New Jersey Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) 2010 Annual Data Report

New Jersey Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) Annual Data Report State of New Jersey Office of the Attorney General Juvenile Justice Commission Chris Christie, Governor Paula T. Dow, Attorney General Veleria N. Lawson, Executive Director February 11

Acknowledgments The Administration of the Juvenile Justice Commission would like to thank Dr. Jennifer LeBaron, Manager of Research and Evaluation and JDAI State Coordinator, for her excellent work in authoring the JDAI Annual Data Report. The Administration would also like to thank the JJC s team of Detention Specialists for their assistance in maintaining the data required to not only produce this report, but to ensure that JDAI continues to be a data- and results-driven initiative. We hope that our JDAI partners at the state and local level find the report s contents useful as a tool for guiding ongoing juvenile justice system improvement efforts. 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary i Summary of Changes in Key Detention Utilization Indicators 1 Average Daily Population (ADP) in Detention 1 Admissions to Detention 2 Length of Stay in and Departures from Detention Detention Alternative Outcomes Minority Youth in Detention 1 Girls in Detention Detention -Day Commitment Programs Site-Specific ADP, Admissions, and LOS Graphs Endnotes 3 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction & Background In 3 the Annie E. Casey Foundation selected New Jersey as a replication site for the nationally recognized Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI). JDAI was developed in response to national trends reflecting a drastic increase in the use of secure detention for juveniles despite decreases in juvenile arrests, and the resulting overcrowding of youth detention centers nationwide. The goal of this systems-change initiative is to create more effective and efficient processes surrounding the use of detention. To that end, JDAI works to reduce the number of youth unnecessarily or inappropriately held in secure detention, while maintaining public safety and ensuring youth appear for scheduled court dates. JDAI also works to redirect resources toward successful reform strategies and to improve conditions of confinement in detention facilities for those youth who require this most secure level of supervision. The Juvenile Justice Commission (JJC) is the lead agency for JDAI in New Jersey, providing the management and staffing infrastructure integral to New Jersey s success as a JDAI site. The New Jersey Judiciary is a critical partner in this work, and with the JJC, has provided the leadership needed to achieve the success that has brought New Jersey national recognition as the first model state for juvenile detention reform. The Purpose of Detention and JDAI Core Strategies The statutory purpose of detention is to temporarily hold youth who pose a serious risk of reoffending or a risk of flight, while their cases are pending final court disposition. To help ensure detention is used according to this purpose, and to otherwise assist jurisdictions in accomplishing their reform goals, JDAI provides a framework for conducting a thorough, data-driven examination of the detention system, and for using that information to develop strategies for system improvement. This proven approach to systems-change has demonstrated across countless jurisdictions that reliance on secure detention can be reduced safely, and outcomes for youth improved, via implementation of JDAI s eight core strategies. These eight core strategies include: (1) Building the collaboration and leadership required for the challenging work of system reform, (2) Relying on data to inform juvenile justice policy and program development, (3) Implementing effective, objective detention admissions policies and practices, () Enhancing available alternatives to secure detention, () Reducing unnecessary delays in case processing and corresponding length of stay (LOS) in detention, () Focusing on challenges presented by special populations, including youth detained for violations of probation and warrants, and youth awaiting dispositional placement, () Identifying strategies to reduce racial disparities in the detention system, and () Ensuring detention facilities present conditions of confinement that meet basic constitutional, statutory, and professional standards, and striving to meet bestpractice standards. i

