Stage of Process: (WHEN) - lsa.state.al.uslsa.state.al.us/PDF/Other/JJTF/JJTF-8.16.17-Presentation.pdfPresentation 1 Disposition, Supervision and Custody ... – JPOs report divergent

ALABAMA JUVENILE JUSTICE

TASK FORCE

Agenda

• Introduction (Chairs)

• Our Charge (Chairs)

• Timeline & Process (Chairs)

• System Assessment & Drivers Part 2 (Pew)

• Discussion and Next Steps (Chairs)

Our Charge“The task force is hereby authorized and directed to study,

evaluate, and analyze, a comprehensive review of the state's

juvenile justice system and, using a data-driven approach,

develop evidence-based policy recommendations for legislative

consideration that will accomplish the following:

• Protect public safety;

• Hold juvenile offenders accountable;

• Contain costs;

• Improve outcomes for youth, families, and communities

in Alabama.”

Timeline and Process

Stakeholder

Engagement

June-August

• Data Analysis

• System Assessment

September

• Research Review

• Data Follow-Up

• Policy Development

• Subgroups

October

• Subgroups

• Policy Development

• Policy Consensus

November• Policy Consensus

• Final Report

Stakeholder Roundtables

Completed

Roundtables

Detention

directors

June

15

Juvenile

judgesJuly 10

Diversion

program

providers

July 12

County

commissionersJuly 17

Completed

Roundtables

Youth in

facilities

July

21

Probation

officers

July

25, 27,

Aug. 8

Defense

counsel

July

25, 26

DYS

contracted

providers

July

26

Upcoming

Roundtables

Youth and

families

Aug. 17,

21

DYS youth Aug. 22

Sheriffs Aug. 23

Mental health Aug. 21

Detention

youth and staffAug. 30

Prosecutors TBD

Crime Victims,

Survivors and

Advocates

TBD

Others to be scheduled at the request of the Task Force

Juvenile Justice Drivers Analysis

and System Assessment, Part 2

Alabama Juvenile Justice Task Force

August 16, 2017

7

Com

pla

int

Intake Adjudication Disposition

Probation

Detention

DYS Custody Aftercare

DHR Custody

Other

Presentation Scope (Parts 1 and 2)

Complaint to Adjudication

Presentation 1Disposition, Supervision and Custody

Presentation 2

Pre-Disposition Custody

8

Presentation 1 Overall Key Takeaways

• Decision Making

– State law requires court referral for certain school-based behaviors and

mandates prosecution of parents in certain circumstances

• Local interpretations of statute may vary and lead to disparate

responses to similar school-based behavior

– There is variation across the state in which offenses are eligible for

information adjustment and what conditions are applied

– Limited statutory criteria and local interpretation allow for inconsistent

detention practices

• There is no statewide funding stream for alternatives to detention pre-

adjudication

– JPOs report divergent eligibility criteria for consent decrees and

inconsistent practices for issuing fees

9


• Youth Flow

– Lower-level offenses account for most cases in the juvenile justice system

• The proportion of referrals coming from schools has increased,

mostly due to truancy

– Racial and gender disparities exist among complaints (in comparison to

the general population) and grow as youth get deeper into the juvenile

justice system

– There is wide variation in whether counties’ share of complaints is

consistent with their share of the youth population

– Declines in detention have not kept pace with declines in complaints, and

in some regions, detention admissions have increased

• Nearly 300 youth are in detention on a given day, roughly the same

as 2012

10


• Youth Flow

– 2/3 of complaints result in petitions, consistent with trends in 2006

• There is variation in how and to what extent counties use informal

adjustment and consent decrees

– The proportion of complaints that result in petitions varies by county

– The length of informal adjustment/lecture & releases is up 61%; 15% last

longer than 6 months

11

Presentation Sources (Part 2)

Interviews and Questionnaires

Interviews

Department of Youth Services (DYS)

Department of Human Resources (DHR)

Department of Mental Health (DMH)

Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)

Judges, Prosecutors, Defense Attorneys

Chief Probation Officers, Juvenile Probation

Officers, and Intake Officers

Department of Education

Questionnaires

182 Juvenile Probation Officer Respondents

• Response Rate: 59%

• 82% of counties represented

Documents Reviewed

State Statutes

Alabama Administrative Code

Court Rules

DYS Policies

AOC Policies

Local Probation Policies

State Board of Education Policies

School District Policies

12

Presentation Sources (Part 2)

Data and Methodology

AOC data:

Complaints, 2006-2016

Probation dispositions, 2006-2016

Youth in adult system (direct file and transfers), 2011-2016

DYS data:

DYS diversion program admissions, 2012-2016

Commitments to DYS custody, 2007-2016

Aggregate data otherwise cited:

OJJDP data on Alabama youth population from 2015 –

Puzzanchera, C., Sladky, A. and Kang, W. (2016)

