Baseline Measures for Illinois. The MacArthur Foundation s Juvenile Justice Initiative

Transcription

1 Baseline Measures for Illinois The MacArthur Foundation s Juvenile Justice Initiative October 2004 National Center for Juvenile Justice This work was performed with funding from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation under grant No HCD Author: Patrick Griffin Contributors: Susanna Zawacki, Charles Puzzanchera and Patricia Torbet

2 Table of Contents Introduction Juvenile Population..7 Fig. 1 Illinois Population Ages by County Type..7 Fig. 2 Racial/Ethnic Composition of Illinois and Cook County Juvenile Population, Formal Processing and Incarceration 10 Petitions and Adjudications Fig. 3 Number of New Delinquency Petition Filings, Fig. 4 Number of Delinquency Adjudications, Fig. 5 Adjudications to Petitions, Detention Fig. 6 Number of Detention Admissions, Fig. 7 Number of Pre-adjudication Detention Admissions, Fig. 8 Number of Post-adjudication Detention Admissions, Fig. 9 Detention Admission Rates Per 100,000 Juveniles Age 10-16, Table 1 Average Daily Detention Population, Fig. 10 Detention Days Served by Juveniles Released in Calendar Years Fig. 11 Statewide Detention Utilization Rates, Fig. 12 Number of Juveniles Released from Detention, Fig. 13 Offense Profile of Detention Releases, Fig. 14 Average Length of Stay in Detention in Days, Secure Commitment Fig. 15 IDOC Juvenile Division Admissions by Commitment Type, Fig. 16 Commitments by County Type, Fig. 17 Property Offense Commitments by County Type, Fig. 18 Person Offense Commitments by County Type, Fig. 19 Drug Offense Commitments by County Type, Fig. 20 Sex Offense Commitments by County Type, Fig. 21 Annual Population Count by Committing County, Fig. 22 Annual Population Count by Offense Type, Fig. 23 Commitment Rates per 100,000 Juveniles Age 13-16,

3 Table Commitment Rates Per 100,000 Juveniles by Offense Type Racial Disparity.39 Detention Table 3 Detention Releases by Race, Table 4 Race Profile of Detention Releases by County Type, Fig. 24 Average Length of Stay in Detention in Days, Table 5 Average Length of Stay in Detention in Days by Race.43 Commitment Fig. 25 Delinquency Commitments by Race, Fig. 26 Cook County Delinquency Commitments by Race, Table 6 Delinquency Commitments in Cook County by Race and Offense Type, 5-Year Period of Table 7 Delinquency Commitments by County Type and Race, 5-Year Period of Transfer and Felony Commitment Fig. 27 Automatic Transfers by Race, Fig. 28 Felony Commitments by Race, Fig. 29 Felony Commitments by Race and Offense Type, 5-Year Total ( ) 50 Fig. 30 Race of IDOC Juvenile Division Population, Jurisdictional Boundaries...52 Fig. 31 Number of Automatic and Discretionary Transfers, Fig. 32 Number of Total Transfers, Fig. 33 Automatic Transfers by Offense Type, Fig. 34 Felony Commitments Following Transfers by Offense Type, Fig. 35 Felony Commitments Following Transfers by County Type, Recidivism.59 Fig. 36 IDOC 3-Year Recommitment Rates, Fig. 37, Statewide Probation Violations,

4 Introduction The following analysis of juvenile justice data and trends in Illinois is intended to establish a general baseline against which to measure future progress in juvenile justice system reform in line with the Model Systems Framework. The Model Systems Framework, which was developed by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation in partnership with its grantees in the juvenile justice field, is a detailed schematic of a model juvenile justice system. Beginning with a small number of widely shared values, it specifies goals, characteristics, practices, and outcomes that follow from those values, along with measures for determining whether those outcomes are being achieved. It is intended to give policy-makers, practitioners, and advocates in real-world juvenile justice systems a handy way to measure themselves, to determine areas in which their systems fall short of shared ideals and thereby to stimulate and give practical direction to change. The Model Systems Framework elaborates dozens of measurable outcomes that would be achieved by a juvenile justice system that operates with due regard for fundamental fairness, acknowledges juvenile-adult differences, recognizes juveniles individuality and potential, and takes account of personal, community, and system responsibility. However, the MacArthur Foundation has focused on five key outcomes as overall system benchmarks: 1. Reduction in Incarceration/Formal Handling, Increase in Diversion 2. Reduction in Case-Handling Disparities Due to Race 3. Reduction in Transfer to the Criminal Justice System 4. Reduction in Recidivism 5. Increase in Participation in Pro-Social Activities These outcomes were chosen not only because they appeared to indicate the state of the state, in terms of adherence to Model System Framework principles, but also because they constituted tangible and direct expressions of primary juvenile justice system values. Moreover, given their central importance in any juvenile justice system, it was hypothesized that significant system reforms would be reflected by movement in these key indicators. The discussion of Illinois baseline data and trends is organized around these key indicators. After a general summary of juvenile population trends by state and region, the first section focuses on a series of measures including basic annual caseload statistics, detention data of various kinds, and data on secure commitments which help to describe 4

