Allegheny County Detention Screening Study

Transcription

1 Allegheny County Detention Screening Study Charles Puzzanchera, Crystal Knoll, Benjamin Adams, and Melissa Sickmund National Center for Juvenile Justice February 2012 NCJJ is the Research Division of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

2 This report was prepared by the National Center for Juvenile Justice, the research division of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. The work was partially supported by the Center for Children s Law and Policy as part of their efforts in the MacArthur Foundation s Models for Change reform initiative. Allegheny County Juvenile Probation provided detention screening and other key data to support the work. Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position or policies of the Center for Children s Law and Policy or Allegheny County Juvenile Probation. Copyright 2012 National Center for Juvenile Justice 3700 South Water Street, Suite 200 Pittsburgh, PA Suggested citation: Puzzanchera, Charles, Knoll, Crystal, Adams, Benjamin, and Sickmund, Melissa Allegheny County Detention Screening Study. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice. For questions or comments about this report contact: Charles Puzzanchera cpuzzanchera@ncjfcj.org

3 Table of Contents Executive Summary... ii Summary of Key Findings...iii Background... 1 Allegheny County Profile... 2 Use of Detention in Allegheny County... 7 Detention Best Practices Detention Reform: the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative and Models for Change Juvenile Detention Risk Assessment Summary of Berks County Detention Assessment Instrument Test The Need for Alternatives to Detention Process for the Detention Screening in Allegheny County The Detention Assessment Instrument Study design Purpose of the Study Characteristics of the Study Sample Results Detention Outcomes Overall Detention Outcomes by Offense Detention Outcomes by Risk Score Overrides Race/Ethnicity (DMC) Results Discussion and Recommendations Continued Study Continued Discussion References Appendix: Detention Assessment Instruments i

4 Executive Summary The National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) agreed to conduct a study working with staff from Allegheny County Juvenile Probation to gather data from the automated Detention Assessment Instrument and other individual level information from Pennsylvania s Juvenile Court Management System (JCMS). The study s goal was to use these data, to the extent possible, to conduct analyses recommended in A Practical Guide to Juvenile Detention Risk Assessment (Steinhart, 2006) and determine how well the Allegheny County instrument was working to reduce the amount of disproportionality in detention risk decision-making. Data Collection Allegheny County Juvenile Probation gathered data from the Detention Assessment Instrument completed by intake officers for arrested youth considered for admission to Shuman Juvenile Detention Center beginning in mid-february in For this study, NCJJ analyzed detention screening data collected from March of 2008 through February of These data included the following information: Screening outcomes. The primary analyses address the question of the impact of the Detention Assessment Instrument on the decision of whether to detain youth, place them in a detention alternative program, or release them. Accordingly, the data included basic demographic information (gender, race/ethnicity, and date of birth) for all youth considered for detention, along with the scores earned across seven factors that compose the overall risk score. In addition, information regarding mandatory detention holds, discretionary overrides, and the attendant aggravating/mitigating factors were also provided. Disproportionate minority contact. To the extent that data were available, additional analyses were conducted to consider the entire pool of youth brought to detention intake. To better understand the instrument s impact on detention rates and disproportionate minority confinement, analyses compared detention rates and population profiles of white and black youth. Validation The goal of validation analyses is to measure the post-implementation success of the Detention Assessment Instrument in relation to the risk of committing a new offense pending court appearance and the risk of failing to appear in court. A validation sample would include youth who were released or placed on detention alternative status based on the Detention Assessment Instrument. A validation analysis would then focus on determining decision error for this population. In other words, to what degree were youth released using the instrument who, in hindsight, should not have been either because they failed to appear or because they committed a new offense while not detained? [It should be noted that this report describes the results of a test of the Detention Alternatives Instrument implemented by Allegheny County Juvenile Probation at Shuman Detention Center. A formal validation study would require data on outcomes for juveniles who are released at detention intake based on their risk scores (Steinhart, 2008). Validation studies are normally done after the detention screening ii