Purpose of the JDAI Annual Data Report & Summary of Key Findings As indicated above, reliance on data to inform policy and program development is key among JDAI s core strategies. Through JDAI jurisdictions use data to examine the detention process to determine where opportunities for improvement exist, and to measure the impact of any reforms implemented. The JDAI Annual Data Report documents annual trends along key indicators of detention utilization, including admissions, length of stay (LOS), and average daily population (ADP). Note that the purpose of the JDAI Annual Data Report is to illustrate the overall impact of JDAI as a statewide initiative. County-specific needs continue to drive the various, additional analyses used for system-diagnosis at the local level. The Annual Data Report provides information regarding the New Jersey JDAI sites active throughout, and documents impressive changes in local detention systems changes that are consistent with the application of JDAI core strategies and with the goal of safely reducing the unnecessary detention of New Jersey s kids. For example: Comparing the year prior to JDAI in each site to the current year, across all twelve sites average daily population has decreased by -1.%. On any given day, there were 31 fewer youth in secure detention, with youth of color accounting for.1% of this drop. Comparing the year prior to JDAI in each site to, collectively across sites more than five-thousand (,) fewer youth were admitted to detention, a decrease of - 3.%. Over the past year alone, JDAI sites reduced the total number of kids admitted to detention for a technical violation of probation by -.%. In, across the eleven sites reporting detention alternative outcome data, the success rate averaged.2%. Across these sites an average of just 3.% of youth were discharged from a detention alternative program as the result of a new delinquency charge, indicating JDAI public safety goals are being met. The number of girls in detention on any given day has decreased by -.3% across the twelve sites. Note, though, that a core principle of JDAI is recognizing that no matter how well the current system is operating, there is always room for improvement in addressing delinquent youth with low-level offenses more systematically. The purpose of this report is not only highlighting the accomplishments of New Jersey s JDAI sites, but to look for areas where we can continue to grow. While the accomplishments of New Jersey s JDAI sites to-date are indeed substantial, the report s findings do in fact indicate there are opportunities to improve the juvenile justice system in a research informed and cost effective way to improve outcomes for low-level juvenile offenders. For example, eight of the sites have experienced an increase in average length of stay since JDAI implementation, for an average collective increase of +3.1 days. And, the gap between youth of color and white youth in terms of length of stay has increased. Averaging across sites, in youth of color remained in detention almost two weeks longer than white youth with similar offenses. In light of the significant achievements made by JDAI sites in terms of reducing unnecessary admissions to detention, an intentional focus on length of stay and related case processing issues, with an emphasis on further diagnosing and addressing potential disparities in this area, seems to be an area warranting further examination for the coming year. ii

New Jersey Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (NJ~JDAI) ANNUAL DATA REPORT Prepared by: Jennifer LeBaron, Ph.D. NJ Juvenile Justice Commission SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN KEY DETENTION UTILIZATION INDICATORS Table 1 summarizes changes in the key indicators of detention utilization over the most recent year ( to ). These three indicators include admissions, average length of stay (ALOS), and average daily population (ADP). Of course, ADP is a function of how many youth are admitted to detention and how long each youth stays, so a primary purpose of Table 1 is to illustrate the interaction between the detention utilization indicators. Each of the three indicators will be discussed further in subsequent sections of the report. As Table 1 reveals, five sites experienced a decrease in all three detention utilization indicators over the past year (Camden, Essex, Hudson, Monmouth, and Ocean). All eleven sites experienced a decrease in admissions. In Hudson and Ocean, a sizable drop in admissions is paired with a marked drop in ALOS, yielding the largest decreases in ADP among all sites. In just two sites ADP increased over the past year (Atlantic, Bergen), and as Table 1 reveals, in both sites this upward trend is entirely driven by an increase in ALOS. TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN KEY DETENTION UTILIZATION INDICATORS, - 1-Year Change - a Admissions ALOS ADP Kids % Days % Kids % Atlantic -3 -.% +.1 +.% +3.1 +1.% Bergen -33 -.% +. +2.% +. +.% Burlington - -.% +2. +.% -2. -.3% Camden -33 -.2% -1.3 -.% -. -11.% Essex -3 -.% -2.1 -.% -. -11.2% Hudson - -.% -3. -.2% -. -3.% Mercer - -.2% +1. +.3% -. -1.1% Monmouth - -33.2% -.3 -.% -.1-2.% Ocean -3 -.1% -. -1.% -. -31.3% Somerset -31-2.2% +. +.% -1.3-1.2% Union - -.% +2. +.% -. -.% a Only JDAI sites with multi-year data on all measures as of the close of are included in this table. AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) IN DETENTION On any given day in, across the twelve JDAI sites there were 31 fewer kids in secure detention centers than there were prior to JDAI implementation, a decrease of -1.%. As indicated in Table 2, all twelve sites have experienced substantial decreases in ADP. The number of youth held in detention has dropped by more than half in Essex (-.%), Mercer (-.3%), Camden (-.%), Hudson (-.%), and Monmouth (-3.%). Changes continued over the past year, with collective ADP dropping by -1.%, and with Hudson (-3.%) and Ocean (-31.3%) leading the way. 1