5 the degree to which the juvenile justice system in Illinois relies on formal handling and incarceration. The next section analyzes possible indicators of racial disparities in juvenile justice case-handling. The next describes transfer and transfer disposition statistics and trends. The last focuses on measures of juvenile recidivism. (No statewide measures of juvenile participation in pro-social activities appeared to be available.) Data Sources This analysis relies primarily on four sources of statewide information on juvenile justice processing in Illinois: The Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts (AOIC), The Juvenile Monitoring Information System (JMIS), The Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC), and The Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority (ICJIA), a data clearinghouse that analyzes and disseminates juvenile justice information from the above three sources, and was of invaluable assistance in providing NCJJ with data for this report. AOIC Data The AOIC is the source of all the court and probation data analyzed here, and a secondary source of some detention and commitment data. The AOIC collects basic caseload statistics (state total and county-by-county) for each calendar year, including total annual petitions, adjudications, dispositions, and commitments, and publishes them in Annual Report of the Illinois Courts: Statistical Summary. The AOIC also collects aggregate data on detention admissions to the state s 16 juvenile detention centers. The AOIC s Probation Services Division collects and disseminates annual statistics on probation caseloads and probation violations. But none of the data collected by the AOIC contains demographic or offense information on juveniles. JMIS Data JMIS is the only source of case-level detail on detention in Illinois. JMIS is a joint data collection effort of the AOIC, the Department of Human Services, and the Department of Corrections, designed to record demographic, offense, and other information on every youth placed in secure detention. The JMIS database was begun in 1979, but comprehensive reports based on JMIS data prepared by the National Juvenile Detention Association on behalf of the Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission have been issued only since 1997, and the accuracy and consistency of earlier JMIS data are questionable. Transfer Data Transfer data come from various sources. The AOIC Probation Services Division collects aggregate transfer data (that is, total numbers of juveniles transferred annually, by calendar year), but not offense, demographic, or outcome information regarding these cases. JMIS yields detailed case-level information regarding transferred juveniles if they 5

6 have passed through detention facilities and in view of the seriousness of these cases, it is likely that most transferred juveniles do. Finally, IDOC counts the relatively small number of juvenile inmates that were ultimately committed by criminal courts following transfer, and it is possible to extract demographic and offense information regarding these cases as well. Corrections Data Corrections data analyzed here come primarily from the IDOC, which counts admissions to its Juvenile Division during each State Fiscal Year and records a great deal of inmatelevel detail on juvenile admissions. In addition to this annual commitment data, the IDOC publishes a kind of annual census-like summary of adult and juvenile inmates, with various kinds of detail (including racial/ethnic detail). It is useful as a picture of the institutional stock population at a point in time (in this case June 30, the final day of the State Fiscal Year), as opposed to the flow through the institutions during a given year or years. Data Gaps The most critical data elements missing for Illinois are juvenile arrests and delinquency referrals. Under the Illinois Uniform Crime Reporting Act, all law enforcement agencies are required to report arrests to the Illinois State Police. However, beginning in 1993, only simplified reporting has been required: monthly aggregate-level (combined adultjuvenile) figures for reported index crimes, index arrests, and drug arrests. The absence of actual juvenile arrest, arrest disposition, and referral numbers makes it impossible to describe the flow of youth into the system, or to assess what is really behind trends about which we do have information such as declines in petition filings, or increases in detention admissions. 6

7 1. JUVENILE POPULATION Cook and its surrounding collar counties accounted for two-thirds of Illinois population ages In 2002, Illinois had 1,285,019 residents of juvenile court age (10 to 16). Statewide, the state s total juvenile population grew about 10% over the preceding decade (i.e., since 1993). Cook County alone held 42% of the state s juvenile court-age population in From 1993 to 2002, Cook s juvenile population rose almost 9%, only a little less than the state average. Accordingly, its share of the state s juvenile population held roughly steady during those years. The five collar counties around Cook (DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will) held another 25% of the state s juvenile court-age population in The collar counties juvenile population grew much more rapidly than the rest of the state during the period (about 30%), as did their share of the state s juvenile population (from about 21% to 25%). Figure 1 Illinois Population Ages by County Type, 2002 Urban 19% Rural 14% Cook 42% Collar 25% The remaining counties are divided into urban and rural categories, depending on whether or not they are part of a Metropolitan Statistical Area. The 22 urban downstate counties (Boone, Champaign, Clinton, DeKalb, Grundy, Henry, Jersey, Kankakee, Kendall, McLean, Macon, Madison, Menard, Monroe, Ogle, Peoria, Rock Island, St.Clair, Sangamon, Tazewell, Winnebago, and Woodford) held 19% of the juvenile 7

8 population in The urban county juvenile population grew only about 4% since Their share of the state s juvenile population has accordingly fallen (from about 21% to 19%). The remaining 74 rural counties accounted for 14% of the juvenile population in Their juvenile population actually shrank slightly over the period, and thus their collective share of the state s population declined (from 16% to 14%). 8