13

Data Follow-Up

14

Petitioning of Complaints

Data Follow Up

15

High proportion of complaints are petitioned, trend holds for

first-time complaints

Total Complaints, 2016

% Complaints Petitioned

Total First-Time Complaints, 2016

% First-Time Complaints Petitioned

Felony 5,193 85% 1,564 71%

Misdemeanor 8,310 76% 2,747 60%

CHINS 10,050 37% 5,292 27%

Total 23,553 61% 9,603 44%

Proportion of Complaints Petitioned by Offense Level, 2016

16

High proportion of complaints are petitioned, trend holds for

first-time complaints

Total Complaints, 2016


Total First-Time Complaints, 2016

% First-Time Complaints Petitioned

Felony 5,193 85% 1,564 71%

Misdemeanor 8,310 76% 2,747 60%

CHINS 10,050 37% 5,292 27%

Total 23,553 61% 9,603 44%

Proportion of Complaints Petitioned by Offense Level, 2016

17

Little variation across counties in proportion of all felonies

that are petitioned, but more variation for first timers

Top 10 Counties for Felony Complaints,

2016

Total Felony Complaints

% FelonyComplaints Petitioned

Total First-Time Felony

Complaints

% First-Time Felonies

Petitioned

Madison 504 65% 134 39%

Mobile 503 75% 173 53%

Jefferson 423 78% 152 59%

Montgomery 411 87% 89 63%

Baldwin 306 87% 102 70%

Houston 244 63% 83 25%

Tuscaloosa 187 81% 54 57%

Morgan 129 92% 35 89%

Autauga 108 94% 30 83%

Escambia 106 99% 16 100%

Statewide 5,176 85% 1,558 71%

Proportion of Felony Complaints Petitioned, 2016

18

Little variation across counties in proportion of all felonies

that are petitioned, but more variation for first timers

Top 10 Counties for Felony Complaints,

2016

Total Felony Complaints

% FelonyComplaints Petitioned

Total First-Time Felony

Complaints

% First-Time Felonies

Petitioned

Madison 504 65% 134 39%

Mobile 503 75% 173 53%

Jefferson 423 78% 152 59%


Baldwin 306 87% 102 70%

Houston 244 63% 83 25%

Tuscaloosa 187 81% 54 57%

Morgan 129 92% 35 89%

Autauga 108 94% 30 83%

Escambia 106 99% 16 100%

Statewide 5,176 85% 1,558 71%

Proportion of Felony Complaints Petitioned, 2016

19

Variation across counties in proportion of misdemeanors that

are petitioned, and variation holds for first timers

Top 10 Counties for Misdemeanor

Complaints, 2016

Total Misdemeanor

Complaints

% Misdemeanor Complaints Petitioned

Total First-Time Misdemeanor

Complaints

% First-Time Misdemeanors

Petitioned

Mobile 905 69% 289 48%

Madison 655 33% 236 11%

Jefferson 550 59% 205 32%

Montgomery 541 83% 172 65%

Baldwin 484 75% 169 49%

Calhoun 367 58% 157 37%

Tuscaloosa 347 55% 102 29%

Houston 300 57% 94 28%

Shelby 244 89% 96 82%

Morgan 231 93% 57 89%

Statewide 8,303 76% 2,742 60%

Proportion of Misdemeanor Complaints Petitioned, 2016

20

Variation across counties in proportion of misdemeanors that

are petitioned, and variation holds for first timers

Top 10 Counties for Misdemeanor

Complaints, 2016

Total Misdemeanor

Complaints

% Misdemeanor Complaints Petitioned

Total First-Time Misdemeanor

Complaints

% First-Time Misdemeanors

Petitioned

Mobile 905 69% 289 48%

Madison 655 33% 236 11%

Jefferson 550 59% 205 32%

Montgomery 541 83% 172 65%

Baldwin 484 75% 169 49%

Calhoun 367 58% 157 37%

Tuscaloosa 347 55% 102 29%

Houston 300 57% 94 28%

Shelby 244 89% 96 82%

Morgan 231 93% 57 89%

Statewide 8,303 76% 2,742 60%

Proportion of Misdemeanor Complaints Petitioned, 2016

21

Variation across counties in proportion of CHINS that are

petitioned, and variation holds for first timers

Top 10 Counties for CHINS Complaints,

2016

Total CHINS Complaints


Total First-Time CHINS

Complaints

% First-Time CHINS

Petitioned

Jefferson 1,078 5% 815 3%

Cullman 785 1% 379 1%

Morgan 733 37% 295 24%

Talladega 645 20% 451 3%

Coffee 562 3% 234 1%

Marshall 469 32% 195 15%


Mobile 367 95% 186 97%

Shelby 324 27% 191 20%

Madison 302 19% 56 20%

Statewide 10,047 37% 5,290 27%

Proportion of CHINS Complaints Petitioned, 2016

22

Variation across counties in proportion of CHINS that are

petitioned, and variation holds for first timers

Top 10 Counties for CHINS Complaints,

2016

Total CHINS Complaints


Total First-Time CHINS

Complaints

% First-Time CHINS

Petitioned

Jefferson 1,078 5% 815 3%

Cullman 785 1% 379 1%

Morgan 733 37% 295 24%

Talladega 645 20% 451 3%

Coffee 562 3% 234 1%

Marshall 469 32% 195 15%


Mobile 367 95% 186 97%

Shelby 324 27% 191 20%

Madison 302 19% 56 20%

Statewide 10,047 37% 5,290 27%

Proportion of CHINS Complaints Petitioned, 2016

23

Re-Offending: Petitions and Informal Adjustments

Data Follow Up

24

Youth who are petitioned on the first complaint have higher

rates of reoffending than youth who get informal adjustment

on their first complaint

26% 26% 25% 24%

17% 18% 18%16%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

2012 2013 2014 2015

% w

ith

Su

bse

qu

ent

Co

mp

lain

t

Proportion of Youth Who Have a Subsequent Complaint Within 1 Year, First Complaint 2012-2015