5 instrument has undergone a general implementation test (like the current analysis). Although it was initially hoped that data would be available to conduct such a validation study, these data were not available in time to support the needs of this report.] This report also summarizes the literature on effective detention risk assessments and presents an overview of the use of detention in Allegheny County prior to the development of detention alternatives and the implementation of the Detention Assessment Instrument, study methods and analyses, study results, study limitations, and implications for further study/action. Summary of Key Findings Test sample The sample for this study consists of 2,098 detention screening assessments involving 1,940 youth conducted during the 24-month period from March 2008 through February Youth between the age of 15 and 17 accounted for nearly three-fourths (74%) of all assessments. Males accounted for eight of every ten (80%) assessments conducted during this period and black youth accounted for 76% of the sample. Detention rate The overall detention rate for this sample was 74% 1,556 of the nearly 2,100 assessments resulted in the youth being securely detained. Alternatives to detention were recommended for 4% of all youth screened, while another 22% were recommended for outright release. Mandatory holds factors such as a firearm offense or the existence of a warrant that trigger automatic admission to detention accounted for more than half (55%) of all secure detention admissions. Of those detained for mandatory reasons, more than two-thirds (67%) involved youth with an outstanding warrant, while another 15% involved youth detained for a firearm offense. Detention outcomes by risk score The risk scale used on the Allegheny Detention Assessment Instrument sets the threshold for detention at 15 (or more) points. In other words, youth who accumulate 15 or more points across all 7 factors are deemed appropriate candidates for secure detention. Youth scoring between 10 and 14 points are eligible for a detention alternative, while those scoring less than 10 points are eligible for release. Probation officers can override the recommended outcome associated with a youth s risk score, provided that mitigating (to override down ) or aggravating (to override up ) factors are present. The total detain override rate for this sample was 46%. That is, 46% of all assessments involving youth with risk scores that made them eligible for a detention alternative or release (risk scores of 0 to 14 points) were subsequently admitted to detention. While not always reported, the lack of appropriate parental supervision was the most predominant aggravating factor. iii

6 Disproportionate minority contact results Black youth accounted for 76% of all assessments conducted during the 24-month study period and white youth represented an additional 20% (about 1% involved youth of Hispanic ethnicity). Detention rates were comparable for black (76%) and white youth (71%). In Relative Rate Index (RRI) terms, this translates to a ratio of As such, there is little evidence of disproportionate minority confinement for this sample. Rather, the disparity worth noting involves those youth for whom detention is requested, i.e., those who are referred to the Allegheny County Detention Center. In practice, these referrals often emanate from other juvenile justice system agents, such as members of the law enforcement community, who initiate most detention admission requests. Probation officers are charged with deciding on such requests objectively and consistently. Risk scores from the detention assessment instrument as well as pre-existing detention admission criteria (known within Pennsylvania as the Coleman standards) are equally used to inform the probation officer s final decision. iv

7 Background In more than one way the impetus for this work stems from Pennsylvania s involvement in the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation s Models for Change juvenile justice reform initiative. Pennsylvania was the first of four core states strategically selected to participate in Models for Change because of the state s leadership, structure, commitment to system-wide change, and likelihood to influence reforms throughout the state. The National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) has been involved with Models for Change since its beginning as a part of its National Resource Bank, functioning as the initiative s national Technical Resource Center. The Center for Children s Law and Policy (CCLP) is also part of the Models for Change initiative s National Resource Bank. CCLP leads efforts to reduce disproportionate minority contact (DMC) in the juvenile justice system in the four Models for Change core states and as the lead agency in the initiative s DMC Action Network, working in twelve additional states. CCLP also serves as primary consultants to the Annie E. Casey Foundation s Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI). While Pennsylvania carried out Models for Change work statewide, Allegheny County was one of eight counties that undertook best practice pilot projects in aftercare, mental health/juvenile justice coordination, and addressing disproportionate minority contact. Berks County was another county in Pennsylvania with pilot projects. Models for Change support assisted Berks County s juvenile justice stakeholders and community leaders in the Racial and Ethnic Disparities Reduction Project. The goal was to reduce the disproportionate detention and residential placement of African American 1 and Latino youth. Before deciding on DMC policy and program changes, Berks County engaged in data collection and analysis to determine the scope of the problem and identify system points where changes could be made. Berks County instituted a Detention Assessment Instrument (DAI), a structured approach to detention decision-making, to ensure that detention decisions are objective, based upon fixed criteria, and recorded in uniform ways for all youth referred for detention. Steinhart (2008) tested the Berks County DAI, which was adapted from a similar instrument developed as part of the Casey Foundation s Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative and used in other states. At the urging of CCLP, Allegheny County implemented a detention assessment instrument adapted from the Berks County instrument. Allegheny County began using the Detention Assessment Instrument in the middle of February Jim Rieland, then Allegheny County s director of court services, approached NCJJ to conduct a study, similar to Steinhart s Berks County work, on Allegheny County s detention screening instrument. CCLP provided the majority of funding to support this work. Data included in the study analyses were collected on juveniles considered for detention between March 1, 2008 and February 28, For ease of presentation, African-American will be referred to as black and Caucasian/Anglo will be referred to as white throughout this report.