9 The racial/ethnic compositions of Cook County, the collar counties, and the downstate urban and rural counties were markedly different. In terms of race/ethnicity, Illinois juvenile court-age population in 2002 was 61% white, 19% black, 16% Hispanic, and 3% Asian. (For U.S. Census purposes, individuals are categorized racially as white, black, American Indian, Asian, or other, and ethnically as Hispanic or non-hispanic. For purposes of this discussion, however, Hispanic ethnicity is treated as though it were a race overriding or transcending actual racial categories, so that both whites and blacks of Hispanic origin are included in the Hispanic category, while the white category includes only non-hispanic whites and the black category includes only non-hispanic blacks. Both in Cook County and Illinois as a whole, about 19 out of 20 Hispanic juveniles 94.5% were also categorized as white in 2002.) Cook County s juvenile court-age population was about 36% white, 33% black, 26% Hispanic, and 4% Asian in An overwhelming proportion of the state s minority juveniles including 72% of all blacks and 69% of all Hispanics lived in Cook County. The collar counties juvenile population in 2002 was about 73% white, 7% black, 15% Hispanic, and 5% Asian. The collar counties were home to 23% of the state s Hispanic juveniles, but just 9% of the state s black juveniles. The urban downstate counties were about 78% white, 15% black, and 5% Hispanic. The rural downstate counties were 92% white, 4% black, and 3% Hispanic. Figure 2 Racial/Ethnic Composition of Illinois and Cook County Juvenile Population, % 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Black White Hispanic Other State Cook County 9

10 2. FORMAL PROCESSING AND INCARCERATION This section presents a variety of measures of system reliance on formal processing (as opposed to diversion) and incarceration (as opposed to alternatives to incarceration). Ideally, a juvenile justice system should offer alternatives to formal handling, to further penetration, and to incarceration. We can think of it broadly as avoiding locked doors : at a series of decision points, beginning at arrest and going all the way through disposition, the system offers ways out ultimately in an effort to keep from having to lock the door at the end. Determining the Illinois juvenile justice system s level of reliance on formal/secure versus informal/non-secure responses to delinquency involves exploring available measures relating to (1) petitions and adjudications, (2) use of pre- and post-adjudication detention, and (3) secure commitments. (Again, it should be noted that juvenile arrest/referral data are particularly crucial to an understanding of what lies behind formal processing and detention trends. In Illinois, however, as was discussed in the introduction, these data are not available.) 10

11 Petitions and Adjudications Annual delinquency petition filings and filing rates have dropped in recent years. According to data collected by the AOIC, annual delinquency petition filings declined 31% statewide from 1996 to However, this downward trend was entirely driven by Cook County, where annual delinquency petitions declined 52% during this period. In the rest of the state, annual petition filings were up slightly (2%) from 1996 to At the beginning of the period, Cook County delinquency petition filings represented 60% of the state s total. By the end, Cook s share had fallen to just 41%. Figure 3 Number of New Delinquency Petition Filings, ,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 State Cook Non-Cook Petition rates per 1,000 juveniles age also fell during this period and here again nearly all the decline was due to Cook County. Statewide petition rates declined from 24.8 petitions per 1,000 in 1996 to 16.4 in But outside of Cook County the decline was much more modest during this period (from 17.1 to 16.5), while in Cook the drop was dramatic: from 35.5 in 1996 to 16.2 in In other words, though it began by filing petitions at twice the rate of the rest of the state, Cook County ended up with a petition rate slightly lower than the rest of the state. 1 For this purpose, delinquency petitions include only new petitions, and not reinstated petitions. The year 1996 was used as a starting point because of reporting anomalies in previous years. But it should be noted that Cook County petition and adjudication reporting for 1997 were incomplete. 11

12 In 1999, the most recent year in which national comparisons are available, the Illinois petition rate of 22.5 per 1,000 juveniles was less than the national rate of The Illinois rate was comparable to those of several other large states that year, including California (22.1), Pennsylvania (25.5), and Texas (22.0), but was much higher than New York s (11.3) and much lower than Florida s (57.3). 12

13 Adjudications and adjudication rates have fallen also. The same basic pattern emerges from the data on delinquency adjudications. In the years from 1996 to 2002, annual adjudications of delinquency fell 46% statewide. But in Cook County alone, delinquency adjudications fell 77%, while in the rest of the state the decline was only 5%. Cook County s share of statewide delinquency adjudications likewise fell from 57% of the total at the beginning of the period to 24% by the end. Adjudication rates also fell, both statewide and in Cook County, during this period. There were 10.7 adjudications per 1,000 juveniles in Illinois in 1996, but by 2002 the statewide rate had fallen to 5.5. Again, however, the decline outside of Cook County was not particularly steep: from 8.0 to 7.2. In Cook County alone, on the other hand, adjudication rates plummeted from 14.4 at the beginning of the period to 3.2 by the end. Cook County had an adjudication rate approaching twice that of the rest of the state at the beginning of the period, and a rate less than half the rest of the state s by the end. Figure 4 Number of Delinquency Adjudications, ,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 State Cook Non-Cook

