767.35. Counties, in expending the Youthful Offender Block Grant allocation, shall provide all necessary services related to the custody and parole of the offenders. (c) The county of commitment is relieved of obligation for any payment to the state pursuant to Section 912, 912.1, or 912.5 for each offender who is not committed to the custody of the state solely pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 733, and for each offender who is supervised by the county. For the 2009 10 fiscal year, and each year thereafter, an amount shall be transferred from the General Fund to the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund equal to that amount transferred to the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund for the 2008 09 fiscal year, as described in subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) of Section 1953, adjusted to account for full-year impact. (a) The allocation amount for each county from the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund shall be distributed as follows: (1) Fifty percent based on the number of the county s juvenile felony court dispositions, according to the most recent data compiled by the Department of Justice, calculated as a percentage of the state total. (2) Fifty percent based on the county s population of minors from 10 to 17 years of age, inclusive, according to the most recent data published by the Department of Justice, calculated as a percentage of the state total. (3) Each county shall receive a minimum block grant allocation of fifty-eight thousand five hundred dollars ($58,500). Article 2. Performance and Accountability 1960. The Legislature finds and declares that local youthful offender justice programs, including both custodial and noncustodial corrective services, are better suited to provide rehabilitative services for certain youthful offenders than state-operated facilities. Local communities are better able than the state to provide these offenders with the programs they require, in closer proximity to their families and communities, including, but not limited to, all of the following: (a) Implementing risk and needs assessment tools and evaluations to assist in the identification of appropriate youthful offender dispositions and reentry plans. 9 Note: this Act is 36 pages, what is included here is excerpted from California Welfare & Institutions Code. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0051-0100/sb_81_bill_20070824_chaptered.pdf. The reader can review the legislation in its entirety by accessing the website. Huskey & Associates Page 25

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project (b) Placements in secure and semi-secure youthful offender rehabilitative facilities and in private residential care programs, with or without foster care waivers, supporting specialized programs for youthful offenders. (c) Nonresidential dispositions such as day or evening treatment programs, community service, restitution, and drug-alcohol and other counseling programs based on an offender s assessed risks and needs. (d) House arrest, electronic monitoring, and intensive probation supervision programs. (e) Reentry and aftercare programs based on individual aftercare plans for each offender who is released from a public or private placement or confinement facility. (f) Capacity building strategies to upgrade the training and qualifications of juvenile justice and probation personnel serving the juvenile justice caseload. (g) Regional program and placement networks, including direct brokering and placement locating networks to facilitate out-of-county dispositions for counties lacking programs or facilities. Each county shall prepare and submit to the Corrections Standards Authority for approval a Juvenile Justice Development Plan for youthful offenders who have not committed an offense described in subdivision (b) of Section 707 and are in the custody of the county commencing September 1, 2007. The plan shall include both of the following: (a) A description of the programs, placements, services, or strategies to be funded by the block grant allocation pursuant to this chapter, including, but not limited to, the programs, tools, and strategies outlined in Section 1960. (b) A description of any regional agreements or arrangements to be supported by the block grant allocation pursuant to this chapter. (c) A description of how these new programs coordinate with programs under Chapter 353 of the Statutes of 2000 (A.B. 1913). (a) The Corrections Standards Authority, in consultation with the Division of Juvenile Facilities, may provide technical assistance to counties, including, but not limited to, regional workshops, prior to issuing any Request for Proposal. (b) The Corrections Standards Authority may monitor and inspect any programs or facilities supported by block grant funds allocated pursuant to this chapter and may enforce violations of grant requirements with suspensions or cancellations of grant funds. Article 3. Local Youthful Offender Rehabilitative Facility Construction Grants For the purposes of this article, participating county means any county, or regional consortium of counties, within the state that has been certified to the State Public Works Board by the Correction Standards Authority as having satisfied all of the requirements set forth in Section 1975 for financing a local youthful offender rehabilitative facility pursuant to this article. 1971. (a) The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, a participating county, and the State Public Works Board are authorized to acquire, design, renovate, or construct a local youthful offender rehabilitative facility approved by the Correction Standards Authority pursuant to Section 1975, or a site or sites owned by, or subject to a lease or option to purchase held by a participating county. The ownership interest of a participating county in the site or sites for a local youthful offender rehabilitative facility shall be determined by the board to be adequate for purposes of its financing in order to be eligible under this article. Huskey & Associates Page 26

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project (b) Notwithstanding Section 15815 of the Government Code, a participating county may acquire, design, renovate, or construct the local youthful offender rehabilitative facility in accordance with its local contracting authority. Notwithstanding Section 14951 of the Government Code, the participating county may assign an inspector during the construction of the project. (c) The department, a participating county, and the board shall enter a construction agreement for the project that shall provide, at a minimum, all of the following: (1) Performance expectations of the parties related to the acquisition, design, renovation, or construction of the local youthful offender rehabilitative facility. (2) Guidelines and criteria for use and application of the proceeds of revenue bonds, notes, or bond anticipation notes issued by the board to pay for the cost of the approved local youthful offender rehabilitative facility project. (3) Ongoing maintenance and staffing responsibilities for the term of the financing. (d) The construction agreement shall include a provision that the participating county agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the State of California for any and all claims and losses arising out of the acquisition, design, renovation, and construction of the local youthful offender rehabilitative facility. The construction agreement may also contain additional terms and conditions that facilitate the financing by the board. (e) The scope and cost of the approved local youthful offender rehabilitative facility project shall be subject to approval and administrative oversight by the board. Huskey & Associates Page 27

Chapter 5: Wisconsin Youth Aids and Community Intervention Program

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Wisconsin Youth Aids Program 1 The Community Youth and Family Aids Program provides counties with direct assistance to fund their juvenile delinquency services. The Division of Juvenile Corrections (DJC) grants a total of $100,050,900 in aid to counties through the Youth Aids. Counties use these funds to reimburse DJC for the care of youth in juvenile correctional institutions (JCI), for community supervision, as well as for their own community juvenile justice expenses. Before the Youth Aids program was implemented in 1981, the State paid all costs associated with juvenile correctional institutions (JCIs), and each county funded all other juvenile delinquency programs, primarily with state-provided Community Aids and county property tax revenue. This system created a financial incentive for counties to place juveniles in JCIs at the State s expense, even when less-restrictive options were more appropriate. The Youth Aids program provides counties with state aid and requires counties to assume primary financial responsibility for juvenile delinquency costs. The formula used to allocate Youth Aids is based on the following three factors: 2 1. Each county's proportion of the total statewide juvenile population for the most recent year for which that information is available. 2. Each county's proportion of the total Part I juvenile arrests reported statewide under the uniform crime reporting system of the office of justice assistance during the most recent 3-year period for which that information is available. 3. Each county's proportion of the number of juveniles statewide who are placed in a juvenile correctional facility or a secured residential care center for children and youth during the most recent 3-year period for which that information is available. DJC bills the counties for most state correctional services provided to juveniles. Counties have the choice to use any remaining Youth Aids to fund local delinquency-related services including out-of-home placement (residential care center, group home, foster home) and in-home community-based supervision and programs (e.g. day treatment, counseling). 1 http://www.wi-doc.com/index_juvenile.htm 2 http://www.wi-doc.com/djc_funding.htm Huskey & Associates Page 29

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project 301.26 Community Youth and Family Aids. 3 (1) PROCEDURES. The department shall develop procedures for the implementation of this section and standards for the development and delivery of juvenile delinquency-related services under ch. 938, and shall provide consultation and technical assistance to aid counties in implementation and service delivery. The department shall establish information systems, monitoring and evaluation procedures to report periodically to the governor and legislature on the state impact of this section. (2) RECEIPT OF FUNDS. (a) All funds to counties under this section shall be allocated to county departments under ss. 46.21, 46.22 and 46.23 subject to ss. 46.495 (2) and 301.031, except that monthly advance payments to the counties may be less than one-twelfth of the contracted amounts. No reimbursement may be made to any multicounty department until the counties which established the department has drawn up a detailed contractual agreement, approved by the secretary, setting forth the plans for joint sponsorship. (b) Uniform fees collected or received by counties under s. 301.03 (18) for services provided under this section shall be applied to cover the cost of the services. (c) All funds to counties under this section shall be used to purchase or provide juvenile delinquencyrelated services under ch. 938, except that no funds to counties under this section may be used for purposes of land purchase, building construction, or maintenance of buildings under s. 46.17, 46.175, or 301.37, for reimbursement of costs under s. 938.209, for city lockups, or for reimbursement of care costs in temporary shelter care under s. 938.22. Funds to counties under this section may be used for reimbursement of costs of program services, other than basic care and supervision costs, in juvenile detention facilities. (2m) PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS. In determining the use of funds under this section, county departments under ss. 46.21, 46.22 and 46.23 shall assess needs using an open public participation process which involves representatives of those receiving services. (3) GRANTS-IN-AID. (a) Receipt of funds under this subsection is contingent upon use of a public participation process required under sub. (2m). (c) Within the limits of the appropriations under s. 20.410 (3) (cd), (ko), and (o), the department shall allocate funds to each county for services under this section. (dm)the department may carry forward for a county from one calendar year to another funds allocated under this subsection that are not spent or encumbered. The amount that the department may carry forward for a county under this paragraph may not exceed 5% of the amount allocated to the county for the 12-month period ending December 31. The funds carried forward under this paragraph do not affect a county's base allocation. (e) The department may carry forward $500,000 or 10% of its funds allocated under this subsection and not encumbered or carried forward under par. (dm) by counties by December 31, whichever is greater, to the next 2 calendar years. The department may transfer moneys from or within s. 20.410 (3) (cd) to accomplish this purpose. The department may allocate these transferred moneys to counties with persistently high rates of juvenile arrests for serious offenses during the next 2 calendar 3 http://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2010/301/301.26.html Huskey & Associates Page 30

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project years to improve community-based juvenile delinquency-related services. The allocation does not affect a county's base allocation. (em) The department may carry forward any emergency funds allocated under sub. (7) (e) and not encumbered or carried forward under par. (dm) by December 31 to the next 2 calendar years. The department may transfer moneys from or within s. 20.410 (3) (cd) to accomplish this purpose. The department may allocate these transferred moneys to counties that are eligible for emergency payments under sub. (7) (e). The allocation does not affect a county's base allocation. (4) STATE SERVICES. (a) Except as provided in pars. (c) and (cm), the department of corrections shall bill counties or deduct from the allocations under s. 20.410 (3) (cd) for the costs of care, services and supplies purchased or provided by the department of corrections for each person receiving services under s. 48.366, 938.183 or 938.34 or the department of health services for each person receiving services under s. 46.057 or 51.35 (3). The department of corrections may not bill a county for or deduct from a county's allocation the cost of care, services and supplies provided to a person subject to an order under s. 48.366 or 938.183 after the person reaches 18 years of age. Payment shall be due within 60 days after the billing date. If any payment has not been received within 60 days, the department of corrections may withhold aid payments in the amount due from the appropriation under s. 20.410 (3) (cd). (b) Assessment of costs under par. (a) shall be made periodically on the basis of the per person per day cost estimate specified in par. (d) 2. and 3. Except as provided in pars. (bm), (bm), (c), and (cm), liability shall apply to county departments under s. 46.21, 46.22, or 46.23 in the county of the court exercising jurisdiction under chs. 48 and 938 for each person receiving services from the department of corrections under s. 48.366, 938.183, or 938.34 or the department of health services under s. 46.057 or 51.35 (3). Except as provided in pars. (bm), (c), and (cm), in multicounty court jurisdictions, the county of residency within the jurisdiction shall be liable for costs under this subsection. Assessment of costs under par. (a) shall also be made according to the general placement type or level of care provided, as defined by the department, and prorated according to the ratio of the amount designated under sub. (3) (c) to the total applicable estimated costs of care, services, and supplies provided by the department of corrections under ss. 48.366, 938.183, and 938.34 and the department of health services under s. 46.057 or 51.35 (3). (bm) Notwithstanding par. (b), the county department under s. 46.21, 46.22 or 46.23 of the county of residency of a juvenile who has been adjudicated delinquent by a court of another county or by a court of another multicounty jurisdiction may voluntarily assume liability for the costs payable under par. (a). A county department may assume liability under this paragraph by a written agreement signed by the director of the county department that assumes liability under this paragraph and the director of the county department that is otherwise liable under par. (b). (c) Notwithstanding pars. (a), (b), and (bm), the department of corrections shall pay, from the appropriation under s. 20.410 (3) (hm), (ho). or (hr), the costs of care, services, and supplies provided for each person receiving services under s. 46.057, 48.366, 51.35 (3), 938.183, or 938.34 who was under the guardianship of the department of children and families pursuant to an order under ch. 48 at the time that the person was adjudicated delinquent. (cm) 1. Notwithstanding pars. (a), (b), and (bm), the department shall transfer funds from the appropriation under s. 20.410 (3) (cg) to the appropriations under s. 20.410 (3) (hm), (ho), and (hr) for the purpose of reimbursing juvenile correctional facilities, secured residential care centers for children and youth, alternate care providers, aftercare supervision providers, and corrective sanctions supervision providers for costs incurred beginning on July 1, 1996, for the care of any juvenile 14 years of age or Huskey & Associates Page 31

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project over who has been placed in a juvenile correctional facility based on a delinquent act that is a violation of s. 943.23 (1m) or (1r), 1999 stats., s. 948.35, 1999 stats., or s. 948.36, 1999 stats., or s. 939.32 (1) (a), 940.03, 940.06, 940.21, 940.225 (1), 940.305, 940.31, 941.327 (2) (b) 4., 943.02, 943.10 (2), 943.23 (1g), 943.32 (2), 948.02 (1), 948.025 (1), or 948.30 (2), that is a conspiracy to commit any of those violations, or that is an attempted violation of s. 943.32 (2) and for the care of any juvenile 10 years of age or over who has been placed in a juvenile correctional facility or secured residential care center for children and youth for attempting or committing a violation of s. 940.01 or for committing a violation of s.. 940.01 or for committing a violation of s. 940.02 or 940.05. 2. Notwithstanding pars. (a), (b), and (bm), the department shall transfer funds from the appropriation under s. 20.410 (3) (cg) to the appropriations under s. 20.410 (3) (hm), (ho), and (hr) for the purpose of reimbursing juvenile correctional facilities, secured residential care centers for children and youth, alternate care providers, aftercare supervision providers, and corrective sanctions supervision providers for costs incurred beginning on July 1, 1996, for the care of any juvenile 14 years of age or over and under 18 years of age who has been placed in a juvenile correctional facility under s. 48.366 based on a delinquent act that is a violation of s. 940.01, 940.02, 940.05, or 940.225 (1). Down 3. The per person daily reimbursement rate for juvenile correctional services under this paragraph shall be equal to the per person daily cost assessment to counties under par. (d) 2. and 3. for juvenile correctional services. (d) 1. Except as provided in pars. (e) to (g), for services under s. 938.34, all payments and deductions made under this subsection and uniform fee collections made under s. 301.03 (18) shall be credited to the appropriation account under s. 20.410 (3) (hm). 1m. Except as provided in pars. (e) to (g), for services under ss. 48.366 and 938.183, all payments and deductions made under this subsection and uniform fee collections made under s. 301.03 (18) shall be credited to the appropriation account under s. 20.410 (3) (hm). 2. Beginning on January 1, 2010, and ending on June 30, 2010, the per person daily cost assessment to counties shall be $270 for care in a Type 1 juvenile correctional facility, as defined in s. 938.02 (19), $270 for care for juveniles transferred from a juvenile correctional institution under s. 51.35 (3), $298 for care in a residential care center for children and youth, $190 for care in a group home for children, $72 for care in a foster home, $124 for care in a treatment foster home under rules promulgated under s. 48.62 (8) (c), $101 for departmental corrective sanctions services, and $40 for departmental aftercare services. 3. Beginning on July 1, 2010, and ending on June 30, 2011, the per person daily cost assessment to counties shall be $275 for care in a Type 1 juvenile correctional facility, as defined in s. 938.02 (19), $275 for care for juveniles transferred from a juvenile correctional institution under s. 51.35 (3), $313 for care in a residential care center for children and youth, $200 for care in a group home for children, $75 for care in a foster home, $130 for care in a treatment foster home under rules promulgated under s. 48.62 (8) (c), $103 for departmental corrective sanctions services, and $41 for departmental aftercare services. (dt) Except as provided in pars. (e) to (g), for serious juvenile offender services, all uniform fee collections under s. 301.03 (18) shall be credited to the appropriation account under s. 20.410 (3) (hm). (e) For foster care, group home care, and institutional child care to delinquent juveniles under ss. 49.19 (10) (d), 938.48 (4) and (14), and 938.52 all payments and deductions made under this subsection and uniform fee collections under s. 301.03 (18) shall be credited to the appropriation account under s. 20.410 (3) (ho). Huskey & Associates Page 32

