48
short R AMSEY C OUNTY: D EEP E ND S YSTEM A SSESSMENT

short E S - Ramsey County

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    3

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: short E S - Ramsey County

short title

goes here

RAMSEY COUNTY:

DEEP END SYSTEM

ASSESSMENT

Page 2: short E S - Ramsey County

Thank You

2

• This report would not have been possible without extraordinary analysis, sleuthing, input, coordination, and support from Ramsey County practitioners, advocates, families, and young people.

• Thank you for sharing your time and your knowledge with us, and thank you for everything you have done to identify opportunities to strengthen your juvenile justice system and achieve better outcomes for young people, families, and communities.

• Special thanks are due to the County Board of Commissioners and the juvenile bench, especially Judge Robert Awsumb, Judge Jeffrey Bryan, and Judge Patrick Diamond. We are also extremely grateful for invaluable contributions by Culture Brokers LLC and by Leah Bower, Melinda Donaway, Michelle Finstad, Judith Franklin, Craig Hagensick, Tama Hall, Ed Hauck, Amanda Jameson, John Klavins, Ryan O’Connor, Brian Portzen, Kate Richtman, and Jennifer Shuster-Jaeger.

Page 3: short E S - Ramsey County

3

Through JDAI, Ramsey has used a data-driven, collaborative approach –with strong community partnerships –to reduce juvenile confinement at the front end of the system. As a result, detention admissions have dropped by more than 70%.

Ramsey is now embarking on the next step: applying JDAI principles from the “front end” to reduce confinement at disposition – the “deep end” of the system.

JDAI Foundations

3

Page 4: short E S - Ramsey County

Before we go any further, what do we mean by “Deep End”?

4

A youth is in a Deep End placement if he or she is:

1) Placed out-of-home in a facility, including a group home

2) As the result of a delinquency adjudication

3) Pursuant to a court order related to the delinquency case.

In Ramsey, this includes at least 35 placement facilities, including Red Wing, Boys Totem Town, 22 other facilities in Minnesota, and 11 additional institutions in Iowa, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Arizona.

Page 5: short E S - Ramsey County

Like JDAI, the Deep End work is a journey

5

Page 6: short E S - Ramsey County

Before starting a new journey, need to know two things….

To safely and significantly reduce placements, especially for youth of color

6

Page 7: short E S - Ramsey County

Confirming a shared destination

2014Ramsey County applies to join the Deep End network. AECF defers selection due to significant leadership transitions underway and on the horizon, but ultimately accepts Ramsey as one of seven new sites.

2015 Teams from Ramsey attend two Deep End intersite launch meetings: a Data Workshop in June and a Kick-Off in August. Significant leadership changes continue in Ramsey.

2016Leadership changes continue through November. Toward the end of the year, Ramsey sends a team to the Deep End Conference, withdraws from the joint facility planning process with Hennepin County, and makes significant progress on the data analysis underlying this report.

2017AECF assessment team visits Ramsey County for system-mapping meeting, interviews, PO focus group, and courtroom observation. Ramsey County contracts with Culture Brokers to conduct focus groups with youth and families. System Assessment presentation.

7

Page 8: short E S - Ramsey County

Because each site’s starting point is different, the Deep End work begins with a system assessment that relies on three sources of information

8

2. Interviews, Policy Review, & Observation

Three essential sources of information:

1) What do the data say?

2) What do system stakeholders say?

3) What do young people and families say?

Page 9: short E S - Ramsey County

Our assessment revealed striking and pervasive racial disparities throughout the system. In talking about these disparities,

we have tried to balance candor with sensitivity.

9

Page 10: short E S - Ramsey County

10

2 4 7 7 8 10 11 13 13 14 16

PLACEMENT RATES IN DEEP END SITES (2016)

This graph shows the number of placements for every 10,000 young people (under 18) in the jurisdiction’s overall population in 2016 (unless otherwise noted).

The Deep End sites vary in their reliance on out-of-home placement.

Page 11: short E S - Ramsey County

5.8 7.112.3

17.2 18.1 19.4

31.8

48.9

1.4 2.70.0 1.7 4.2 4.0 3.4 5.2

Pierce Summit St. Louis Lucas Marion Franklin Camden(2014)

Ramsey

PLACEMENTS PER 10,000 JUVENILE POPULATION (2016) –AFRICAN AMERICAN V. WHITE YOUTH

African American

White

Population-based placement rates: African American v. White.