14 The statewide ratio of annual adjudications to petitions rose and then fell during the years from 1996 to Many petitioned juveniles are never formally adjudicated delinquent. Nationally, it is estimated that in 1999, a third of all petitioned delinquency cases did not result in delinquency adjudication, but ended in dismissal, informal probation, or some other informal or voluntary disposition. Comparing a state s annual total of formal delinquency adjudications with its pool of annual petitions may provide a rough sense of the balance it strikes between formal processing and diversion, at least at the post-petitioning stage. All other things being equal, in a jurisdiction that places a greater value on alternatives to formal processing again, at the post-petitioning stage we would expect to see a lower ratio of adjudications to filings. The Illinois ratio of annual adjudications to annual petitions rose from about 43 adjudications for every 100 petitions in 1996 to a peak of about 47 per 100 in 1998, then fell steadily to about 34 per 100 in But nearly all of this movement reflected changes in Cook County alone, where the ratio increased from about 40 per 100 in 1996 to a high of 50 per 100 in 1998 before falling sharply to 20 per 100 in In the rest of the state, ratios fluctuated between 41 and 47 per 100 throughout this period, finishing at 44 per 100. Figure 5 Adjudications to Petitions, ,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5, Petitions Adjudications 14

15 Detention The Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts (AOIC) has long collected aggregate data on admissions to the state s 16 juvenile detention centers. AOIC detention data permit analysis of broad trends in detention admissions and detention rates, but shed no light on the demographic or offense profiles of detainees. Inmate-level offense and demographic data are available only for more recent years, from the Juvenile Monitoring Information System (JMIS). 15

16 Statewide detention admissions peaked in AOIC detention admissions data from 1992 to 2002 indicate that total annual detentions in Illinois including both pre- and post-adjudication detention increased 13% during that period. In fact, however, the movement was up and then down: detentions rose 29% from 1992 through 1996, and have fallen 13% since that peak year. Cook County s numbers have run counter to trends in the rest of the state. Since 1992, detentions in Cook have fallen 33%, while those in the rest of the state have risen (83% in the collar counties, 72% in the urban downstate counties, and 94% in the rural counties). And virtually all of the statewide decrease in detention admissions since 1996 is due to Cook, with other areas holding steady or rising slightly. In 1992, Cook accounted for 59% of the state s total detention admissions. By 2002, Cook detentions represented just 35% of the state s total a share about equal to that of the urban downstate counties, though Cook has more than twice their juvenile population. Figure 6 Number of Detention Admissions, ,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 State Cook Urban Collar Rural

17 Cook County trends in both pre- and post-adjudication detention admissions ran counter to the rest of the state. We see the same pattern when pre- and post-adjudication detention admissions are examined separately. Overall, during the years from 1992 to 2001 (the most recent year for which pre- and post-adjudication detentions can be separated), the number of preadjudication detention admissions increased 21% statewide. But annual totals in Cook County decreased by 16%, while those elsewhere rose (76% in the collar counties, 89% in the urban downstate counties, and 87% in the rural downstate counties). The peak year for pre-adjudication detentions was 1996: statewide admissions are down 8% overall since that year, but once again almost all of that decrease was due to Cook, where preadjudication detentions declined by 21% from 1996 to Cook County accounted for 63% of all pre-adjudication detentions in 1992, but its share fell to 44% in Figure 7 Number of Pre-adjudication Detention Admissions ,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 State Cook Urban Collar Rural

18 Post-adjudication detentions increased statewide 28% from 1992 to 2001 rising from 1992 to a peak in 1998, then declining somewhat. 2 But here again the trend in Cook County alone has been entirely at odds with the trend statewide. In 1992, Cook County led all other regions of the state with 43% of post-adjudication detentions. But detentions of this kind fell 77% in Cook over the next decade, while those elsewhere rose sharply (149% in collar counties, 93% in urban downstate counties, and 96% in rural downstate counties). As a result, by 2001 Cook County came in last of the four regions, with just 8% of the state s total, while the urban downstate counties collectively accounted for 46%. Figure 8 Number of Post-adjudication Detention Admissions ,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1, State Urban Collar Rural Cook But note that the way in which post-dispositional detentions were counted for AOIC reporting purposes from 1992 to 2001 may have been inconsistent from county to county; post-dispositional detention figures should accordingly be viewed with caution, according to the National Juvenile Detention Association s JMIS report for