First Complaint Was Petitioned

First Complaint Received Informal Adjustment or Lecture & Release

25

Variation in outcomes for first time petitions vs. informal

adjustments holds for misdemeanor and CHINS offenses

25%23%

17% 16%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

First Complaint Was Misdemeanor First Complaint Was CHINS

% w

ith

Su

bse

qu

ent

Co

mp

lain

t

Proportion of Youth Who Have a Subsequent Complaint Within 1 Year, First Complaint 2015

First Complaint Was Petitioned

First Complaint Received Informal Adjustment or Lecture & Release

26

Adult Transfer and Direct File

Data Follow Up

27

16% decline in charges filed in the adult system since 2011

1,428

1,198

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Transfers and Direct File Charges, 2011-2016

28

9 in 10 charges in adult system are directly filed without

judicial review

19% 23%14% 17%

8% 9%

81% 77%86% 83%

92% 91%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011(N=1,428)

2012(N=1,329)

2013(N=1,380)

2014(N=1,143)

2015(N=1,167)

2016(N=1,198)

Transfers vs. Direct File Charges, 2011-2016

Transfers in Adult System Direct File in Adult System

29

Across direct file and transfers to adult court, Robbery 1st

most common offense leading youth into the adult system

Offense Count% All Direct File and

Transfer Charges

1 Robbery 1st Degree 372 31%

2 Burglary 1st Degree 76 6%

3 Discharge of Gun in Buidling/Vehicle 42 4%

4 Murder 42 4%

5 Assault 2nd 41 3%

6 Breaking and Entering a Vehicle 53 4%

7 Sodomy 1st Degree 36 3%

8 Theft of Property 2nd Degree 36 3%

9 Assault 1st Degree 36 3%

10 Theft of Property 1st Degree 38 3%

Statewide Total 1,198

Top 10 Charges for Youth in Adult System, 2016

30

29% of charges transferred to adult court are for

misdemeanor offenses

Misdemeanor Charges Transferred to Adult Court, 2016

Offense % All Transfers

1 Criminal Mischief 3rd 8%

2 Theft of Property 4th 5%

3 Possession of Marijuana 2nd 5%

4 Disorderly Conduct 4%

5 Harassment 2%

6 Reckless Endangerment 2%

7 Assault 3rd 1%

8 Criminal Trespass 2nd 1%

9 False Reporting to Law Enforcement 1%

10 Resisting Arrest 1%

% Misdemeanor Transfers 29%

Statewide Total 111

31

Adding direct file charges to overall complaints does not

magnify variation by county

County% Youth

Population(2015)

% All Complaints

(2016)

% All Complaints+ Direct File

(2016)

1 Mobile 9% 9% 9%

2 Jefferson 13% 8% 9%

3 Madison 7% 6% 6%

4 Montgomery 5% 6% 6%

5 Baldwin 4% 5% 5%

6 Morgan 3% 4% 4%

7 Cullman 2% 4% 3%

8 Talladega 2% 3% 3%

9 Houston 2% 3% 3%

10 Tuscaloosa 4% 3% 3%

Statewide Total 504,235 27,925 29,012

Total Complaints in Juvenile and Adult System Among Top 10 Counties for Juvenile Complaints, 2016

32

Adding direct file charges to overall complaints does not

magnify variation by county

County% Youth

Population(2015)

% All Complaints

(2016)

% All Complaints+ Direct File

(2016)

1 Mobile 9% 9% 9%


3 Madison 7% 6% 6%


5 Baldwin 4% 5% 5%

6 Morgan 3% 4% 4%

7 Cullman 2% 4% 3%


9 Houston 2% 3% 3%


Statewide Total 504,235 27,925 29,012

Total Complaints in Juvenile and Adult System Among Top 10 Counties for Juvenile Complaints, 2016

33

Data Follow Up Key Takeaways

• Youth Flow

– Across the state, 44% of youth charged with an offense for the first time

have their cases petitioned in court, including 60% of youth charged with

misdemeanors

• Counties vary widely in their proportion of first-time complaints that are

petitioned

– Youth who are petitioned on their first complaint have higher rates of

reoffending than youth who get informal adjustment on their first complaint

• This difference holds for different offense types

– The majority of charges against youth in the adult system are directly filed

without judicial review

• 29% of transferred charges are misdemeanors

• Other?

34

Disposition

35

Dis

po

sit

ion

*

No Change in Custody

Parental Supervision

Probation Supervision

Financial OrdersFines up to $250 and restitution

Change in Custody

Place with any agency or person

DHR Custody

DYS Custody**

The court may order any dispositions for most adjudicated

youth

*No statewide validated risk and needs assessment used to inform disposition decision-making

**In most cases CHINS may not be placed in DYS custody

§ 12-15-215

The court may make any other order it deems in the best interest of the child

Child

adjudicated

and in need

of care and

rehabilitation

36

Statute does not limit the length of supervision or custody,

apart from age 21

Until age 21

* For purposes of enforcing financial orders, the court retains contempt remedies indefinitely,

including incarceration in jail.