11

Page 12: short E S - Ramsey County

Placement

Delinquency

The Deep End Highway

Placement Recommendation

Staffing Process to design home-based dispositionEXIT 9

Prosecutor declines to file

Young person lives in a neighborhood that isn’t heavily policed, attends a school without SROs, etc.

Police warningPolice diversion

Prosecutor refers to diversion

EXIT 1

EXIT 2EXIT 3

EXIT 4EXIT 5

Dismissed EXIT 6

Continue without Adjudication

EXIT 7EXIT 8

Adjudicated Petty

Formal filing

Adjudication

Probation

Supervised Probation

EXIT 10

Probation with program participation

EXIT 11

Administrative Probation

Intensive Probation

EXIT 12EXIT 13

Revocation

Ejection

Revocation

12

Page 13: short E S - Ramsey County

In most juvenile justice systems, delinquency cases can be diverted from formal handling at 3 decision-points: arrest, charging, and guilt.

Not examined in this assessment:presents huge equity opportunity going forward.

Generally underutilized, disproportionately used for white youth, and eligibility unclear. Another

huge opportunity going forward.

Unclear. Court data shows that 50% of filings exit before disposition (consistent with national

average for court diversion), but stakeholders struggled to describe the process.

Before Arrest (Exits 2 & 3)Decision made by Law Enforcement

After Arrest/Before Filing (Exits 4 & 5)Decision made by Prosecutor

After Filing/Before Finding of Guilt(Exits 6-8)Decision made by Court

13

Page 14: short E S - Ramsey County

Racial disparities in Ramsey’s system begin well before the County Attorney’s Office.

• In 2015, African Americans accounted for 18% of the Ramsey County population, and 29% of enrollment in the St. Paul Public Schools.

• Yet, African Americans accounted for 67% of cases presented to the County Attorney’s Office.

• The Deep End assessment did not include an analysis of law enforcement diversion. Equity-informed diversion practice would be a critical step toward reducing disparities.

18%

29%67%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ramsey CountyPopulation

SPPS Population Cases Presented

RACE/ETHNICITY ASPERCENTAGE OF POPULATION (2015)

Asian African AmericanCaucasian HispanicNative American Multi-racial/Other/Unknown

14

Page 15: short E S - Ramsey County

Once a case is presented, the County Attorney’s Office reviews and decides whether to decline, divert, or charge.

15

2,1892,099

2,216

1,677 1,614 1,627

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

2013 2014 2015

DELINQUENCY TRENDS (2013-15)

Presented to CAO (CAO data)

Charged (CAO data)

CAO decisions guided 27% of cases off the

Deep End Highway in 2015.

A disproportionate number of those cases involved

white youth.

Page 16: short E S - Ramsey County

Prosecutorial discretion offers a powerful opportunity to help counter and correct disparities.

16

Diverted

Charged

Declined

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

ALL REFERRALS*

Declined

Charged

Diverted

• The most recent data availablesuggests that CAO decisionsare aggravating disparitiesinstead of mitigating them.

• Diversion has increased, but was still very low at 9% in 2015.

Diverted

Charged

Declined

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

REFERRALS – White Youth

* Not including petty offenses (e.g., truancy, tobacco).

Diverted

Charged

Declined

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

REFERRALS – African American Youth

Diversion of African

American youthincreased from

3% to 5%

Diversion of white youth

increased from11% to 17%

Page 17: short E S - Ramsey County

Of all cases charged and filed, only half continue to a disposition that could involve supervision or placement, but the processes by which the

other half exits the highway is not clear.

17

2,1892,099

2,216

1,7951,645 1,705

917815

902

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

2013 2014 2015

DELINQUENCY TRENDS (2013-15)

Presented to CAO (CAO data)

Filings (court data)

Delinquency Cases w/Dispo of Adjud. or Cont'd w/o Adjud.(Court data)

About 50% of filings exit the highway before Corrections.

The exit ramps are not clear, but it appears that the main options are adjudication as a petty offense and dismissal.