8 Allegheny County Profile Allegheny County is unique in that the juvenile detention center is located in the City of Pittsburgh, yet much of its youth population resides outside of the city in suburban areas under the jurisdiction of municipal police departments. To put this in perspective, the City of Pittsburgh is just one of Allegheny County s 130 municipalities, of which each has a local government and most have their own police department. No other county in Pennsylvania shares this unique division of law and government across such a large number of jurisdictions. Allegheny County municipality map City of Pittsburgh neighborhood map Shuman Juvenile Detention Center Demographic characteristics of Allegheny County s youth population Multiple measures of the juvenile population in Allegheny County can be used to gain a better understanding of the profile of youth who could be referred to Shuman Detention Center. They include: the Allegheny County juvenile population, the City of Pittsburgh juvenile population, and the enrollment population of youth in the Pittsburgh Public School District. NCJJ annually provides access to detailed population estimates derived from data originally collected by the U.S. Census Bureau and subsequently modified by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). In 2008 and 2009, analysis using Easy Access to Juvenile Populations showed that although Allegheny County s youth population ages 10 through 17 had declined, the race profile had not changed: 76% white, 20% black, 2.5% Asian, and less than one-half of 1% American Indian. The racial profile of juveniles in 2

9 Allegheny County had changed only slightly from 2000, when it was: 80% white, 18% black, 1.5% Asian, and less than one-half of 1% American Indian. Table 1: Population estimates, Allegheny County, ages Number Percent Total 130, , , % 100% 100% White, non-hispanic 104,028 87,797 85, Black, non-hispanic 23,086 23,037 22, American Indian, non- Hispanic Asian, non-hispanic 1,953 2,637 2, Hispanic 1,484 1,982 2, Adapted from: Puzzanchera, C., Sladky, A. and Kang, W. (2010). "Easy Access to Juvenile Populations: " Online. Available: The Decennial Census collects actual counts of persons dwelling in residential structures and can be used to examine the City of Pittsburgh youth population. According to the most recent available data (2000) the City of Pittsburgh s youth population ages 10 through 17 was 54% white, 42% black, 2.5% two or more races, 1% Asian, less than 1% other, and less than one-half of 1% American Indian. Although the City of Pittsburgh accounted for slightly less than one-quarter of the youth population of Allegheny County, more than half of black youth lived in the city (12,421 out of 23,086), and more than 8 in 10 white youth lived outside the city (87,933 out of 104,028). Table 2: Population estimates, City of Pittsburgh ages 10 17, 2000 Number Percent Total 29, % White 16, Black 12, American Indian 73 0 Asian Other or more races Adapted from: Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100% Data. 3

10 The Pittsburgh Public School District provides enrollment data by grade, gender, and race. According to information provided for the school year, Pittsburgh Public School enrollment for grades 5 through 12 was 36% white, 57% black, 4% multi-racial, 2% Asian, 1% Hispanic, and less than one-half of 1% American Indian. Table 3: Pittsburgh Public Schools enrollment, grades 5 12 Number Percentage Total 15, % White, non-hispanic 5, Black, non-hispanic 8, American Indian, non-hispanic 14 0 Asian, non-hispanic Multi-racial, non-hispanic Hispanic *These figures represent the official membership of the District as of October 8, Adapted from: Pittsburgh Public Schools. "District Overview." Online. Available: Juvenile arrests in Allegheny County Data collected by the Pennsylvania State Police Uniform Crime Reporting Program (PAUCR) has been extracted by NCJJ and published on the Pennsylvania Electronic Juvenile Justice Databook. Analyzing arrest trends is one way to understand the extent of juvenile crime that comes to the attention of law enforcement agencies and that subsequently affects the number and types of cases that may enter the juvenile justice system. Variations in juvenile arrest rates may reflect differences in the number of reporting agencies, juvenile law-violating behavior, police behavior, and/or community standards. In 2008, law enforcement agencies in Allegheny County reported a total of 8,005 arrests of juveniles youth younger than age 18 (see table on next page). Of those arrests, just over half (52%) were arrests of black youth, just under half (48%) were arrests of white youth. The remaining 22 (less than one half of 1%) youth were of other races. Forty-three youth were reported to be of Hispanic ethnicity (1%). The largest proportion of arrests for both black and white juveniles was disorderly conduct, accounting for nearly 3 in 10 arrests. Liquor law violations were 10% of juvenile arrests overall 20% for whites and 1% for blacks. Simple assaults were 11% of juvenile arrests overall 16% for blacks and 6% for whites. Aggravated assaults were 5% of juvenile arrests overall 7% for blacks and 2% for whites. Similar race differences were seen for other offense categories (e.g., robbery, and weapons). There were several other 4

11 offense categories for which black and white youth s arrest proportions were similar (e.g., larceny-theft, other sex offenses, and drug abuse). Table 4: Arrests of juveniles younger than age 18, Allegheny County, 2008 Offense profile Most serious offense Total White Black Total Arrests* 8,005 3,850 4, % 100% 100% Violent Crime Index Murder/nonnegligent manslaughter Forcible rape Robbery Aggravated assault Property Crime Index Burglary Larceny-theft Motor vehicle theft Arson Nonindex offenses Simple assaults Stolen property Vandalism Weapons Sex offenses (other) Drug abuse violations Driving under influence Liquor laws Drunkenness Disorderly conduct All other offenses** Curfew and loitering (juveniles only) * Total includes offense not shown. ** Does not include traffic offenses. Data source: Data were extracted from the Pennsylvania State Police's Uniform Crime Reporting System (PAUCR) web site following the release of "Crime in Pennsylvania: Annual Uniform Crime Report," available at Reported arrest data from Allegheny County suggest that the racial profile of juveniles arrested for delinquency has changed significantly over the past decade. Between 2000 and 2008, arrest rates in 5