No statutory

criteria preclude

determinate

commitments

§12-15-117; § 12-15-215; § 12-15-219

Statutory Limit

on Length

Until age 21

Until age 21

Until age 21, but shall be

extended to enforce court order*

Supervision or

Custody Type

Probation

DYS Custody

Aftercare

Court Jurisdiction

37

Statute requires imposition of specific conditions for some

youth

Mandatory Discretionary

School

notification

• Class A and B felony • Any other offense

Driver’s

license

suspension

• Possession of a pistol on

school premises

• Withdrawal from school

• Certain alcohol offenses

• DUI

• Drug trafficking

• N/A

Financial

obligations

• When custody is

transferred, parent must

pay child support

• DUI Fines

• Restitution (any offense)

• Fines up to $250

(any offense)

• Court costs (any offense)

Community

service

• N/A • Community service order

(any offense)

§ 28-3A-25,§ 13A-12-291,§ 12-15-215, § 12-15-217, § 16-28-40

38

JPO respondents report wide variation in which types of

financial obligations can be assessed against youth

Financial Obligations That Can Be Assessed

JPO Respondents (N=180)

Restitution 94%

Court costs 92%

Supervision fee 51%

Assessment to the Crime Victims’ Compensation Fund 48%

A fine as part of disposition 47%

A fee to pay for a child’s attorney 32%

A fee for a consent decree 29%

Electronic monitoring fee 28%

Drug testing fee 26%

Assessment to the Fair Trial Tax Fund 8%

Other fees 15%

39

Less than 1/4 of JPO respondents report providing a risk and

needs assessment to the court before the disposition hearing

Information Provided to Judge Prior to Disposition


A recommendation for disposition 78%

Verbal report 73%

Written social history report 34%

Pre-disposition report 34%

Results of a risk and needs assessment 22%

Other 11%

None 3%

40

Disposition Key Takeaways

• Decision Making

– For most offense types, the courts have discretion to impose any

combination of dispositions and any conditions they deem appropriate

• JPO respondents report wide variation in which types of conditions can

be imposed on youth

– The court has discretion to keep youth under its jurisdiction until they age

out of the system and for longer for repayment of financial obligations

– Disposition decision making is not informed by a risk and needs

assessment statewide

41

Probation

42

JPOs who supervise youth on probation receive little

guidance from the state to inform decision-making

Statute provides clear

guidance

§ 12-15-107

Statute does not provide

clear guidance

43

According to JPO respondents, whether they use an

individualized case plan with probation youth varies

Yes , 63%

No, 29%

For some youth, 8%

Use individualized case planJPO Respondents (N=180)

Yes No For some youth. Please explain:

44

About 2/3 of JPO respondents do not use an assessment or

written guidelines to inform meeting frequency

Determining Frequency of Meetings for Youth on Caseload


Professional judgment 72%

Offense type 56%

Court order 56%

Criminal history 54%

Placement status (at home vs. in non-

secure out-of-home community

placements vs. secure placement)

54%

Written guidelines 39%

Risk and needs assessment 30%

Other 10%

Proximity to the youth 9%

45

3/4 of JPO respondents report gaps in services; less than

half report that available services are timely

Accessing Service Gaps: Strongly Agree or Agree with Statement


I have the ability to accurately assess the needs of youth 91%

There are appropriate services to meet the needs of

youth

51%

There are enough services to meet the needs of youth 29%

There are gaps in services locally based on the

geographic location of youth and the service

77%

The services available for youth are of high quality 54%

The services available for youth are timely (not long wait

lists)

40%

46

Lack of statewide standards and access to services leads to

regional variation in supervision practices for probation youth

Pickens County

May not leave county

No cell phone

8pm curfew

Must maintain C average

May not possess alcohol or tobacco

May not be in the presence of alcohol or tobacco

No association with anyone with a court record

Shelby County

May not leave state

Maintain passing grades

No victim contact

No possession of drugs or alcohol

No association with any other probationers

Montgomery County

May not leave county

No association with “known law violators”

47

Fewer than half of JPO respondents report using written

guidelines, court rules, and/or statute to guide sanction

decisions for violations

Factors Guiding Sanction Decisions for Violations


Professional judgement 87%

Court order 63%

Supervisor 50%

Written guidelines 46%

Court rules 46%

Conferencing with others who know the youth 41%

Judge’s input 33%

District Attorney’s input 30%

Statute 28%

Other 10%

48

2/3 of JPO respondents may sanction youth for technical

violations of probation without returning to court

Yes66%

No 16%

It depends18%

Able to Sanction Without Returning to Court JPO Respondents (N=180)

49

Probation violation alleged

Youth may be placed in detention

Revocationpetition

Any further disposition, including

out-of-home placement

Where the court is involved in sanctioning technical

violations, it may order any disposition, including extending

probation, adding conditions, and placing out of home

JPO may

respond formally

or informally

(unless court

order requires

formal response)

72 hours per 6

month period if

status offender

No DYS

placement on

VCO violation if

status offender

If filed, VOP is

a new charge

Code of Ala. § 12-15-132

50

JPO respondents reported wide variation in removal of youth

from home as a sanction for technical violations of probation

Types of Sanctions


Family meeting with probation 91%

Increased frequency of contacts 89%

Drug testing 88%

Earlier curfew 83%

Substance abuse treatment (alcohol or drugs) 79%

Community service 70%

Request a pick up order to detain a youth 54%

Diversion program 54%

Electronic monitoring/house arrest 51%

Secure custody 42%

Non-secure out-of-home placement 38%

Essay writing 37%

Other 6%

51

Half of JPO respondents who are able to detain youth as a

sanction report doing so without returning to court

Yes34%

No49%

It depends17%

Able to Detain Without Returning to Court JPO Respondents Who Detain Youth As Sanction

(N=97)

