Juvenile Justice Planning and Oversight Coordinating Council:

1
Juvenile Justice Planning and Oversight
Coordinating Council
How did we get here and where do we go now?

• A joint presentation by
• Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance
• Judicial Branch
• Department of Children and Families

September 6, 2007
2
History

• CT is currently one of only 3 states that tries
  ALL 16- 17-year-olds as adults, regardless of
  the charges.

3
When youth are tried as adults, there are poor
outcomes for youth and community.
When youth are tried as adults they

• receive fewer rehabilitative supports including
  education, treatment and vocational training
• are at risk of school of crime training, with
  unhealthy adult mentors.

When they reenter, they

• are subject to increased stigma and labeling
• may have weakened ties to family and other
  support systems
• will have difficulty finding and keeping a job.

4
Trying Youth as Adults Does NOT Prevent Them from
Future Offending

• Youth in the adult system are more likely to
  reoffend than youth in the juvenile system --
• They will reoffend more quickly and more often
• And for more serious offenses

The weight of evidence shows that youth who are
transferred from the juvenile court system to the
adult criminal system are approximately 34 more
likely than youth retained in the juvenile court
system to be re-arrested for violent or other
crime. (2007). The Task Force on Community
Preventive Services supported by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention
(see appendix a)
5
Community Support

• 350 community members filled the Capital
  Building in Hartford to show their support for RTA

6
Public Support
Gov. M. Jodi Rell vaulted Connecticut to the
forefront of the juvenile justice reform movement
when she signed a bill that removes 16- and
17-year-old offenders from the adult courts and
puts them back into the juvenile justice system
where they clearly belong.
One of the highlights of the General Assemblys
recent session was passage of a billthat raises
the age of adult incarceration from 16 to 18,
except in those very infrequent cases where 16-
and 17-year olds commit violent crimes.
7
Juvenile Justice System More Appropriate for
Youth
The juvenile justice system in Connecticut is
grounded in the concepts of restorative justice,
emphasizing protection of the community, offender
accountability, and rehabilitation. The goals of
the system include

• Individualized and a greater amount of
  supervision, care, and treatment provided
  pursuant to an individual case management plan
  that involves the family of the juvenile.
• School and community programs promoting
  prevention and reentry.
• A statewide system of community-based services
  designed to keep the juvenile in the home and
  community whenever possible.

8
Legislatively Mandated Committee 2006-2007
History

• The Juvenile Jurisdiction Planning and
  Implementation Committee (JJPIC) was created
  through legislation.
• Pursuant to Public Act 06-187, section 16, the
  committee shall plan for the implementation of
  any changes in the juvenile justice system that
  would be required in order to extend jurisdiction
  in delinquency matters and proceedings to include
  sixteen-year-old and seventeen-year-old children
  within the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters.

9
Juvenile Jurisdictional Planning and
Implementation Committee

• http//www.cga.ct.gov/hdo/jjpic/
• Schedule of meetings
• Meeting agendas and minutes
• Copies of PowerPoint presentations

10
Role of Contracted Vendors

• Three highly qualified, national groups provided
  consultation and co-led three workgroups

• Vera Institute Project Management
• Co-led Front-End workgroup
• Hornby Zeller Associates Service Needs / Gap
  Analysis
• Co-led Services workgroup
• NCSC Court Process and Staffing
• Co-led Court Issues workgroup

11
JJPIC Recommendations

• Pass legislation in the 2007 session to raise the
  age of juvenile jurisdiction from 16 to 18.
• Improve court diversion and pre-trial detention
  practices.

12
JJPIC Recommendations

• Establish Regional Youth Courts.
• (see appendix b)
• Phase in an effective system of services and
  supports for 16- and 17-year-olds.
• Establish a Policy and Operations Coordinating
  Council.

13
Projected Outcomes

• Lower re-arrest rates
• Fewer youth incarcerated, placed or hospitalized
• Reduced use of illicit substances
• Reduced minority representation

• More youth completing school
• Increased engagement in pro-social activities
• Better family functioning
• Improved community safety

14
Two Bills Resulted from JJPIC

• S.B. 1196An Act Concerning Children and Youth in
  Juvenile Matters
• H.B. 6285An Act Concerning Children and Youth in
  Juvenile Matters and the Recommendations of the
  Juvenile Jurisdiction Planning and Implementation
  Committee
• (see appendix c and d)

15
Legislative Process

• Bipartisan support for both bills
• Public hearings
• Informational sessions

16
2007 Legislation

• What Happened The language from the two bills
  was carried over into the special legislative
  session and became Sections 73 and following of
  the budget implementer bill, HB 1500.

