1. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 1 Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Michael Thompson, Director June 22, 2015 Closer to Home A Review of Findings

2. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 2 Three Areas Reviewed Question Two: 1. Impact of de-population of state-run secure facilities on recidivism 2. Impact of additional state dollars to local juvenile probation departments on JJ expenditures, services for youth and recidivism 3. Recidivism in eight counties studied and review of practices that may impact recidivism outcomes o o

3. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 3 Overhaul of Texas Juvenile Justice System Since 2007 2011 LEGISLATURE Merged former Texas Youth Commission and Texas Juvenile Probation Commission to form Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD) 2011 LEGISLATURE Merged former Texas Youth Commission and Texas Juvenile Probation Commission to form Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD) 2013 LEGISLATURE Mandated TJJD to close one additional state-run secure facility; $25 million designated for community mental health services 2013 LEGISLATURE Mandated TJJD to close one additional state-run secure facility; $25 million designated for community mental health services REFORM HIGHLIGHTS and AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION IN STATE-SECURE JUVENILE FACILITIES 2009 LEGISLATURE $45 million for Commitment Reduction Program, with incentive funding for counties and community supervision 2009 LEGISLATURE $45 million for Commitment Reduction Program, with incentive funding for counties and community supervision 2007 LEGISLATURE Prohibited commitment to state-run secure facilities for misdemeanor offenses; age of state jurisdiction reduced from 21 to 19; $60 million in new funding for counties 2007 LEGISLATURE Prohibited commitment to state-run secure facilities for misdemeanor offenses; age of state jurisdiction reduced from 21 to 19; $60 million in new funding for counties

4. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 4 State policymakers commissioned a study to analyze the impact of the reforms

5. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 5 Research Team, Partners in Texas Government, National Advisors RESEARCH TEAM TEXAS GOVERNMENT PARTNERSNATIONAL ADVISORS Texas County Officials MARK LIPSEY Director & Professor, Peabody Research Institute EDWARD MULVEY Professor of Psychiatry University of Pittsburgh

6. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 6 Foundation and Federal Partners Supporting the Study

7. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 7 More Than 1.3 Million Records from Across Three Statewide Databases Were Compiled for This Study TEXAS JUVENILE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY Juvenile Probation Extract FY05–12 Dispositions 899,101 records 452,751 juveniles State Secure Admissions/Releases FY06–11 Releases 15,944 records 13,539 juveniles Criminal History & Prison Admissions FY05–12 Supervised / Released 408,312 records 242,541 juveniles 95% of juveniles with a misdemeanor or felony offense matched to criminal history record STAGE 1: STATE AGENCY DATABASES MERGED DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

8. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 8 Multivariate Analysis Study Group of Thousands De-identified Merged Records Made Available to the Research Team Final Data Set Compiled for Multivariate Analysis/Modeling *1,249 juveniles have offenses in both periods STAGE 2: RESEARCH TEAM EXTRACTS THE STUDY GROUP Study Period Eligible 183,354 Juveniles Pre-reform Cohort (FY05-06) 27,131 Juveniles* State Incarceration Eligible 57,613 Juveniles Post-reform Cohort (FY09-11) 31,731 Juveniles* Multivariate analysis of more than one statistical variable at a time to make apples-to-apples comparisons controlling for the profile of the population

9. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 9 Commitments to State-Run Secure Facilities and Population Plummeted After the 2007 Reforms % Change FY04- 06 FY07- 14 0%-69% -2%-70% TOTAL ADMISSIONS AVERAGE ADP TOTAL ADMISSIONS AVERAGE ADP

10. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 10 Juvenile Arrests Declined in Texas but Decline Also Occurred in Other States JUVENILE ARREST RATE (PER 100,000 POPULATION) 2000-2012 FOR TEXAS, FLORIDA, AND CALIFORNIA Source for juvenile population: www.ojjdp.gov, Easy Access to Juvenile Populations: 1990-2013

11. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 11 Per Capita Funding for Juvenile Probation Increased Significantly After Reform FY2005 FY2012 % Change Percent of local juvenile probation department expenditures contributed by county Per capita expenditures for local juvenile probation departments $3,555 $7,02398% 77% 71% -8% Expenditures adjusted for inflation – to 2014 dollars $4,337 $7,30468%

12. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 12 Rearrest Rates for Youth Involved with the Juvenile Justice System Are High

13. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 13 Youth on Probation Less Likely to be Rearrested than Similar Youth Released from State Secure Facilities One Year Probability of Rearrest First Recidivism Offense a Felony YOUTH RELEASED FROM STATE-RUN SECURE FACILITIES 41% YOUTH SUPERVISED IN THE COMMUNITY 49% 34% 17% Youth released from state- run secure facilities were 21% more likely to rearrested Youth released from state- run secure facilities were 3x more likely to commit a felony when recidivating

14. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 14 Rearrest Rates were Comparable Regardless of the Intervention and Did Not Improve After Reform PRE-REFORM STUDY GROUP One Year Probability of Rearrest Treatment Program State Incarceration 41% Skill-Based Program Surveillance Program Secure County Placement Non-Secure County Placement No Intervention 29% 28% 31% 33% 35% 33% POST-REFORM STUDY GROUP One Year Probability of Rearrest 41% 27% 30% 29% 34% 35% 32%

15. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 15 Juvenile Probation Departments in Study Selection included analysis of expected and actual rearrest rates for incarceration eligible youth Selection also considered size and geographical representation

16. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 16 Actual vs. Expected Recidivism Rates Differed Significantly Across Counties 28% 32% 40% 30% EXPECTED REARREST RATE Victoria Tarrant 36% Travis 37% ACTUAL REARREST RATE 46% 44% HIGHER Harris 37% Lubbock 33% 39% 33% AS EXPECTED El Paso Cameron 34% Dallas 31% 28% 27% LOWER *Array of county and population level variables did not account for variations in outcomes—adherence to “what works” had strongest observable effect

17. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 17 4%77% 35%91% Significant Percentage of Low Risk Youth under Supervision Placed in Programs % of Low-Risk Youth on Supervision* in Programs Victoria Tarrant 44% Travis 71% Low-Risk Youth on Supervision* in Programs % High Need 11% 22% Harris 80% Lubbock 43% 4% 19% El Paso Cameron 40% Dallas 55% 20% 18% Risk level as calculated by CSG Justice Center * Supervision includes youth on deferred prosecution and probation supervision

18. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 18 133 136 69 125 Low Risk Youth in Most Locations Stayed Longer in Programs Than High Risk Youth LOW RISK YOUTH Victoria Tarrant 105 Travis 115 77 112 Harris 75 Lubbock 118 104 167 El Paso Cameron 193 Dallas 124 135 94 HIGH-RISK YOUTH Risk level as calculated by CSG Justice Center * Supervision includes youth on deferred prosecution and probation supervision MEDIAN LENGTH OF STAY IN DAYS IN A PROGRAM BY RISK LEVEL

19. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 19 0%** 0%* Few Youth With Substance Abuse Issues Participate in Treatment Program PERCENT OF THESE YOUTH IN SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT OR INTERVENTION PROGRAM Victoria Tarrant 2%* Travis 27% Harris 12% Lubbock 32% El Paso Cameron 25% Dallas 23% * Department did not serve any youth in this program type is FY2012. ** No youth were identified as having a substance use treatment needs at referral. 518 0 659 497 3,731 131 287 1,835 NUMBER OF YOUTH AT REFERRAL IDENTIFIED AS HAVING A SUBTANCE ABUSE NEED FY 2012

20. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 20 Key Takeaway Points 1. Texas has reduced the number of youth incarcerated in its state-run secure facilities without compromising public safety 3. The closure of eight state-run secure facilities between 2007-2012 has generated hundreds of millions of dollars in savings, some of which was directed toward community supervision 4. Increase in state funding for juvenile probation equated to a 68% increase in per capita expenditures between 2005-2012 2. Youth supervised “closer to home” have statistically significantly lower rearrest rates than similar youth released from state-run secure facilities o o o

21. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 21 Key Takeaways Points (continued) 5. Texas is not realizing the full potential of its investment in community based supervision and services as recidivism did not improve after the reforms 6. The Juvenile Justice Department has NOT implemented legislative mandates to consider the performance of probation departments against “performance targets” prior to the award of grant funding or to develop performance measures for community programs and evaluate youth outcomes and program effectiveness o

22. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 22 Report Released January 29, 2015 at Supreme Court

23. Council of State Governments Justice Center | 23 Texas Study Report Has Sparked Statewide Reforms Based on Core Principles Closer to Home reform bill, SB 1630: TJJD required to adopt regionalization plan to keep youth closer to home in lieu of secure placement Regions eligible for funding for evidence-based, intensive in-home services, according to performance standards established by TJJD Redirection of staff and funding to create new division responsible for administering plan and monitoring program quality and accountability Reform bill: Hold fewer juvenile offenders in state lockups Justice agency officials support measure to move up to 80 percent of juveniles out of state lockups Houston Chronicle, March 13, 2015