12 Allegheny County declined 11% for white youth, but increased 65% for black youth. In fact, arrest rates for white youth declined in most major offense categories over the period, with the exception of minor increases in arrest rates for robbery (up 4%) and weapons law violations (up 3%). Generally, the opposite was true for the arrest rates for black youth. Similar to white youth, black youth experienced large declines in arrest rates for rape and motor vehicle theft, but their arrest rates increased for nearly all other offense categories. For example, in the general offense category of assault, aggravated assault and simple assault arrest rates declined for white youth (down 36% and 9%, respectively). Over the same period, the aggravated assault arrest rate increased 59% for black youth and the simple assault arrest rate increased 56%. In 2000, black youth accounted for about one-third of juvenile arrests in Allegheny County; by 2008, they accounted for just over half of juvenile arrests. As a result, the ratio of black-to-white arrest rates increased from 2.2 in 2000 to 4.1 in The population-at-risk and its changing nature will present an important factor for consideration when examining issues surrounding disproportionate minority contact as it relates to the secure detention stage. As one would expect, the changes in the racial profile of juvenile arrests at the county level were driven by arrests in the City of Pittsburgh. Data reported to the PAUCR by the City of Pittsburgh police show that black youth accounted for 59% of juvenile arrests in 2000, but by 2008 they accounted for 81%. Juvenile court case processing statistics The total number of delinquency cases handled in Allegheny County rose 13% from 2000 through Not only did the caseload increase, but the composition of the caseload changed. In 2000, black youth accounted for over one-half (53%) of juvenile court dispositions in Allegheny County; by 2008, they accounted for nearly two-thirds (65%). 6

13 Table 5: Delinquency cases disposed, Allegheny County, 2008 Offense profile Most serious alleged offense Total White Black Total 4,492 1,453 2, % 100% 100% Criminal homicide Violent sex offense Robbery Aggravated assault Simple assault Nonviolent sex offense Other person offense Burglary Theft Arson Vandalism/Criminal mischief Trespassing Fraud Receiving stolen property Drugs, Felony Drugs, Misdemeanor Weapons, in school Weapons, not in school Obstruction of justice Disorderly conduct Failure to comply with a lawful sentence DUI Other public order Unknown Data source: Pennsylvania Juvenile Delinquency Data Analysis Tool. Developed for the Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges' Commission by the National Center for Juvenile Justice, Pittsburgh, Pa. Overall, aggravated assault cases accounted for 13% and simple assault accounted for 11% of delinquency cases handled during Although there was no racial difference in the proportion of simple assault cases, aggravated assault offenses were a greater proportion of cases among black juveniles than among white juveniles (16% for blacks and 5% for whites). A similar pattern was seen for weapons offenses. Whites and blacks had equal proportions of weapons in school cases, but blacks had a higher proportion of weapons out of school. A different pattern was seen for drug offenses. Among black juveniles, felony drug cases were 6% of all cases, compared with 4% for white juveniles. In contrast, less serious misdemeanor drug cases were 12% of cases for whites and 5% of cases for blacks. 7

14 Use of Detention in Allegheny County Shuman Juvenile Detention Center, Allegheny County Shuman Detention Center is a locked facility in the City of Pittsburgh where young people are placed while waiting for court hearings or waiting to be placed in a more permanent facility. Shuman Juvenile Detention Center is the only secure detention facility serving Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Shuman Juvenile Detention Center opened in December of The stated mission of the facility is to provide safe, secure custody and to promote the health and well-being of youths committed to its care. The mission of Shuman Center is pursued in accord with the Pennsylvania Juvenile Act and regulations governing secure detention as set forth in 55 Pennsylvania Code Chapter Shuman currently has a licensed capacity of 130 beds. [For several years in the late 1990s there were 36 additional beds available to house detained juvenile offenders in a separate juvenile pod at the county jail. These jail pod beds were reserved for the most serious offenders.] The average occupancy rate for Shuman Center over the 15 year period from 1995 through 2009 was 92%. The occupancy rate fluctuated during the period from a low of 82% in 2004 to a high of 105% in Shuman center occupancy rate 120% 100% 80% 60% Average daily population/capacity 40% 20% 0% Shuman Detention Center is used to house youth when a young person is arrested on serious charges such as robbery, aggravated assault, or burglary and poses a threat to the community. Shuman Detention Center is also used when the youth commits a serious crime and is a threat to run and may not appear for a court hearing. Under the Pennsylvania Juvenile Act, detention is to provide secure custody and temporary care in a physically restricted, humane environment for alleged or adjudicated delinquent youth awaiting court disposition or transfer to another jurisdiction or agency. In Pennsylvania, delinquency is defined as any crime under federal, state, or local law except murder and select excluded offenses (i.e., criminal offenses that are statutorily excluded from juvenile court jurisdiction), summary offenses, and status offenses such as truancy, curfew violations, and running away. Pennsylvania s juvenile delinquency jurisdiction covers all youth ages 10 through 17, although jurisdiction can be extended to age 21. Thus, Shuman Detention Center s jurisdiction includes all youth living in Allegheny 8