Page 18: short E S - Ramsey County

Interviews and focus groups confirmed a overall lack of knowledge and transparency around diversion.

Strengths to Build upon

• Diversion by the County Attorney’s Office (CAO) has increased since 2011.

• CAO has begun seeking feedback from youth and families.

Challenges:

• The criteria for diversion eligibility are unclear.

• Diversion is not used to counter racial disparities.

• Absence of transparency around diversion subjects those decision points to greater likelihood of biases and inequity.

Diversion offers a powerful opportunity for law enforcement,

prosecutors, and courts to help counter and correct disparities

arising from systemic inequities.

18

Page 19: short E S - Ramsey County

By expanding access to and increasing transparency around Exits 4-8, Ramsey County could build a more equitable system and improve

outcomes for young people, families, and communities.

Recommendations:

• Investigate opportunities for more diversion by law enforcement.• Clarify eligibility criteria for diversion by County Attorney’s Office and

continue to increase access to diversion.• Continue & build on CAO practice of seeking feedback from youth/families.• Establish county-level expectation of transparency at all levels of diversion.

19

Page 20: short E S - Ramsey County

Placement

Delinquency

Prosecutor declines to file

Young person lives in a neighborhood that isn’t heavily policed, attends a school without SROs, etc.

Staffing Process

Police warningPolice diversion

Prosecutor refers to diversion

EXIT 1

EXIT 2EXIT 3

EXIT 4EXIT 5

Dismissed EXIT 6

Continue without Adjudication

EXIT 7

Formal filing

Staffing Process to design home-based disposition

EXIT 8

Placement Recommendation

EXIT 9Adjudication

Adjudicated PettyProbation

20

Page 21: short E S - Ramsey County

57%36%

7%

STAFFING COMMITTEERECOMMENDATIONS

(2016)

Placement Community Hold at JDC

21

For some youth, Corrections uses a staffing process to develop recommendations to the Court. The Court nearly always accepts the

committee’s recommendation, which is usually for placement.

• Judges agree with the staffing committee’s recommendation in 94% to 97% of cases.

• Corrections has already begun to strengthen the staffing process.

• Due to ambiguities in eligibility criteria, data collection, and variation in who gets staffed (and when), this analysis should be taken as a first step.

Page 22: short E S - Ramsey County

2 4 7 7 8 10 11 13 13 14 16

PLACEMENT RATES IN DEEP END SITES (2016)

This graph shows the number of placements for every 10,000 young people (under 18) in the jurisdiction’s overall population in 2016 (unless otherwise noted).

Jurisdictions like Summit County, Ohio, are explicit that the purpose of a staffing meeting is to avoid an out-of-home placement and design an

effective, community-based option.

22

Page 23: short E S - Ramsey County

Focus groups with parents showed that there is room for improved engagement and understanding.

23

Page 24: short E S - Ramsey County

Recommendations:

• Establish clear expectation that the purpose of a pre-disposition staffing meeting is to avoid placement and develop an individualized, home-based disposition. Staffingsshould be in partnership with youth, families, and communities of color and include options for culturally-centered, community-based services.

• Clarify criteria for staffing eligibility and set clear expectations for transparency in decision-making.

• Improve data collection and CQI measures

The staffing process may be used to reduce reliance on out-of-home placements, especially for youth of color.

24

Page 25: short E S - Ramsey County

Placement Recommendation

Placement

Delinquency

Prosecutor declines to file

Young person lives in a neighborhood that isn’t heavily policed, attends a school without SROs, etc.

Probation Exits

Police warningPolice diversion

Prosecutor refers to diversion

EXIT 1

EXIT 2EXIT 3

EXIT 4EXIT 5

Dismissed EXIT 6

Continue without Adjudication

EXIT 7

Supervised Probation

EXIT 10

Revocation

Formal filing

Probation with program participation

Ejection

EXIT 11

Staffing Process to design home-based disposition

EXIT 8

Administrative Probation

EXIT 9

Intensive Probation

EXIT 12

Revocation

Adjudication

Adjudicated PettyProbation

EXIT 13

25

Page 26: short E S - Ramsey County

Traditional Probation in the US Effective Probation

Pop

ulat

ion

Default disposition: “Gotta do something”Used to “get the attention” of low risk youthLast chance for high risk youth