52

More than 3/4 of JPO respondents say probation-imposed

financial conditions must be completed before termination

Factors Leading to Successful Termination


Complete probation-imposed conditions (non-

pecuniary)

86%

Pay fines and fees in full 78%

Pay restitution in full 77%

Complete timeframe in court order 74%

Complete non-pecuniary court-ordered conditions in the

court order

67%

Complete pecuniary court-ordered conditions in the

court order

66%

Other 8%

53

Majority of JPO respondents must get approval from the

judge to successfully terminate a probation case

Who Must Sign Off on Successful Termination


I must get approval from the judge 68%

I must get approval from my supervisor 46%

No one – it is up to probation alone to decide when to close

a youth’s case18%

It depends 9%

I must get approval from the district attorney 6%

54

Probation

Data

55

51% decline in probation dispositions, matching 50%

decline in complaints

12,761

6,233

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Total Probation Dispositions

56

Offense profile for probation dispositions has remained

steady over the past decade

Felony27%

Misdemeanor42%

Traffic1%

CHINS16%

Technical Violation

14%

Probation Dispositions by Offense Level, 2006(N=12,106)

Felony26%

Misdemeanor38%

Traffic0.3%

CHINS18%

Technical Violation

18%

Probation Dispositions by Offense Level, 2016(N=5,663)

57

Only 3 out of the top 10 offenses at probation disposition

are felonies

Offense % Total Felony?

1 Violation of Probation / Delinquent 15%

2 CHINS / Truancy 10%

3 Domestic Violence - 3rd 6%

4 Unlawful Poss. of Marijuana - 2nd 5%

5 Theft of Property - 3rd 5% ✓

6 Harassment 5%


8 Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle 5% ✓

9 Burglary - 3rd 4% ✓

10 CHINS / Beyond Control 4%

Statewide 5,663

Top 10 Offenses at Probation Disposition, 2016

58

Median length of probation disposition was 18.4 months

last year, up 103% since 2009

9.0

18.4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Mo

nth

s

Median Length of Probation Dispositions2009-2016 Case Closures

59

41% of probation dispositions last longer than 2 years,

1/3 last more than 3 years

Less than 6 months

12%

6 months to 1 year21%

1 - 1.5 years16%1.5 - 2 years

9%2 - 2.5 years

6%

2.5 -3 years4%

3+ years32%

Length of Probation Disposition, 2016 Case Closures(N=7,464)

60

Younger youth stay on probation for longer than older youth

28.3

22.5

14.8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Under 14 Years Old(N=881)

14-15 Years Old(N=2,640)

16+ Years Old(N=3,913)

Mo

nth

s

Median Length of Probation Disposition by Age Group2016 Case Closures

61

Median length of probation dispositions increased for all

offense types

8.2 8.99.9

11.0

20.418.8

16.3 16.6

0

5

10

15

20

25

Felony Misdemeanor CHINS Technical Violation

Mo

nth

sMedian Length of Probation Disposition by Offense Level

2009 vs. 2016 Case Closures

2009 2016

62

Across all their probation cases, 1/3 of youth on probation

spend more than 3 years on probation before aging out

Less than 1 year26%

1 - 1.5 years17%

1.5 - 2 years10%

2 - 2.5 years7%2.5 - 3 years

5%

3 - 3.5 years5%

3.5 - 4 years3%

Longer than 4 years27%

Total Length of Probation DispositionsClosed Probation Cases Where Youth Aged Out, 2016

(N=4,032)

63

Probation Key Takeaways

• Decision Making

– A lack of statewide standards leads to wide variation in both conditions of

supervision, and how long supervision lasts

• Fewer than half of JPO respondents report using written guidelines,

court rules, and/or statute to guide technical violation sanction

decisions

• More than 3/4 of JPO respondents say financial conditions must be

completed before youth can successfully complete probation

• Fewer than one-third of JPO respondents report that there are enough

services to meet the needs of youth on probation

– When a JPO files a probation violation with the court, the court may

impose additional conditions, or may elect to place the youth out of home

• About half of JPO respondents report using out-of-home placement in

response to technical violations

64

Probation Key Takeaways

• Youth Flow

– Probation dispositions have declined 50% since 2006, consistent with the

decline in juvenile complaints

• Despite this decline, the offense profile of probation dispositions is

primarily low-level and has stayed consistent since 2006

• Only three out of the top 10 offenses at probation disposition are

felonies

– The median length of probation dispositions was more than 18 months last

year, and has more than doubled since 2009, despite the fact that the

offense profile of probationers has not grown more serious

• The median length of probation increased for all offense types and is

longest for younger youth

• 41% of probation dispositions are longer than 2 years

– More than 1/3 of youth on probation spend more than 3 years on probation

before aging out

• Other?

65

DYS Diversion

66

DYS funds targeted community-based diversion programs

for youth facing DYS custody

“…to provide funding to county juvenile courts to aid in the

development and operation of diversion programs to serve

youth that meet the legal criteria for commitment to DYS,

but the juvenile court has determined that community based

services may be a better intervention or sanction.”

DYS Diversion Goal

(2017 Diversion Grant Application)

DYS Diversion not defined in statute

67

DYS diversion programs not funded in all jurisdictions

Nonresidential

Residential

68

While DYS contracts specify some set criteria, in practice,

length, eligibility and services vary widely

Related requirement

in DYS contract?

What is the

requirement?What happens in practice?