19 Cook County detention rates fell between 1992 and 2002, while those of other regions rose. A look at trends in detention admission rates the numbers of youth detained per 100,000 in the population age provides another kind of picture of the system s reliance on detention from 1992 to This method reduces distortion that may be due to mere population growth or shrinkage, and provides a more precise way to measure changes in a jurisdiction s tendency to detain. Here again, the general trend in detention rates was up during these years, rising 6% overall from 1,287 juveniles per 100,000 in 1992 to 1,366 per 100,000 in (By comparison, the detention rate per 100,000 youth of juvenile court age in Pennsylvania was 1,409 in 2002.) But in Cook County detention rates fell 35% from 1,806 in 1992 to 1,179 in Meanwhile detention rates rose everywhere else (54% in collar counties, 65% in urban downstate counties, and 91% in rural downstate counties). Figure 9 Detention Admission Rates Per 100,000 Juveniles Age ,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1, Cook Urban State Collar Rural Although rates in Cook County were higher than in other areas at the beginning of the period, the urban downstate counties rate surpassed Cook in 1995; by 2002 urban downstate counties had a collective detention rate of 2,232 per 100,000 almost twice the rate of the rest of the state. Pre-adjudication detention rates show a similar pattern in the period from 1992 through 2001, with the statewide, collar, urban, and rural county rates all rising while Cook County s fell. Statewide pre-adjudication detention rates rose 14% from 1,037 juveniles 19

20 per 100,000 in 1992 to 1,186 in Cook s pre-adjudication detention rate fell 18% from 1,552 to 1,273 during the same period. The pattern appears to be even more pronounced with post-adjudication detention rates during these years: Cook s rate dropped 78% from 253 to 56 per 100,000 while all other rates rose sharply. By 2001, both collar and rural county post-adjudication rates were six times as high as Cook County s; and urban downstate counties with 679 reported post-adjudication detentions per 100,000 juveniles were apparently detaining juveniles following adjudication at twelve times the rate of Cook. 3 3 But see footnote 2, above. 20

21 The number of detention days served by Illinois juveniles has fallen in recent years. Tracking detention admissions is only one way to measure changes in a jurisdiction s reliance on juvenile detention. Another is to track trends in average daily population and annual numbers of person-days served in detention facilities. Table 1 Average Daily Detention Population, State 1,038 1, Cook County Non-Cook Counties From 2000 to 2002, JMIS provides a straightforward measure of total detention days served by detainees during each calendar year. In 2002, juvenile detainees spent a total of 332,430 person-days in Illinois detention centers, down 13% statewide from the year That works out to an average daily population of 910 detainees (down from 1,038 since 2000), of whom 393 were in Cook County (down from 455 in 2000), and 512 were outside of it (down from 583 in 2000). From 1996 through 2002, JMIS data also indicate the total number of detention days served by detainees released during the calendar year even if some of those days were served in a previous calendar year. 4 Statewide, as 450, , , , , , , ,000 50,000 Figure 10 Detention Days Served by Juveniles Released in Calendar Years State Cook Downstate Collar For example, a detainee released in January of 2001 might well have been held a certain number of days in the previous December which would be counted in 2001 s total, though they were served in On the other hand, if a detainee was admitted late in 2001 and not yet released as of the end of the year, his or her days served would be omitted from 2001 s total altogether, and not counted until

22 measured in this way, annual detention day totals fell 15% from 1996 through Cook County alone experienced a 35% drop during this period. In 1996, Cook youth alone served 62% of the state s total detention days. By 2002, the share served by Cook youth had fallen to 47%. On the other hand, annual detention days rose overall during the period in the collar counties (21%) and downstate counties (17%). But in both cases, totals are below those reported in

23 Statewide detention capacity and expenditures have grown. Expenditures for secure detention staff and facilities totaled more than $63 million statewide in 2002, up 46% (without factoring for inflation) since Cook County expenditures alone totaled a little less than $28 million in 2002, an increase of 22% over the period. But Cook County s share of total statewide expenditures fell from 53% in 1997 to 44% in Statewide detention capacity grew 21% from 1997 to 2002, from 1,020 to 1,234 detention beds. Detention utilization rates the percentage of available detention beds used on an average day fell steadily from 1997 to 2002, both because of the decrease in detention days served and the increase in capacity. The statewide detention utilization rate was 110% in By 2002, the utilization rate had fallen to 74%. 5 Figure 11 Statewide Detention Utilization Rates, % 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% As noted, before the year 2000, JMIS did not count detention days served during the calendar year, only detention days served by those released during the calendar year; accordingly, in years prior to 2000, utilization rates are based on days served by those released during the year, while from 2000 on they are based on detention days served during the calendar year. 23

24 Outside of Cook County, the number of individuals coming out of detention facilities has risen. Detention admission/release totals and counts of detention days served may give an accurate idea of the detention system s overall volume and usage during a calendar year, but not of the number of juveniles affected. This is because some individuals experience multiple detentions. On the basis of JMIS data, however, it is also possible to calculate how many juveniles that is, how many discrete individuals have come out of Illinois detention centers in recent years. Statewide, detention facilities released 11,036 juveniles in 2002 or 13% fewer than in Cook County released 4,038 juveniles in 2002, or 29% fewer than in But outside of Cook, the number of individuals released actually rose slightly during this period, from 6,900 to 6,998. Figure 12 Number of Juveniles Released from Detention ,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 State Non-Cook Cook