No low-risk youth on probationNo low-level offensesSmall caseloads

Rol

e

PO as monitor, focused on compliance & surveillanceLong lists of conditions/rulesOne-size-fits-all programsSanctions/incarceration for non-compliance

PO as coach, focused on progress & growthRelationship-based interventionIndividualized case plansProbation violations ≠ probation failure Incentives to motivate real changeNo court-ordered conditions

Fam

ilies

&

Com

mun

ity

Minimally engaged by the systemViewed as part of the problem

Partners in changing youth behaviorViewed as part of the solutionTreated as experts

Lead

ersh

ip Keep the trains runningReact to bad casesAvoid conflictTop-down management

Sets vision for organizationManage continuous improvement and changeConstant outreach to other stakeholders – both within the system and in the communityMeaningfully engages staff at every step

Probation is the last exit on the highway, so it is critical to focus on the right youth and use family and community assets

in a more intentional way.

26

Page 27: short E S - Ramsey County

One in three youth disposed to probation is low risk.

When diversion fails to steer low risk youth away from the formal system, probation departments can create Administration Probation caseloads to conserve resources.

By over-intervening with low-risk youth, systems undermine youth success.

Corrections policy directs that low-risk youth be assigned to Administrative Probation, but stakeholders were open that they regularly exceed contact standards.

The extra attention to low-risk youth is well-intended, but ultimately damaging at a youth and systems level.

Low34%

DISPOSITIONS TO PROBATION(2016) (N=569)

27

Page 28: short E S - Ramsey County

Under current practice, probation is a significant driver of placements.

Fewer young people are being disposed to probation….

48%31% 44%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2014 2015 2016

PLACEMENTS ARISING FROM VOPS ASSHARE OF ALL PLACEMENTS (2014-16)

Placements from VOPs Other Placements

n=253

n=198

n=236

…but technical violations still account for 44% of placements.

732 719569

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2014 2015 2016

DISPOSITIONS TO PROBATION(2014-16)

28

Page 29: short E S - Ramsey County

Most placements arising out of VOPs involve African American youth, but the # and % share are trending in the right direction.

69%n=83 60%

n=4458%n=51

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2014 2015 2016

PLACEMENTS FROM VOPS, BY RACE (2014-16)

African American All Other

29

Page 30: short E S - Ramsey County

[In Saint Paul] I got a great case worker – with heart.

She disappeared and I got another worker who wanted

me in jail.

Focus groups with youth showed that the quality of the relationship between the youth and PO matters.

30

Page 31: short E S - Ramsey County

Conflicting Expectations of Probation

• Monitoring youth vs. facilitating a process of behavior change

• Intermediate success or failure vs. long-term success or failure

• Are POs seen as part of the intervention or purveyors of services?

Barriers to Meeting Expectations

• Uneven implementation of best practices

• Heavy workloads

• Too much time spent on low risk youth or administrative caseloads

Unintended Consequences of

Reform

• Low PO morale due to heavy workloads and feelings of distrust from other system stakeholders

• Some stakeholders do not buy into reform philosophy

Challenges of Probation

Strong and supportive leadership in probation can help overcome systemic challenges that are making it difficult for Ramsey County probation officers

to build essential relationships with young people and their families.

31

Page 32: short E S - Ramsey County

Recommendations:

• Reconvene purpose of probation conversation to build a collaborative understanding of juvenile probation as an intervention focused on building positive community connections and promoting long-term behavioral change.

• Revisit and enforce policies and procedures around Administrative Probation to steer low-risk youth to that caseload and conserve resources for the youth who need them.

• Provide the training and support necessary for probation officers to engage in individualized, family-engaged case planning.

• Streamline standard probation order to remove laundry list of conditions.

• Dramatically reduce placements due to technical violations.

• Be intentional about collaborative leadership.

Probation leadership can make or break a reform effort. Leadership in Ramsey is more than up to the challenge.

32

Page 33: short E S - Ramsey County

Placement

Delinquency

Prosecutor declines to file

Young person lives in a neighborhood that isn’t heavily policed, attends a school without SROs, etc.