TABLE 2. ADP IN DETENTION 1-Year Change Pre-Post Change Original Sites 3 Kids % Kids % Atlantic 3.1 1.3 1. +3.1 +1.% -. -3.1% Camden.. 1.2 -. -11.% -3. -.% Essex 3. 1.2. -. -11.2% -3.1 -.% Monmouth... -.1-2.% -. -3.% Hudson. 2.3 3.3 -. -3.% -. -.% 1-Year Change Pre-Post Change Phase 2 Sites Kids % Kids % Mercer. 2.. -. -1.1% -. -.3% Union 3.2 3.. -. -.% -.2 -.% Bergen.3.. +. +.% -. -.3% Burlington.. 1. -2. -.3% -. -.% Ocean..2. -. -31.3% -11.2 -.3% 1-Year Change Pre-Post Change Phase 3 Sites Kids % Kids % Somerset...3-1.3-1.2% -2. -.% Passaic.2.1 1.2 -. -.3% -2. -1.3% TOTAL 1 1. 31.3 3. -. -1.% -31.1-1.% Figure 1. Combined Monthly Detention ADP for Original JDAI Sites, 3- JAN'3 MAY' SEP'3 JAN' MAY' SEP' JAN' MAY' SEP' JAN' MAY' SEP' JAN' MAY' SEP' JAN' MAY' SEP' JAN' MAY' SEP' JAN' MAY'1 SEP' ADMISSIONS TO DETENTION Comparing the year prior to JDAI in each site to the current year, across all twelve JDAI sites more than five-thousand (,) fewer youth were admitted to detention, a decrease of -3.%. Admissions decreased substantially in all twelve sites, with Camden experiencing the largest pre vs. post JDAI drop (-.%), followed closely by Mercer (-.%) and Monmouth (-.%). Downward trends continued over the past year. From to admissions decreased by -.% across sites, with Monmouth experiencing the largest decrease of -33.2%. 2