15 County between ages 10 and 17, with extended jurisdiction to age 21. Shuman Detention Center can also hold youth from outside of Allegheny County who are accused of committing an offense in the county or those under court order. According to the Shuman Detention Center website, Once a youth is admitted to Shuman, they can remain in Shuman for ten days. After the first hearing, youth will remain in the detention facility until a more permanent placement is located. Shuman Detention Center is for temporary placements only. Pennsylvania criteria for detention admission Admission to detention at Shuman is dependent on a number of legal and extralegal factors. Allegheny County juvenile probation administrators identified a number of legal reasons for which a juvenile could be brought to Shuman: a new charge, violation of probation, failure to appear, transfer for a hearing, pending a placement, or as a sanction. In fact, the criteria for detention are spelled out quite thoroughly under what are known in Pennsylvania as the Coleman standards. Legal Factors. Coleman v. Stanziani was filed in 1981 as a Federal court class action challenging the constitutionality of the Pennsylvania Juvenile Act's provisions on secure juvenile detention. In 1986, the suit was settled via consent decree and standards were set for the use of secure detention. When the consent decree expired in 1996, the Juvenile Court Judges Commission (JCJC) voted to adopt the Coleman standards as the only approved standards for secure detention in Pennsylvania. Circumstances under which secure detention can be authorized in counties outside of Philadelphia include: The youth is alleged to have committed criminal homicide, rape or other violent sex offense, robbery, aggravated assault, certain burglaries, terroristic threats, riot or causing/risking catastrophe, felonious intimidation of or retaliation against witnesses or victims, used or possessed a firearm during the crime, or used another deadly weapon during the crime. The youth is alleged to have committed a felony and is currently on probation or under consent decree. The youth is alleged to have committed a felony and was found to be delinquent within the prior 18 months. The youth is alleged to have committed a delinquent offense and is currently on probation or under consent decree for a felony. The youth is currently on probation or under consent decree for a felony offense and is alleged to have twice violated the conditions of probation or other post-adjudication supervision. The youth has absconded or willfully failed to appear in court. At the juvenile s request. Pending disposition if the youth was adjudicated for an offense that was eligible for detention or placement of the youth is probable. Following disposition, pending transfer to placement the youth was adjudicated for an offense that was eligible for detention. 9

16 For a disposition review proceeding if the youth is in secure placement or the youth was returned from placement for failure to adjust in placement. For exceptional circumstances (must include a statement of why non-secure alternatives were rejected). These standards effectively led to the closing of a number of secure detention centers around the state, provided a model for consistency surrounding the decision to detain, and reduced the state detention rate. Shortly following the adoption of the Coleman standards, Allegheny County instituted a policy that required law enforcement agencies to contact Shuman Detention Center intake to determine the juvenile s detention eligibility before transporting youth to the facility. When a youth was arrested, the police officer contacted Shuman Detention Center to speak with an intake probation officer. The police officer explained the nature of the charges to the intake officer and the intake officer made a decision as to whether or not the youth should be admitted to Shuman Detention Center. The intake officer used the state established guidelines to make a decision but would also take into consideration the safety of the victim and the community. If and only if the intake officer decided that the youth should be admitted to detention, the police officer transported the youth to Shuman Detention Center. The change was intended to ensure that all detention intakes adhere to the Coleman Standards. More recently, Allegheny County Juvenile Probation implemented several detention alternatives (such as Youth Enrichment Services (YES)/Rankin Christian Detention Diversion) in an effort to reduce the reliance on detention yet not merely returning youth home unsupervised and sacrificing community protection. However, until recently, most secure detention centers in Pennsylvania did not use a risk assessment instrument to evaluate the decision to detain a youth. Beginning in mid-february 2008, Allegheny County implemented a Detention Assessment Instrument adopted with some modifications from an instrument developed and implemented by Berks County Juvenile Probation. Extralegal Factors. The decision to request that a juvenile offender be detained at Shuman Detention Center may also be influenced by extralegal factors: geographic (proximity to the detention center), transportation (resources available to the arresting officer), or accessibility of/relationship to a parent or guardian. These extralegal factors are more difficult to measure and are rarely collected intentionally in court or probation management data systems. The impact of extralegal factors on the use of detention in Allegheny is, thus, difficult to pinpoint, but several scenarios are likely. Geographic (proximity to Shuman Detention Center): Law enforcement officers from municipalities that are farther away from Shuman may be less inclined to request that youth be detained because of the inconvenience of having to transport the youth to the facility. Depending on the time of day and traffic patterns, the drive to Shuman could take an hour from some communities. This inconvenience factor may have an impact on all but the most serious cases. Transportation (resources available to the arresting officer): Law enforcement officers may decide against requesting detention for some youth because of limited availability of vehicles to transport youth to Shuman Detention Center. Challenging economic conditions have strained the resources of many police agencies in the county. Some agencies may choose to drive less to reduce fuel costs. Similarly, manpower resources may be limited in some agencies making it difficult to spare an officer to escort a juvenile to Shuman. Some communities have reduced costs by 10