Who Stays on the Highway?

Police warningPolice diversion

Prosecutor refers to diversion

EXIT 1

EXIT 2EXIT 3

EXIT 4EXIT 5

Dismissed EXIT 6

Continue without Adjudication

EXIT 7

Supervised Probation

EXIT 10

Revocation

Formal filing

Probation with program participation

Ejection

EXIT 11

Staffing Process to design home-based disposition

EXIT 8

Placement RecommendationAdministrative Probation

EXIT 9

Intensive Probation

EXIT 12

Revocation

Adjudication

Adjudicated PettyProbation

EXIT 13

33

Page 34: short E S - Ramsey County

Remember that technical violations accounted for 31% of all placements in 2015 and 44% of all

placements in 2016.

Looking at the likelihood that groups with varying traits will

be placed

Looking at the characteristics of young people in

placement

The following slides are based on a Corrections dataset of youth who were open/served by Ramsey County Juvenile Probation in 2015 on a

misdemeanor level or higher.

We can look at placements from two angles….

34

Page 35: short E S - Ramsey County

Risk and offense are considered relevant to placement.

2%

21%

59%

% OF CASES RESULTING INPLACEMENT,

BY YLS RISK LEVEL (2015)

Low Moderate High

11% 48%

Misdemeanor Felony

% OF CASES RESULTING IN PLACEMENT, BY MOST SERIOUS OFFENSE CATEGORY

IN 2015

35

14%34%

Non-Violent Violent

% OF CASES RESULTING IN PLACEMENT, BY MOST SERIOUS OFFENSE TYPE IN

2015

Page 36: short E S - Ramsey County

Because risk assessment operates in a racialized context, risk is not race-neutral.

36

16%(n=32)

30%(n=162)

White African American

% OF ASSESSED YOUTH LABELLED HIGHRISK, BY RACE (2015)

50%(n=16)

64%(n=104)

White African American

% OF HIGH RISK YOUTH PLACED, BY RACE (2015)

Reducing the placement rate for African American youth would have a dramatic impact on the overall rate

Once labeled high risk, African

American youth are more likely to

be placed

African American youth are twice as likely to be labeled

high risk

36

Page 37: short E S - Ramsey County

African American youth assessed as moderate risk are twice as likely to be placed out-of-home than their white counterparts.

24% (n=51) 12% (n=9)

76%88%

African American White

% OF MODERATE RISK YOUTH PLACED, BY RACE (2015)

37

Among moderate risk youth, about

1 in 10 white youth are placed, compared to nearly 1 in 4 African

American youth.

37

Page 38: short E S - Ramsey County

Racial disparities are also apparent within offenses types (e.g., violent v. non-violent).

38

For white youth, the placement rate is fairly low, regardless of whether the offense is categorized as “violent” or “non-violent”.

For white youth, the “violent” label increases the odds of placement very slightly, from 12% to 18%.

For African American youth, however, the “violent” label has a dramatic impact – nearly tripling the odds of placement, from 14% to 43%.

18%

12%

43%

14%

27%

16%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Violent Non-Violent

Perc

ent o

f You

th P

lace

d

White (n=196)African American (n=544)Other YOC (n=170)

Page 39: short E S - Ramsey County

A dispositional matrix would allow stakeholders to develop a collaborative, data-driven, and transparent vision to help target limited resources and

illuminate disparities.

Very High High Moderate Low

Violent Felony

Non-Violent Felony

GrossMisd

Misd

39

Page 40: short E S - Ramsey County

A dispositional matrix could help even out the likelihood of placement for moderate and high risk youth across racial groups. It can also help make the penalty for a

“violent” offense more consistent across groups.

• Develops standards for placement of moderate-and high-risk youth

• Clarifies standards for placement of youth adjudicated on violent offenses

Development

• Removes ambiguity in decision making

• Reduces discretion that opens the door for implicit bias

Practice • Collects data on recommendations and actual decisions made

• Helps to answers questions about racial imbalances in placement decisions

Ongoing Monitoring

Matrices are powerful through the development process, in practice, and at the system level.