TABLE 3. ANNUAL ADMISSIONS TO DETENTION 1-Year Change Pre-Post Change Original Sites 3 Kids % Kids % Atlantic -3 -.% -2-1.% Camden 11 2-33 -.2% -1 -.% Essex 111-3 -.% - -1.% Monmouth 1 - -33.2% - -.% Hudson 1 - -.% - -.% 1-Year Change Pre-Post Change Phase 2 Sites Kids % Kids % Mercer 3 - -.2% - -.% Union - -.% - -3.1% Bergen 111-33 -.% - -.% Burlington 2 2 - -.% - -.% Ocean 2 1 3-3 -.1% - -.% 1-Year Change Pre-Post Change Phase 3 Sites Kids % Kids % Somerset 1 3-31 -2.2% -3-3.1% Passaic 11 + +.% -3-31.2% TOTAL 31 1 2 - -.% - -3.% Nature of Admissions. The purpose of juvenile detention is to temporarily hold youth who pose a serious risk to public safety or risk of flight while their cases are pending final court disposition. JDAI sites continue to work to a) ensure detention is used according to this purpose, b) minimize reliance on detention for lesser offenses and rule violations, c) increase compliance with court-ordered conditions, and d) decrease rates of failure to appear in court. Examining the reasons why youth are admitted to detention, including the most serious charge faced by detained youth, is one primary indicator of progress toward these goals. New Delinquency Charges. As illustrated in Figure 2, in the percentage of youth admitted to detention as a result of new delinquency charges varied widely across sites, ranging from 3.% of all admissions in Somerset to 3.% in Union. Table indicates that multi-year trends also vary, with several sites experiencing sizable increases in the percentage of youth detained for new delinquency charges (Monmouth, Burlington, Atlantic, Ocean), while several sites experienced the opposite trend a drop in the percentage of youth detained as the result of new charges (Mercer, Bergen, Essex, Somerset). Finally, Table indicates that in the percentage of youth detained for the most serious offenses those of the 1 st or 2 nd degree also varied widely across counties, from a low of 1.1% of all youth detained in Ocean to a high of.1% in Hudson. VOPs. As described in Table, in the years since JDAI implementation, most sites have seen downward trends in the percentage of youth admitted to detention for VOPs. There remains, though, wide variation across sites in terms of reliance on detention for youth charged with VOPs. In, across all twelve sites.1% of admissions to detention were due to a VOP, though this figure ranged from a low of.3% in Hudson to a high of 31.% in Ocean. In terms of the actual number (as opposed to percentage) of youth admitted to detention for a VOP, over the past year sites experienced a collective decrease, from to 1 (-.%). While as a group JDAI sites experienced a decrease, there was substantial variation across sites in terms of change over the past year. As indicated in Table, the largest one-year decrease occurred in Hudson (-.%), while the largest one-year increase occurred in Essex (+2.%). FTAs. In, across sites.3% of admissions to detention were due to failure to appear in court (FTA), though Table reveals that this figure ranged from a low of 2.% of all admissions in Burlington to a high of.3% in Somerset. Table describes the actual number of youth admitted to detention for failure to 3

appear. Over the past year, across sites the number of youth admitted for an FTA remained relatively flat (-1.%), with some sites increasing, others decreasing, and others remaining unchanged. Burlington experienced the largest one-year decrease (-.1%), while Somerset experienced the largest one-year increase (+1.%) in the number of FTA admissions. Detention Alternative Violations. Tables and indicate that across sites, admissions to detention for violations of a detention alternative generally increased over the past year. The number of youth admitted to detention for an alternative violation increased from 2 to 2 (+.%), and the percentage of all admissions tied to an alternative violation increased from.% in to.% in. Across sites, the percentage of youth detained for an alternative violation in varied only slightly, from 2.% in Union to.% in Bergen. However, one-year changes in the number of youth admitted for an alternative violation did vary. The largest one-year decreases occurred in Ocean (-.%) and Atlantic (-.%), while the largest one-year increases occurred in Passaic (+21.%) and Essex (+.%). Admission Process. Finally, Table provides basic data regarding the process by which youth are admitted to detention. By far the most common process for admitting youth to detention is via a call placed to Family Court Intake Services.% across sites in. There is variation across sites, however. For example, in court remands accounted for.2% of all admissions to detention across sites, but this figure ranged from lows of 1.% in Union and 2.% in Mercer, to highs of 3.% in Camden and 3.3% in Ocean. FIGURE 2. PERCENTAGE OF YOUTH DETAINED FOR NEW CHARGES () 1... 1..3.3 1.3. 1.. 3. 3. ATL BER BUR CAM ESX HUD MER MON OCE PAS SOM UNI