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project (ed) For foster care, group home care, and institutional child care to serious juvenile offenders under ss. 49.19 (10) (d), 938.48 (4) and (14), and 938.52 all uniform fee collections under s. 301.03 (18) shall be credited to the appropriation account under s. 20.410 (3) (ho). (eg) For corrective sanctions services under s. 938.533 (2), all payments and deductions made under this subsection and uniform fee collections under s. 301.03 (18) shall be credited to the appropriation account under s. 20.410 (3) (hr). (f) For services under s. 51.35 (3), payments made under par. (d) for services to juveniles who are ineligible for medical assistance under subch. IV of ch. 49 and uniform fee collections under s. 46.03 (18) shall be deposited in the appropriation under s. 20.435 (2) (gk) and all other payments made under this subsection shall be deposited in the general fund and treated as a nonappropriated receipt. (g) For juvenile field and institutional aftercare services under ch. 938 and for the office of juvenile offender review, all payments and deductions made under this subsection and uniform fee collections under s. 301.03 (18) shall be credited to the appropriation account under s. 20.410 (3) (hm). (6) PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. (a) The intent of this subsection is to develop criteria to assist the legislature in allocating funding, excluding funding for base allocations, from the appropriations under s. 20.410 (3) (cd),. 20.410 (3) (cd), (ko), and (o) for purposes described in this section. (b) The department shall submit recommendations to the joint committee on finance regarding performance standards criteria to be used to determine whether counties are successfully diverting juveniles from juvenile correctional institutions and into less restrictive community programs and are successfully rehabilitating children adjudged delinquent on or before December 31, 1987. Beginning on January 1, 1988, counties shall provide information requested by the department in order to apply the criteria and assess performances. (7) ALLOCATIONS OF FUNDS. Within the limits of the availability of federal funds and of the appropriations under s. 20.410 (3) (cd), (ko), and (o), the department shall allocate funds for community youth and family aids for the period beginning on July 1, 2009, and ending on June 30, 2011, as provided in this subsection to county departments under ss. 46.215, 46.22, and 46.23 as follows: (a) For community youth and family aids under this section, amounts not to exceed $50,395,100 for the last 6 months of 2009, $100,790,200 for 2010, and $50,395,100 for the first 6 months of 2011. (b) Of the amounts specified in par. (a), the department shall allocate $2,000,000 for the last 6 months of 2009, $4,000,000 for 2010, and $2,000,000 for the first 6 months of 2011 to counties based on each of the following factors weighted equally: 1. Each county's proportion of the total statewide juvenile population for the most recent year for which that information is available. 2. Each county's proportion of the total Part I juvenile arrests reported statewide under the uniform crime reporting system of the office of justice assistance during the most recent 3-year period for which that information is available. 3. Each county's proportion of the number of juveniles statewide who are placed in a juvenile correctional facility or a secured residential care center for children and youth during the most recent 3-year period for which that information is available. (bm) Of the amounts specified in par. (a), the department shall allocate $6,250,000 for the last 6 months of 2009, $12,500,000 for 2010, and $6,250,000 for the first 6 months of 2011 to counties based on each county's proportion of the number of juveniles statewide who are placed in a juvenile correctional facility during the most recent 3-year period for which that information is available. (c) Of the amounts specified in par. (a), the department shall allocate $1,053,200 for the last 6 months of 2009, $2,106,500 for 2010, and $1,053,300 for the first 6 months of 2011 to counties based on each of the factors specified in par. (b) 1. to 3. weighted equally, except that no county may receive an Huskey & Associates Page 33

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project allocation under this paragraph that is less than 93% nor more than 115% of the amount that the county would have received under this paragraph if the allocation had been distributed only on the basis of the factor specified in par. (b) 3. (e) For emergencies related to community youth and family aids under this section, amounts not to exceed $125,000 for the last 6 months of 2009, $250,000 for 2010, and $125,000 for the first 6 months of 2011. A county is eligible for payments under this paragraph only if it has a population of not more than 45,000. (h) For counties that are participating in the corrective sanctions program under s. 938.533 (2), $1,062,400 in the last 6 months of 2009, $2,124,800 in 2010, and $1,062,400 in the first 6 months of 2011 for the provision of corrective sanctions services for juveniles from that county. In distributing funds to counties under this paragraph, the department shall determine a county's distribution by dividing the amount allocated under this paragraph by the number of slots authorized for the program under s. 938.533 (2) and multiplying the quotient by the number of slots allocated to that county by agreement between the department and the county. The department may transfer funds among counties as necessary to distribute funds based on the number of slots allocated to each county. (8) ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUG ABUSE TREATMENT. From the amount of the allocations specified in sub. (7) (a), the department shall allocate $666,700 in the last 6 months of 2009, $1,333,400 in 2010, and $666,700 in the first 6 months of 2011 for alcohol and other drug abuse treatment programs. Huskey & Associates Page 34

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Wisconsin Community Intervention Program 4 The Department of Corrections provides funds to counties for 1) early intervention services for first-time offenders and 2) intensive community-based services for serious chronic offenders. Counties are required to develop programs with measurable outcomes and to evaluate their success annually in meeting their objectives. This provides counties flexibility in using creativity to develop innovative programs as long as the basic guidelines are met. A statutory formula allocates funds based on three factors: 1. Each county s proportion of the statewide total of juvenile arrests for Part I violent offenses 2. Placements of juveniles in state secure correctional facilities 3. Juvenile arrests for Part I offenses. The total amount of CIP funding available for counties in SFY10 and SFY11 is $3,712,500. Outcomes Wisconsin s juvenile correctional institutions are currently operating at 20 to 30 percent of their capacities. Court-ordered commitments to state juvenile correctional facilities have plummeted over the last 10 years. The average daily population has decreased by more than 35 percent between 2001 and 2008. According to state officials, the decline is an indication that early intervention and programming at the county level and efforts by the Department to focus on successful reentry are reducing crime. 4 http://www.wi-doc.com/djc_funding.htm Huskey & Associates Page 35

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project 301.263 Community intervention Program. 5 (1) From the appropriation under s. 20.410 (3) (f), the department shall distribute $3,750,000 in each year to counties for early intervention services for first offenders and for intensive community-based intervention services for seriously chronic offenders. (2) To determine eligibility for a payment under sub. (1), the department shall require a county to submit a plan for the expenditure of that payment that ensures that the county targets the programs to be funded under that payment appropriately. (3) The department shall distribute 33% of the amounts distributed under sub. (1) based on each county's proportion of the violent Part I juvenile arrests reported statewide under the uniform crime reporting system of the office of justice assistance in the department of administration, during the most recent 2-year period for which that information is available. The department shall distribute 33% of the amounts distributed under sub. (1) based on each county's proportion of the number of juveniles statewide who are placed in a juvenile correctional facility or a secured residential care center for children and youth during the most recent 2-year period for which that information is available. The department shall distribute 34% of the amounts distributed under sub. (1) based on each county's proportion of the total Part I juvenile arrests reported statewide under the uniform crime reporting system of the office of justice assistance, during the most recent 2-year period for which that information is available. History: 1995 a. 27, 77; 1997 a. 35; 1999 a. 9; 2005 a. 344. 5 http://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2010/301/301.263.html Huskey & Associates Page 36

Chapter 6: Missouri Juvenile Court Diversion Program

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Best Practices Project Missouri Juvenile Court Diversion 1 The Missouri Division of Youth Services administers its Juvenile Court Diversion grant program whereby DYS provides funding to District Courts to implement alternatives to placement in DYS custody. In FY2009, of the 38 juvenile courts that received funding from DYS, 39 out of every 40 youth were maintained in local programs rather than sending them to DYS custody. 2 The Missouri Office of State Court Administrators has mandated a uniform Risk and Needs Assessment for all juvenile courts. The Juvenile Court Diversion program is designed to divert juveniles from commitment to the Division of Youth Services through early intervention and by keeping less-serious offenders at home. The programs are designed and implemented at the local level. Juvenile courts across the state apply for grants from the Division of Youth Services to support programs such as intensive probation, detention alternatives, gang prevention and intervention, family therapy, group counseling, sexual offender treatment, restitution, teen court, tutoring, and many other innovative services. Through juvenile court diversion, many local communities around the state are providing services that would otherwise not be available to youths near their homes. Juvenile Court Diversion is an investment by state government in the juvenile courts to improve local programming for juvenile offenders and keep communities safe. It is designed to divert juveniles from commitment to the Division of Youth Services through early intervention. The Juvenile Court Diversion program diverted 4,080 youth from commitment to state care in FY09 at a cost of $961 per youth. 3 At a much-reduced cost to Missouri taxpayers, these programs provide local intervention services, allowing the courts to work with at-risk youth and their families in their home communities. 4 1 http://www.dss.mo.gov/dys/ 2 Conversation on March 23, 2011 with Dennis Bragg, Deputy Director, DYS. 3 Missouri Division of Youth Services. FY 2009 Annual Report. 4 http://www.dss.mo.gov/dys/ Huskey & Associates Page 38

Profile of Youth Committed to and Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Volume 4 Submitted by Huskey & Associates Final March 30, 2011

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Table of Contents Chapter 1: Youth Committed to Georgia s Department of Juvenile Justice 1 Chapter 2 Comparison States Chapter 3: Youth Confined in Georgia s Youth Development Centers Chapter 4: Designated Felons vs. Regular Commitments Chapter 5: Population Reduction Strategies to Reduce Low and Moderate Risk Youth from Secure Confinement 21 33 46 58 Appendix 64 Huskey & Associates i

Chapter 1: Youth Committed to Georgia s Department of Juvenile Justice

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers 1.1 Introduction This report describes the characteristics of individual youth committed to and confined in Georgia s secure Youth Development Centers (YDC). It represents unique commitments and average daily population. It also compares the characteristics of Georgia s youth with the states of Missouri, New York and North Carolina, states of interest to the Department of Juvenile Justice and the Governor s Office of Children and Families. The report compares the size of secure facilities among Georgia and these three states. Finally, the report provides proposed population reduction strategies to reduce the number of low and medium risk youth confined in YDCs. This report focuses on the profile of youth in secure corrections facilities in Georgia and how this compares with other states. The Final Report will provide system reform recommendations for the Department and the Legislature to advance evidence-based practices and models within Georgia. Figure 1.1 Total DJJ Commitments by Sex 2005-2010 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Male 1,866 2,256 2,143 2,144 1,957 1,838 Female 518 571 501 503 433 351 Total 2,384 2,827 2,644 2,647 2,390 2,189 The number of commitments to Georgia s Department of Juvenile Justice for both males and females peaked in 2006. Between 2005 and 2010, male commitments decreased 1.5 percent while female commitments decreased 32.2 percent. GADJJ s policy initiative to reduce females in secure confinement is being realized. The total number of commitments decreased 8.2 percent between 2005 and 2010. Huskey & Associates 1

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers This is similar to national trends that document a decline in juvenile arrests of 4.1 percent during 2001-2008 1, and a decrease of 26 percent in the number of youth confined in state juvenile corrections facilities from 82,000 in 2004 to 60,723 on October 28, 2009. 2 During 2009, two dozen juvenile justice agencies reported closing a total of 2,455 state juvenile corrections beds. 3 According to conversations with other juvenile directors, this decline in population is due to a number of factors including the recession, system reform, expanded alternatives to secure confinement and phasing out of old facilities. 1 Puzzanchera, C., Adams, B., and Kang, W. (2009). "Easy Access to FBI Arrest Statistics 1994-2007" Online. Available: http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/ezaucr/. 2 2010 Yearbook. Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators. 3 Ibid. Huskey & Associates 2

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Figure 1.2 Percent of Total DJJ Commitments by Sex 2005-2010 N=15,081 Female 19.1% Male 80.9% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110216.FY05-10 Commitments.xlsx) Huskey & Associates 3

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers As these comparison graphs show, the percent of youth aged 17 years of age and older is higher among the confined population compared to youth at time of commitment. Many of the youth confined in YDCs are designated felons which statutorily require a longer length of stay thus increasing the youth s age. Figure 1.3 Percent of Total DJJ Commitments and YDC ADP by Age 2005-2010 Total DJJ Commitments 17+yrs 6.2% N=15,081 8-10yrs 0.2% 11-13yrs 9.8% Average YDC ADP N=908 17+yrs 38.9% 11-13yrs 2.4% 14-16yrs 83.8% 14-16yrs 58.6% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110216.FY05-10 Commitments.xlsx) Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110224.YDC Data FY05-FY10.xlsx) These findings indicate that DJJ needs to prepare these youth aging out of the juvenile justice system with independent living skills, education, vocational education and job readiness skills. Huskey & Associates 4

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers These graphs document disproportionate commitment and confinement of African-American youth in state facilities. African-American youth have higher commitment and confinement rates than other ethnic groups and races. Figure 1.4 Percent of Total DJJ Commitments and YDC Average Daily Population by Race 2005-2010 Total DJJ Commitments N=15,081 Average YDC ADP N=908 Hispanic 6.2% Other 1.7% White 22.2% Hispanic 5.0% Other 1.2% White 17.5% Black 70.0% Black 76.3% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110216.FY05-10 Commitments.xlsx) Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110224.YDC Data FY05-FY10.xlsx) The states of Pennsylvania and Illinois have implemented Disproportionate Minority Confinement (DMC) initiatives to analyze all nine key decision points in the system (arrest, court referral, informal processing, detention, petitioning, adjudication, probation, placement and waiver) to determine where the greatest disparity occurs and to develop policy reform recommendations with key stakeholders. The Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judge s Commission has approved a statewide data collection protocol for all courts to track ethnicity and race. 4 The Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission has directed funding to communities who commit to tracking ethnicity and race along the nine decision points, to raise public awareness about DMC, and to improve access to alternatives to incarceration for non-violent youth of color. 5 4 Ziedenberg, J. A Justice Policy Institute Report. Models for Change: Building Momentum for Juvenile Justice Reform. December 2006. 5 Ibid. Huskey & Associates 5

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Georgia places 8.5 percent more of its youth in secure institutions than the nation. Figure 1.5 Percent of DJJ Commitments by Placement Type 2009 Georgia DJJ N=2,390 Nation N=41,062 YDC 47.2% Secure Institutions 38.7% Other 52.8% Other 61.3% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110216.FY05-10 Commitments.xlsx) Source: CJCA 2010 Yearbook. October 28, 2009 Huskey & Associates 6

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers More than one-third of the youth committed to state custody during FY05-FY10 was low risk. Latessa, E.J. and Lowenkamp, C. (2004) found that the confinement of low and moderate risk offenders was harmful because it increases their rate of recidivism. 6 Figure 1.6 Youth Committed to Georgia DJJ by Risk Level Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110224.YDC Data FY05-FY10.xlsx). Note: represents youth committed to DJJ custody. 6 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. Huskey & Associates 7

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Eight out of ten youth committed to DJJ are regular commitments compared to 19.2 percent who are designated felons. In contrast, of the total youth confined in an YDC, 86.3 percent are designated felons and 13.7 percent are regular commitments. Figure 1.7 Percent of Total DJJ Commitments and Total Confined in YDC by Type of Commitment DJJ Commitments FY 2005-2010 N=15,081 Designated Felon 19.2% Average Daily Population in YDC FY08-10 N=917 Regular 13.7% Designated Felon 86.3% Regular 80.8% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110216.FY05-10 Commitments.xlsx) Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110224.YDC Data FY05-FY10.xlsx) Huskey & Associates 8

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers More than 60 percent of the youth committed to DJJ during these years had no prior commitments suggesting a low history of delinquent behavior. Figure 1.8 Percent of DJJ Commitments by Number of Prior Commitments 2005-2010 N=15,081 2 to 5 16.5% 6 to 10 0.6% One 21.0% None 61.9% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110216.FY05-10 Commitments.xlsx) Huskey & Associates 9

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers National data for committing offenses was available for 2006. The most frequent committing offense for youth committed to state facilities nationally was person. In contrast, the most frequent committing offense for youth in Georgia in 2006 was property. Georgia s second most frequent offense was person. Georgia uses state commitment for more of its youth adjudicated for technical violations and for public order than the nation. Figure 1.9 Percent Commitments by Most Serious Offense 2006 Georgia DJJ N=2,827 Nation N=64,558 Technical Violation 15.4% Status 4.2% Person 24.3% Technical Violation 13.0% Status 5.6% Person 35.6% Public Order 18.6% Public Order 10.7% Drug 7.0% Property 30.4% Drug 8.8% Property 26.3% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110216.FY05-10 Commitments.xlsx) Note: Person includes sex-nonviolent, violent, violent sex; drug includes selling and use; public order includes traffic and weapon violation Source: Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement Databook. 2006. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Huskey & Associates 10

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers This table shows that 61.3 percent of all DJJ commitments come from 13 counties. Two of these counties are dependent counties (Muscogee and Bibb), which means that DJJ has more control over these commitments than in the independent counties. However, DJJ has influence over the independent counties as well by helping these counties implement a risk and needs assessment, provide incentives to these counties to treat these youth in local programs and provide training on the Principles of Effective Intervention. Two of the top 13 counties are shared (Coweta and Henry) and the remaining nine are independent counties where there is greater diversity in local practices. If these top 13 counties developed other options such as day treatment, intensive wraparound, residential treatment, the commitments to DJJ would show a dramatic decrease. Table 1.1 Top 13 Counties with the Highest Commitments to Georgia DJJ Counties 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2005-2010 Total % of Total Dekalb 196 252 361 302 246 206 1,563 10.4% Gwinnett 122 188 242 237 225 190 1,204 8.0% Cobb 175 181 196 157 144 142 995 6.6% Chatham 235 225 127 130 123 137 977 6.5% Fulton 119 135 136 194 174 150 908 6.0% Clayton 157 131 111 112 91 76 678 4.5% Troup 98 98 111 102 129 109 647 4.3% Dougherty 68 108 98 87 105 84 550 3.6% Muscogee 62 86 70 74 54 61 407 2.7% Bibb 35 42 49 66 74 97 363 2.4% Coweta 47 66 59 70 49 38 329 2.2% Henry 53 46 60 67 38 50 314 2.1% Floyd 65 82 59 38 34 29 307 2.0% Statewide 2,384 2,827 2,644 2,647 2,390 2,189 15,081 61.3% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110216.FY05-10 Commitments.xlsx) Huskey & Associates 11

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers The commitment rate for these 13 counties combined 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. The major population centers committed the highest number of youth to DJJ; however two of these counties had lower commitment rates (e.g. Cobb, Fulton) than the statewide rate. Table 1.2 DJJ Commitment Rate by Top 13 Committing Counties 2005-2009 10-17yrs Population 2010 Commitment Rate (per 10,000) County 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2005-2010 Total % of Total Troup 98 98 111 102 129 109 647 4.3% 7,330 148.7 Dougherty 68 108 98 87 105 84 550 3.6% 11,192 75.1 Chatham 235 225 127 130 123 137 977 6.5% 25,129 54.5 Bibb 35 42 49 66 74 97 363 2.4% 18,412 52.7 Muscogee 62 86 70 74 54 61 407 2.7% 21,152 28.8 Dekalb 196 252 361 302 246 206 1,563 10.4% 74,471 27.7 Floyd 65 82 59 38 34 29 307 2.0% 10,555 27.5 Coweta 47 66 59 70 49 38 329 2.2% 14,631 26.0 Clayton 157 131 111 112 91 76 678 4.5% 35,632 21.3 Henry 53 46 60 67 38 50 314 2.1% 26,016 19.2 Gwinnett 122 188 242 237 225 190 1,204 8.0% 99,006 19.2 Cobb 175 181 196 157 144 142 995 6.6% 79,609 17.8 Fulton 119 135 136 194 174 150 908 6.0% 100,933 14.9 Top 13 Committing Counties 1,432 1,640 1,679 1,636 1,486 1,369 9,242 61.3% 524,068 26.1 Statewide 2,384 2,827 2,644 2,647 2,390 2,189 15,081 1,099,201 19.9 Huskey & Associates 12