Residential status Yes “Community-based”4 residential

25 non-residential

Length No N/A

6 weeks

up to

2 years

Provides

evidence-based

treatment

No N/A Treatment quality varies

Available to low-

risk youthYes Low-risk excluded Some admitted

Available to

CHINS/

Status offenders

Yes CHINS excluded Some admitted

Available to non-

court involved

youth

Yes

Youth without court-

involvement

excluded

Some admitted

69

Type of intervention available to youth through DYS diversion

varies considerably based on location

Robert E. Lewis Academy

Residential

6 counties served

3 months (reported avg. length)

Physical training, therapy and aftercare

Project Turnaround

Nonresidential

1 county served

6-18 months (reported avg. length)

Wrap-around services

Youth Villages

Nonresidential

2 counties served

5 months (reported avg. length)

Multi-Systemic Therapy

70

DYS Diversion

Data

71

Admissions to non-residential and out-of-home diversion

programs have increased similarly (26% and 25%)

2,445

3,085

563701

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Total DYS Diversion Admissions, Residential vs. Non-Residential

Non-residential Residential

72

Average length of diversion has converged for non-residential

and out-of-home programs, about 3 months

169.3

104.2100.1

109.4

0

50

100

150

200

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Day

s

Average Length of DYS Diversion, Non-Residential vs. Residential


73

Daily non-residential diversion population is down 19%, but

daily out-of-home diversion population is up 52%

150228

1,133

921

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

July

1 S

nap

sho

tYouth in DYS Diversion Programs, July 1 Snapshot

Residential Diversion Non Residential Diversion

74

Approximately 1 in 5 DYS diversion admissions are to

out-of-home programs

81%81% 83% 79% 81%

19% 19% 17% 21% 19%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

DYS Diversion Admissions, Non-Residential vs. Residential


75

More than half of out-of-home diversion admissions are

for CHINS and misdemeanor offenses

Felony18%

Misdemeanor

39%CHINS14%

Technical Violation

29%

Residential Diversion by Offense Level, 2016(N=701)

76

Only 2 out the top 10 offenses leading to out-of-home

diversion are felonies

Offense % Total Felony?

1 Technical Violation 28%

2 CHINS/Ungovernable 9%

3 Domestic Violence 3rd 7%


5 Harassment 4%

6 Burglary 3rd 4% ✓

7 CHINS/Truancy 3%

8 Theft of Property 3rd 3% ✓

9 Possession of Marijuana 2nd 3%

10 Criminal Mischief 3rd 2%

Statewide Total 701

Top 10 Offenses Leading to Residential Diversion, 2016

77

County variation in non-residential diversion greater than

county variation in complaints

County% Youth

Population (2015)

% All Complaints

(2016)

% All Non-Residential

Admissions (2016)


2 Etowah 2% 1% 9%


4 Madison 7% 6% 9%

5 Morgan 3% 4% 9%


7 Franklin 1% 1% 5%

8 Colbert 1% 2% 4%

9 Shelby 5% 3% 3%

10 Mobile 9% 9% 3%

Statewide 504,235 27,925 3,084

Top 10 Counties for Non-Residential Diversion, 2016

78

County% Youth

Population (2015)

% All Complaints

(2016)

% All Residential Admissions

(2016)1 Houston 2% 3% 8%

2 Mobile 9% 9% 8%

3 Baldwin 4% 5% 7%

4 Dallas 1% 1% 6%

5 Franklin 1% 1% 5%

6 Dale 1% 1% 5%

7 Calhoun 2% 2% 4%

8 Barbour 0% 1% 4%

9 St. Clair 2% 2% 4%

10 Morgan 3% 4% 3%

Statewide 504,235 27,925 700

Top 10 Counties for Residential Diversion, 2016

County variation in out-of-home diversion greater than

county variation in complaints

79

Completion rate higher for non-residential diversion than

out-of-home diversion

86%77%

14%23%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Non-residential (N=3,001) Residential (N=664)

DYS Diversion Completion - Residential vs. Non-Residential Programs, 2016 Completion

Successful Unsuccessful

80

7% of youth who start in non-residential diversion, 20% who

start in out-of-home diversion end up committed within 1 year

7%

20%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

First Diversion Nonresidential First Diversion Residential

Proportion of Youth Committed Within 1 Year of After Their First Diversion, First Diversion End Date 2015

81

DYS Diversion Key Takeaways

• Decision Making

– To divert youth from state custody, DYS provides funds for community-

based programming to some, but not all, localities

– A lack of statewide standards leads to wide variation in program length,

eligibility, services provided, and whether youth remain in their homes

• Youth Flow

– The out-of-home diversion population is up 52% since 2012, while the non-

residential diversion population is down 19%

• This is driven by increasing length of stay for out-of-home programs

– The use of out-of-home versus non-residential diversion varies widely

across counties

– More than half of out-of-home diversion admissions are for CHINS and

misdemeanor offenses, and only two out the top 10 offenses are felonies

– Youth who start in out-of-home diversion have higher rates of subsequent

DYS commitment than youth who start in non-residential diversion

• Other?