TABLE. NATURE OF CURRENT OFFENSE/LEAD REASON FOR DETENTION (Table continued on next page) Atl Cam Esx a Mon Hud b Mer Uni Ber Ocn Bur Som Pas c 3.% 1.3% 3.% 3.%.2% Delinquency Charges VOP FTA Violation of Detention Alternative Other Violation or Non- Delinquent Event 2.1%.%.%.3% 2.%.1% 3.% 2.%.% 1.%.%.% 2.%.% 1.%.% 1.%.1%.%.2% 3.%.%.%.%.%.2%.3%.% 2.%.%.2% 1.3%.% 3.% 2.% 3.%.%.% 2.%.% 3.%.%.%.3%.%.% 3.% 1.%.% 1.% 1.%.3%.%.3% 1.3% 3.%.% 1.%.% 3.%.% 3.%.%.3%.1%.3% 1.%.%.% 1.%.% 11.%.%.%.% 2.% 3.1% 1.2%.2%.3% 11.% 33.1%.1%.%.% 2.%.%.%.3%.% 2.%.3% 1.%.%.3%.%.% 1.%.2%.% 3.% 2.% 3.% 11.% 1.1% 3.2%.%.%.%.%.% 3.1%.%.%.1% 11.1%.1%.%.%.3%.%.%.% 31.% 1.%.%.% 3.% 11.%.%.1% 2.%.%.%.2% 11.3% 2.%.%.%.% 3.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.3%.%.% 3.3%.% 3.%.% 3.%.%.%.%.% 3.%.% 3.% 1.%.1% 3.%.3%.1%.%.%.% 3.%.% 3.1%.3%.%.%.%.%.%.2%.%.%.%.% 2.%.2%.% 2.%.3%.% 3.%.2%.2%.1%.%.%.% 1.1%.2% 1.% 2.%.%.%.3% 1.2% 1.3%.% 3.% 2.%.2%.% 2.2%.% 2.1% 2.%.% 2.% 3.% 1.%.% 2.2%.%.%.% 3.%.1% 2.1% 2.%.1%.% 3.2% 1.%.3%.% 3.%.% 3.% 3.% 1.%.% 11.% 3.%.1% 2.1%.3%.%.1%.%.%.2% 2.%.%.%.%.2%.% 3.%.% 1.3%.%.% 1.2%.%.%.2%.% 2.%.%.1% 1.%.% 1.% 1.% 3.%.%.%.%.% 1.%.%.%.% 3.% 2.1% 1.1%.% 11.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.% 1.%.%.%.%.2%.2% 1.% 3.% 1.%.%.% 1.%.%.3% 3.%.% 1.%.% 1.1%.% 2.3%.%.%.2%.% 1.2% 2.%

Other Reason 1 TABLE. NATURE OF CURRENT OFFENSE/LEAD REASON FOR DETENTION (Continued from Prior Page) Atl Cam Esx a Mon Hud b Mer Uni Ber Ocn Bur Som Pas c 3 2.%.2%.2%.%.% 1.2%.1%.% 1.2%.%.%.% 2.1%.%.2%.1%.%.%.%.%.% 1.3%.%.1%.1%.3%.%.%.2%.%.3%.% 1.2%.%.3%.%.2%.%.%.%.%.% 1.%.%.2%.%.% 1.%.%.%.%.%.%.% 2.2%.%.1%.%.% 2.%.%.%.%.%.%.2% a b Essex s data covers Jun-Dec. Hudson s data covers Sep-Dec. c 3 figures are based on four months of admissions (Jan,Apr,Jul,Oct) from each of the original sites. TABLE. DEGREE OF CURRENT OFFENSE/LEAD REASON FOR DETENTION () Atl Cam Esx Mon Hud Mer Uni Ber Ocn Bur Som Pas 1 ST /2 ND.% 33.%.2% 3.%.1% 33.2% 2.3% 1.1%.3%.% 3.1% 3 RD 1.%.1% 1.%.%.%.% 1.2%.%.%.%.% TH /DP 3.1%.2% 3.%.% 3.3%.3% 1.%.1%.%.% 1.% Other 2.3% 3.%.% 2.3%.%.% 3.%.3%.%.2%.3% TABLE. ANNUAL ADMISSIONS TO DETENTION FOR VOPs Atl Cam Esx Mon Hud Mer Uni Ber Ocn Bur Som Pas 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 3 1 1 2 3 3 2 TABLE. ANNUAL ADMISSIONS TO DETENTION FOR FTAs Atl Cam Esx Mon Hud Mer Uni Ber Ocn Bur Som Pas 11 3 1 2 11 1 3 1 1 2 2 1