17 eliminating their police departments all together or sharing forces with a neighboring community. Such resource factors may have an impact on the decision to request detention except in serious cases. Availability of parents/guardians (release youth to the custody of a responsible adult): For some segments of the youth population, parents may be less likely to be available to retrieve the youth from police following an arrest. Single parents and parents who work multiple jobs or jobs in positions where they can not readily take time off may not be able to go to the station to pick up their child. If law enforcement cannot locate a parent to release the youth to, they may be more inclined to request admission to detention. In wealthier suburban communities with a greater proportion of two-parent families and parents in higher level positions, parents may be more likely to be able to respond to their child s phone call. Each of these factors may have the impact of reducing the number of detention requests in the suburban communities of Allegheny County and less impact in the City of Pittsburgh. To the extent that detention requests are skewed toward the city s disproportionately black youth population there will be a DMC impact on detention admissions. Available aggregate data on detention admissions The Juvenile Court Judges Commission collects data on detention admissions reported by secure detention facilities across the state. Between 2000 and 2007, Allegheny County averaged about 3,500 detention admissions each year. Comparing figures for detention admissions to the number of delinquency cases in the county indicates that admissions are not directly dependent on the volume of cases. Between 2003 and 2007 the volume of cases rose 25%, but admissions to secure detention fell 4%. Number in Allegheny County 6,000 5,000 Delinquency cases 4,000 3,000 Secure detention admissions 2,000 1, The total number of admissions declined by nearly 19% between 2000 and 2007, however the patterns varied considerably by race. Detention admissions for white youth were cut nearly in half during that time period, while admissions for black youth fell just 4%. As a result, the contribution of black youth to 11

18 the racial profile of juveniles admitted to secure detention increased from 69% to 82%, by the end of the period. Allegheny County, new admissions to secure detention by race 3,000 2,500 Black 2,000 1,500 1,000 White Number and proportion of delinquency cases in which the juvenile was detained The number of delinquency cases in Allegheny County in which the youth was detained during their case processing dropped between 2005 and 2007 (17%). In comparison, the county s overall delinquency caseload rose (8%). The proportion of delinquency cases in Allegheny County in which the youth was detained also declined (6 percentage points). Neither Pennsylvania or the United States as a whole saw such declines in the likelihood of detention. Table 6: Delinquency cases in which the youth was detained between referral and disposition Percent of cases Number in Allegheny County Allegheny County Pennsylvania United States ,142 27% 16% 22% , Data sources Allegheny County and Pennsylvania data adapted from the "Pennsylvania Juvenile Delinquency Data Analysis Tool." Developed for the Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges' Commission by the National Center for Juvenile Justice, Pittsburgh, Pa. United States data adapted from Sickmund, M., Sladky, A., and Kang, W. (2011). "Easy Access to Juvenile Court Statistics: " Although, the proportion of delinquency cases involving detention was greater for black youth than for white youth, the decline in that proportion was similar for whites and blacks. Between 2005 and 2007, 12

19 the year prior to the implementation of the detention screening instrument in Allegheny County, the likelihood of detention dropped 9 percentage points for blacks and 2 percentage points for whites. Table 7: Percent of cases in Allegheny County in which the youth was detained Total White Black % 16% 34% Data source: adapted from the "Pennsylvania Juvenile Delinquency Data Analysis Tool." Developed for the Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges' Commission by the National Center for Juvenile Justice, Pittsburgh, Pa. 13