25 Illinois juveniles were most likely to be detained for court violations. A broad offense profile of detainees can be drawn from JMIS release data. Of all detention facility releases occurring during the three years from 2000 through 2002, the largest proportion 32% of the total involved juveniles who had originally been detained for court violations (contempt, probation violations, and warrants). The next largest 24% of the total involved juveniles who had been detained for person offenses. The rest of the releases involved juveniles detained for property offenses (17%), drug offenses (12%), and other offenses (15%). These offense proportions have remained roughly the same every year since 1996, although the statewide person offense proportion has risen somewhat (from about 23% to about 26% of releases). But between Cook County and the rest of the state, there are distinct differences in detainees offense profiles. Outside of Cook, the share of releases during the period involving juveniles held for court violations was 40%, while in Cook it was just 20%. Even more striking, 24% of Cook County releases during this period involved juveniles detained for drug offenses, compared with just 4% in the rest of the state. Figure 13 Offense Profile of Detention Releases, % 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Person Property Drug Court Other State Cook Non-Cook 25

26 Juveniles were detained much longer in Cook County than elsewhere in Illinois. Considering the other detention-related changes that have occurred in recent years, average lengths of stay as indicated by JMIS release data have been fairly stable. From 1997 to 2002, the statewide average detention stay declined slightly from 21.8 to 21 days. In Cook County, detention stays for juveniles released in 2002 averaged 27 days, down from 28 days for juveniles released in Outside of Cook, average detention stays rose slightly, from 16.5 to 17.5 days, during the same period. Figure 14 Average Length of Stay in Detention in Days Cook State Non-Cook

27 Secure Commitment Data collected by the Juvenile Division of the IDOC provide a broad picture of secure commitment of Illinois juveniles over the years from 1993 to Figure 15 IDOC Juvenile Division Admissions by Commitment Type % 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Delinquent Court Evaluation Felon Several basic kinds of commitments make up the total commitments category: Delinquency commitments are those in which juvenile courts sentence youth to be held by the Juvenile Division for an indeterminate time. These make up the bulk of all IDOC Juvenile Division admissions in a typical year, and the overwhelming majority of inmates in IDOC institutions at any given time. During 2003, for example, about 64% of admissions were delinquency commitments. As of the last day of the 2003 fiscal year (that is, June 30, 2003), 84% of Juvenile Division facility inmates were committed delinquents. The next most common kind of commitments are short-term court evaluation commitments, in which juveniles are ordered held for a maximum of 90 days for evaluation, after which they will be returned to the court for sentencing. In 2003, 33% of commitments were court evaluation commitments. However, only 9% of those held in Juvenile Division facilities on June 30, 2003 were there on court evaluation commitments. Felony commitments are those in which juveniles have been convicted as adults in criminal court and given determinate sentences to be served in IDOC custody. (Although these individuals are admitted initially to Juvenile Division facilities, they may later be transferred and by age 21 must be transferred to the Adult Division.) Felony commitments made up about 3% of all Juvenile Division commitments in As of the last day of the 2003 fiscal year, 5% of Juvenile Division inmates were committed felons. Juveniles who are committed to the IDOC by juvenile courts as first-degree murderers, Violent Juvenile Offenders, or Habitual Juvenile Offenders may 27

28 be held by the Juvenile Division until they are 21. These types of commitments are very rare in 2003, for example, there was only one. Effective in 1999, Illinois enacted a blended sentencing law that created an Extended Juvenile Jurisdiction (EJJ) category of commitment. An EJJ juvenile receives both a juvenile sentence and an adult one, but the latter sentence is stayed pending successful completion of the former. To date, only a handful of juveniles have been committed to IDOC under the EJJ law just two in

29 During the last decade, IDOC juvenile commitments rose sharply and then fell gradually. Overall, taking into account all commitment types, annual commitments to IDOC s Juvenile Division rose 43% from 1993 to Statewide, what actually occurred was a very sharp rise (83%) in commitments from 1993 to 1997, followed by several years of stability at this very high level, followed by a somewhat less steep drop over the last four years. Since 1999, the trend in overall commitments is down 22%. But even these figures mask several trends. Although Cook County experienced a rise in commitments during the early part of this period, overall commitments there since 1999 have fallen more sharply (45%) than in the rest of the state so that there were actually 12% fewer Cook commitments in 2003 than there were in In contrast, in the urban downstate counties, there has been no drop in commitments since 1999, and the overall increase from 1993 to 2003 was 102%. Collar county commitments rose 62% and rural county commitments 158% during the same period, but there has at least been some drop-off in both areas following late-1990s peaks. In 1993, 45% of all annual commitments were from Cook, and 28% were from downstate urban counties. By 2003, Cook s share of annual commitments was just 27%, while the urban counties accounted for 40%. Rural downstate counties collective share rose from 12% to 22%. Only the collar counties proportion of commitments remained stable, rising slightly from 9% to 10%. Figure 16 Commitments by County Type, % 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Cook Urban Rural Collar