17
2007 Legislation

• Implementer signed June 30, 2007
• Public Act 7-4 for purposes of delinquency
  matters and proceedings, child means any person
  (A) under eighteen years of age, or (B) eighteen
  years of age or older who, prior to attaining
  eighteen years of age, has committed a delinquent
  act
• Goes into effect January 1, 2010

• (see appendix e)

18
Not ALL 16- and 17-year-olds will return to
juvenile system

• 16 and 17 year olds legally considered juveniles
  in all delinquency proceedings, with the
  following exceptions
• Motor vehicle infractions and violations
• Class A and B felonies
• Prosecutorial discretion in all felony cases

19
Transfer to Adult Court

• Juveniles age 14 or 15 charged with a Class A or
  B felony are automatically transferred to the
  adult criminal court.
• Additionally, juveniles age 14 or 15 charged with
  a Class C or D felony or with an unclassified
  felony may be transferred to the adult criminal
  court upon a motion by the juvenile prosecutor
  and order of a Juvenile Matters Judge
  (discretionary transfers).
• Juveniles charged with a Class B felony and the
  discretionary transfers can be returned to the
  Superior Court for Juvenile Matters upon order of
  a judge in the adult court.

20
Juvenile Justice Policy and Operation
Coordinating Committee

• Sec. 88. (Effective from passage) (a) There is
  established a Juvenile Jurisdiction Policy and
  Operations Coordinating Council. The council
  shall monitor the implementation of the central
  components of the implementation plan developed
  by the Juvenile Jurisdiction Planning and
  Implementation Committee, as set forth in
  subsection (f) of this section, and resolve
  issues identified by the committee, as set forth
  in subsection (g) of this section, concerning
  changes required in the juvenile justice system
  to expand jurisdiction to include persons sixteen
  and seventeen years of age.

21
Recent Successes
The Connecticut Juvenile Justice System has
undertaken significant reform efforts and
achieved important gains in recent years,
resulting in better outcomes for children and the
community.
22
Success in Recent years

• Significant reduction in delinquency commitments

23
Success in Recent years

• Joint work between DCF and Judicial
• Joint Juvenile Justice Strategic Plan
• Emily J. Settlement Agreement
• Joint Case Planning and Service Provision
• FWSN Reform
• Joint Investment in Evidence-Based and Promising
  Practices

24
Successes

• Two examples of these joint programs
• Flex Funding for Court-Involved Children
• Work/Learn

25
Flex funding for court-involved children
Flex Funding is used to purchase a variety of
services or goods, not otherwise contracted, but
important for childrens and families
success DCF contracts for Flex funding, through a
fiduciary agency, for Detention-involved
children at risk for residential
treatment Court-involved children supervised in
the community (through a joint project with CSSD)
26
Flex funding for court-involved children

• Services purchased with flex funding include
• Mentoring and Therapeutic Mentoring
• Social and recreational programming
• Educational Consultation, Advocacy Tutoring
• Assistance with food, clothing and furnishings
• Transportation
• Individual, family, and specialized therapies

27
Work/Learn Programming

• Skills and Interests Inventories
• Academic Assessments
• Tutoring
• Post-secondary Educational Planning
• In-House Youth Business and Training
• Employment Assistance
• Life Skills and Financial Literacy Training
• Community Engagement

28
Current Reforms Underway

• Who are the 16- and 17-year-olds in the system?
• What reforms are already happening to ease their
  transition into the juvenile justice system?