20 Detention Best Practices Detention Reform: the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative and Models for Change Juvenile detention and detention alternatives are considered to be essential components of the juvenile justice system and ideally should be developed in collaboration with the juvenile court and other system partners. They are to be short-term solutions and appropriately assigned based on the level of risk posed by the youth. Services must be appropriate and of high quality. The environments in which services are provided should be safe and secure. In Pennsylvania, both detention and detention alternatives must be consistent with the principles of balanced and restorative justice, community protection, competency development, and accountability to victims and communities for harm caused. They should demonstrate respect for individual rights and the dignity of youth. They should also be part of a continuum of positive services and interventions for court-involved youth detention should be considered a part of a process, and not a place (Thomas et. al, 2003). Since the early 1990s, the Annie E. Casey Foundation s Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) has worked to reduce the reliance on secure detention nationwide. JDAI is premised on the belief that youth are often unnecessarily or inappropriately detained at great expense, with long-lasting negative consequences for both public safety and youth development (JDAI website: The prime objectives of JDAI are: To reduce unnecessary or inappropriate secure confinement of children To reduce crowding and to improve conditions for children in secure detention facilities To encourage the development of non-secure alternatives to secure juvenile confinement To discourage failures to appear in court and subsequent delinquent behavior Strategies to reduce the use of detention and the size of detention populations include: financial disincentives, control of admissions, detention screening protocols, availability of alternatives to detention, elimination of certain detention practices such as the use of detention as a sanction for postadjudication juveniles, and reduction of the time juveniles spend in detention. The strategies a particular jurisdiction chooses may include some or all of the above (Thomas, et. al, 2003). Juvenile Detention Risk Assessment Detention risk screening is a fundamental strategy used to achieve these detention reform objectives. Risk screening is the process of evaluating each arrested minor to determine the need for secure, locked confinement. Ordinarily, risk screening occurs at a juvenile detention facility to which a youth is taken after an arrest. However, risk screening can also be conducted outside of the detention center for example, by law enforcement officers in the field or even by telephone. 14

21 A basic tool used in the risk screening process is a detention risk assessment instrument. The risk instrument is a written checklist of criteria that are applied to rate each minor for specific detentionrelated risks. The overall risk score is then used to guide the intake officer in making the critical decision whether to detain or release an arrested youth. The screening tools are locally designed, and they vary in scope and format from site to site. They are often point-scale instruments assigning points for various risk factors and then producing a total risk score indicating whether the youth is eligible for secure detention, for a non-secure detention alternative program, or for release home. When JDAI began, many detention facilities were crowded. Thus, reformers sought to control admissions to detention facilities by adopting local, written detention criteria that were more focused than state detention laws. These local criteria were designed to separate low-risk youth from higher-risk youth. According to JDAI s juvenile detention risk assessment guide (Steinhart, 2006), key principles behind screening instruments are: Objectivity. Detention decisions should be based on neutral and objective factors rather than on the screener s subjective opinion about an individual youth. Objective criteria anchor detention decisions in ascertainable facts such as the nature and severity of the offense, the number of prior referrals, or the minor s history of flight from custody. Uniformity. Local criteria should be uniform in the sense that they are applied equally to all minors referred for a detention decision. To achieve the desired level of uniformity, the criteria must be in a written (or electronic) format and must be incorporated into a screening process that is standardized for all referrals. Risk-based. The criteria should be risk-based, meaning that they should measure specific detention-related risks posed by the minor. These risks are: the risk of reoffending before adjudication and the risk of failing to appear at a court hearing. Intake assessment can be a useful tool for detention centers. Applying the assessment tool in a uniform fashion helps to reduce subjectivity of the intake decision-maker. To create a fair assessment tool, several principles should be kept in mind. To start, only proven risk factors should be considered. These include things such as the nature of the juvenile s offense or his or her referral history. Redundant risk factors should be avoided, as they can lead to higher rates of detention due to higher assessment scores. Points assigned should be balanced with decision and outcome scales. Mid-range alternatives to detention (electronic monitoring, home detention, etc) should be available (Steinhart, 2006). Risk instruments should be used at the point when the juvenile is either arrested or referred to the detention center. This includes arrests for new charges, violations of probation, being apprehended or surrendering on a warrant, being transferred from another facility, or failing to adjust in another facility. All juveniles should be assessed, with the exception of those who were court-ordered into detention and youths who had already been detained but left the facility for other care and have returned. The facility will also need to determine if staff should do assessments manually or if an automated system should be created. Automation is simpler and generally more accurate and would permit for integration into other data systems, potentially allowing access to a minor s referral and arrest history. The major downside of automation is that it can be very costly. The center would also need to be sure that qualified persons are making the data entry into the system, to avoid errors (Steinhart, 2006). 15

