1. Reducing Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Juvenile Justice System: Moving Beyond Abstract Discussion to Strategic Response Judy Cox, Former Chief of Probation, Santa Cruz County October 21, 2008

2. Current state of DMC Youth of color are: Disproportionately represented in the juvenile justice system of every State. Disproportionately represented in all stages of the juvenile justice system… and the rates of overrepresentation increase as youth go through the system. More likely to be detained for low level offenses. More likely to receive out of home placements. More likely to be placed in adult jails.

3. Overrepresentation of Youth of Color in Public Detention Centers: 1985 – 2006 White Youth Youth of color 19851995 Youth of color Source: Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional and Shelter Facilities, 1985-2006. 2006 White Youth Youth of color White Youth 2/3 of Detainees are Kids of Color

4. Sources: Snyder, H. (2006). Juvenile Arrests 2004. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics; (2007). "Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement." Available: http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/;

5. Why do Racial and Ethnic Disparities exist in the Juvenile Justice System?

6. The Facts: Addressing DMC has been a Federal priority for two decades. Data consistently indicates that disparities exist and that these disparities are not offense driven. States prioritize reducing DMC as one of the most critical issues in juvenile justice today.

7. State Juvenile Justice Priorities States identified three topics as the most critical issues confronting their juvenile justice systems: Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) (38 states). Mental health assessment and treatment (30 states). Detention reform (22 states). 2007 Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice: Annual Report to the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

8. THE DISTRACTERS 1.Global Conversation 2.Blame Game 3.Culture of Politeness 4.Restatement of the Problem

9. THE GLOBAL CONVERSATION DMC is caused by: Racism Poverty Levels of Criminality

10. THE BLAME GAME It’s the fault of: the kids, the families, the community, the parents, society at large, music videos, television, the police, judges, the mayor, the governor, the President, racism, subtle discrimination, overt discrimination, the “system,” drugs, guns, poor education, inadequate housing, the schools, the kids, the families, the community, the parents, society at large, music videos…

11. Process Truths Process is not NOT SEAMLESS Process is not NOT EXPEDITIOUS Agency mandates and agendas are inconsistent Leadership Changes Public Will Changes Values must be learned and embraced over time Cultural shifts do not manifest immediately

12. DMC Truths  High rates of DMC of jurisdictions throughout the nation  Juvenile justice systems have not been held accountable-- despite the federal legislative mandate to address DMC.  Lack of awareness and/or interest among key decision makers about the problem.  Restatement of the problem without identification of strategic response for reduction.  Lack of knowledge among affected communities about how to address the problem.  States do not feel equipped with strategies to reduce disparities.

13. State Responses to why there is a lack of reductions Lack of Data or Lack of Access to Data “We don’t have true RRI data because there is not enough data. We don’t have any data by race for any court decision points. The data doesn’t really inform what type of response we have because there hasn’t been an assessment of the data in quite a while.” “There is no consistency in the collection of data and the numbers are so small that it is hard to get people to care about county-wide data. In one county we started using school data rather than census data because the population is shifting rapidly. There is a federal relocation center for immigrants, so the minority population is increasing fast there, but is not accounted for in the census data.” In one State, one Judicial District is attempting to gain access to the data collected by the Judicial Administration Office, but has been denied access to the system.

14. Moving Forward Towards a Strategic Response

15. Promising Federal Legislation: S. 3155 Innovative Funding to Localities from SAGs: The California DMC-TAP Example Establishing an Institutional Response at the Local Level: Strategies that Work.

16. History of DMC in the JJDPA 1974: Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) passes to put in place protections for youth involved in the JJS. 1988: Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act has required states that receive formula grant program funding to determine whether the proportion of juvenile minorities in confinement exceeds their proportion of the population and, if so, to develop corrective strategies. 1992: Congress elevated this issue to a “core requirement” of the JJDPA 2002: OJJDP changed the requirement from reporting the proportion of minority juveniles in confinement to include the proportion of minorities at each key point of contact in the juvenile justice system. 2007-2008: JJDPA up for reauthorization. Act4JJ advocating to strengthen requirement to include specific guidance to State and localities.

17. Current DMC Language in JJDPA “ address juvenile delinquency prevention efforts and system improvement efforts designed to reduce, without establishing or requiring numerical standards or quotas, the disproportionate number of juvenile members of minority groups who come into contact with the juvenile justice system.”