30 Illinois juveniles were most commonly committed for property offenses, especially in downstate counties. When commitments for various offense types person, property, drug, and sex offenses are examined separately, the patterns differ somewhat. For both person and property offenses, the basic themes described above are repeated commitments sharply rising statewide into the late 1990s, then falling somewhat, though not back to their 1993 levels; and Cook County making more progress in reducing property offense commitments than the rest of the state. But commitments for drug and sex offenses show somewhat different patterns. Statewide, more juveniles are committed for property offenses in Illinois than for any other kind of offense: in 2003, for example, 45% of all commitments were for property offenses, 35% were for person offenses, 12% were for drug offenses, and 6% were for sex offenses. (These rough proportions have held steady every year since 1999, except that the proportion of drug commitments has fallen somewhat and that of sex offense commitments risen somewhat.) Annual property offense commitments rose 63% from 1993 to But the real increase occurred from 1993 to 1999 (94%); from 1999 to 2003, annual property offense commitments fell 19%. Most of the overall increase in property offense commitments from 1993 to 2003 was due to downstate counties. As will be explored further below, there is a huge and rapidly growing gap in property 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Figure 17 Property Offense Commitments by County Type Urban offense commitment rates the number of juveniles committed for property offenses per 100,000 residents of commitment age between Cook and the collar counties on the one hand and the urban and rural downstate counties on the other. Even in 1993, Cook and the collar counties together accounted for only 42% of property offense commitments, while downstate urban and rural counties collectively accounted for 58%. By 2003, the Cook/collar share had fallen to 25%, and the downstate counties accounted for 75%. Between 1993 and 2003, raw numbers of property offense commitments actually declined 15% in Cook County, while the collar counties numbers rose 33%. But in the Rural Cook Collar 30

31 urban downstate counties, property offense commitments increased 97% during this period, and rural counties property offense commitments rose 131%. 31

32 Person offense commitments have increased overall, except in Cook County. Statewide, annual commitments for person offenses rose 18% statewide from 1993 to 2003, but actually peaked in 1997, and have fallen 25% since then. Again, most of this progress is due to Cook, where person offense commitments have dropped 36% overall since 1993, and 51% since their peak in By contrast, person offense commitments in the downstate counties have not fallen off since the peak, and are up 83% (urban) and 190% (rural) since At the beginning of this period, Cook by itself accounted for 61% of all person offense commitments, and the downstate urban counties only 24%. By the end, the urban counties were responsible for 38%, and Cook for just 33%. Figure 18 Person Offense Commitments by County Type % 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Cook Urban Collar Rural

33 The vast majority of drug offense commitments were from Cook County. Drug offense commitments present a different story. There was the same kind of overall rise and fall but in this case the rise from a relatively small base (just 96 drug commitments in 1993) was spectacularly sharp (287% from 1993 to 1999). Despite a 45% drop in drug commitments from 1999 to 2003, the result was an overall increase of 115% during the period. Another difference is that throughout these years, Cook County has accounted for the lion s share of the drug commitments 72% at the beginning, 74% during the peak in 1999, and 67% even in And although by 2003 Cook drug commitments had fallen 51% from the 1999 peak, they were still up 98% over 1993 levels. Figure 19 Drug Offense Commitments by County Type % 80% Cook 60% 40% 20% 0% Urban Rural Collar

34 The biggest growth in sex offense commitments came in the urban downstate counties. In comparison with commitments for other offenses, sex offense commitments are relatively uncommon, but they too rose from 1993 to 2003, at least everywhere outside Cook County. There was no rise and fall, however the 2003 total was higher than any previous year in that span. Statewide, annual sex offense commitments increased 103%, largely due to a 160% increase in urban downstate counties. In Cook alone, sex offense commitments decreased 11% from 1993 to Figure 20 Sex Offense Commitments by County Type % 50% Urban 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Rural Cook Collar

35 The number of institutionalized juveniles has fallen since As noted above, the IDOC publishes a kind of annual census-style summary of adult and juvenile inmates, with various kinds of detail (including racial/ethnic detail, which will be examined separately). It is useful as a supplement to the annual commitment data described above, because it provides a picture of the institutional stock population at a point in time (in this case June 30, the final day of the State Fiscal Year), as opposed to the flow through the institutions during a given year or years. IDOC s annual census counts of its institutionalized juveniles for the years 1999 through 2003 reflect a decline in overall commitments, and particularly Cook County commitments. Overall, the institutionalized population shrank 29% from 1999 to Not only did the number of Cook County juveniles in the inmate population fall 46% from the 1999 census day to the 2003 census day, but Cook County s share of the total committed population declined from 41% in 1999 to 31% in The number of collar county youth in IDOC Juvenile Division institutions on the census day dropped 25% from 1999 to 2003, but the collar county share of the inmate population rose from 11% to 12%. And while the number of downstate county youth in institutions fell 15%, the downstate share of the total grew from 47% in 1999 to 57% in Figure 21 Annual Population Count by Committing County ,200 1, Cook Collar Downstate In terms of offense types, IDOC annual inmate census figures show that, while juveniles committed for person offenses made up the largest proportion of the IDOC Juvenile Division inmate population at the beginning of this period 42% of the total in 1999 by the end their share had fallen to 34%. Juveniles committed for property offenses made up 35