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Among the independent counties, 70.5 percent of the 17 counties had 30 percent or more commitments that were assessed as low risk suggesting that these youth could have been dealt with in local programs rather than committing them to the state department of juvenile justice. Some of the reasons for this is lack of a uniform risk and needs assessment instrument among the juvenile courts, punitive philosophies driving policy, changes in prosecutors and judges, lack of a statewide admissions policy, lack of awareness of the research on evidence-based practices, untapped federal funding for programs and lack of resources to expand alternatives to commitment. Additionally, nearly 30 percent of the independent counties had 50 percent or more of their youth committed to DJJ who were assessed as medium risk to reoffend. Chatham had the lowest percent (15.5 percent) of youth committed to DJJ who were assessed as low risk to reoffend based on the valid Comprehensive Risk and Needs Assessment while Gwinnett had the highest percent (60.5 percent). Table 1.3 Total Independent County Commitments by Committing County and CRN Risk Level 2005-2010 Total % of Total CHATHAM 977 100.0% Low 151 15.5% Medium 499 51.1% High 325 33.3% Unknown 2 0.2% CLAYTON 678 100.0% Low 232 34.2% Medium 321 47.3% High 123 18.1% Unknown 2 0.3% COBB 995 100.0% Low 426 42.8% Medium 444 44.6% High 117 11.8% Unknown 8 0.8% COLUMBIA 18 100.0% Low 7 38.9% Medium 9 50.0% High 2 11.1% CRAWFORD 7 100.0% Low 4 57.1% Medium 2 28.6% High 1 14.3% DEKALB 1,563 100.0% Low 645 41.3% Huskey & Associates 13

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Table 1.3 Total Independent County Commitments by Committing County and CRN Risk Level 2005-2010 Total % of Total Medium 715 45.7% High 201 12.9% Unknown 2 0.1% DOUGHERTY 550 100.0% Low 114 20.7% Medium 291 52.9% High 145 26.4% FLOYD 307 100.0% Low 66 21.5% Medium 162 52.8% High 79 25.7% FULTON 908 100.0% Low 470 51.8% Medium 361 39.8% High 71 7.8% Unknown 6 0.7% GLYNN 226 100.0% Low 48 21.2% Medium 103 45.6% High 75 33.2% GORDON 38 100.0% Low 16 42.1% Medium 18 47.4% High 4 10.5% GWINNETT 1,204 100.0% Low 728 60.5% Medium 415 34.5% High 60 5.0% Unknown 1 0.1% HALL 138 100.0% Low 36 26.1% Medium 82 59.4% High 20 14.5% PEACH 34 100.0% Low 16 47.1% Medium 11 32.4% High 7 20.6% SPALDING 187 100.0% Low 67 35.8% Medium 84 44.9% High 36 19.3% Huskey & Associates 14

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Table 1.3 Total Independent County Commitments by Committing County and CRN Risk Level 2005-2010 Total % of Total TROUP 647 100.0% Low 203 31.4% Medium 320 49.5% High 124 19.2% WHITFIELD 278 100.0% Low 91 32.7% Medium 132 47.5% High 55 19.8% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110216.FY05-10 Commitments.xlsx) Huskey & Associates 15

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Fifty-eight percent of the total commitments to DJJ were from the independent counties during 2005-2010. If DJJ could help these counties develop other options, the commitments to DJJ would decline significantly. Table 1.4 Independent County Commitments to GA DJJ 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2005-2010 Total % of Total Dekalb 196 252 361 302 246 206 1,563 10.4% Gwinnett 122 188 242 237 225 190 1,204 8.0% Cobb 175 181 196 157 144 142 995 6.6% Chatham 235 225 127 130 123 137 977 6.5% Fulton 119 135 136 194 174 150 908 6.0% Clayton 157 131 111 112 91 76 678 4.5% Troup 98 98 111 102 129 109 647 4.3% Dougherty 68 108 98 87 105 84 550 3.6% Floyd 65 82 59 38 34 29 307 2.0% Whitfield 74 45 60 43 37 19 278 1.8% Glynn 42 38 30 39 38 39 226 1.5% Spalding 27 47 48 31 10 24 187 1.2% Hall 30 43 18 12 17 18 138 0.9% Gordon 11 4 9 7 3 4 38 0.3% Peach 5 3 8 7 10 1 34 0.2% Columbia 6 4 2 1 3 2 18 0.1% Crawford 3 2 0 0 0 2 7 0.0% Statewide 2,384 2,827 2,644 2,647 2,390 2,189 15,081 58.1% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110216.FY05-10 Commitments.xlsx) Huskey & Associates 16

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers There has been an 11.7 percent increase in the number of youth committed to DJJ who are assessed 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 are change in philosophy of local prosecutors and judges, growing intolerance of juvenile male offenders, no valid risk and needs assessment, 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. Table 1.5 Total Commitments by CRN Risk Level 2005-2010 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Ave. Annual %Change 2005-2010 %change Low 725 925 1002 1021 885 810 3.2% 11.7% Medium 1176 1350 1153 1172 1062 984-3.0% -16.3% High 480 545 483 448 442 394-3.5% -17.9% Unknown 3 7 6 6 1 1 7.1% -66.7% Total 2,384 2,827 2,644 2,647 2,390 2,189-1.2% -8.2% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110216.FY05-10 Commitments.xlsx) Huskey & Associates 17

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Traffic offenses declined the most during the past five years. In contrast, sex non-violent increased the greatest. Three other crimes showed small annual increases (property, violent and weapons violations). Table 1.6 Total DJJ Commitments by Most Serious Offense 2005-2010 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Ave. Annual %Change 2005-2010 %change Drug Selling 33 43 47 30 19 19-6.6% -42.4% Drug Use 121 155 133 158 111 74-6.1% -38.8% Property 744 860 802 779 801 752 0.5% 1.1% Public Order 367 427 352 401 323 293-3.2% -20.2% Sex Non-Violent 11 22 17 12 13 16 15.9% 45.5% Status 76 120 92 98 82 58-0.9% -23.7% Traffic 29 25 16 18 13 9-19.2% -69.0% Violent 473 535 558 604 539 495 1.3% 4.7% Violent Sex 111 130 127 110 114 98-1.8% -11.7% VOP/VOAC/VOAP 357 435 428 369 311 309-2.0% -13.4% Weapons Violation 62 75 72 68 64 66 1.7% 6.5% Total 2,384 2,827 2,644 2,647 2,390 2,189-1.2% -8.2% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110216.FY05-10 Commitments.xlsx) Huskey & Associates 18

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Nearly one third of the youth committed to the DJJ in the past five years were committed for property offenses, followed by 20 percent for violent, almost 15 percent for technical violations and 14 percent for public order. There were 2,209 youth committed to state facilities for technical violations, 526 for children s offenses (status) and 2,163 for public order during 2005-2010. These are likely candidates for alternatives to confinement. Table 1.7 Total Commitments by Most Serious Offense and Sex 2005-2010 Drug Selling Drug Use Property Public Order Sex Non- Violent Status Traffic Violent Violent Sex VOP/VOAC/ VOAP Weapons Violation Total N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Male 172 1.4% 644 5.3% 4,177 34.2% 1,665 13.6% 74 0.6% 283 2.3% 91 0.7% 2,570 21.1% 666 5.5% 1,492 12.2% 370 3.0% 12,204 Female 19 0.7% 108 3.8% 561 19.5% 498 17.3% 17 0.6% 243 8.4% 19 0.7% 634 22.0% 24 0.8% 717 24.9% 37 1.3% 2,877 Total 191 1.3% 752 5.0% 4,738 31.4% 2,163 14.3% 91 0.6% 526 3.5% 110 0.7% 3,204 21.2% 690 4.6% 2,209 14.6% 407 2.7% 15,081 Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110216.FY05-10 Commitments.xlsx) Huskey & Associates 19

Chapter 2: Comparison States

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers An analysis was conducted of similar size states, southeastern states and other states of interest to DJJ and the Governor s Office of Children and Families using comparable data in Georgia for October 2009. Among these 12 states, six have confinement rates lower than Georgia (South Carolina, New Jersey, North Carolina, New York, Missouri and Michigan). The greatest variance occurs between Georgia and Michigan. Georgia s confinement rate is most similar to Ohio and Washington State. Table 2.1 Confinement Rate in Georgia and in Comparison States 2009 Population Confinement State Total Population 10-17yrs Number Confined Rate (per 100,000) Indiana 6,423,113 704,219 786 111.6 Illinois 12,910,409 1,401,050 1,350 96.4 Virginia 7,882,590 800,297 765 95.6 Washington 6,664,195 689,812 639 92.6 Ohio 11,542,645 1,233,614 1,129 91.5 Georgia 9,829,211 1,099,201 956 87.0 South Carolina 4,561,242 471,648 245 51.9 New Jersey 8,707,739 922,044 454 49.2 North Carolina 9,380,884 971,939 424 43.6 New York 19,541,453 1,998,506 752 37.6 Missouri 5,987,580 638,146 197 30.9 Michigan 9,969,727 1,095,995 127 11.6 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division Table 2. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex and Age: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2009 (SC- EST2009-02-13) 2010 CJCA Yearbook, youth confined as of October 28, 2009. Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110124.YDCDataFY05-FY10.xls) New York Division of Juvenile Justice and Opportunities for Youth. Number youth confined on October 26, 2009. Memo sent to B. Huskey on March 15, 2011 from Susan Steele. Huskey & Associates 21

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers The committing offenses of youth in a southeastern, Midwestern and northeastern state were compared with Georgia. Missouri and Georgia accept technical violators and status offenders within state facilities while New York and North Carolina have adopted a policy that does not accept technical violators or status offenders. Georgia had the highest commitments for public order offenses among these states. Missouri has a higher acceptance rate of technical violators and status offenders than the other states. Missouri had the lowest commitments for property while North Carolina had the highest. New York had the highest commitments for person offenses followed by Missouri. Figure 2.1 Commitments by Type of Offense in Comparison States FY2009 Source (Georgia): Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110216.FY05-10 Commitments.xlsx). Note: Person includes sex non-violent, violent, violent sex, weapons violation; drug includes selling and use; public order includes traffic. Source (Missouri, New York, North Carolina): Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators. CJCA 2010 Yearbook. Note: Data represent committing offense distribution for residential care on October 28, 2009 Huskey & Associates 22

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Like Missouri, Georgia commits the same percent of misdemeanants to its department of juvenile justice. Unlike Missouri, Georgia commits fifty percent fewer status offenders than Missouri. Status offenders and misdemeanant offenders are likely candidates for local programs in lieu of state custody. Figure 2.2 Percent of Georgia State Commitments to Missouri State Commitments by Offense Category 2009 Georgia DJJ N=2,390 2005-2010 Missouri N=1,092 2009 Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110216.FY05-10 Commitments.xlsx) Source: Missouri Department of Social Services. Division of Youth Services. Annual Report FY2009. Note: Felony includes A, B, C, D and other felonies; Status = juvenile offense such as truancy and curfew violations; misdemeanor includes misdemeanor and other nonfelonies like probation violation and escape from custody. Huskey & Associates 23

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers The following tables illustrate the secure juvenile corrections facilities operated by or under contract with the state department of juvenile justice. Of significance are the size of the facilities and the average length of stay. Most of the following states have small facilities and small housing units consistent with national trends. In contrast, six of Georgia s facilities exceed 100 beds and the housing units in the older facilities are 20 beds. Roush, D. (2002) conducted a partial review of the literature on facility and housing unit size. He reported that there was sufficient evidence that juvenile facilities which are smaller than 150 beds and those that operate with small housing units result in increased safety and quality of interaction and treatment. 7 In 2009, youth in six of Georgia s eight facilities spent an average of less than one year. Table 2.2 Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (2009) Source: CJCA 2010 Yearbook. Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators. 7 Roush, D. (2002). The Relationship Between Group Size and Outcomes in Juvenile Corrections: A Partial Review of the Literature. Journal for Juvenile Justice and Detention Services. Vol. 17, Number 1, Spring 2002. Huskey & Associates 24

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers None of the secure facilities in Missouri have a rated capacity that exceeds 50 beds. Youth housed in 24 of the 25 facilities spend less than one year. Table 2.3 Missouri Division of Youth Services Source: CJCA 2010 Yearbook. Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators. Huskey & Associates 25

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers While more than one-third of Georgia s juvenile commitments are low risk, 2.5 percent of Missouri s juvenile commitments are low-risk. The Juvenile Court Diversion Program that the Division of Youth Services operates provides incentives to juvenile courts to maintain low risk youth in the localities. Figure 2.3 Percent of Georgia State Commitments to Missouri State Commitments by Risk Level Georgia DJJ N=2,188 FY 2010 Missouri N=853 CY 2009 High 18.0% Low 37.0% Low 2.5% Moderate 41.9% Medium 45.0% High 55.5% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110216.FY05-10 Commitments.xlsx). Data represent FY2010. Source: Missouri Office of State Court Administrators. Data represent CY2009. Note: Excludes 147 youth who have missing risk scores. DYS reports 1,092 commitments in CY2009. Huskey & Associates 26

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers While 47.2 percent of Georgia s youth are in secure care, 25.1 percent of Missouri s commitments are in secure care. Mandatory sentences of the designated felons are one of the likely reasons for this difference. Table 2.4 State of Missouri Funded Capacity by Level of Care (LOC) Level of Care Total % Day Treatment 165 18.9% Community Based 70 8.0% Moderate Care 420 48.0% Secure Care 220 25.1% TOTAL 875 100.0% Percentage 100.0% Source: Memo from Dennis Gragg, Deputy Director, Missouri Division of Youth Services. March 25, 2011. Huskey & Associates 27

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Eight of New York s 12 secure facilities are less than 100 beds. Four of New York s 12 secure facilities exceed 100 beds. Youth in 8 out of the 12 secure facilities spend less than one year. Table 2.5 New York Division of Juvenile Justice and Opportunities for Youth Source: CJCA 2010 Yearbook. Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators. Huskey & Associates 28

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers All juvenile facilities in North Carolina are rated at less than 100 beds. Youth in four facilities stay less than one year while youth in five facilities stay more than 1 year. Table 2.6 North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Source: CJCA 2010 Yearbook. Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators. Huskey & Associates 29

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers While more than one-third of Georgia s juvenile commitments are low-risk, 4.2 percent of North Carolina s juvenile commitments are low-risk. Figure 2.4 Percent of Georgia State Commitments to North Carolina State Commitments by Risk Level High 18.0% Georgia DJJ N=2,188 FY 2010 Low 37.0% North Carolina N=357 CY 2010 Low 4.2% Medium 23.8% Medium 45.0% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110216.FY05-10 Commitments.xlsx). Data represent FY2010. High 72.0% Source: North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Data represent CY2010. Note: Excludes youth 16+ years. Huskey & Associates 30

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Connecticut, Maryland, New Hampshire New Mexico, and Oregon implement all evidence-based models. In contrast, Georgia, Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, Puerto Rico, Utah and Vermont lag behind other states in implementing evidence-based models. Table 2.7 Evidenced-Based Treatments Provided by Agencies Source: CJCA 2010 Yearbook. Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators. Huskey & Associates 31

Chapter 3: Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia s Youth Development Centers

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Figure 3.1 Percent Youth Confined in Georgia Youth Development Centers by Sex FY05-FY10 N=908 Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110224.YDC Data FY05-FY10.xlsx) Huskey & Associates 33

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Figure 3.2 Percent Youth Confined by Age N=908 11-13yrs 2.4% 17+yrs 38.9% 14-16yrs 58.6% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110224.YDC Data FY05-FY10.xlsx) Huskey & Associates 34

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers While Black youth represent only one-third of Georgia s youth population, they represent more than three-quarters of the youth confined in secure correctional facilities documenting disproportionate use of secure confinement according to race. In contrast, while Hispanic youth represent 9.0 percent of the total youth in Georgia s population, only 5.0 percent Hispanic youth are securely confined. Additionally, White youth represent 52 percent of Georgia s youth population but only 17.5 percent of the youth in secure confinement. The National Bureau of Economic Research found that African-American youth who spent some time incarcerated experienced five weeks less work a year compared to youth who had no history of incarceration. 8 State of Georgia 10-17yr Population N=1,099,201 2009 Figure 3.3 Georgia s Statewide 10-17yr Population vs. YDC ADP by Race Black 34.0% YDC ADP N=908 2005-2010 Black 76.3% White 52.0% Other 4.9% Hispanic 9.0% White 17.5% Other 1.2% Hispanic 5.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (100910.RYDC Data FY04-FY10.xls) 8 Western, B. and Bechett, K. (1999). How Unregulated is the U.S. Labor Market? The Penal System as Labor Market Institution.: The American Journal of Sociology, 104. Huskey & Associates 35

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Nearly 30 percent of the youth confined in secure YDCs are low-risk to reoffend according to DJJ s Comprehensive Risk and Needs Assessment. Another 38 percent are medium risk. Scarce secure beds are being used for low and medium risk youth. Figure 3.4 Percent Youth in Secure Confinement by CRN Risk Level FY05-FY10 N-908 High 31.5% None 0.7% Low 29.7% Medium 38.1% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110224.YDC Data FY05-FY10.xlsx) Huskey & Associates 36

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers More males were assessed as low and high risk to reoffend than females. More females were assessed as medium risk to reoffend than males. A t-test for statistical significance was performed on the ADP by CRN risk level for males to females. There were no significant (p<0.05) differences between males and females with respect to CRN risk level. Figure 3.5 Percent YDC Average Daily Population by CRN Risk Level by Males/Females FY05-FY10 Average Male ADP N=823 Average Female ADP N=84 Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110224.YDC Data FY05-FY10.xlsx) Huskey & Associates 37

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers 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). Figure 3.6 Percent YDC Average Daily Population by Number of Prior YDC Commitments FY05-FY10 N=908 One 14.6% 2 to 5 4.0% 6 to 10 0.0% None 81.4% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110224.YDC Data FY05-FY10.xlsx). Note: does not include prior RYDC admissions. Huskey & Associates 38