18. Problem with Current DMC Language No oversight of efforts Vague requirement to “address” DMC Lack of concrete direction for States Lack of measurable objectives Lack of guidance around data collection No requirement to map critical decision making points No mandate to learn causes of disparities “Minority groups” distinction problematic No mandate for tracking and publicly reporting efforts and progress

19. S. 3155 July 31, 2008: U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary marked-up and passed, by voice vote, S. 3155, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2008, Bi-partisan legislation to reauthorize the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) Originally co-sponsored by Chairman Patrick Leahy (D- VT), Ranking Member Arlen Specter (R-PA), and Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI).

20. S. 3155 on Racial and Ethnic Disparities ‘‘(15) implement policy, practice, and system improvement strategies at the State, territorial, local, and tribal levels, as applicable, to identify and reduce racial and ethnic disparities among youth who come into contact with the juvenile justice sys tem, without establishing or requiring numerical standards or quotas, by— ‘‘(A) establishing coordinating bodies, composed of juvenile justice stakeholders at the State, local, or tribal levels, to oversee and monitor efforts by States, units of local government, and Indian tribes to reduce racial and ethnic disparities; ‘‘(B) identifying and analyzing key decision points in State, local, or tribal juvenile justice systems to determine which points create racial and ethnic disparities among youth who come into contact with the juvenile justice system ; ‘‘(C) developing and implementing data collection and analysis systems to identify where racial and ethnic disparities exist in the juvenile justice system and to track and analyze such disparities ; ‘‘(D) developing and implementing a work plan that includes measurable objectives for policy, practice, or other system changes, based on the needs identified in the data collection and analysis under subparagraphs (B) and (C); and ‘‘(E) publicly reporting, on an annual basis, the efforts made in accordance with subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D);’’

21. Moving Forward Towards a Strategic Response Promising Federal Legislation: S. 3155 Innovative Funding to Localities from SAGs: The California DMC-TAP Example Establishing an Institutional Response at the Local Level: Strategies that Work.

22. California Enhanced DMC-TAP Funding Total of $2.6 million for three year grant Goal is to provide tools and resources needed to provide leadership in developing or strengthening DMC reduction activities Five sites awarded Each site receives $750,000, broken into three one year phases: Infrastructure and education Stakeholder involvement Implementation

23. Phase 1- DMC Infrastructure and Education Phase 1 Purpose: Assist probation departments in establishing or strengthening the foundation for a DMC reduction effort. Phase 1 Grant funds are earmarked for: Identified infrastructure needs within the department (e.g., DMC staff and/or resources needed to implement/improve data collection and analysis efforts) Contracting with an expert consultant to conduct probation staff training sessions on DMC and to assist with data analysis.

24. Phase 2 - Stakeholder Collaboration and Plan Development Phase 2 Purpose : Support the education of stakeholders (e.g., police, judges, district attorneys, and public defenders) about the probation department’s DMC efforts and to engage stakeholders in the development of a long-term DMC reduction plan. Phase 2 Grant funds are earmarked for: Contracting with an expert consultant to facilitate stakeholder collaboration and assist in developing DMC reduction strategies. Continued support of DMC staff within the department.

25. Phase 3 - Implementation of DMC Reduction Plan Phase 3 Purpose : Support implementation of the DMC reduction plan developed in Phase 2. Phase 3 Grant funds are earmarked for: specific activities outlined in the DMC reduction plan (e.g., development of risk assessment tools, provision of cultural awareness/competency training, implementation or expansion of prevention and/or diversion programs for at-risk youth). Funds are also available for continued support of DMC staff.

26. Organizing the DMC work: From Data to Action

27. Moving Forward Towards a Strategic Response Promising Federal Legislation: S. 3155 Innovative Funding to Localities from SAGs: The California DMC-TAP Example Establishing an Institutional Response at the Local Level: Strategies that Work.

28. How Do we Know? Is the Juvenile Justice System Just, fair and equitable?

29. Measuring DMC – Where to Begin Questions to ask yourself: What are your goals? What does success look like? What is your process for data collection and analysis? Measuring DMC Gather baseline data Establish key DMC indicators to track over time Collect, Analyze and Monitor

30. Basic Data Measures Decision Points Measured by Federal Mandate  Population  Arrests  Referrals to Court  Diversions  Secure Detentions  Filings  Delinquency Findings  Probation Placements  Commitments  Adult Court  Referrals to Detention  Admissions to Detention  Risk Assessment Instrument Adherence  Average Length of Stay  Average Daily Population  Alternatives to Detention Additional Decision Making Points to Measure