29
Profile of 16- 17-year-old Offenders
FY 2006 Data on Court-Involved 16- and
17-year-olds

• 12,633 total criminal cases1
• (10,075 unique youth)
• 2,256 youth sentenced to probation2
• 1,725 youth currently on probation2
• (as of 9/14/2006)
• 1 Source Judicial Branch Court Operations
• 2 Source Court Support Services Division

30
16- 17-year-olds Sentenced to Probation
31
(No Transcript)
32
Judicial Branchs Tenets for Program and System
Development

• Community Safety
• Developmentally Appropriate
• Strength Based
• Family Inclusive
• Trauma Sensitive
• Community Based
• Culturally Competent Gender Responsive
• Based on Juvenile Need/Risk Level

33
Judicial Branchs Four-Point Plan

• Modify Probation Workforce (1/08)
• Adapt Juvenile Service Delivery System (1/08)
• Create New Programs for Youth (1/09)
• Establish Infrastructure to Ensure Positive
  Outcomes (On-Going)

34
Continuum of Services for New Haven Pilot Program

• Clinical Evaluations
• Psychiatric
• Psychological
• Substance Abuse
• Sex Offender
• Mental Health Services
• Intensive In-Home Child and Adolescent
• Psychiatric Services (IICAPS)
• 8 slots available at any given time

35
Continuum of Services for New Haven Pilot Program

• In-patient Substance Abuse Treatment
• 4 dedicated slots for New Haven youth to add to
  the statewide capacity
• Educational / Vocational Services
• Work / Learn Model
• 20 slots available at any given time

36
Continuum of Services for New Haven Pilot Program

• Youth Risk Reduction Center
• Aggression Replacement Therapy
• MET/CBT/FSN
• VOICES and Girls Circle
• (Gun) Violence Prevention
• TARGET
• Family Violence Education Program
• Brief Strategic Family Therapy

37
Continuum of Services for New Haven Pilot Program

• Outcomes Research
• Central CT State University won competitive
  bidding process to evaluate NH YPI.
• CCSU will be reporting quarterly on the progress
  of the New Haven Pilot Program, with a final
  outcome report expected in Spring 2009.

38
DCF Development Plan

• Internal inter-bureau group to analyze
• potential caseload and service needs
• Nationally recognized best and promising
  practices
• Impact of PA07-4 on other DCF bureaus
• Child Welfare
• Behavioral Health
• Adolescent Services

39
DCF Development Plan

• Review of current DCF risk/needs data
• Strategies for behavioral health services
• Strategies to address impact on DCF area offices
• Study of 16 and 17 year olds at DoC
• Program and service needs
• Housing needs
• Community Safety

40
Role of JJPOCC

• Public Act 7-4 section 16 (g) lists some
  questions for the JJPOCC to consider

41
Whats Left?

• Disproportionate Minority Contact
• How does DMC affect who is in the juvenile
  justice system?
• How do we build a system that will eliminate DMC?

42
Whats Left?

• DCF/CSSD Placement Treatment
• What is the need for out-of-home care?
• Placement Capacity
• Short term/long term
• Specialization/Type of facility/care
• Current/projected

43
Whats Left?

• Development of Diversion Programs
• What already exists?
• What needs to be created?
• Whose responsibility?

44
Whats Left?

• CSSD/Judicial Court Diversion and Pre-trial
  Detention Practices
• Serious Juvenile Offenses
• Should list of SJOs be reconsidered?
• Are there youth who enter detention now that
  might not have to? Are there related
  policies/procedures that should be reviewed?

45
Whats Left?

• Impact of 16 17 yr olds on state agencies such
  as
• Department of Mental Health and Addiction
  Services
• State Department of Education
• Public Defenders
• Prosecutors
• Department of Labor
• Department of Social Services
• DCF (Child Protective Services, Adolescent
  Behavioral Health System)
• Judicial Branch (CSSD, Court Operations)
• Impact on Local/Municipal agencies such as police
  departments

46
Whats Left?

• Now that 16 17 year olds are being treated as
  juveniles in the justice system, what other laws
  need to be reconsidered?
• Mandatory school attendance (signing out of
  school at 16 years)
• Custodial interrogation

47
Whats Left?

• DCF/CSSD Assessment Tool
• What are the pros/cons of current assessment
  tools at different decision-making points in the
  system?

48
Whats Left?

• Judicial Regional Youth Courts
• What will be the needs of the Judicial Branch
  regarding the following issues?
• Staffing
• Facilities
• Equipment
• Automation
• Operational
• Legal

49
Whats Left?

• Judicial/Legislative Adult court elements
  imported to JJ system
• Does Connecticut want to incorporate certain
  aspects of the adult court system (i.e. bond,
  jury trial, fines, expungement, probationary
  sentences, etc.) to the juvenile justice system?