36 just 36% of the population in the 1999 inmate count, but by 2003 they made up the largest group at 41%. The proportion of the inmate population committed for drug offenses fell from 15% in 1999 to 12% in 2003, while the proportion committed for sex offenses rose from 7% to 10% during the same period. Figure 22 Annual Population Count by Offense Type , Person Property Drug Sex 36

37 Downstate county commitment rates were far higher than those in Cook and the collar counties. Another way to track trends in a jurisdiction s commitments is to compare its IDOC juvenile commitment totals for a given year with its population. A jurisdiction s commitment rate is equal to the number of commitments it makes per 100,000 juveniles of commitment age (13-16) in the general population. In 2003, Illinois had an overall juvenile commitment rate of just over 252 reflecting the fact that it made a total of 1,732 commitments out of an estimated commitment-age population of 685,907. The statewide commitment rate rose 35% from 1993 to 2003, from 186 per 100,000 to 252 per 100,000. Here again though, as was the case with the raw commitment totals, what actually occurred was a 74% rise from 1993 to 1999, followed by a 22% fall from 1999 to And just as the Cook commitment trend ran counter to the statewide trend, the Cook commitment rate actually fell by 15% during the period, while rates in the rest of the state rose (38% in collar counties, 93% in urban downstate counties, and 152% in rural downstate counties). But the real story here is the large gap between Cook/collar and downstate commitment rates. The statewide commitment rate trend is really just an average between two sharply diverging sets of trends. On a per capita basis, urban downstate counties collectively committed almost three times as many juveniles as Cook County in 2003, and more than four times as many as the collar counties. The rural downstate county rate was twice that of Cook County during the same year, and three times that of the collar counties. These rate differences have widened considerably since 1997, when the Cook and collar rates began to fall while the downstate rates continued to rise. Figure 23 Commitment Rates per 100,000 Juveniles Ages Urban Rural State Cook Collar

38 Downstate commitment rates were higher for all offense types except drug offenses. This general commitment rate pattern holds for most offense types. Statewide commitment rates for property offenses, which are higher than for any other offense type, rose 54% from 1993 to But virtually all of this increase was due to the downstate counties. Not only did Cook and the collar counties start with much lower property offense commitment rates in 1993, Cook s rate fell somewhat (17%) over the period from 1993 to 2003, while the collar counties rate rose only slightly (13%). By contrast, the urban downstate counties already elevated rate rose 89% during those years, while the rural counties rate rose 125%. By 2003, urban downstate counties were committing juveniles for property offenses at more than five times the rate of Cook or the collar counties. The rural downstate counties rate was likewise five times that of Cook, and more than four times that of the collar counties. Person offense commitment rates have diverged in a similar way. The statewide commitment rate for person offenses rose and fell again from 1993 to 2003, peaking in 1997, and finishing in 2003 just 11% higher than it started. A great deal changed during that period, however. In 1993, Cook had the state s highest commitment rate for person offenses, and as recently as 1997 had a rate virtually identical to that of the urban downstate counties. But since then Cook s person offense commitment rate has fallen 51%. The collar counties rate has also fallen 33% since its peak in Rural and urban downstate counties commitment rates for person offenses have continued to rise, however. Rural counties commitment rates surpassed Cook s in By 2003, urban counties committed juveniles for person offenses at twice the Cook County rate. Commitments for sex offenses are much rarer than commitments for property or person offenses, and so rates are considerably lower, but the pattern described above with downstate counties having far higher commitment rates than Cook or collar counties holds true here as well. Only drug offense commitment rates depart from this general pattern. Statewide, the period saw another rise-and-fall pattern in drug offense commitment rates, with the peak in 1999, and the overall rate in 2003 about twice what it was in But Cook County s rate of commitment for drug offenses was the state s highest throughout this period; though it has fallen 51% since its 1999 peak, it was still almost twice the statewide rate as of Table Commitment Rates per 100,000 Juveniles by Offense Type Person Property Drug Sex State Cook Urban Collar Rural

39 3. RACIAL DISPARITY Ideally, racial disparities in case handling should be analyzed by means of a series of decision-point comparisons. At each decision point, and for each racial/ethnic group examined, the rate at which minority group members receive a given form of handling (arrest, referral, detention, petitioning, transfer, adjudication, and secure placement) should be compared with the rate at which white youth receive the same handling. Unfortunately, the available data do not support such an analysis in Illinois. The absence of statewide juvenile arrest and referral counts, not to mention the lack of racial/ethnic information regarding most court processing stages, call for substitute measures. Fortunately, statewide information pertinent to racial fairness is available from Illinois corrections and detention data, and can shed light on racial disparities at the detention, transfer and commitment stages of juvenile justice processing: Detention: Published JMIS data provide a general racial profile of detention admissions/releases, at least for recent years, as well as information on how average lengths of stay differed among races during those years. Delinquency Commitment: A racial profile of annual admissions, broken down by offense, age and committing county/county type, is available for a series of years ending in Transfer/Felony Commitment: JMIS can provide a racial profile of transferred detainees, while corrections data yield a racially detailed picture of the subset of transferred juveniles who are actually committed. The corrections data on committed transferees can be broken down by offense, age and committing county/county type. 39