31. Operational Data Measures  Success Rates  Access  Outcomes  Compliance with Policies  Geographic  Efficiency and processing times Studying procedures, policies, and programs through a racial lens

32. Examples of Operational Data: Studies in Santa Cruz  Length of Time in Custody Pending Placement  Bench Warrants / Probation Violations  Filings in Adult Court  Risk Assessment Instrument  Detention Alternatives Access / Success  Length of Stay in Custody / Court Processing Time  Completion / Success Rates in Post-Dispo Programs  Program design Studies (Evening Center)

33. Maintain ongoing system of data collection and analysis Identify factors contributing to disproportionality Dig deeper into factors contributing to disproportionality Strategize about policy and practice change to reduce racial and ethnic disparities Adopt strategy Indicator to monitor effectiveness of each strategy in reducing racial disparities Document changes in reducing racial disparities Strategy for Reducing Racial and Ethnic Disparities Ongoing process

34. Juvenile Hall Bookings Identify Factors Contributing to DMC: Juvenile Detention Paths and Processes: Santa Cruz County, 2006 851 Sent Home Immediately: 182 (21%) Detention Hearings 455 Sent Home > 4 hours: 213 (25%) Remain in Detention 312 37% 160 without conditions 53 with conditions Sent Home 143 (17%) “Probation Failure” 273 New Arrests 578 147 without conditions 35 with conditions 69 without conditions 74 with conditions 53% Goal: Move these youth

35. Identify Factors Contributing to DMC: Youth Held by Probation but Released by the Judge Sent Home 143 (17%) 69 without conditions 74 with conditions Youth PopulationBookings Held by Probation but released at Detention Hearing Anglo Latino

36. Strategy for Reducing Racial Disparities Identify Factors contributing to disproportionality Dig Deeper into Factors contributing to disproportionality: Youth held by Probation and Released by the Judge. Profile of Youth Isolate areas where Probation has decision making authority to release youth Strategize about Policy and Practice Change to reduce racial disparities Adopt Strategy Indicator to Monitor effectiveness of each strategy in reducing racial disparities Document Changes in reducing racial disparities

37. Digging Deeper into Youth Held by Probation but Released by the Judge General Profile of Youth by R/E and… Offenses Gender Geography Number of Contacts Probation Status Override Status

38. Currently, Probation has little authority to release: Youth with a High RAI Score Youth for whom EMP is appropriate Youth with “Special Detention” Status Identify Factors Contributing to DMC: Youth Held by Probation but Released by the Judge

39. Strategy for Reducing Racial Disparities: Where Does Probation have Decision Making Authority? If we also delete the youth for whom EMP is appropriate and the high RAI scoring youth, we are down to only 41 youth. But… 66% of these youth (27 youth) are youth of color

40. Volume: The number of youth decreases significantly when controlling for RAI score; EMP holds; and policy holds. From 143 youth down to 41 youth. But, there is still room for improved decision making: 41 youth impacted in 2006 – 66% were youth of color. Geography: The highest proportion of youth were from 95076 Probation Caseload: 61% of the youth were probation intakes; 39% were already on probation caseload Discretion within Policy Holds: There may be room for improved Probation decision making with policy holds 71% of policy holds were non-releasable bench warrants and 68% of these holds were youth of color. The majority of bench warrants were FTAs. We need to investigate the number of FTAs that were on Probation and whether and why they were violated. What did we learn about youth held by Probation and Released by the Judge in 2006?

41. Policy/Practice Change: Reinstituted Call Notification Management Approval for overrides Digging Deeper RAI Research and Review Probation Violation Research and Review Bench Warrant Research and Review Additional Research into Linguistic Barriers Staff “Indicator” tracking Action

42. Results Results for Target Population (youth Held by Probation Released by Judge): Population decreased by 20% Failures to Appear decreased by 71% (81% for Y.O.C.) Probation Overrides decreased by 62% ( 61% for Y.O.C.)

43. Establishing an Institutional Response: Identifying Indicators and establishing a response You’ve got data… You know where disparities exist… You know where policy/practice change could impact the numbers… Now What?