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers More than one-half of the youth confined in an YDC statewide were committed for a violent offense while more than 41 percent were committed for a non-violent offense. Figure 3.7 Percent Statewide YDC Average Daily Population by Most Serious Offense Type and Sex FY05-FY10 Males Ave. ADP = 823 Females Ave. ADP = 84 Non-Violent 44.4% Non- Violent 41.1% Violent 55.6% Violent 58.9% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110224.YDC Data FY05-FY10.xlsx) Note: Violent includes drug selling, sex non-violent, violent, violent sex, weapons violation; Non-violent includes drug use, property, public order, status, traffic, VOP/VOAC, VOAP Huskey & Associates 39

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Nearly 60 percent of the youth confined in secure institutions in Georgia had a diagnosed psychiatric disorder and were receiving mental health services. This does not include youth diagnosed with conduct disorders and oppositional defiance disorders indicating that the incidence of mental health problems is more widespread. In comparison, 90 percent of the youth confined in Youth Development Centers in North Carolina had at least one psychiatric diagnosis and 81 percent had more than one psychiatric diagnosis in January 2011 (Note: includes conduct and oppositional defiant disorders). Ninety percent of these youth were receiving weekly individual counseling or psychotherapy by licensed mental health clinicians. 9 Wasserman et al (2004) found that 59.8 percent of the youth housed in secure corrections centers in Illinois and in New Jersey were diagnosed with any disorder. 10 Cocozza & Shufelt (2007) found that 70 percent of youth in the juvenile justice system have psychiatric disorders and that 27 percent of these youth have severe impairment. 11 Figure 3.8 Percent Youth Confined in YDCs with Psychiatric Disorders and on Mental Health Caseload 2005-2010 N=2,446 Yes 59.4% No 40.6% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110224.YDC Data FY05-FY10.xlsx) 9 North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Memo from Kathy Dudley, Deputy Director, Institutions to B. Huskey. March 25, 2011. 10 Wasserman, Gail A., Ko, Susan J. McReynolds, Larkin S. (August 2004). Assessing the Mental Health Status of Youth in Juvenile Justice Settings. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. 11 Cocozza, JJ, Shufelt, JL, & Skowyra, K. (2007). Prevalence of mental disorders among youth in the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) multi-state study. The Research and Training Center for Children's Mental Health: 19th Annual Proceedings. Huskey & Associates 40

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Typical correctional designs provide security hardware, steel furniture, electronic surveillance devices, security glass and metal doors and no view to the outside escalates the trauma that youth suffering from psychiatric disorders experience in correctional facilities. On the other hand, secure behavioral health designs provide a less threatening and greater calming environment that enhances health, minimizes trauma and reduces violence. Elements of these designs include a lot of natural light, outside courtyards, calming rooms with a rocking chair, comfortable furniture, carpet, and variety of calming colors. The Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs has recently included calming rooms in its new facility design. Huskey & Associates 41

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Table 3.1 YDC ADP by Facility Facility 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Ave. Annual %Change 2005-2010 %Change Augusta 32.2 69.2 76.5 83.5 85.0 102.5 31.4% 218.6% Eastman 268.4 305.9 314.7 296.2 296.7 293.2 2.0% 9.2% Ireland 259.6 275.9 283.2 281.4 284.1 62.4-13.8% -76.0% Macon 73.7 96.2 93.9 89.0 84.4 69.6 0.0% -5.7% Muscogee 2.6 51.7 58.3 59.3 59.9 61.1 375.5% 2217.5% Savannah River Challenge 106.3 Sumter 143.2 140.6 139.6 143.7 146.2 146.6 0.5% 2.4% Total 790.2 939.7 966.2 953.2 956.2 841.7 1.7% 6.5% Note: Excludes Crisp, McIntosh and Metro. Ireland closed in 2009. Source: Georgia DJJ (110224.YDC Data FY05-FY10.xlsx) Table 3.2 YDC ADP by Most Serious Offense and Sex Females Males Most Serious Offense 2005-2010 Ave. ADP % 2005-2010 Ave. ADP % Drug Selling 0.2 0.3% 6.9 0.8% Drug Use 1.9 2.3% 17.2 2.1% Property 18.3 21.6% 254.3 30.9% Public Order 11.9 14.1% 78.2 9.5% Sex Non-Violent 0.1 0.1% 9.0 1.1% Status 0.7 0.9% 2.4 0.3% Traffic 0.5 0.6% 2.5 0.3% Violent 46.6 55.1% 329.2 40.0% Violent Sex 1.0 1.2% 89.6 10.9% VOP/VOAC/VOAP 1.4 1.6% 10.9 1.3% Weapons Violation 1.9 2.2% 23.2 2.8% Total 84.5 100.0% 823.4 100.0% Source: Georgia DJJ (110224.YDC Data FY05-FY10.xlsx) Huskey & Associates 42

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers In 2010, there were 57 youth confined within 90 days of their release who were assessed as low risk and 63 youth confined who were assessed as medium risk for a combined total of 120 youth that could be considered for community-based treatment. Table 3.3 YDC ADP of Youth within 90 Days of Release by CRN Risk Level and Sex CRN Risk Level 2010 Females Males ADP % ADP % None 0.0 0.0% 0.1 0.1% Low 5.2 31.2% 51.5 32.0% Medium 5.7 34.2% 57.1 35.5% High 5.8 34.6% 52.3 32.5% Total 16.7 100.0% 161.0 100.0% Source: Georgia DJJ (110224.YDC Data FY05-FY10.xlsx) The overall length of stay for the confined population is 1.1 years. Males spend 35.5 days longer on average than females. Table 3.4 Statewide YDC Average Length of Stay by Sex Sex 2008 2009 2010 Average Annual %Change 2008-2010 %Change Female 334.5 327.3 384.3 7.6% 14.9% Male 381.8 406.4 419.8 4.9% 10.0% Total 376.3 397.3 416.3 5.2% 10.6% Source: Georgia DJJ (110224.YDC Data FY05-FY10.xlsx) Huskey & Associates 43

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers As expected, violent youth stayed the longest in the facilities. Table 3.5 Statewide YDC Average Length of Stay by Most Serious Offense Most Serious Offense 2008 2009 2010 Average Annual %Change 2008-2010 %Change Drug Selling 309.8 289.4 138.4-29.4% -55.3% Drug Use 211.2 267.2 264.7 12.8% 25.3% Property 369.6 385.2 354.0-2.0% -4.2% Public Order 288.9 321.3 369.5 13.1% 27.9% Sex Non-Violent 431.2 1137.3 519.2 54.7% 20.4% Status 102.0 187.0 151.5 32.2% 48.5% Traffic 195.8 163.7 153.7-11.2% -21.5% Violent 436.1 455.6 506.7 7.8% 16.2% Violent Sex 476.4 477.9 597.2 12.6% 25.3% VOP/VOAC/VOAP 184.4 171.1 143.1-11.8% -22.4% Weapons Violation 330.8 345.0 320.3-1.4% -3.2% Total 376.3 397.3 416.3 5.2% 10.6% Source: Georgia DJJ (110224.YDC Data FY05-FY10.xlsx). Note: in 2009, there were 3 youth. Huskey & Associates 44

Chapter 4: Designated Felon vs. Regular Commitments

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers While designated felons represented only 19 percent of total commitments, they represent 86.3 percent of the youth confined in secure YDCs. Figure 4.1 Percent YDC Average Daily Population by Type of Commitment FY08-FY10 N=917 Regular 13.7% Designated Felon 86.3% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110224.YDC Data FY05-FY10.xlsx) Huskey & Associates 46

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers During 2008-2010, nearly 38 percent of the youth confined 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. Youth assessed as low and moderate 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, but the designated felons can not be released due to current statutory restrictions. A t-test of statistical significance was performed between the two groups. There was a significant difference (p<0.01) between designated felons and regular commitments with respect to CRN risk level. Figure 4.2 Percent YDC Average Daily Population by Type of Commitment and CRN Risk Level FY08-FY10 Designated Felon N=791 Regular N=126 High 23.1% None 0.1% Low 37.7% None 0.5% Low 5.5% Medium 22.3% Medium 39.1% High 71.7% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110224.YDC Data FY05-FY10.xlsx) Huskey & Associates 47

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers During 2008-2010, 58.4 percent of all designated felons but only 23.9 percent of the regular commitments were committed to DJJ for violent offenses. In the same period, 41.6 percent of designated felons and 76.1 percent of regular commitments were committed for non-violent offenses. Figure 4.3 Most Serious Committing Offense of Designated Felon vs. Regular Commitments FY08-FY10 Designated Felon N=1,568 Regular Commitment N=5,658 Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110224.YDC Data FY05-FY10.xlsx) Note: Violent includes drug selling, sex non-violent, violent, violent sex, weapons violation; Non-violent includes drug use, property, public order, status, traffic, VOP/VOAC, VOAP Huskey & Associates 48

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers During 2008-2010, nearly 65 percent of all designated felons and almost 62 percent of the regular commitments committed to DJJ had no prior offenses at the time of commitment indicating almost two-thirds of these youth have a low history of prior criminal behavior. Figure 4.4 Most Serious Prior Committing Offense of Designated Felon vs. Regular Commitments FY08-FY10 Designated Felon N=1,568 Regular Commitment N=5,658 Violent 11.0% Violent 9.8% Non- Violent 24.3% Non- Violent 28.4% None 64.7% None 61.7% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110224.YDC Data FY05-FY10.xlsx) Note: Violent includes drug selling, sex non-violent, violent, violent sex, weapons violation; Non-violent includes drug use, property, public order, status, traffic, VOP/VOAC, VOAP Huskey & Associates 49

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers In addition to nearly 65 percent of the designated felons and almost 62 percent of the regular commitments who had no prior DJJ commitments, another 17.6 percent of the designated felons and 21.2 percent of the regular commitments had only one prior DJJ commitment. Figure 4.5 Number of Prior DJJ Commitments of Designated Felon vs. Regular Commitments FY08-FY10 Designated Felons N=1,568 Regular Commitments N=5,658 2 to 5 16.8% 6 to 10 0.8% 2 to 5 16.4% 6 to 10 0.7% One 17.6% None 64.7% One 21.2% None 61.7% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110216.FY05-FY10 Commitments.xlsx) Huskey & Associates 50

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers During 2008-2010, almost two-thirds of the designated felons and regular commitment youth confined in YDCs were diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder and were receiving psychiatric services. These data do not include conduct disorders or oppositional disorders thus the prevalence of psychiatric disorders is higher. Figure 4.6 Percent of Designated Felon and Regular Commitment Youth Confined in YDC on a Mental Health Caseload FY08-FY10 Designated Felons Ave=791 Regular Commitments Ave=126 No 34.4% No 34.8% Yes 65.6% Yes 65.2% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110224.YDC Data FY05-FY10.xlsx) Huskey & Associates 51

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers The average length of stay for designated felons is 1.5 years documenting that the designated felons do not stay their maximum of five years. In contrast, regular commitment youth stayed an average of 4.7 months. This raises the question why regular commitment youth are not kept at the local level which would be less disruptive to them and their families and be less costly for the state DJJ. Illinois has targeted youth with a commitment of less than six months for alternatives to state commitment. 12 Figure 4.7 Average Length of Stay (in days) in Confinement for Designated Felon and Regular Commitments FY10 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Designated Felon Regular Commitment ALOS 550 140 Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110224.YDC Data FY05-FY10.xlsx) 12 Illinois Juvenile Justice Master Plan. 2008. Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice in association with Huskey & Associates and AECOM. Huskey & Associates 52

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers As this table shows, the majority of designated felons were adjudicated for violent offenses while the majority of regular commitment youth were charged with property offenses. Table 4.1 Most Serious Current Offense of Designated Felons vs. Regular Commitments 2008-2010 Designated Felon % Total Regular Commitment % Total Drug Selling 10 0.6% 58 1.0% Drug Use 20 1.3% 323 5.7% Property 463 29.5% 1,869 33.0% Public Order 132 8.4% 885 15.6% Sex Non-Violent 4 0.3% 37 0.7% Status 2 0.1% 236 4.2% Traffic 5 0.3% 35 0.6% Violent 720 45.9% 918 16.2% Violent Sex 117 7.5% 205 3.6% VOP/VOAC/VOAP 31 2.0% 958 16.9% Weapons Violation 64 4.1% 134 2.4% Total 1,568 100.0% 5,658 100.0% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110216.FY05-FY10 Commitments.xlsx) Huskey & Associates 53

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers As this table illustrates more than 61 percent of both groups had no prior offenses. Table 4.2 Most Serious Prior Offense of Designated Felons vs Regular Commitments 2008-2010 Designated Felon % Total Regular Commitment % Total Drug Selling 5 0.3% 20 0.4% Drug Use 11 0.7% 91 1.6% Property 269 17.2% 772 13.6% Public Order 58 3.7% 325 5.7% Sex Non-Violent 2 0.1% 14 0.2% Status 0 0.0% 49 0.9% Traffic 0 0.0% 9 0.2% Violent 137 8.7% 433 7.7% Violent Sex 15 1.0% 51 0.9% VOP/VOAC/VOAP 43 2.7% 363 6.4% Weapons Violation 13 0.8% 38 0.7% None 1,015 64.7% 3,493 61.7% Total 1,568 100.0% 5,658 100.0% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110216.FY05-FY10 Commitments.xlsx) Huskey & Associates 54

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Nearly 41 percent of the designated felons and almost 7 percent of the regular commitments were assessed as low risk to reoffend. Another 39 percent of the designated felons and 25 percent of the regular commitments were assessed as medium risk. Confining low risk youth in correctional environments where they are exposed to high risk youth is harmful as has already been pointed. Table 4.3 Designated Felons and Regular Commitments within 90 days of Release By CRN Risk Level Designated Felon Regular Commitment CRN Risk Level 2010 ADP % 2010 ADP % None 0.1 0.1% 0.0 0.0% Low 53.5 40.7% 3.2 6.9% Medium 51.1 38.9% 11.7 25.3% High 26.7 20.3% 31.5 67.8% Total 131.3 100.0% 46.4 100.0% Source: Georgia DJJ (110224.YDC Data FY05-FY10.xlsx) Table 4.4 Table Statewide YDC Average Length of Stay by Commitment Type and Sex Average 2008 2009 2010 Annual %Change 2008-2010 %Change Female 334.5 327.3 384.3 7.6% 14.9% Designated Felon 511.5 476.8 545.6 3.8% 6.7% Regular 164.4 152.5 132.3-10.2% -19.5% Male 381.8 406.4 419.8 4.9% 10.0% Designated Felon 519.9 541.6 550.2 2.9% 5.8% Regular 182.0 175.4 140.9-11.6% -22.5% Total 376.3 397.3 416.3 5.2% 10.6% Designated Felon 519.0 535.2 549.8 2.9% 5.9% Regular 179.5 172.2 139.9-11.4% -22.1% Huskey & Associates 55

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Table 4.5 Designated Felon Commitments by Placement Type and CRN Risk Level 2005-2010 Community Residential YDC Unknown Total N % N % N % N % N % Low 26 2.4% 8 0.7% 1,035 96.6% 2 0.2% 1,071 100.0% Medium 23 2.0% 2 0.2% 1,145 97.4% 5 0.4% 1,175 100.0% High 26 4.0% 0 0.0% 620 95.4% 4 0.6% 650 100.0% Unknown 0 0.0% 1 33.3% 0 0.0% 2 66.7% 3 100.0% Source: Georgia DJJ (110216.FY05-FY10 Commitments.xlsx) Table 4.6 Regular Commitments by Placement Type and CRN Risk Level 2005-2010 Community Residential YDC Unknown Total N % N % N % N % N % Low 1,387 32.3% 2,006 46.7% 784 18.2% 120 2.8% 4,297 100.0% Medium 1,189 20.8% 2,408 42.1% 2,032 35.5% 93 1.6% 5,722 100.0% High 200 9.3% 443 20.7% 1,479 69.0% 20 0.9% 2,142 100.0% Unknown 10 47.6% 1 4.8% 7 33.3% 3 14.3% 21 100.0% Source: Georgia DJJ (110216.FY05-FY10 Commitments.xlsx) Huskey & Associates 56

Chapter 5: Population Reduction Strategies to Reduce Low and Moderate Risk Youth from YDC

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Chapter 5 Proposed Population Reduction Scenarios for Reducing Low and Medium Risk Youth from Secure Confinement 5.1 Introduction The following population reduction strategies are recommended to reduce low and moderate risk youth from secure confinement. 5.1.1 Population Reduction Scenario 1: Reduction of Number of Low and Medium Risk Youth from YDC (397 youth) A. Low and Medium Risk Designated Felons (Conditional Release of 376 youth) It is assumed that the designated felon (DF) and conditional release legislation will be passed and the Department will have discretion to step down designated felons through conditional release after these youth demonstrate that they have achieved their treatment goals while in the YDC. During 2008-2010, an average of 298 low risk DF youth was confined in the YDC. Table 5.1 Statewide YDC ADP of Youth by CRN Risk Level and Commitment Type 2008-2010 Designated Felon Regular Commitment Ave. ADP % Ave. ADP % None 1 0.1% 1 0.5% Low 298 37.7% 7 5.5% Medium 310 39.1% 28 22.3% High 182 23.1% 90 71.7% Total 791 100.0% 126 100.0% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110224.YDC Data FY05-FY10.xlsx) It is recommended that all of these low-risk DF youth be stepped down to additional or maximum residential centers through the RBWO network in their home communities or region. There are a total of 1,002 residential center beds available through the RBWO network (305 additional and 697 maximum beds). 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). Additionally, there are 310 medium risk DF youth confined in the YDCs on an average daily basis. It is proposed that 25 percent (78 additional youth) of these medium risk youth will be eligible to be stepped down to the RBWO network. Combined, the low and medium risk DF youth total 376. Huskey & Associates 58