22 Successful manual instruments tend to be short one to two pages which makes them quick and easy to fill out, low in complexity, and still sufficient to assess the juvenile. Risk factors and their point values will also need to be decided. Core risk factors generally include the nature of the referral offense and the juvenile s delinquent history. Collateral risk factors encompass aggravating and mitigating factors home life, behavior, school record, gang involvement, etc. Crimes and violations should be collapsed into broad categories in descending order of severity, with scores assigned based on the most severe offense. Any prior arrests or adjudications should be rated on severity and recency. Prior escapes, failures to appear, pending cases or petitions, and current legal/probation status should also be factored into the assessment (Steinhart, 2006). A decision or outcome scale will also need to be created. The cutoff score for detention should match the point value that was assigned to the most serious offenses that would end in a juvenile automatically being detained. If this score is too low, then juveniles who could benefit from an alternative will be detained. It should be ensured that alternatives are in place before they are incorporated into the risk instrument. Reasons for recommending an override to detention should be specific (danger to self, danger to others, gang affiliation, etc). Release overrides should also be incorporated (Steinhart, 2006). A list of common assessment override reasons should be compiled beforehand to help eliminate subjectivity. Mandatory detention should be considered for specific offenses (such as ones involving firearms), juveniles arrested on a warrant, juveniles failing a detention alternative, those who are being held for transfer to another jurisdiction, or those who have been court-ordered to detention (Steinhart, 2006). These may be mitigated by age and mental capacity. Ideally, overrides would result in no more than 15 20% of juveniles being eligible for release anything higher than 25% could indicate a problem with how detention is determined, be it misuse of the tool by staff or lack of parental cooperation to keep the juvenile out of detention. Practices to reduce overrides include requiring very specific reasons to override, mandatory supervisor approval, improving the responsiveness of parents, and making better use of alternatives.. Once a draft instrument is completed, it should be checked for race and gender neutrality. Occasionally factors such as community ties, gang affiliations, or lack of a capable guardian to look after the minor can lead to disproportionate minority confinement by increasing the detention of black or Latino youth. Gender disproportionality can occur in jurisdictions where emphasis is placed on detaining youth involved in domestic violence situations or status offenses. Girls arrested for prostitution may be detained multiple times if there are no intervention services for them (Steinhart, 2006). After the instrument is constructed, field tests should be run with specific objectives in mind. A prospective test is recommended, but a retrospective test can be conducted so long as all of the data elements are supported. A minimum of 300 cases should be used to determine the baseline, and the study should continue as long as is needed to collect this number. The sample should be comprised of all referred and court-ordered minors. Other information that the test should include are: detention outcomes, primary referral offenses, and the date and time of detention or release. Supplemental documents, such as police reports and warrants, could be useful to assist in the analysis of the instrument. If there is an old instrument to compare to, it can be put to the test at the same time as the new instrument (Steinhart, 2006). 16

23 A number of reports should be generated from the field tests: the number or percentage of juveniles detained or released, detention outcome by referral reason, detention outcome by score, overrides and their rate, analyses of aggravating and mitigating factors, results of special and mandatory detention decisions, how the old instrument compares to the new (if applicable), referral and detention outcomes by race, and outcomes related to site-specific issues and objectives. Facility effects can also be analyzed by examining the average length of stay by referral reason, the total number of detention days by referral reason, and the annual estimated number of beds utilized by referral groups. These analyses help to determine if there is an excess of certain offense groups being held in the center (Steinhart, 2006). Results from these tests will aid facilitators in determining if there are problems arising from the use of the instrument. For example, if detention rates seemingly increase, then the instrument could be failing to reach the goal of lowering the number of juveniles admitted to detention, indicating that the points assignment may need to be reworked. High override rates can indicate that override procedures are not being properly understood or followed, or that alternatives to detention programs cannot handle the new flow of juveniles with mid-range scores on the assessment. Continued or increased disproportionate minority confinement can indicate problems either at the point of referral or detention decision time. Disproportionate referral rates by race may be associated with law enforcement practices and neighborhood or community factors which could contribute to higher arrest rates for minority youths. Disproportionate detention rates by race for juveniles with same offenses could be stemming from either a fault in the risk instrument or subjectivity by intake staff (Steinhart, 2006). After conducting a field test, stakeholders will have to make a decision: should the instrument be inducted without changes? Should the instrument be modified? Should the screening procedures related to the instrument be modified? The report attached with the field test should indicate any changes that are recommended to the instrument itself, and also explain why those changes would be beneficial. If changes to the process need to be made, it will first have to be decided if these changes can be made in-house or not. For example, if the problem lies within complying with override procedures, this is something the instrument developers could adjust on their own. However, if the problems are occurring within case processing or alternatives to detention, other committees or agencies may need to be involved. Process changes should not necessarily delay the implementation of a new risk assessment. Once the instrument itself has been deemed satisfactory it can be adopted, with allowances made for process changes that are not yet in place, such as alternatives to detention (Steinhart, 2006). Formal validation can be achieved via discrete, post-implementation measuring of success and failure rates for screened and released children. A good measurement is the risk of committing a new offense pending a court appearance and the risk of failure to appear over a specific period of time for released juveniles. A failure rate less than 10% would indicate that the instrument is performing at an average rate. A failure rate less than 5% would indicate that the instrument is performing above average. While low rates are preferred, rates that are too low could indicate that the instrument is too restrictive. The validation sample should consist of any minor who is placed on release or detention alternative status, based upon risk score, over the chosen test period. Definitions of success and failure should be determined ahead of time. Validation tests should be performed whenever a new instrument is implemented or when new members are added to the jurisdiction (Steinhart, 2006). 17