40

Page 41: short E S - Ramsey County

69%

16%

12%

PERCENT OF YOUTH PLACED OUT-OF-HOME BY RACE/ETHNICITY (2015)

DISTRIBUTION OF YOUTH IN PLACEMENT BYRACE/ETHNICITY (2015)

Youth of color are placed out of home at over double the rates of their white counterparts. African American youth account for 69% of

placements, but are only 20% of Ramsey County’s population under 18.

31%

40%36%

15% of adjudicated white youth were placed out of home

in 2015

41

Page 42: short E S - Ramsey County

Disproportionality by Decision Point

18%29%

67% 69%57% 69%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Population SPPS CasesPresented

Cases Filed Dispositions toProbation

Placements

% AFRICAN AMERICAN, BY DECISION POINT (2015)

African American Other

42

Page 43: short E S - Ramsey County

5.8 7.112.3

17.2 18.1 19.4

31.8

48.9

1.4 2.70.0 1.7 4.2 4.0 3.4 5.2

Pierce Summit St. Louis Lucas Marion Franklin Camden(2014)

Ramsey

African American

White

PLACEMENTS PER 10,000 JUVENILE POPULATION (2016) –AFRICAN AMERICAN V. WHITE YOUTH

Population-based placement rates: African American v. White.

43

Page 44: short E S - Ramsey County

Summary of Recommendations

Related Exits High-Level Recommendations

Exits 2-8 Diversion: Explore opportunities to counter disparities, expand access to all diversion exits, clarify eligibility for each, increase transparency

Exit 9Staffing: Establish that the purpose of a staffing committee meeting is to avoid placement and develop individualized, home-based dispositions, clarify eligibility for/timing of staffing, meaningfully engage young people and families

Exits 10-13 Leadership: Set tone for strong collaborative leadership between probation and the judiciary by jointly hosting an inclusive conversation about the purpose of probation

Exits 10-12Low-Risk Youth on Probation: Revisit, revise, and adhere to Administrative Probation policies establishing default assumption that all low risk youth disposed to probation will be assigned to the administrative caseload

Exits 11-13 Case-Planning: Implement family-engaged case-planning, beginning with training for supervisors and officers

Exits 10-13Technical Violations: Narrow the on-ramps from probation back to the highway by streamlining the standard probation order and establishing probation policies to restrict placements due to technical violations

Exits 7-13 Dispositional Matrix: Develop a collaborative, data-driven, Ramsey-specific dispositional matrix 44

Page 45: short E S - Ramsey County

Questions?

45

Contact Information

Michael BeltonDeep End Team LeaderConsultant, Annie E. Casey [email protected]

Danielle Lipow Manager - Deep End InitiativeSenior Associate, Juvenile Justice Strategy GroupAnnie E. Casey [email protected]

Steve BishopManager – Probation TransformationSenior Associate, Juvenile Justice Strategy GroupAnnie E. Casey [email protected]

Erin ManskeConsultant, Annie E. Casey Foundation & Big Picture Research and [email protected]

Page 46: short E S - Ramsey County

APPENDIX

46

Page 47: short E S - Ramsey County

System Assessment Methodology – Parts I & II

• Analysis of dispositions for all youth who were under Corrections supervision at some point in 2015, with information on:

• Demographics• Offense severity• Dispositional risk levels• Risk domains • OOHP y/n

• Multiple years of aggregate data on diversion decisions, adjudications, probation, and placements

• Deep End Performance Measure data for 2014-2016

I. WHAT DID WE LEARN FROM THE DATA?

II. WHAT DID WE LEARN FROM YOUTH AND FAMILIES?

• Contracted with Culture Brokers LLC to conduct focus groups with young people and families

47

Page 48: short E S - Ramsey County

System Assessment Methodology – Part III

• Interviewed 27 juvenile justice stakeholders including:

• Probation Administration• Probation Supervisors• Law Enforcement• Prosecution• Juvenile Defense• Judiciary• Court Administration• Child welfare/social services• State Juvenile Corrections• Residential Providers• Community Providers• Schools• County Officials

• Interviews supplemented by:• Focus group with probation officers • Observation of court • Observation of staffing• Walk-Through of Boys Totem Town

III. WHAT DID WE LEARN FROM SYSTEM STAKEHOLDERS?

48