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers It is proposed that the top 13 committing counties and the independent counties be given higher priority than other counties. Accelerating the release of 376 youth from YDCs would result in a one-time reduction in the institutional system. A future policy is proposed that would obtain the commitment of the 13 top committing counties and the independent counties to keep these low and medium risk youth in their localities with incentive funding. If that does not occur immediately, DJJ should have the discretion of stepping down these youth to more appropriate options commensurate with their risk level. Other states have implemented similar population reduction scenarios with significant positive impacts: State of Illinois implemented Redeploy Illinois that provides incentive funding to localities who commit to reduce 25 percent of their low risk youth admissions. From 2001 to 2007, the pilot sites reduced commitments to IDJJ by 55 percent. 13 The state has realized an $18.7 million in annual savings. For every dollar spent, the state realized a $4.00 savings. The Redeploy Illinois model was featured by the National Conference of State Legislatures at its 2009 multi-state juvenile justice reform symposium. State of Ohio implemented RECLAIM that provides incentive funding to localities to maintain low and moderate risk youth in localities. From a high of 2,600 in May 1992, the average daily population in Ohio s juvenile corrections centers in December 2010 was 800, a 69.2 percent reduction. 14 DYS has targeted six of the top committing counties for Targeted RECLAIM to reduce their commitments to secure custody by 20 percent. The actual decline in DYS admissions during 2009-2010 from these six counties was 39 percent (due to Target RECLAIM and Mental Health Juvenile Justice Reform). 15 State of Missouri implemented its Juvenile Court Diversion grant program whereby DYS provides funding to District Courts to implement alternatives to placement in DYS custody. In FY2009, of the 38 juvenile courts that received funding from DYS, 39 out of every 40 youth were maintained in local programs rather than sending them to DYS custody. 16 The Missouri Office of State Court Administrators has mandated a uniform Risk and Needs Assessment for all juvenile courts. State of North Carolina implemented system reform by replacing its antiquated Youth Development Centers with smaller facilities, implemented its Community Commitment Act that provided the Department with the discretion to place low and moderate risk youth in community based treatment options at any time after DJJ admission and the DJJ implemented a statewide public awareness campaign to increase the knowledge and support for evidence-based practices. Since 2000, the state YDC commitments have declined 62.5 percent (from 975 in 2000 to 365 in 2009). 17 Only 2 percent of the youth referred to the DJJ are confined in an YDC. 13 Redeploy Illinois Oversight Board. (January 2010). Annual Report to the Governor and General Assembly. 14 Ohio Department of Youth Services. (2010). Reclaim Ohio Statistics. www.dys.ohio.gov 15 Ohio Department of Youth Services. Plan for Regionalization. October 2010. 16 Missouri Division of Youth Services. FY 2009 Annual Report. Conversation on March 23, 2011 with Dennis Bragg, Deputy Director, DYS. 17 North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2009). Annual Report. Huskey & Associates 59

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers B. Low and Medium Risk Regular Commitments (Conditional Release of 21 youth) On an average daily basis, 7 regular commitment youth assessed as low risk are confined in the YDCs. It is proposed that 100 percent of these youth be stepped down through conditional release after they demonstrate that they have achieved their treatment goals while in the YDC. It is recommended that these youth be placed in the RBWO network, or be placed on Intensive Wraparound, Day Treatment or sent home with Regular Aftercare Supervision. There are 28 regular commitment youth assessed as medium risk confined in YDCs on an average daily basis. It is proposed that 50 percent or 14 of these youth would be eligible for step down to the RBWO network, Intensive Wraparound, Day Treatment or be placed on aftercare supervision. It is proposed that the top 13 committing counties and the independent counties be given higher priority than other counties. Combined, the DF reductions of 376 plus the RC reductions of 21 totals 397 beds (360 male and 37 female beds). 5.1.2 Population Reduction Scenario 2: Reduction in Length of Stay (Community Reentry Phase) (119 youth) A. Designated Felons within 90 Days of their Release (104 youth) In 2010, 40.7 percent of the designated felons or 53 youth within 90 days of their release were assessed as low risk to reoffend. Almost 39 percent or 51 youth who were within 90 days of their release were also assessed as medium risk to reoffend. Combined, a total of 104 DF are eligible for the community reentry phase. Table 5.2 Statewide YDC ADP of Youth within 90 days of Release by CRN Risk Level and Commitment Type 2010 Designated Felon Regular Commitment ADP % ADP % None 0 0.1% 0 0.0% Low 53 40.7% 3 6.9% Medium 51 38.9% 12 25.3% High 27 20.3% 31 67.8% Total 131 100.0% 46 100.0% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110224.YDC Data FY05-FY10.xlsx) It is proposed that these youth be stepped down to additional or maximum residential centers through the RBWO network in their home communities or region. Huskey & Associates 60

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers It is proposed that the top 13 committing counties and the independent counties be given higher priority than other counties. B. Regular Commitments within 90 Days of their Release (15 youth) In 2010, nearly 7 percent or 3 of the regular commitment youth were within 90 days of their release and were assessed as low risk. Another 25.3 percent or 12 youth who were within 90 days of their release were assessed as medium risk. Combined, a total 15 RC youth were eligible for the community reentry phase. It is recommended that these youth be placed in the RBWO network, or be placed on Intensive Wraparound, Day Treatment or sent home with aftercare supervision. It is proposed that the top 13 committing counties and the independent counties be given higher priority than other counties. Combined, low and medium risk DF youth (104) plus the 15 RC youth totals 119 youth. This scenario has little impact on reducing the low and medium risk youth from secure confinement which would not be consistent with evidence-based practices. However, these youth stay for shorter periods of stay. Note: Population reduction strategies 1 and 2 can not be added together as they are distinctly different scenarios. Huskey & Associates 61

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers This figure shows the Georgia youth recidivism rate by risk level. Recidivism is defined as a subsequent adjudication for a delinquent or criminal act after the juvenile has been released into the community while under DJJ supervision or after DJJ supervision. This includes all youth released from YDC custody, on probation, on aftercare supervision and in a non-secure group home. It does not include youth in detention centers for short-term placement of 30, 60 or 90 days. The recidivism rates for low risk youth one year following discharge is under 25 percent. This means that over 75 percent of these low-risk youth were successful one year following release from an YDC. Given this success rate, it is not advisable to retain low risk youth in DJJ custody since many of these youth have psychiatric disorders. By redirecting these youth to day treatment and residential programs through the RBWO network, their treatment would be eligible for Medicaid, EPSDT and Title IV-E funding, which is not now available since they are confined in a secure corrections facility. It also avoids low risk youth from being exposed to high risk youth which the research demonstrates is harmful. Figure 5.1 Delinquent and Criminal Recidivism Rates of Georgia Youth Released from Youth Development Centers FY04-08 80% 70% 60% 50% 58.6% 64.8% 64.1% 71.0% 40% 30% 20% 10% 24.9% 35.3% 41.7% 41.7% 48.9% 28.3% 38.1% 43.0% 0% Low Medium High No CRN 1 Year 2 Years 3 Years Delinquent Recidivism Rates of YDC-Released Youth Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice, JCargile. 110322.YDC Recidivism Rates. Huskey & Associates 62

Appendix

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Missouri Division of Youth Services Three Year Recidivism Rates Following Discharge from DYS Custody Source: Missouri Division of Youth Services. FY 2009 Annual Report. Note: Recidivism is defined as the number of youth released from DYS custody that are either recommitted to DYS or become involved in the adult correctional system. State of New York Youth Recidivism Rates Two Years Following Release from OCFS Custody Youth 2005-2006 Baseline Cohort 2007 Release Cohort All Juvenile Delinquents and Juvenile Offenders 42% 42% Male JDs and JOs 48% 47% Female JDs and JOs 16% 20% Source: OCFS Fact Sheet: Recidivism. Note: Recidivism is defined as a rearrest for a felony offense within two years following release from a juvenile corrections facility. Huskey & Associates 64

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers State of North Carolina Recidivism Rates by Risk Level Juveniles Adjudicated and Disposed Three Years Following Original Complaint Risk Level Subsequent Complaints Adult Arrests Overall Recidivism n % n % n % Low 2,853 38.2 2,676 20.9 3,104 46.4 Medium 2,187 54.1 2,169 32.1 2,426 64.6 High 664 53.6 731 44.7 764 71.5 Total 5,704 46.1 5,576 28.4 6,294 56.4 Source: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample. Recidivism is defined as adjudicated and disposed of youth who had subsequent complaints and adult arrests three years after the original complaint. Of the 6,605 juveniles adjudicated and disposed, there were 311 cases with missing values for risk level. State of Illinois Youth Recidivism Rates by Risk Level One Year Following Release from Illinois Youth Centers Risk Classification and Post-Release Recidivism for 2005 Exits Risk Classification Sample Distribution N % Recommit or Arrest Recommit Recidivism Rates 12 Months after Release Arrest for Violent Offense Low 840 36.0% 15.5% 14.9% 1.8% Moderate 713 30.5% 38.3% 35.2% 10.2% High 443 19.0% 58.5% 52.8% 16.7% Very High 338 14.5% 67.8% 61.8% 25.1% Total Sample 2,334 100.0% 38.3% 35.1% 10.6% Source: Illinois Juvenile Justice Master Plan. 2008. Recidivism is defined as the youth who were subsequently arrested or recommitted to IDJJ one year following release from an Illinois Youth Center. Huskey & Associates 65

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Georgia s RBWO Bed Network by Type Contract # Vendor Program License CONTRACTOR NAME Programmatic Person Dates RBWO NP MIN SERVICE DELIVERY SITE Remittance Address TYPES OF CARE LEVEL OF CARE / NO. OF BEDS Department of Juvenile Justice - 461-93- RBWO10024 6 The Refuge House Attn: Tracie Beard 702 Cloud Street Iron City, Georgia 39859 Phone#229-524- 6654 Fax# 800-774- 8147 461-93- RBWO10016 1 Alternative Youth Services, Inc. d/b/a The Georgia Center Attn: Pam Anthony 211 Goose Hollow Road Reynolds, Georgia 31076 Phone # 478-847- 2900 Fax # 478-847- 2899 461-93- RBWO10018 1 37165 * 169533 CCI* 446010 CCI* FY 2010 Executed RBWO Contract Log As of: 8/1/2010 Base Additional Max TOTAL Family Community Care Centers, LLC Attn: Xavier Moore P.O. Box 7455 Warner Robins, GA 31095-7455 Phone # 478-987- 0290 Fax # 478-987- Carl Harrison Carl Harrison Carl Harrison 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 101.82 X 181.84 X 101.82 X X 720 Cloud Street Donaldsonville, GA 39845 1. d/b/a The Georgia Center; 211 Goose Hollow Road, Reynolds, Georgia 31076 2 Sites: 1) 280 Toomer Road, Perry, GA 31906 (4) 2) 3466 Gray Hwy, Gray, GA 31032 (4) Same As Contractor Address Same As Contractor Address Faith Child Caring Centers, Inc. 121 Margie Dr, Suite 203 Warner Robbins, Georgia 31093 NSC IFC,ES - 12 Beds Seminole County NSC Specialized Residential (A) low functioning M/F 60 beds Taylor County NSC & NSD Emerg. Shelter. NSC Inst., Foster Care, NSC Alternate STP 12 Beds Houston County 12 12 60 60 12 12 Huskey & Associates 66

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Contract # Vendor Program License CONTRACTOR NAME 0293 Programmatic Person Dates RBWO NP MIN SERVICE DELIVERY SITE Remittance Address TYPES OF CARE LEVEL OF CARE / NO. OF BEDS 461-93- RBWO10018 4 461-93- RBWO10019 6 461-93- RBWO10019 9 WILL NOT RENEW FY11 Genesis House for the Homeless, Inc. Attn: Milton Wynn P.O. Box 1146 Perry, Georgia 31069 Phone # 478-987- 7466 Fax # Hephzibah Children's Home Attn: Lloyd Moore 6601 Zebulon Road Macon, Georgia 31220-7606 Phone # 478-477- 3383 Fax # 478-474- 6370 Invericas Homes, Inc. Attn: Joseph Andrews P. O. Box 5074 Macon, Georgia 31208 Phone # 478-738- 0015 Fax # 478-738- 8668 Jacob'sTree, LLC d/b/a Homerun Group Home ATTN: James T. Curry P.O. Box 1530 Milledgeville, GA. 461-93- RBWO10020 0 268389 * 77056 CCI* 412265 383926 CCI Carl Harrison Carl Harrison Carl Harrison Carl Harrison 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 101.82 128.98 X 101.82 X $75.00 X X $75 X 1. d/b/a Genesis House; 2107 Hwy, 41 North, Perry, Georgia 31069 Same As Contractor Address (1) 2104 Jeffersonville Rd. Macon, Georgia 31208 Same As Contractor Address Same As Contractor Address Same As Contractor Address Same As Contractor Address Same as Contractor Address NSC Inst. Foster Care, NSD & NSC Emerg. Shelter, NSC Alternate STP 12 Beds Houston County NSC Institutional Foster Care 64 Beds Houston County NSC IFC NSC,NSD ES NSC ILP 6 Beds Houston County NSC,NSD IFC 12 Beds Bibb County 4 8 12 64 64 6 6 12 12 Huskey & Associates 67

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Contract # 461-93- RBWO10020 3 461-93- RBWO10022 2 31059 Phone# 478-742- 4940 Fax# 478-742- 4940 Kenneth B. Walker Residential Home, Inc. P.O. Box 8706 Columbus, GA 31908 Attn: Tim Crumbley Phone#: 706-681- 1991 Fax#: 706-565- 8030 Open Arms, Inc. / The Bridge Attn: Fonda D. Strong P.O. Box 71562 Albany, Georgia 31708 Phone # 229-431- 1121 Fax # 229-439- 0377 Open Door Community Development & Outreach Center, Inc. d/b/a Jessie Thomas Academy For Stars & Outreach Ministries, Inc. Atten: Joe Thomas 461-93- RBWO10022 3 Vendor Program License 371090 * 390192 CCI/ES* 12366 * CONTRACTOR NAME Programmatic Person Carl Harrison Carl Harrison Carl Harrison Dates RBWO NP MIN 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 SERVICE DELIVERY SITE $75.00 X X 1.2305 Amos Street Columbus, GA. 31906 2. 3108 11th Ave. Columbus, GA. 31906 74.51 X 101.84 X X 2 Sites: 1) The Bridge 1, 162 Miller Rd., Leesburg, GA 31763 (2) 1283 Lover's Lane Rd., Leesburg, GA 31763 Same As Contractor Address Remittance Address Same As Contractor Address Same As Contractor Address Jessie Thomas Academy Attn: Joe Thomas P.O. Box 541 Camilla, GA 31730 TYPES OF CARE NSD,IFC 12 Beds Muscogee County NSC & NSD Emergency Shelter 12 Beds Lee County NSC Institutional Foster Care 12 Beds Mitchell County LEVEL OF CARE / NO. OF BEDS 12 12 12 12 12 12 Huskey & Associates 68

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Contract # 461-93- RBWO10023 1 Ramsay Youth Services of Georgia, Inc. d/b/a Macon Behavioral Health System Attn.Nashon McPherson 3500 Riverside Drive Macon, Georgia 31210 Phone #478-477- 3829 Fax # 478-477- 4642 The Methodist Home of The South GA Conference Attn: Jeff Lawrence P.O. Box 2525 Macon, Georgia 31204 Phone # 478-751- 2800 Fax # 478-738- 0201 461-93- RBWO10024 4 Vendor Program License 12548 * 40326 CCI* CONTRACTOR NAME P.O. Box 209 Pelham, GA 31779 Phone#: 229-294- 7200 Fax # 229-294- 2192 Programmatic Person Carl Harrison Carl Harrison Dates RBWO NP MIN 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 181.84 101.82 128.98 181.84 X SERVICE DELIVERY SITE Same As Contractor Address 5 Sites: 1) 8160 Veterans Pkwy/. Columbus, GA 31909 d/b/a Our House 2) 304 Pierce Ave., Macon, GA 21204 d/b/a The Methodist Home 3) 102 Mill Creek Rd., Americus, GA 31204 d/b/a Americus Group Home (See contract for other sites) Remittance Address Same As Contractor Address Same As Contractor Address TYPES OF CARE LEVEL OF CARE / NO. OF BEDS NSC Spec. Res. 78 Beds Bibb County 78 78 NSC IFC; NSD ES 134 Beds Bibb County 49 24 61 134 Huskey & Associates 69

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Contract # 461-93- RBWO10024 7 461-93- RBWO10025 6 WILL NOT RENEW FY11 461-93- RBWO10015 8 461-93- RBWO10015 7 Vendor Program License 383930 * 164037 * 132843 CCI/ES* 261830 CCI* CONTRACTOR NAME Vashti Center, Inc. Attn: Ralph Comerford 1815 East Clay Street Thomasville, Georgia 31792 Phone # 229-226- 4634 Fax # 229-225- 1093 Woodland Children Home 152 Cox Woodland Road Milledgeville, GA 31061 Attn: Gloris Wicker Phone#: 478-457- 6413 Fax#: 478-932- 5487 A Friend's House, Inc. ATTN: Jill Holder 111 Henry Parkway McDonough, Georgia 30253 #678-432-1630 Fax# 678-432- 1632 Abba House, Inc. Attn: Robert Harrell 4590 Arbor Walk Court Stone Mountain, Georgia 30083 Phone # 404-299- 5494 Fax # 404-229- Programmatic Person Carl Harrison Carl Harrison Jeffrey Bright Jeffrey Bright Dates RBWO NP MIN 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/1/0 9-6/30/1 0 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 101.82 128.98 X 101.82 X 101.82 X $75 X X SERVICE DELIVERY SITE 1815 East Clay Street, Thomasville, GA 31792 d/b/a 1) Vashti Emergency Shelter 2) Vashti Center 3) Vashti Second Chance Home Same As Contractor Address 111 Henry Parkway McDonough, Georgia 30253 730 Rowland Road, Stone Mountain, GA 30083 (males 18-21)-4590 Arbor Walk Court Stone Mountain, GA. 30083 Remittance Address Same As Contractor Address Same As Contractor Address Same As Contractor's Address Abba House, Inc. Attn: Dr. Robert Harrell 730 Rowland Road Stone Mountain, Georgia 30083 TYPES OF CARE NSC IFC/ NSC ES 34 Beds Thomas County NSC Institutional Foster Care 6 Beds Houston NSC, NSD ES 24 Beds Henry County NSC Institutional Foster Care/Group Home 12 Beds Dekalb County LEVEL OF CARE / NO. OF BEDS 17 17 34 6 6 24 24 12 12 Huskey & Associates 70