TABLE. ANNUAL ADMISSIONS TO DETENTION FOR DETENTION ALTERNATIVE VIOLATIONS Atl Cam Esx Mon Hud Mer Uni Ber Ocn Bur Som Pas 2 3 3 11 1 2 3 11 11 11 2 TABLE. ADMISSION PROCESS ADMITTED VIA: Atl Cam Esx a Mon Hud b Mer Uni Ber Ocn Bur c Som Pas.%.%.% 2.% Processed Through Intake Services.%.%.%.% 3.%.2% 3.%.%.%.% 3.%.%.%.3%.%.1%.3%.1%.2%.% 33.% 3.2%.%.%.%.%.3%.% 2.%.%.3%.2%.2%.1% 3.% 2.% 3.%.%.%.1%.%.2% 2.3%.%.% 1.% 3.2%.3%.3%.%.%.% 1.2%.%.%.% 1.1% Remanded at Court 3.1%.% 11.%.1%.3% 2.%.% 31.% 11.1% 1.%.%.% 2.1% 2.%.1% 1.%.%.1% 2.1%.%.%.%.% 2.1% 2.1%.1% 2.% 1.% 1.%.3% 3.% 11.%.1%.2% 2.% 1.% 1.2% 3.3% 1.2%.2% 1.1% 3.%.%.% 3.% Transfer from Other YDC, Jail, Secure Facility 1.%.% 2.3% 3.%.% 1.1% 2.%.1% 2.3% 3.%.% 1.%.3% 1.% 3.%.2%.2% 1.2% 2.1% 2.2%.% 2.%.% 1.% 1.%.1%.%.% 1.% 2.%.% 2.%.%.%.% 1.% 3.%.%.%.% 2.% 3.% 3.% 2.% 3.%.2%.% 2.3%.%.1%.% 1.%.%.1%.%.%.% Other Process.2%.1%.2% 3.%.%.% 2.%.2%.%.%.%.2%.% 1.%.% 2.%.%.%.%.%.% 1.%.%.%.% 31.% 1.1%.%.%.%.%.%.%.2%.%.% 2.%.1% 1.% 3.%.% a Essex s data covers Jun-Dec. b Hudson s data covers May-Dec. c Burlington s data covers Aug-Dec.

LENGTH OF STAY (LOS) IN DETENTION At the close of, multi-year length of stay data was available in eleven sites. Table indicates that in, across these eleven sites average length of stay (ALOS) ranged from a low of.3 days in Burlington to a high of 3.2 days in Monmouth. Collectively the eleven sites have experienced an increase of +3.1 days in ALOS since JDAI implementation. The sites experiencing the largest pre vs. post JDAI increase are Somerset (+.1 days) and Camden (+11. days), while Essex has experienced the largest decrease (-. days). The percentage of all youth who remain in detention for days or more has also grown since JDAI implementation, from.% to 1.% (Table 11). Five sites did experience a drop in ALOS over the past year (Ocean, Hudson, Essex, Camden, Monmouth), indicating perhaps the upward trend is beginning to reverse. However, differences in LOS across racial/ethnic groups continue to exist, and as described later in this report (Table ), in youth of color remained in detention two weeks longer than white youth (. days). In light of the significant achievements made by JDAI sites in reducing unnecessary admissions to detention, renewed focus on these length of stay trends seems a worthwhile priority for the coming year. TABLE. AVERAGE LOS IN DETENTION AVERAGE LOS IN DETENTION, IN DAYS MEDIAN LOS IN DETENTION, IN DAYS Original Sites a 1-Year Change Pre-Post Change Pre-Post Change 3 3 Days % Days % Days % Atlantic 2.1. 2. +.1 +.% -. -2.1% - -33.3% Camden.1. 31. -1.3 -.% +11. +.2% 1 1 + +.% Essex 3. 33.. -2.1 -.% -. -.% - -1.% Monmouth.2 3. 3.2 -.3 -.% +. +.% 1-2 -11.1% Hudson 2.. 2. -3. -.2% +. +2.% -2-2.% Phase 2 1-Year Change Pre-Post Change Pre-Post Change Sites Days % Days % Days % Mercer 2. 2. 2. +1. +.3% +1.3 +.% 11-1 -.1% Union 2. 2.. +2. +.% +3. +.% -1-11.1% Bergen 2. 2. 3. +. +2.% +.1 +.% 1 +2 +.3% Burlington...3 +2. +.% +. +.1%.% Ocean 3. 3. 31. -. -1.% -3.1 -.% -2 -.% Phase 3 1-Year Change Pre-Post Change Pre-Post Change Sites Days % Days % Days % Somerset.2. 2.3 +. +.% +.1 +.2% +2 +.% SITE AVG 2. 2.. +1.2 +.% +3.1 +11.2% 11 11-1 -.3% a 3 figures are based on a -month sample (Jan, Apr, Jul, Oct) for each site. LOS By Departure Type. Table provides more specific information regarding average length of stay, describing ALOS based on the circumstances of release from detention, and points to wide variation across sites. For example, Table indicates that for youth released from secure detention to a detention alternative/shelter in, ALOS in secure detention ranged from a low of less than one week in Essex (.2 days) to almost three weeks in Ocean (1.2 days). Average LOS for youth released to a parent/home pre-dispositionally ranged from a low of 1. days in Bergen to a high of. days in Union. ALOS for youth released to serve a disposition/to a dispositional placement ranged from a low of 1.2 days in Mercer to 3. days in Hudson. Finally, across sites 1 youth fall into the release category of dismissed, diverted, similar, and in sites where youth are included in this category, ALOS in detention ranged from. days in Bergen to. days in Essex. In order to shed light on the nature of the increase in overall LOS reported earlier, Table reports oneyear changes in ALOS for three primary departure types. Between and, seven sites experienced increases in ALOS for youth released to a detention alternative/shelter, though changes ranged from an increase of about one week in Bergen (+.3 days) and Ocean (+. days), to a decrease