82

DYS Custody

83

Once committed to DYS Custody, DYS has discretion to

place youth in an array of residential settings

4 Group Homes

9 Residential Treatment Programs

3 Drug treatment

2 Specialized Treatment

1 High Intensity Treatment (HIT)

program

2 Secure Facilities

DYS-Contracted

Facilities

DYS-Operated

Facilities

NOTE: Facilities not required to provide evidence-based services shown to reduce reoffending

84

DYS placement determination is guided by a risk

assessment, but that risk assessment is not validated

*Placement required within 7 days unless placement would violate state

statute or occupancy standard; may be longer in practice

Court commits child to DYS

custody*

DYS determines placement

Child placed

Youth may be detained pending

placement for 7 days*

DYS requires

JPOS to conduct a

risk assessment

(not validated) to

guide placement

§ 12-15-215

85

DYS has discretion to determine length of stay for most

youth

Court commits* to

DYS

DYS placesQuarterly custody reviews

Re-staff

Higher security

Lower security

Release/

discharge

Program completion based on individual plan; no uniform criteria

*For determinate commitments, DYS discretion to release is limited

Team within

DYS conducts

86

DYS develops release plan and aftercare recommendations;

local court implements

DYS develops release

plan

Notification to court of release/

discharge*

Probation implements

aftercare plan with available services

Educationalalternatives

may be required

*60 days notice when sex offender is released, 30 days notice when

SJO is released, 10 days notice for all other releases

No statewide funding stream for aftercare-specific services

§ 15-20A-26, § 12-15-219,§ 44-1-36

87

JPOs who supervise youth on aftercare receive little

guidance from the state to inform decision-making

Aftercare Supervision

Length Indefinite up to jurisdictional age limit

Services Recommended by DYS, ordered by court

SupervisionSupervised by JPOs, frequency and type of contact

varies

Conditions No statewide parameters, vary by jurisdiction

88

For those youth placed on aftercare, violation may lead to

recommitment

DYS Custody

Discharge*

Release Aftercare

Successful Completion*

Revocation**

Supervised by JPO;

under jurisdiction of

juvenile court

DYS makes service

plan recommendations

Any youth who turns

21 in custody or others

ordered by court

*Denotes case is closed

**Statute does not distinguish probation violations from aftercare violations

89

DYS Custody

Data

90

DYS commitments are down 59% since 2007, but the decline

has leveled off since 2012

3,120

1,281

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Total DYS Commitments, 2007-2016

91

Regular commitments down 54%, HIT commitments down

68%, SJO commitments down 62% since 2007

2,099

956974

307

47 180

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Total DYS Commitments by Type, 2007-2016

Regular Commitments HIT Commitments SJOs

92

County variation in DYS commitments

County% Youth

Population(2015)

% All Complaints

(2016)

% DYSCommitments

(2016)

1 Mobile 9% 9% 9%


3 Baldwin 4% 5% 8%


5 Madison 7% 6% 5%


7 Calhoun 2% 2% 4%

8 Lee 3% 3% 3%

9 Houston 2% 3% 3%

10 Tallapoosa 1% 1% 3%

Statewide Total 504,235 27,925 1,281

Top 10 Counties for DYS Commitments, 2016

93

Nearly 2/3 of DYS commitments are for non-felonies, now

driven by a higher proportion of technical violators

43%37%

31%30%

25%33%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011 (N=1,698) 2016 (N=1,280)

DYS Commitments by Offense Level,2011 vs. 2016

Felony Misdemeanor Technical Violation

94

Mostly technical violations, property, and drug offenses

among top drivers of DYS commitment

Offense% All Offenses

(2016)Felony?

Petition to Revoke Probation 25%

Theft of Property, 1st 5% ✓

Petition to Revoke Aftercare 4%

Possession of Marijuana, 2nd 4%

Burglary, 3rd 3% ✓

Receiving Stolen Property, 1st 3% ✓

Disorderly Conduct 3%

Domestic Violence, 3rd 3%

Theft of Property, 2nd 2% ✓

Breaking and Entering into a Vehicle 2% ✓

Statewide Total 1,281

Top 10 Offenses for DYS Commitments, 2016

95

Average length of stay is 4.6 months for regular commitments,

1.1. months for HIT, 13.4 months for SJOs

4.9 4.6

1.1 1.1

12.1

13.4

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Mo

nth

sAverage Length of DYS Commitment by Type, 2009-2016 Releases

Regular Commitments HIT Commitments SJOs

96

Nearly 60% of DYS commitments were not in a DYS

diversion program prior to their first commitment

41%46%

26%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

All Commitments(N=1,281)

Regular Commitments(N=956)

HIT Commitments(N=307)

Proportion of Youth Who Were in DYS Diversion Prior to their First DYS Commitment, 2016 Commitments

97

85% of DYS commitments were not in a non-residential DYS

diversion program before commitment

15% 15% 17%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

All Commitments (N=1,281)

Regular Commitments (N=956)

HIT Commitments (N=307)

Proportion of Youth Who Were in DYS Non-Residential Diversion Prior to First DYS Commitment, 2016 Commitments

98

Daily committed out-of-home population down 33% since

2009, but daily out-of-home diversion up 52% since 2012

665

485443

150

228

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

July

1 S

nap

sho

t

Total DYS Funded Out-of-Home Placement July 1 Snapshot

DYS Committed Out of Home Placement DYS Residential Diversion

99

Out-of-home diversion now accounts for 1/3 of the DYS-

funded out-of-home population, which is up 6% since 2012

635671

24%

34%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

% To

tal DYS O

ut o

f Ho

me P

op

ulatio

nJu

ly 1

Sn

apsh

ot

Total DYS Funded Out-of-Home Placement, July 1 Snapshot

Total DYS-Funded Out of Home Population (Commitment + Diversion)