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Contract # 461-93- RBWO08017 6 Amendment# 1 HAS NOT RETURNED CONTRACT Alternate Life Paths Program, Inc. Attn: Camellia A. Moore P.O. Box 3164 Atlanta, Georgia 30302 Phone # 404-688- 1002 Fax # 404-488- 1043 Alyssa and Brothers, Inc.d/b/a Rowley Residence Attn: Jennifer Keeling 5214 Greenpoint Dr. Stone Mountain, Georgia 30088 Phone # 678-570- 8731 Fax # 770-498- 4191 Celine's Place, Inc. Attn. Sandra Leavell 1417 Doe Valley Drive Lithonia, Georgia 30058 Phone # 770-808- 8490 Fax # 770-484- 6248 461-93- RBWO10016 4 461-93- RBWO10016 8 Vendor Program License 56062 CCI* 56062 CCI* 318087 CCI* CONTRACTOR NAME 5494 Programmatic Person Jeffrey Bright Jeffrey Bright Jeffrey Bright Dates RBWO NP MIN 7/01/0 8-06/30/ 09 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 BWO X X 101.82 X X 99.3 X SERVICE DELIVERY SITE 1) 185-187 Ormand Streetd/b/a ALPP, Inc, Atlanta, GA. 30302 2 Sites: 1) 6112 Christi Drive, Stone Mountain, GA. 30058 d/b/a Rowley Residence (1) 2) 4552 Dorset Circle, Decatur, GA. 30035 d/b/a Rowley Residence (2) 1. 1768 Young Road Lithonia, Georgia 30058 Remittance Address Same As Contractor Address Alyssa and Brothers, Inc. d/b/a Rowley Residence 5214 Greenpoint Drive Stone Mountain, Georgia 30088 Same As Contractor Address TYPES OF CARE NSC Institutional Foster Care/Group Home 6 Beds Fulton County NSC Institutional Foster Care/Group Home 12 Beds Dekalb County NSC, IFC 6 Beds Dekalb County LEVEL OF CARE / NO. OF BEDS 6 6 12 12 6 6 Huskey & Associates 71

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Contract # 461-93- RBWO10016 9 461-93- RBWO10017 3 Copeland Enterprises d/b/a Copeland Group Home Attn: Rhema Ayiteyfio 3619 Spring Run Drive Decatur, Georgia 30032 Phone # 404-289- 6322 Covenant Children Homes, Inc. Attn: Steven J. Roche 1806 Chedworth Lane Stone Mountain, Georgia 30087 Phone # 770-724- 1972 Fax # 770-270- 5926 461-93- RBWO10017 4 Vendor Program License 11535 ILP* 377281 CCI 276829 * CONTRACTOR NAME Chris Kids, Inc. Attn: Kathy Colbenson 3111 Clairmont Road, Suite B Atlanta, Georgia 30329 Phone # 404-486- 9034 Fax # 404-486- 9053 Programmatic Person Jeffrey Bright Jeffrey Bright Jeffrey Bright Dates RBWO NP MIN 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 212.00 128.00 (ILP) X $75 X 128.98 X X SERVICE DELIVERY SITE (8) Sites: 1) 2914 Cocklebur Trail, Decatur, GA 30030; 2) 3686 Calmer Circle, East Point, GA 30344; 3) 569 Sherwood Greens, Stone Mt., GA. 30087; (See contract for 4-8) Same As Contractor Address 1. 5090 Winding Glen Drive, Lithonia, Georgia 30058 Remittance Address Chris Kids,Inc. Attn: Mark Sauls 3111 Clairmont Road, Suite B Atlanta, Georgia 30329 Same As Contractor Address Same As Contractor Address TYPES OF CARE NCS Specialized Residential 48 Beds Dekalb, Gwinnett, Fulton, Douglas Counties NSC Institutional Foster Care 6 Beds Dekalb County NSC Institutional Foster Care 12 Beds Dekalb County LEVEL OF CARE / NO. OF BEDS 48 48 6 6 12 12 Huskey & Associates 72

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Contract # 461-93- RBWO08019 4 Amendment# 1 Cuffie's Home Care, Inc. Atten: Shirley Cuffie P.O. Box 82693 Conyers, Georgia 30013 Phone # 404-284- 6915 Fax # 770-761- 0875 Devereux GA. Treatment Network Attn: Elizabeth Chadwick 1291 Stanley Road Kennesaw, Georgia 30152 Phone # 770-422- 2135 Fax # 770-423- 1679 Elks Aidmore Children's Center, Inc. Attn: Abe Wilkinson 2394 Morrison Road Conyers, Georgia 30394 Phone # 770-483- 3535 Fax # 770-483- 5696 461-93- NRBWO1002 60 461-93- RBWO10017 9 Vendor Program License 43254 CCI 5048 9934 CCI* CONTRACTOR NAME Programmatic Person Jeffrey Bright Jeffrey Bright Jeffrey Bright Dates RBWO NP MIN 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 7/01/0 8-06/30/ 09 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 AWO X 165.00 ILP X 128.98 X X SERVICE DELIVERY SITE 2869 Salmon Ave. Atlanta, Georgia 30317 Devereux Project Plus 2740 Tiffany Dr, Marietta, Georgia 30060 Same As Contractor Address Remittance Address Same As Contractor Address Devereux GA. Treatment Network P.O. Box 1688 Attn: PatientAccoun ts Kennesaw, GA 30156 Same As Contractor Address TYPES OF CARE NSC/ IFC 12 Beds Dekalb County $165.00 per child, per day Independent Living 8 Beds Cobb County NSC IFC 28 Beds Rockdale County LEVEL OF CARE / NO. OF BEDS 12 12 8 8 28 28 Huskey & Associates 73

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Contract # 461-93- RBWO10018 0 461-93- RBWO10018 2 461-93- RBWO10018 3 Vendor Program License 292879 * 10525 CPA* 377699 CCI CONTRACTOR NAME Embracing Arms, Inc. Attn: Kimberly Underdue 1673 Hearthstone Court Jonesboro, Georgia 30236 Phone# 770-477- 2551 Fax# 770-506- 9634 Families First, Inc. Attn: Kim E. Anderson 1105 W. Peachtree Str. N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Phone # 404-853- 2817 Fax # 404-669- 2956 Family Choices, Inc. Atten: Tasha Kennedy 6345 Queens Road Douglasville, Georgia 30135 Phone # 770-656- 5302 Fax # 404-380- 1533 Programmatic Person Jeffrey Bright Jeffrey Bright Jeffrey Bright Dates RBWO NP MIN 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 128.98 X 80.10 101.82 X $99.30 X X SERVICE DELIVERY SITE Same As Contractor Address 7 Sites: 1) 1105 W. Peachtree St. NE, Atlanta, GA 30309 (3) 2) 809 Cherokee Ave. SE, Atlanta, GA 30316 d/b/a Cherokee Boys GH (3) (See Contract for remaining 5 sites) 6345 Queens Road Douglasville, Georgia 30157 Remittance Address Same As Contractor Address Same As Contractor Address Same As Contractor Address TYPES OF CARE NSC IFC, GH 6 Beds Clayton County NSC IFC/GH 21 Beds Fulton, Gwinnett Counties NSC, IFC,NSD 6 Beds Douglas County LEVEL OF CARE / NO. OF BEDS 6 6 21 21 6 6 Huskey & Associates 74

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Contract # 461-93- RBWO10018 5 461-93- RBWO10018 7 Goshen Valley Boys Ranch Attn: John W. Blend 387 Goshen Church Way Waleska, Georgia 30183 Phone # 770-796- 4618 Fax # 770-796- 2292 Gwinnett Children's Shelter, Inc. Attn: Kim Phillips P.O. Box 527 Buford, Georgia 30515-0527 Phone # 678-546- 8770 461-93- RBWO10019 0 Vendor Program License 37174 CCI* 255010 CCI* 43121 CCI/ES* CONTRACTOR NAME Programmatic Person Georgia Baptist Children's Home Attn: Dr. James Harper P.O. Box 329 Palmetto, Georgia 30268 Phone # 770-463- 3800 Fax # 770-463- 6245 Jeffrey Bright Jeffrey Bright Jeffrey Bright Dates RBWO NP MIN 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 101.82 128.98 181.84 101.82 128.98 CPA Rates X X X SERVICE DELIVERY SITE 11 Sites1) 729 Lawrence St., Marietta, GA 30060 (3) d/b/a Nelson Price Treatment 2) 9420 Blackshear HWY, Baxley, GA 31513 (3) d/b/a Baxley Campus (See Contract for 9 additional sties)transfer from Good Shepard (Bar Rest Ranch PO Box 659 Warm Springs, GA 31830 Same As Contractor Address (1.) 3850 Tuggle Road, Buford, GA 30519 Emergency Shelter (2.) 3840 Tuggle Rd., Buford, GA 30519 Teen Remittance Address Same As Contractor Address Same As Contractor Address Same As Contractor Address TYPES OF CARE NSC A&D, NSC ES, NSC SR/MGH 209 Beds Fulton, Harelson, Upson, Coweta Counties NSC Institutionalized Foster Care/Group Home 24 Beds Cherokee County NSC & NSD Emergency Shelter 42 Beds Gwinnett County LEVEL OF CARE / NO. OF BEDS 117 58 34 209 16 8 24 42 42 Huskey & Associates 75

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Contract # Vendor Program License CONTRACTOR NAME Fax # 678-546- 8775 Programmatic Person Dates RBWO NP MIN SERVICE DELIVERY SITE Development Remittance Address TYPES OF CARE LEVEL OF CARE / NO. OF BEDS 461-93- RBWO10019 2 Haly's Sheltering Arms Attn: AbiGAil Haly 1597 Smithson Dr Lithonia, Georgia 30058 Phone# 678-580- 2038 Fax# 678-580- 2942 Harvest Lodge Homes & Services for Children & Families, Inc. 3467 Hunter's Hill Drive Lithonia, Georgia 30038 Attn: Dr. Dannetta B. Sparks Phone#: 770-981- 8903 Fax # 770-808- 6648 Hassan B. King Group Home Attn: Monique Hall 1429 Smithson Drive Lithonia, Georgia 30058 Phone # 404-910- 3990 Fax # N/A 461-93- RBWO10019 4 461-93- RBWO10019 5 408979 364367 * 264058 * Jeffrey Bright Jeffrey Bright Jeffrey Bright 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 101.06 X 128.98 X X $75.00 X Same As Contractor Address 4098 Depauw Way Decatur, GA. 30034 2. 3327 Panola Road Lithonia, GA. 30338 (1.) 851 Forest Path Stone Mountain, Georgia 30088 Same As Contractor Address Same As Contractor Address Same As Contractor Address NSC/ NSD IFC 6 Beds Dekalb County NSC/NSD Institutional Foster Care 12 Beds Dekalb County NSC Institutionalized Foster Care/Group Home 6 Beds Dekalb County 6 6 12 12 6 6 Huskey & Associates 76

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Contract # 461-93- RBWO10019 7 461-93- RBWO10026 5 461-93- RBWO10020 5 Vendor Program License 37161 CCI* 466706 CCI 412508 CONTRACTOR NAME Home Operations Success, Inc. Attn: Betty Selby P.O. Box 16004 Atlanta, Georgia 30321-6004 Phone # 770-412- 6670 Fax# 770-412- 6070 Integrity One House, LC. Attn: Curtis Johnson 8226 Yale Drive Jonesboro, Georgia 30236 Phone#: 770-210- 3431 Fax#: 770-210- 3431 Light of Hope & Love Ministry, Inc. d/b/a Heritage House Attn: Linda Brown P.O. Box 1486 Powder Springs, GA 30127 Phone # 404-790- 2839 Fax # 770-499- 0096 Programmatic Person Jeffrey Bright Jeffrey Bright Jeffrey Bright Dates RBWO NP MIN 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/16/ 09-6/30/1 0 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 101.82 X X 101.82 X 77.49 X X SERVICE DELIVERY SITE 2 Sites: (1) 2960 Waters Road, Atlanta, Georgia 30354 d/b/a Home Operations Success, Inc. ( 2) 528 Meriwether Street, Griffin, Georgia 30223 d/b/a Heavens Chosen Youth 8226 Yale Drive Jonesboro, Georgia 30236 3117 Macedonia Ct. Powder Springs, GA 30127 d/b/a Heritage House Remittance Address Same As Contractor Address Same as Contractor Same As Contractor Address TYPES OF CARE NSC Institutionalized Foster Care 12 Beds Fulton County NSC/NSD IFC 6 Beds Clayton County NSC IFC 6 Beds Cobb County LEVEL OF CARE / NO. OF BEDS 12 12 6 6 6 6 Huskey & Associates 77

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Contract # 461-93- RBWO10020 7 461-93- RBWO10021 4 461-93- RBWO10021 8 Vendor Program License 377698 CCI 43252 * 339963 * CONTRACTOR NAME Little Debbie's Second Chance Home, Inc. Attn: Lakisha Stiggers 5224 Shawn Lane Stone Mountain, GA 30088 Phone # 770-912- 3742 Fax # 404-288- 0671 My Granny's House, Inc. Attn: Rosalind Lewis 4421 Woodland Forest Drive Stone Mountain, Georgia 30083 Phone # 404-438- 1358 Fax # 404- New Life Beginning Maternity Home, Inc. 5279 Abbey Ridge Stone Mountain, Georgia 30088 Attn: Wilma Ford Phone # 770-879- 0008 Fax # 770-469- 1112 Programmatic Person Jeffrey Bright Jeffrey Bright Jeffrey Bright Dates RBWO NP MIN 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 101.82 107.54 107.80 128.98 X X $75.00 X X 86.25 X X SERVICE DELIVERY SITE 1. 5224 Shawn Lane Stone Mountain, GA. 30088 2.Ida's Cove I 411 Rays Road Stone Mountain 30083 3. Ida's Cove II 994 Millard Road Stone Mountain, GA. 30083 1. 511 Rowland Road, Stone Mountain, GA 30083 2046 Stablewood Cove Lithonia, Georgia 30058 Remittance Address Ms Lakisha Stiggers 3900 Leprechaun Ct. Decatur, GA 30034 Same As Contractor Address Same As Contractor Address TYPES OF CARE (NSC,NSD IFC, GH) 24 Beds Dekalb County NSC Institutionalized Residential Foster Care/Group Home 6 Beds Dekalb County NSC Maternity Home, NSC IFC 6 Beds Dekalb County LEVEL OF CARE / NO. OF BEDS 12 12 24 6 6 6 6 Huskey & Associates 78

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Contract # 461-93- RBWO10022 0 #1 SITE CLOSED ON 2-12-10 O'Gilvie- Carrington Centers, Inc. 1035-B Research Center Atlanta Dr. Atlanta, Georgia 30331 Attn: Troy Huffman Phone# 404-691- 3270 fax # 404-472- 2216 Open Arms Group Home, Inc. Atten: Terri Barnes 4474 Lindsey Dr. Powder Springs, Georgia 30127 Phone # 770-944- 8828 Fax # 404-288- 0671 Positive Growth, Inc. Attn: Joseph T. Arnold 4036 E. Ponce De Leon Avenue Clarkston, Georgia 30021 Phone # 404-292- 6420 Fax # 404-292- 2041 461-93- RBWO10022 1 461-93- RBWO10022 6 Vendor 75947 Program License 21551 CCI 13403 CCI* CONTRACTOR NAME Programmatic Person Jeffrey Bright Jeffrey Bright Jeffrey Bright Dates RBWO NP MIN 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 $50.00 X X 101.82 X X 101.09 X SERVICE DELIVERY SITE 5 Delivery Sites 1) 5126 Rocky Run, Stone Mountain, GA 30088 2) 5434 Marbut Rd., Lithonia, GA 30058 d/b/a Marbut (See Contract for Remaining Delivery Sites) Same As Contractor Address 1. 1033 Jolly Ave., Clarkston, GA 30021 (Annex B shows Level 4) Remittance Address Same As Contractor Address Same As Contractor Address Same As Contractor Address TYPES OF CARE NSC IFC 24 Beds Dekalb, Fulton, Cobb Counties NSC, IFC 6 Beds Cobb County NSC IFC 25 Beds Dekalb County LEVEL OF CARE / NO. OF BEDS 24 24 6 6 25 25 Huskey & Associates 79

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Contract # 461-93- RBWO10023 4 461-93- RBWO10023 9 461-93- RBWO10024 1 SeaJoy, Inc, Atten: Erika Watford 209 S. Rockborough Ct. Stone Mountain, Georgia 30083 Phone # 770-374- 7268 Fax# 770-987- 4235 Stroman Account and Property d/b/a My Sister's Keeper Attn: Sharon Stroman P.O. Box 960274 Riverdale, Georgia 30296 Phone# 770-994- 0607 Fax# 770-994- 6621 The Bridge, Inc. Attn: Tom Russell 1559 Johnson Road, NW Atlanta, Georgia 30318 Phone # 404-792- 0070 Fax # 404-792- 7694 The Harrington House Attn: Lamont McPherson P.O. Box 1200 Redan, Georgia 30074 Phone # 404-819- 461-93- RBWO10024 3 Vendor 60729 Program License 340195 * 2595 CCI* 366366 * CONTRACTOR NAME Programmatic Person Jeffrey Bright Jeffrey Bright Jeffrey Bright Jeffrey Bright Dates RBWO NP MIN 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 75 X X 101.82 X X 212 X $75.00 X SERVICE DELIVERY SITE Same as Contractor Address 7431 Petunia Drive, Atlanta, GA 30296 d/b/a My Sister's Keeper Same As Contractor Address 4078 Flakes Mill Rd., Decatur, GA 30034 d/b/a The Harrington House Remittance Address Same As Contractor Address Same As Contractor Address Same As Contractor Address Same As Contractor Address TYPES OF CARE NSC,IFC 6 Beds Dekalb County NSC IFC 6 Beds Fulton County NSC Specialized Residential 36 Beds Fulton County NSC/NSD Institutional Foster Care 6 Beds Dekalb County LEVEL OF CARE / NO. OF BEDS 6 6 6 6 36 36 6 6 Huskey & Associates 80