of about five days in Somerset (-.) and Burlington (-.). Conversely, nine sites experienced decreases in ALOS for youth released to a parent/home; changes ranged from a decrease of more than two weeks in Bergen (-. days) to an increase of +3.1 days in Union. Finally, seven sites experienced increases in ALOS for youth released from detention to disposition, though again, changes ranged from an increase of +1. days in Burlington to a decrease of -. days in Ocean. TABLE 11. YOUTH REMAINING IN DETENTION < AND > DAYS % RELEASED WITHIN DAYS % DETAINED DAYS OR LONGER Original Sites a Pre-Post Change Pre-Post Change 3 3 Percentage Points Percentage Points Atlantic.% 3.%.% +.3 1.1%.%.3% +1.2 Camden.% 1.%.1% -..1% 1.% 1.1% +11. Essex.1%.%.% +..%.%.% -3. Monmouth.%.3%.% -..2%.1%.% +. Hudson 1.%.%.% +. 1.%.2%.3% -3. Phase 2 Pre-Post Change Pre-Post Change Sites Percentage Points Percentage Points Mercer 3.%.%.% +1.1.%.%.% +. Union 1.%.%.% -1..%.%.% +2. Bergen.1% 2.% 3.2% -..2%.%.% +. Burlington.% 2.% 2.% -2. 11.%.%.% +2. Ocean.% 3.%.% +..%.2%.% -.2 Phase 3 Pre-Post Change Pre-Post Change Sites Percentage Points Percentage Points Somerset 2.2%.3%.3% -2. 1.%.%.% +.3 SITE AVG 1.% 1.%.2% -1.3.%.% 1.% +2.1 a 3 figures are based on a -month sample (Jan, Apr, Jul, Oct) for each site. DEPARTURES FROM DETENTION Tables and expand on the information provided in Tables and, describing annual trends in the overall number of youth released from secure detention as well as the circumstances of release from detention. Focusing on Table, the first three rows/categories taken together (i.e., Detention Alternative/Shelter + Parent/Other Adult/ROR + Other Service Agency/Plcmt) represent an approximate gauge of the percentage of youth released from detention prior to final dispositional placement. This gauge indicates sites vary in the proportion of youth released pre-dispositionally from detention. For example, in the percentage of youth released prior to final dispositional placement ranged from lows of approximately % in Bergen and Ocean, to about % in Hudson. The proportion of youth released via a transfer to jail or upon bail often as a result of a waiver ranged from less than one percent in Essex (.%, n=), to.% in Somerset (n=) and.3% in Monmouth (n=). Finally, the proportion of youth released from secure detention upon dismissal, court diversion, or upon closing/inactivating the case, ranged from zero in Atlantic, Monmouth, Ocean, and Somerset to a high of.1% in Essex (n=).