Proportion of Out of Home Population in Residential Diversion

100

Nearly 3/4 of DYS commitments are released to aftercare

69%73%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Proportion of DYS Commitments Released to Aftercare, 2009-2016 Releases

101

Gender disparities grow at each decision point in the juvenile

system and are largest for charges filed in the adult system

49%33% 27% 26% 27%

14%2% 6%

51%66% 72% 74% 73%

86%98% 94%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Gender Breakdown of Key Decision Points

Female

Male

102

Racial disparities grow at each decision point in the juvenile

system and are largest for charges filed in the adult system

61%49% 49% 49% 50%

41%34%

15%

31% 47% 49% 49% 44% 57%61%

84%

8% 3% 2% 2% 6% 2% 5% 1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Race Breakdown of Key Decision Points

White

Black

Other

103

DYS Custody Key Takeaways

• Decision Making

– DYS has discretion to place youth in an array of facilities, none of which

are required to provide evidence-based services shown to reduce

reoffending

• The risk assessment tool used by DYS to guide the placement

decision is not validated on Alabama youth

– JPOs who supervise youth on aftercare receive little guidance from the

state to inform decision making, including when to release a youth from

supervision

• Aftercare youth whose supervision is revoked by the court could be

recommitted to DYS custody or ordered to complete additional

conditions

104

DYS Custody Key Takeaways

• Youth Flow

– DYS commitments are down 59% since 2007, but the decline has leveled off

since 2012

– Nearly 2/3 of DYS commitments are for non-felonies, now driven by a higher

proportion of technical violations

– Nearly 60% of DYS commitments were not in a DYS diversion program prior to

their first commitment; 85% were not in a non-residential DYS diversion

program

– Youth in out-of-home diversion now account for 1/3 of the DYS-funded out-of-

home population

• When out-of-home diversion and commitments are combined, the overall

DYS-funded out-of-home population is up 6% since 2012

– Nearly 3/4 of DYS commitments are released to aftercare, and revocations from

aftercare are the 3rd most common reason for DYS commitment

– Of all decision points in the juvenile justice system (excluding adult transfers

and direct files), racial and gender disparities are largest for DYS commitment

• Other?

105

System Costs

106

Out-of-home diversion programs cost the state 58% more

than non-residential programs on average

*Rates reflect only dollars paid by DYS and do not include additional funds that come from

other sources such as counties, Medicaid, the Department of Education

$20,075

$31,755

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000


Average Annual Cost to DYS for DYS Diversion

107

Out-of-home placements cost the state 15 to 91 times more

than probation

$1,768 $2,278

$33,945

$80,300

$106,945

$161,694

$-

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

$160,000

$180,000

Probation (AllCounties)

Probation(Assumed Only)

DYS PrivatePlacement

(Lowest Cost)

DYS PrivatePlacement

(Highest Cost)

DYS Group Home DYS Secure

FY 2016 Annual Cost of Probation and Out-of-Home Placement Beds*

*Per Diem figures for Probation calculated from data provided by AOC, per diem figures for

DYS provided by DYS

108

Com

pla

int

Intake Adjudication Disposition

Probation

Detention*

DYS Custody Aftercare

DHR Custody

Other

State expenditures on juvenile supervision and placement

supplemented by county funding in certain areas

DYS & County DYS Funded DHR FundedAOC & County Funded

Pre-Disposition Custody*

*State does not fund home-based alternatives to detention

109

The state funds detention at a set level statewide and all

remaining costs borne by counties

$14,000 per county

served

$0.2449 per person

in each county

All remaining

costs*

Funding for Juvenile

Detention Facility

DYS pays to facility

Pro-rated based

on actual legislative

appropriation

County pays to facility

*In some jurisdictions, municipalities contribute to detention operation costs

Juvenile Detention Facility Funding Formula

110

System Costs Key Takeaways

– Out-of-home diversion programs cost the state 58% more than non-

residential programs on average

– DYS out-of-home placement for committed youth costs up to 91 times

more than probation

• DYS out-of-home placements cost as much as $161,694 per youth per

year

– The state funds detention at a set level statewide, subject to legislative

appropriation, with remaining costs borne by counties

111

Overall Key Takeaways

• Decision Making

– Statute allows the court to impose any combination of dispositions or

conditions for most youth

– Disposition decision making is not informed by a risk and needs

assessment statewide

– The court has discretion to keep youth under its jurisdiction until they age

out of the system, or for longer to repay financial obligations

– Youth may be placed out of home or have any condition added for any

violation of supervision

– DYS is not required to use evidence-based services shown to reduce

reoffending

– DYS out-of-home placement costs 15 to 91 times more than probation

112

Overall Key Takeaways

• Youth Flow

– Probation dispositions and DYS commitments have declined by more than

50% over the past decade

– Racial disparities and gender disparities are present for all decision points

and are largest for youth in the adult system

– The median length of probation has more than doubled since 2009,

despite the fact that the offense profile has not grown more serious,

• Nearly 1/3 of probation dispositions last longer than 3 years

– Probation violations are growing as a share of DYS commitments and out-

of-home diversion admissions

– Most youth committed to DYS have not been given the opportunity for a

non-residential DYS diversion prior to their first commitment

• Other?

Next Steps

• Research presentations

• Subgroup planning

• Stakeholder outreach and roundtables

• Individual meetings

Future Meetings

• September 6

– September 7: Hold for Research Webinar

• October 18

• November 15