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Contract # 461-93- RBWO10025 1 461-93- RBWO10025 2 5437 Fax # 770-808- 7080 Vanessa's Place ATTN: Denise Alleyne 655 Post Road Stone Mountain, Georgia 30088 Phone# 404-234- 8512 Fax# 678-814- 0497 Vantage Care of Stone Mountain, LP Attn: Lionel Batiste 5590 Winter Oak Way Norcross, Georgia 30071 Phone # 770-490- 3661 Fax #770-603- 6988 Weekes House, Inc. Attn: Doris J. Weeks 5430 Rocky Pine Drive Lithonia, Georgia 30038 Phone # 678-418- 6450 Fax # 678-418- 6450 461-93- RBWO10025 3 Vendor Program License 356103 CCI 11426 * 361830 * CONTRACTOR NAME Programmatic Person Jeffrey Bright Jeffrey Bright Jeffrey Bright Dates RBWO NP MIN 11/1/0 9-6/30/0 9 11/1/0 9-6/30/0 9 11/1/0 9-6/30/0 9 75 X X 75 X 101.82 125.36 X SERVICE DELIVERY SITE 655 Post Road Stone Mountain, GA. 30088 2 Sites: 1) 5329 Kelly's Creek Drive, Stone Mountain, GA 30088 d/b/a Vantage Care 2) 5198 Avanti Court, Stone Mountain, GA 30088 d/b/a Amber's Place 1. d/b/a Franklin County Partnership, Inc 5430 Rocky Pine Drive Lithonia, Georgia 30038 Remittance Address Same As Contractor Address Weekes House, Inc. Attn: Doris J. Weekes 421 Norman Court Hampton, Georgia 30228 TYPES OF CARE NSC, NSD IFC 6 Beds Dekalb County NSD/NSD IFC 12 Beds Dekalb County NSC Institutionalized Foster Care/Group Home 6 Beds Dekalb County LEVEL OF CARE / NO. OF BEDS 6 6 12 12 6 6 Huskey & Associates 81

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Contract # 461-93- RBWO10025 5 Wings of Destiny, Inc. Attn: GAynell Willingham 5584 Marbut Road Lithonia, Georgia 30058 Phone # 770-981- 4820 Fax # 770-981- 4825 Young Adult Guidance Center, Inc. Attn: Marian L. Simpson P.O. Box 93361 Atlanta, Georgia 30318 Phone # 404-792- 7616 Fax # 404-794- 0151 Youth Villages, Inc. ATTN: Bret Stockton 3320 Brother Blvd. Memphis, Tennessee 38133 Broken Shackles Ranch, Inc. Attn: GAry Cobb 1542 Francis Bridge Road Davisboro, Georgia 31018 Phone # 478-348- 6555 Fax # 478-348- 3562 461-93- RBWO10025 7 461-93- 100198 461-93- RBWO10016 6 Vendor 366371 Program License 369549 * 359828 CCI 21010 CCI* CONTRACTOR NAME Programmatic Person Jeffrey Bright Jeffrey Bright Jeffrey Bright Kim Settles Dates RBWO NP MIN 11/1/0 9-6/30/0 9 11/1/0 9-6/30/1 0 11/1/0 9-6/30/1 0 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 $50.00 X 88.75 X X 101.82 173.84- Kin 181.84 101.82 128.98 181.84 X SERVICE DELIVERY SITE Same As Contractor Address 1. 1230 Hightower Rd., Atlanta, GA 30318 d/b/a YAGC, Inc Same As Contractor Address Remittance Address Wings of Destiny, Inc. Attn: GAynell Willingham 2372 Pendergrass Lane Ellenwood, Georgia 30294-6249 Same As Contractor Address Same As Contractor Address TYPES OF CARE NSC IFC 6 Beds Dekalb County 12 Beds Fulton County NSC Specialized 8 Beds Douglas County NSC, IFC, ILP 32 Beds Dodge County LEVEL OF CARE / NO. OF BEDS 6 6 12 12 8 8 32 32 Huskey & Associates 82

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Contract # 461-93- RBWO10020 1 461-93- RBWO10020 6 461-93- RBWO10022 8 Jesse's House, Inc. Attn: Lindsay Rust P.O. Box 3318 Cummings, Georgia 30028 Phone # 678-947- 6217 Fax# 678-947- 6106 Lighthouse Care Center of Georgia, LLC Atten: George Boykin 3100 Perimeter Parkway Augusta, GA. 30909 Phone # 706-651- 0005 Fax # 706-651- 9848 Rainbow Children's Home, Inc. 247 East Main Street DahloneGA, GA. 30533 Attn: Melinda Rollins Phone#: 706-864- 5110 Fax#: 706-864- 5615 Ridge Creek, Inc. ATTN: Chris Grimwood 830 Hidden Lake Road DahloneGA, Georgia 30533 461-93- RBWO10023 2 Vendor Program License 57636 * 247520 51976 * 448345 CONTRACTOR NAME Programmatic Person Kim Settles Kim Settles Kim Settles Kim Settles Dates RBWO NP MIN 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 99.17 X 101.82 128.98 181.84 101.82 X 128.98 181.84 SERVICE DELIVERY SITE Same As Contractor Address Same as Contractor Address 247 East Main Street DahloneGA, GA. 30088 830 Hidden Lake Road DahloneGA, Georgia 30533 Remittance Address Same As Contractor Address Same As Contractor Address Same As Contractor Address #706-867- 91099 (Billing) Same As Contractor's Address TYPES OF CARE NSD ES/ NSC ES 12 Beds Forsyth County NSC, Spec. Res. 24 Beds Richmond County NSC/NSD Institutional Foster Care, ES 8 Beds Lumpkin County LEVEL OF CARE / NO. OF BEDS 12 12 24 24 8 8 NSC Specialized Res. 16 Beds Lumpkin County 16 16 Huskey & Associates 83

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Contract # Vendor Program License CONTRACTOR NAME #706-867-1720 ext.2604 Fax#706-867- 5826 Programmatic Person Dates RBWO NP MIN SERVICE DELIVERY SITE Remittance Address TYPES OF CARE LEVEL OF CARE / NO. OF BEDS 461-93- RBWO10024 0 461-93- RBWO10015 9 461-93- RBWO10016 5 CONTRACT NOT COMPLETE NO HIPAA SIGNATURE 327386 CCI/ES* 11689 CCI/ES* 373297 CCI* The Alcove, Inc. P.O. Box 972 Monroe, Georgia 30655 Attn: Bianca Allegro Phone # 770-267- 9156 Fax # 770-207- 7162 Adovcates for Bartow's Children, Inc. d/b/a Flowering Branch Children's Shelter Attn:Mr. Steve Yarish 49 Monroe Crossing Cartersville, Georgia 30120 Phone # 770-382- 6180 Fax # 770-382- 9173 Beth Esther Ministires, Inc. Attn: Parthenia Buford 29 Millard Farmers Ind. Blvd. Suite C Newnan, Georgia 30263-5821 Phone # 770-304- Kim Settles Richard Fox Richard Fox 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 101.82 X Same As Contractor Address 101.82 X X 49 Monroe Crossing, Cartersville, GA 30120 d/b/a Flowering Branch Children's Shelter $50 X (1).53 Poplar Street Newnan, GA.30263 d/ba/ Restoration Group Home (2). 16 Conner Street Newnan, GA. 320263 Same As Contractor Address Same As Contractor Address Same As Contractor Address NSD ES IFC 12 Beds Walton County NSC ES 12 Beds Bartow County NSC/NSD IFC 6 Beds Coweta County 12 12 12 12 6 6 Huskey & Associates 84

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Contract # Vendor Program License CONTRACTOR NAME 5774 Fax # 770-304- 5723 Programmatic Person Dates RBWO NP MIN SERVICE DELIVERY SITE Remittance Address TYPES OF CARE LEVEL OF CARE / NO. OF BEDS 461-93- RBWO10016 7 Carl Malone Foundation d/b/a Mercy's Door Group Home Atten: Carl Malone 3365 Little John Circle Cleveland, TN 37323 Phone 423-593- 6508 Fax # 423-472- 9053 Community Growth Children's Academy Attn: Rose M. Evans 344 Roberts Rd. (P.O. Box 512) Barnesville, Georgia 30204 Phone # 770-584- 6276 Fax # 770-358- 9742 Kids Peace National Centers Of Georgia Attn: Michele Jany 4085 Independence Drive Schnecksville, PA. 18069 Phone # 800-854- 3123 ext.8473 Fax # 610-799- 461-93- RBWO10017 1 461-93- RBWO10020 4 399904 90359 11689 * Richard Fox Richard Fox Richard Fox 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 101.82 110.87 X $75 X X 181.84 X 1) 2281 Dawnville Beaverdale Rd. Dalton, GA. 30721 2) 2295 Dawnville Beaverdale Rd. Dalton, GA. 30721 3. 1109 Mt. Zion Road, NE Dalton, GA. 30721 Same As Contractor Address KidsPeace National Centers of Georgia 3438 Route 309 Orefield, PA 18069 Same As Contractor Address Same As Contractor Address Same As Contractor Address NSC,IFC 12 Beds Whitfield County NSC/ IFC 6 Beds Spalding County NSC ES 60 Beds Carroll County 6 6 12 6 6 60 60 Huskey & Associates 85

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Contract # 461-93- RBWO10021 1 Mountain Top Boy's Home, Inc. Attn: David Lemmerman 65 Mountain Top Way SuGAr Valley, Georgia 30746 Phone # 706-397- 8223 Fax # 706-397- 2506 Murphy-Harpst Childrens Centers, Inc. Attn: Joanne Simmons 740 Fletcher Street Cedartown, Georgia 30125 Phone # 770-748- 1500 Fax # 770-749- 1094 The Center for Creative Growth and Human Development Inc. Attn: Dr. Jimmy D. McCamey P.O. Box 2946 LaGrange, Georgia 30241 Phone #706-884- 1080 Fax# 706-812- 8866 461-93- RBWO10021 3 461-93- RBWO10024 2 Vendor Program License 70418 * 2760 CCI* 10599 * CONTRACTOR NAME 8318 Programmatic Person Richard Fox Richard Fox Richard Fox Dates RBWO NP MIN 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 101.82 128.98 170.00 X 181.84 X 121.2 X X SERVICE DELIVERY SITE 1. HWY 136 East, Lafayette, Georgia 30728 Same As Contractor Address 3 Delivery Sites: (1) 102 West Bacon Street, Lagrange, GA 30241 (2) 500 Granite Street HoGAnsville, GA 30230 d/b/a House of Samuel (3) 419 Ridley Ave. Lagrange, GA 30240 d/b/a House of David Remittance Address Same As Contractor Address Same As Contractor Address Same As Contractor Address TYPES OF CARE NSC/NSD IFC 12 Beds Gordon County NSC/NSD TFC 48 Beds Polk County NSC/NSD IFC 33 Beds Troup County LEVEL OF CARE / NO. OF BEDS 11 1 12 48 48 12 21 33 Huskey & Associates 86

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Contract # 461-93- RBWO10024 5 The Open Door Home, Inc. Attn: Gretta Wilson 5 Leon Street Rome, Georgia 30165 Phone # 706-232- 6662 Fax # 706-235- 6230 Twin Cedars Youth Services, Inc. Attn: Mike Angstadt 310 North Lewis Street, P.O. Box 1526 LaGrange, Georgia 30241 Phone # 706-298- 0050 ext. 101 Fax # 678-298- 0055 461-93- RBWO10024 9 461-93- RBWO10025 0 Vendor Program License 414287 CCI* 223694 CCI * CONTRACTOR NAME United Methodist Children's Home of the North Georgia Conference, Inc. 5oo S. Columbia Drive Decatur, Georgia 30030 Phone# 404-327- 5824 Fax# 404-327- 5822 Programmatic Person Richard Fox Richard Fox Richard Fox Dates RBWO NP MIN 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/1/0 9-6/30/0 9 11/1/0 9-6/30/0 9 101.82 X X Site Specifi c 101.82 128.98 181.84 101.82 128.98 TD- 108.21 TD- 97.57 X X SERVICE DELIVERY SITE 1. d/b/a Residential Child Care Facility; 792 John Davenport Drive, Rome, Georgia 30165 13 Sites: 1) 843 Elm Ave., Americus, GA 31709 d/b/a Americus Assessment Center (Assessment) 2) 751 Double Churches Rd., Columbus, GA 31904 d/b/a Anne Elizabeth Shepard Home (3) (See Contract for remaining 10 sites) 4 sites- 500 S. Columbia Drive Decatur, Georgia 30030 Remittance Address Same As Contractor Address Same As Contractor Address Same as Contractor Address TYPES OF CARE NSC IFC 54 Beds Floyd County NSC IFS, SR, 2ND CHANCE HOME,ES 184 Beds Troup, Muscogee, Bibb Counties NSC/NSD IFC, ES, ILP and Teen Development (TD) 80 Beds Dekalb County LEVEL OF CARE / NO. OF BEDS 54 54 40 58 116 214 56 24 80 Huskey & Associates 87

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Contract # 461-93- RBWO10026 6 461-93- RBWO10025 4 461-93- RBWO10017 2 Visions of a Debutante, Inc. Attn: Tonya Ellis 104 Meghan Place Griffin, Georgia 30223 Phone# 770-364- 0754 Westlake Investments, LLC Attn: Dorothy Watts 175 Country Club Dr. Suite 200E Stocbridge, Georgia 30281 Phone # 770-775- 6372 Fax # 770-775- 6372 Community Hope Center, Inc. Attn: Johnny Vaughn P.O. Box 1072 Dublin, Georgia 31040 Phone # 478-275- 9490 Fax # 478-274- 8094 Deloach Group Home, Inc. Attn: Linda Deloach P.O. Box 453 Ludowici, Georgia 31316 Phone # 912-545- 9458 Fax # 912-545- 461-93- RBWO10017 7 Vendor Program License 466705 * 192708 * 305364 * 20998 CCI* CONTRACTOR NAME Programmatic Person Richard Fox Richard Fox Sue Riner Sue Riner Dates RBWO NP MIN 11/16/ 09-6/30/1 0 11/1/0 9-6/30/0 9 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 101.82 X X 96.43 X 128.98 X X 101.82 128.98 X SERVICE DELIVERY SITE 104 Meghan Place Griffin, Georgia 30223 168 Evans Rd Jackson, GA 30233 2 Sites: 1) 531 Graham Street, Dublin, GA 31021 d/b/a Hope Home (4) 2) 201 Enterprise Street, Dublin, GA 31021 (4) Same As Contractor Address Remittance Address Same As Contractor Address Same As Contractor Address Same As Contractor Address Same As Contractor Address TYPES OF CARE NSC/NSD IFC 6 Beds Upson County NSC/NSD,IFC 12 Beds Butts County NSC/NSD IFC 30 Beds Laurens County NSC IFC NSC,NSD ES NSC ILP 16 Beds Liberty County LEVEL OF CARE / NO. OF BEDS 6 6 12 12 30 30 8 8 16 Huskey & Associates 88

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Contract # 461-93- RBWO10018 8 461-93- RBWO10019 3 461-93- RBWO10020 2 Greenbriar Children's Center, Inc. Attn: Gena P. Taylor 3709 Hopkins Street Savannah, Georgia 31405 Phone # 912-234- 3431 Fax # 912-238- 9149 Harp Foundation, Inc. P.O. Box 2721 Vidalia, Georgia 30475 Attn: Bill Ward Phone # 478-538- 0717 Fax # 912-538- 0918 Joseph's Inc. Attn: Amy Futch 3400 Cypress Lake Road Statesboro, Georgia 30458 Phone # 912-681- 8526 Fax # 912-681- 8701 Morningstar Treatment Services, Inc. Attn: Barry Kerr 1801 Gloucester Street, Suite C P.O. Box 370 461-93- RBWO10021 0 Vendor Program License 9967 CCI* 229566 * 36807 CCI 21493 CCI* CONTRACTOR NAME 9923 Programmatic Person Sue Riner Sue Riner Sue Riner Sue Riner Dates RBWO NP MIN 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 101.82 X 101.82 128.98 101.82 128.98 X 177.4 X SERVICE DELIVERY SITE Same As Contractor Address 1. 701 Vann Street Vidalia, GA. 30474 2. 1731 Nicholls Road/ HWY 32 Douglas, Georgia 31534 Same As Contractor Address 1 Site: (1) #1 Youth Estate Dr, HWY9 Brunswick, GA 31525 d/b/a Morningstar Youth Estates Remittance Address Same As Contractor Address Same As Contractor Address Same As Contractor Address Same As Contractor Address TYPES OF CARE NSC/NSD Institutional Foster Care 40 Beds Chatham County NSC/NSD Institutional Foster Care/Emergency Shelter 16 Beds Coffee, Toombs Counties NSC Spec. Res. Group Home 15 Beds Bulloch County TFC 54 Beds Glynn County LEVEL OF CARE / NO. OF BEDS 40 40 8 8 16 7 8 15 54 54 Huskey & Associates 89

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Contract # Vendor Program License CONTRACTOR NAME Brunswick, Georgia 3152-0370 Phone # 912-267- 7583 Fax # 912-267- 9568 Programmatic Person Dates RBWO NP MIN SERVICE DELIVERY SITE Center Remittance Address TYPES OF CARE LEVEL OF CARE / NO. OF BEDS 461-93- RBWO10021 9 461-93- RBWO10022 4 461-93- RBWO10023 0 438116 CCI 369551 CC/ES* 449298 New Vision and Hope, Inc. d/b/a Lowndes Forestry Institute for Boys 6055 Upper New Bethel Road Ray City, Georgia 31645 Phone# 229-245- 6925 Attn: Mattie Fluitt Fax# 229-245- 7224 Park Place Outreach, Inc. Attn: Linda Lamas 514 E. Henry Street Savannah, Georgia 31401 Phone # 912-234- 4048 Fax # 912-651- 3621 Raintree Village, Inc. ATTN: Kenny Holton 3757 Johnston Road Valdosta, Georgia 31601 #229-559-5944 Sue Riner Sue Riner Sue Riner 11/01/ 09-6/30/1 0 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 128.98 X X 65.36 101.82 128.98 X X 6005 Upper New Bethel Road Ray City, GA. 31645 Same As Contractor Address 3757 Johnston Road Valdosta, Georgia 31601 Same as Contractor's Address Same As Contractor Address Same as Contractor's Adrress NSC, NSD, IFC, ES 12 Beds Emergency Shelter 10 Beds Chatham County NSC IFC, ILP NSC, NSD ES 16 Beds Lowndes County 12 12 10 10 16 16 Huskey & Associates 90

