1. National Center for State Courts DETENTION ASSESSMENT

2. National Center for State Courts Sample 1549 youth under 17 years old with at least one detention assessment completed between 6/1/2009 and 3/31/2010. For youth with multiple assessment records, the first assessment was used.

3. National Center for State Courts JDTA Factors Capias, Court Order or Warrant (25%) Most Serious Presenting Offense (Other misdemeanor, 21%; Other felony, 20%, A or B felony, felony sex offense, or unlawful felony possession or use of a firearm or explosive device, 17%) Additional Presenting Offenses (8%) Prior Referrals (59%) Current Legal Status (37%) Flight Risk (8%)

4. National Center for State Courts Scores and Indicated Decisions 1-9  release to a suitable custodian (25.3%) 10-14  detention alternative (16.3%) 15 or above  detention (56.4%)

5. National Center for State Courts Final Decisions Not at risk group (41.1%): 636 youth who were detained At risk group (58.9%): 913 youth who were assessed and released to suitable custodian (n=689) or to a detention alternative (n=224) within five days of assessment.

6. National Center for State Courts Overrides

7. National Center for State Courts Override to Detention & Reasons Override-to-detention rate drops to 12.1% from 33.4% in the first study. “No non-secure alternative available” “No suitable custodian to assume custody” “Serious or credible threat to witness, victim, or community”

8. National Center for State Courts Overrides

9. National Center for State Courts Less Restrictive Overrides from Detention Occurred to more than one third the youth (347) who were scored for detention.

10. National Center for State Courts Race

11. National Center for State Courts Age & Gender Average age 15 with a range of 6 to 16 Male (81%), female (19%)

12. National Center for State Courts JDTA instrument indicated decisions and the final decisions are proven Not Biased regarding any of the demographic variables after controlling for all the JDTA factors!!

13. National Center for State Courts At Risk Group Follow-up Recidivism was defined as any new referral for a law violation following the JDTA assessment occurring prior to adjudication, informal disposition, or dismissal of the case associated with the assessment. Failure to appear for the scheduled court hearing. 23.2% (212/913) failure rate When only consider legally sufficient law referrals as recidivism, the failure rate drops to 18.9% (173/913).

14. National Center for State Courts Juveniles with New Referrals/FTA

15. National Center for State Courts What will happen… If the 110 youth were excluded from the At Risk group as suggested by the JDTA The recidivism rate would decrease to 18.0% and 13.6% (only legally sufficient referrals).

16. National Center for State Courts Analysis of JDTA Factors Capias (any capias, court order, or DYS warrant for secure detention vs. none) Most serious presenting offense (Class A or B felony vs. Status) Current legal status (under formal or informal supervision for a law violation vs. no current legal condition)

17. National Center for State Courts Conclusions & Recommendations The JDTA instrument works. Recommend avoiding overrides to less restrictive decisions from detention. Especially for males and youth with capias, Class A or B felony, or under supervision for law violation. Recommend that detention alternative programs & current supervision programs be evaluated and recalibrated to improve their effectiveness

18. National Center for State Courts