44. Uses for Data Gathering as “Activity” for Reports Gathering to fulfill a grant requirement Research Related to Hypothesis To Inform and Drive Department Policy that will Reduce Racial and Ethnic Disparities

45. Developing an Institutional Response Origins Goals Process Leadership/Vision of sustainability DMC 101 Survey Results Need for sustained data collection and analysis

46. Do you have a role in reducing racial and ethnic disparities? DMC 101 Survey Results YesNoTotal % Yes Juvenile Hall Staff and Supervisors5611 45% DPO 1-29817 53% DPO 3426 67% Manager404 100% Total241644 63% The higher level the Probation staff, the greater the perception that they have a role in reducing disparities.

47. Developing an Institutional Response Origins Goals Process Sustainability: Establish a departmental, institutional response to using data to reduce disparities Staff Buy in to Reform work: Infuse JDAI/BI principles into daily work and in a way that achieves staff buy in at all levels. Gain insight: Gain important insight from line staff regarding reasons for disparities and/or what to attribute progress in reducing disparities on ongoing basis Reduce Disparities

48. Developing an Institutional Response Origins Goals Process Identify Unit Indicators of Disproportionality Train, Process, Adapt, Train, Process, Adapt, Train, Process, Adapt, Train, Process, Adapt … Develop a strategic, institutional response to using data that engages line staff Develop database to capture Unit DMC Indicators Culture change Reductions in disparities

49. Developing Institutional Response  DPO III’s review indicators on the intranet server noting trends and anomalies;  DPO IIIs and ADD review summary sheets at regularly scheduled monthly meeting with direct supervisor (ADD);  DPO IIIs and ADDs report out at regularly scheduled ADD/DPO III meeting held every 6 weeks regarding (strong focus on peer learning environment).

50. General Supervision: North vs. South County PVs - Cumulative Highlights In North County, the Latino caseload has doubled, but the rate of probation violations has decreased. In South County, the rate of Latino violations has decreased. In General, the rate of probation violations for Latino youth is higher in North County. 12 % on caseload were violated 5.5 % on caseload were violated 11% 16% 11% 10%0% 12%6%5%9.5%5% 9% on caseload were violated 4% on caseload were violated

51. General Supervision: North vs. South County PVs - Cumulative Highlights In North County, the violation rate for White youth remains low. The rate of violations for White youth in North County is consistently lower than it is for Latino youth in North County. In South County, the caseload of White youth has increased, but the violation rate has decreased. In General, the rate of probation violations for White youth is higher in South County. 3% 6% 8.5% 1%4% 13%0% 1% 12% 4%

52. Creating a Culture of Change Incentivize DMC Work among staff Developing Strategic Community Outreach Being open to scrutiny Time not wasted with typical distracters Strategic Hiring

53. Data work is continuous and multi-dimensional After you discover the main issues, keep looking for the combined impact of the smaller effects on DMC and confinement Focus on the area that is the most damaging – CONFINEMENT The real work occurs when you begin to change programs, policies, and procedures Keep monitoring – it drifts back to the status quo if you look away! Active leadership – behavior change will follow De-centralize data studies Using Data to Develop Policy Reform: Santa Cruz Lessons Learned

54. Geographic Analysis We need to know which Neighborhoods are most impacted by detention because: Development of ATD’s Ensure Community is Represented Focus Analysis

55. Geographic Analysis: Where are the incidents taking place?

56. Manual High School— Crime Hot Spot--Peoria

57. DMC reductions are possible when jurisdictions…. 1. Use DATA to thoroughly understand the ISSUE and how system decisions potentially drive DMC upward or downward 2. Engage and partner with NONTRADITIONAL STAKEHOLDERS to explore solutions and implement reform exercises and behaviors 3. Develop understanding and capacity to match the needs of the population with COMMUNITY RESOURCES, and to better utilize such resources as alternatives to detention. 4. Have POLITICAL WILL to address the problem 5. Are INTENTIONAL in their reduction efforts 6. Experience an authentic CULTURE SHIFT toward least-restrictive

58. What Have We Learned Systems Are Unbelievably Entrenched Adults Behave Worse Than Children Jurisdictions Cannot Do It W/O Help Consistency and Intentionality Key Correlation Between Leadership/Results Passion, Urgency and Humility Required

59.  ANNIE E. CASEY FOUNDATION  www.aecf.org www.aecf.org  JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA  www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/resources/publications/ journal www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/resources/publications/ journal  W. Haywood Burns Institute  www.burnsinstitute.org www.burnsinstitute.org  OJJDP  www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/dmc_ta_manual/dmcch4.pdf www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/dmc_ta_manual/dmcch4.pdf  SANTA CRUZ COUNTY PROBATION  http://sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/prb/index.asp http://sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/prb/index.aspResources