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Contract # Vendor Program License CONTRACTOR NAME Fax# 229-559- 7760 Programmatic Person Dates RBWO NP MIN SERVICE DELIVERY SITE Remittance Address TYPES OF CARE LEVEL OF CARE / NO. OF BEDS 461-93- RBWO10023 3 Safe Harbor Children's Shelter, Inc. Attn: Rana Smith P.O. Box 1313 Brunswick, Georgia 31521 Phone # 912-267- 6000 Fax # 912-267- 0872 Smith Group Home, Inc. Attn: Harriet Smith P.O. Box 736 Ludowici, Georgia 31316 Phone # 912-545- 9547 Fax # 912-545- 2345 461-93- RBWO10023 7 227277 CCI/ES* 115758 CCI* Sue Riner Sue Riner 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 11/01/ 09-06/30/ 10 76.88 X X 101.82 128.98 X 1. 2215 Gloucester Street, Brunswick, Georgia 31520 706 Presley Road, Ludowici, Georgia 31316 Same As Contractor Address Same As Contractor Address NSC/NSD Emergency Shelter 19 Beds Glynn County NSC IFC 21 Beds Liberty County 19 19 21 21 TOTAL 1097 305 697 2099 Huskey & Associates 91

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Total Commitments by Committing County and CRN Risk Level 2005-2010 Total % of Total APPLING 27 100.0% Low 10 37.0% Medium 12 44.4% High 5 18.5% ATKINSON 2 100.0% Low 1 50.0% High 1 50.0% BACON 7 100.0% Low 4 57.1% Medium 1 14.3% High 2 28.6% BALDWIN 167 100.0% Low 55 32.9% Medium 70 41.9% High 42 25.1% BANKS 13 100.0% Low 6 46.2% Medium 4 30.8% High 3 23.1% BARROW 63 100.0% Low 16 25.4% Medium 32 50.8% High 15 23.8% BARTOW 78 100.0% Low 32 41.0% Medium 32 41.0% High 14 17.9% BEN HILL 52 100.0% Huskey & Associates 92

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Total Commitments by Committing County and CRN Risk Level 2005-2010 Total % of Total Low 11 21.2% Medium 28 53.8% High 13 25.0% BERRIEN 15 100.0% Low 2 13.3% Medium 11 73.3% High 2 13.3% BIBB 363 100.0% Low 103 28.4% Medium 183 50.4% High 77 21.2% BLECKLEY 25 100.0% Low 4 16.0% Medium 8 32.0% High 13 52.0% BRANTLEY 13 100.0% Low 4 30.8% Medium 6 46.2% High 3 23.1% BROOKS 39 100.0% Low 10 25.6% Medium 21 53.8% High 8 20.5% BRYAN 23 100.0% Low 12 52.2% Medium 10 43.5% High 1 4.3% BULLOCH 40 100.0% Low 13 32.5% Medium 17 42.5% Huskey & Associates 93

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Total Commitments by Committing County and CRN Risk Level 2005-2010 Total % of Total High 10 25.0% BURKE 16 100.0% Low 5 31.3% Medium 7 43.8% High 4 25.0% BUTTS 29 100.0% Low 14 48.3% Medium 13 44.8% High 2 6.9% CALHOUN 3 100.0% Medium 2 66.7% High 1 33.3% CAMDEN 33 100.0% Low 10 30.3% Medium 19 57.6% High 4 12.1% CANDLER 12 100.0% Low 2 16.7% Medium 8 66.7% High 2 16.7% CARROLL 123 100.0% Low 38 30.9% Medium 62 50.4% High 23 18.7% CATOOSA 69 100.0% Low 32 46.4% Medium 29 42.0% High 8 11.6% CHARLTON 5 100.0% Low 1 20.0% Huskey & Associates 94

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Total Commitments by Committing County and CRN Risk Level 2005-2010 Total % of Total Medium 3 60.0% High 1 20.0% CHATHAM 977 100.0% Low 151 15.5% Medium 499 51.1% High 325 33.3% Unknown 2 0.2% CHATTAHOOCHEE 4 100.0% Low 2 50.0% Medium 2 50.0% CHATTOOGA 28 100.0% Low 14 50.0% Medium 13 46.4% High 1 3.6% CHEROKEE 57 100.0% Low 16 28.1% Medium 33 57.9% High 8 14.0% CLARKE 203 100.0% Low 36 17.7% Medium 80 39.4% High 87 42.9% CLAY 7 100.0% Low 2 28.6% Medium 3 42.9% High 2 28.6% CLAYTON 678 100.0% Low 232 34.2% Medium 321 47.3% High 123 18.1% Huskey & Associates 95

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Total Commitments by Committing County and CRN Risk Level 2005-2010 Total % of Total Unknown 2 0.3% CLINCH 26 100.0% Low 6 23.1% Medium 11 42.3% High 9 34.6% COBB 995 100.0% Low 426 42.8% Medium 444 44.6% High 117 11.8% Unknown 8 0.8% COFFEE 74 100.0% Low 32 43.2% Medium 29 39.2% High 13 17.6% COLQUITT 71 100.0% Low 19 26.8% Medium 39 54.9% High 13 18.3% COLUMBIA 18 100.0% Low 7 38.9% Medium 9 50.0% High 2 11.1% COOK 27 100.0% Low 4 14.8% Medium 17 63.0% High 6 22.2% COWETA 329 100.0% Low 104 31.6% Medium 167 50.8% High 58 17.6% Huskey & Associates 96

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Total Commitments by Committing County and CRN Risk Level 2005-2010 Total % of Total CRAWFORD 7 100.0% Low 4 57.1% Medium 2 28.6% High 1 14.3% CRISP 72 100.0% Low 8 11.1% Medium 37 51.4% High 27 37.5% DADE 14 100.0% Low 4 28.6% Medium 7 50.0% High 3 21.4% DAWSON 16 100.0% Low 1 6.3% Medium 13 81.3% High 2 12.5% DECATUR 46 100.0% Low 7 15.2% Medium 15 32.6% High 23 50.0% Unknown 1 2.2% DEKALB 1,563 100.0% Low 645 41.3% Medium 715 45.7% High 201 12.9% Unknown 2 0.1% DODGE 41 100.0% Low 8 19.5% Medium 22 53.7% High 11 26.8% Huskey & Associates 97

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Total Commitments by Committing County and CRN Risk Level 2005-2010 Total % of Total DOOLY 4 100.0% Low 1 25.0% Medium 3 75.0% DOUGHERTY 550 100.0% Low 114 20.7% Medium 291 52.9% High 145 26.4% DOUGLAS 118 100.0% Low 16 13.6% Medium 74 62.7% High 28 23.7% EARLY 23 100.0% Low 7 30.4% Medium 12 52.2% High 4 17.4% EFFINGHAM 14 100.0% Low 6 42.9% Medium 8 57.1% ELBERT 14 100.0% Low 5 35.7% Medium 6 42.9% High 3 21.4% EMANUEL 26 100.0% Low 6 23.1% Medium 9 34.6% High 11 42.3% EVANS 57 100.0% Low 15 26.3% Medium 26 45.6% High 16 28.1% Huskey & Associates 98

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Total Commitments by Committing County and CRN Risk Level 2005-2010 Total % of Total FANNIN 20 100.0% Low 2 10.0% Medium 14 70.0% High 4 20.0% FAYETTE 35 100.0% Low 20 57.1% Medium 12 34.3% High 3 8.6% FLOYD 307 100.0% Low 66 21.5% Medium 162 52.8% High 79 25.7% FORSYTH 40 100.0% Low 16 40.0% Medium 16 40.0% High 8 20.0% FRANKLIN 21 100.0% Low 10 47.6% Medium 7 33.3% High 4 19.0% FULTON 908 100.0% Low 470 51.8% Medium 361 39.8% High 71 7.8% Unknown 6 0.7% GILMER 25 100.0% Low 5 20.0% Medium 13 52.0% High 7 28.0% GLASCOCK 1 100.0% Huskey & Associates 99

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Total Commitments by Committing County and CRN Risk Level 2005-2010 Total % of Total High 1 100.0% GLYNN 226 100.0% Low 48 21.2% Medium 103 45.6% High 75 33.2% GORDON 38 100.0% Low 16 42.1% Medium 18 47.4% High 4 10.5% GRADY 21 100.0% Low 9 42.9% Medium 5 23.8% High 7 33.3% GREENE 43 100.0% Low 21 48.8% Medium 18 41.9% High 4 9.3% GWINNETT 1,204 100.0% Low 728 60.5% Medium 415 34.5% High 60 5.0% Unknown 1 0.1% HABERSHAM 9 100.0% Low 4 44.4% Medium 5 55.6% HALL 138 100.0% Low 36 26.1% Medium 82 59.4% High 20 14.5% HANCOCK 15 100.0% Huskey & Associates 100

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Total Commitments by Committing County and CRN Risk Level 2005-2010 Total % of Total Low 3 20.0% Medium 10 66.7% High 2 13.3% HARALSON 34 100.0% Low 15 44.1% Medium 15 44.1% High 4 11.8% HARRIS 7 100.0% Low 4 57.1% Medium 2 28.6% High 1 14.3% HART 19 100.0% Low 6 31.6% Medium 9 47.4% High 4 21.1% HEARD 32 100.0% Low 12 37.5% Medium 19 59.4% High 1 3.1% HENRY 314 100.0% Low 186 59.2% Medium 106 33.8% High 22 7.0% HOUSTON 104 100.0% Low 39 37.5% Medium 43 41.3% High 22 21.2% IRWIN 5 100.0% Low 4 80.0% Medium 1 20.0% Huskey & Associates 101

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Total Commitments by Committing County and CRN Risk Level 2005-2010 Total % of Total JACKSON 46 100.0% Low 10 21.7% Medium 22 47.8% High 14 30.4% JASPER 19 100.0% Low 12 63.2% Medium 5 26.3% High 2 10.5% JEFF DAVIS 34 100.0% Low 7 20.6% Medium 21 61.8% High 6 17.6% JEFFERSON 42 100.0% Low 7 16.7% Medium 22 52.4% High 13 31.0% JENKINS 23 100.0% Low 6 26.1% Medium 15 65.2% High 2 8.7% JOHNSON 5 100.0% Low 2 40.0% Medium 3 60.0% JONES 64 100.0% Low 31 48.4% Medium 24 37.5% High 9 14.1% LAMAR 22 100.0% Low 8 36.4% Medium 13 59.1% Huskey & Associates 102

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Total Commitments by Committing County and CRN Risk Level 2005-2010 Total % of Total High 1 4.5% LANIER 12 100.0% Low 3 25.0% Medium 8 66.7% High 1 8.3% LAURENS 120 100.0% Low 28 23.3% Medium 68 56.7% High 24 20.0% LEE 41 100.0% Low 20 48.8% Medium 13 31.7% High 8 19.5% LIBERTY 79 100.0% Low 27 34.2% Medium 32 40.5% High 20 25.3% LONG 10 100.0% Low 2 20.0% Medium 7 70.0% High 1 10.0% LOWNDES 188 100.0% Low 83 44.1% Medium 71 37.8% High 34 18.1% LUMPKIN 23 100.0% Low 14 60.9% Medium 8 34.8% High 1 4.3% MACON 15 100.0% Huskey & Associates 103

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Total Commitments by Committing County and CRN Risk Level 2005-2010 Total % of Total Low 6 40.0% Medium 8 53.3% High 1 6.7% MADISON 18 100.0% Low 7 38.9% Medium 8 44.4% High 3 16.7% MARION 4 100.0% Low 4 100.0% MCDUFFIE 18 100.0% Low 3 16.7% Medium 9 50.0% High 6 33.3% MCINTOSH 23 100.0% Low 1 4.3% Medium 16 69.6% High 6 26.1% MERIWETHER 4 100.0% Low 1 25.0% Medium 1 25.0% High 2 50.0% MILLER 4 100.0% Medium 3 75.0% High 1 25.0% MITCHELL 25 100.0% Low 7 28.0% Medium 12 48.0% High 6 24.0% MONROE 39 100.0% Low 18 46.2% Huskey & Associates 104

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Total Commitments by Committing County and CRN Risk Level 2005-2010 Total % of Total Medium 17 43.6% High 4 10.3% MONTGOMERY 5 100.0% Low 1 20.0% Medium 2 40.0% High 2 40.0% MORGAN 30 100.0% Low 14 46.7% Medium 13 43.3% High 3 10.0% MURRAY 28 100.0% Low 10 35.7% Medium 12 42.9% High 6 21.4% MUSCOGEE 407 100.0% Low 74 18.2% Medium 214 52.6% High 119 29.2% NEWTON 151 100.0% Low 34 22.5% Medium 64 42.4% High 53 35.1% OCONEE 34 100.0% Low 16 47.1% Medium 16 47.1% High 2 5.9% OGLETHORPE 9 100.0% Low 5 55.6% Medium 3 33.3% High 1 11.1% Huskey & Associates 105

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Total Commitments by Committing County and CRN Risk Level 2005-2010 Total % of Total OUT OF STATE 9 100.0% Low 5 55.6% Medium 2 22.2% Unknown 2 22.2% PAULDING 36 100.0% Low 13 36.1% Medium 15 41.7% High 8 22.2% PEACH 34 100.0% Low 16 47.1% Medium 11 32.4% High 7 20.6% PICKENS 26 100.0% Low 7 26.9% Medium 11 42.3% High 8 30.8% PIERCE 15 100.0% Low 11 73.3% Medium 3 20.0% High 1 6.7% PIKE 6 100.0% Low 5 83.3% Medium 1 16.7% POLK 47 100.0% Low 13 27.7% Medium 19 40.4% High 15 31.9% PULASKI 12 100.0% Low 3 25.0% Huskey & Associates 106

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Total Commitments by Committing County and CRN Risk Level 2005-2010 Total % of Total Medium 4 33.3% High 5 41.7% PUTNAM 40 100.0% Low 21 52.5% Medium 16 40.0% High 3 7.5% QUITMAN 2 100.0% Low 2 100.0% RABUN 2 100.0% Low 2 100.0% RANDOLPH 15 100.0% Low 4 26.7% Medium 9 60.0% High 2 13.3% RICHMOND 231 100.0% Low 57 24.7% Medium 131 56.7% High 43 18.6% ROCKDALE 164 100.0% Low 107 65.2% Medium 49 29.9% High 8 4.9% SCHLEY 3 100.0% Low 3 100.0% SCREVEN 11 100.0% Low 6 54.5% Medium 3 27.3% High 2 18.2% SEMINOLE 11 100.0% Low 4 36.4% Huskey & Associates 107

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Total Commitments by Committing County and CRN Risk Level 2005-2010 Total % of Total Medium 5 45.5% High 2 18.2% SPALDING 187 100.0% Low 67 35.8% Medium 84 44.9% High 36 19.3% STEPHENS 14 100.0% Low 3 21.4% Medium 5 35.7% High 6 42.9% STEWART 5 100.0% Low 1 20.0% Medium 2 40.0% High 2 40.0% SUMTER 99 100.0% Low 20 20.2% Medium 45 45.5% High 34 34.3% TALBOT 4 100.0% Medium 3 75.0% High 1 25.0% TATTNALL 48 100.0% Low 14 29.2% Medium 29 60.4% High 5 10.4% TAYLOR 4 100.0% Low 1 25.0% Medium 2 50.0% High 1 25.0% TELFAIR 14 100.0% Huskey & Associates 108

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Total Commitments by Committing County and CRN Risk Level 2005-2010 Total % of Total Low 1 7.1% Medium 5 35.7% High 8 57.1% TERRELL 13 100.0% Medium 5 38.5% High 8 61.5% THOMAS 69 100.0% Low 9 13.0% Medium 36 52.2% High 24 34.8% TIFT 106 100.0% Low 42 39.6% Medium 53 50.0% High 11 10.4% TOOMBS 46 100.0% Low 14 30.4% Medium 19 41.3% High 13 28.3% TOWNS 1 100.0% Medium 1 100.0% TREUTLEN 10 100.0% Low 5 50.0% Medium 4 40.0% High 1 10.0% TROUP 647 100.0% Low 203 31.4% Medium 320 49.5% High 124 19.2% TURNER 11 100.0% Low 4 36.4% Huskey & Associates 109

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Total Commitments by Committing County and CRN Risk Level 2005-2010 Total % of Total Medium 6 54.5% High 1 9.1% TWIGGS 3 100.0% Low 1 33.3% Medium 1 33.3% High 1 33.3% UNION 6 100.0% Low 3 50.0% Medium 3 50.0% UPSON 20 100.0% Low 8 40.0% Medium 8 40.0% High 4 20.0% WALKER 30 100.0% Low 16 53.3% Medium 10 33.3% High 4 13.3% WALTON 139 100.0% Low 30 21.6% Medium 60 43.2% High 49 35.3% WARE 87 100.0% Low 22 25.3% Medium 41 47.1% High 24 27.6% WARREN 8 100.0% Low 2 25.0% Medium 6 75.0% WASHINGTON 27 100.0% Low 7 25.9% Huskey & Associates 110

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Total Commitments by Committing County and CRN Risk Level 2005-2010 Total % of Total Medium 15 55.6% High 5 18.5% WAYNE 23 100.0% Low 9 39.1% Medium 12 52.2% High 2 8.7% WHEELER 2 100.0% Medium 1 50.0% High 1 50.0% WHITE 29 100.0% Low 20 69.0% Medium 7 24.1% High 2 6.9% WHITFIELD 278 100.0% Low 91 32.7% Medium 132 47.5% High 55 19.8% WILCOX 10 100.0% Low 3 30.0% Medium 3 30.0% High 4 40.0% WILKES 6 100.0% Low 3 50.0% Medium 1 16.7% High 2 33.3% WILKINSON 17 100.0% Low 6 35.3% Medium 7 41.2% High 4 23.5% Huskey & Associates 111

Profile of Youth Confined in Georgia's Youth Development Centers Total Commitments by Committing County and CRN Risk Level 2005-2010 Total % of Total WORTH 70 100.0% Low 20 28.6% Medium 41 58.6% High 9 12.9% Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (110216.FY05-10 Commitments.xlsx) Huskey & Associates 112