TABLE. AVERAGE LOS BY DEPARTURE TYPE RELEASE TO: Atl Cam Esx Mon Hud Mer Uni a Ber Ocn Bur Som Pas Detention Alternative, Shelter LOS..1....... N 1 31 2 3 3 LOS.1 11.1..3..2.1..3 1.2 1. N 11 2 3 1 1 3 1 LOS...... 11... 1..2 N 2 1 LOS 11. 1..2..3... 1.2..3.1 N 2 3 1 3 Parent, Other Adult, ROR Pre-Dispo Other Service Agency/ Plcmnt Pre-Dispo Dispositional Placement LOS 2.. 3.2. 3.3 2.. 2..3 N 31 31 3 2 3 1 LOS...1 1.3. 3.3...2.. N 1 1 1 11 LOS.2 11..1 11...1.3 1.2 11..2. N 1 3 1 LOS....2... 1..... N 1 1 2 2 2 LOS 1.3...3..... N 2 1 1 LOS......... 1. 1. N 3 2 3 2 2 LOS 33.2. 3....2 3..3...2 N 3 2 3 LOS...3.. 3.2. -.. 33.3.3 N 1 1 LOS.1 2. 1..3. 3. 3..1.3 N 3 2 2 2 3 1 LOS 1.3 2..2..1 3.2 2...2.1.3 N 2 1 3 2 11 3 LOS 1..... 3...1. 1.1 1. N 3 3 2 LOS 3.3...1 3. 1.2.2.....1 N 3 2 3 1 1 (Table continued on next page)

TABLE. AVERAGE LOS BY DEPARTURE TYPE (Continued from Prior Page) RELEASE TO: Atl Cam Esx Mon Hud Mer Uni a Ber Ocn Bur Som Pas Jail, Bail, Upon/After Waiver LOS.3.1 111.1 1.. 11...3. N 1 LOS 1..3. 2. 2.....3 3. - N 1 2 2 3 1 LOS.3 1. 3. 21. 3. 3... 1. 2..2 N 1 11 1 1 LOS.1 2.3. 3.2..2 2..3 2. 3.1 11..2 N 1 2 Other YDC/ Other Authorities Dismissed, Diverted, Similar LOS... 1.3 3..1 11... N 1 1 1 LOS...2 3.1.3.1...3 11. 3. N 3 3 33 LOS. 3.. 3.2... 3. 1...2 N 11 3 1 3 2 LOS... 11.1....2.... N 1 3 LOS... 2... 1. -. N 3 2 3 2 LOS -. 31. 2...1.1. - 2. - N 1 1 11 2 1 LOS - 2.. -.2 11. 1. 2... - N 1 3 LOS - 3.. -..1.. -. -. N 1 1 2 1 Time Served a Union s departure type data begins with May. LOS - -... 2. -. - N 33 1 1 1 2 LOS - -.2 - - 11. - -... N 1 1 LOS - -. - - 2.3 - - 2. - 2. N 1 3 1 LOS - - 1.3 - - 1. - - - - - - N 11

TABLE. 1-YEAR CHANGE IN ALOS FOR PRIMARY DEPARTURE TYPE CATEGORIES Detention Alternative, Shelter Parent, Other Adult, ROR (Pre-Dispo) Dispositional Placement Change Change Change Days % Days % Days % Atlantic. 11. +. +.%.2. -. -.% 1. 3.3 +11. +.2% Bergen.. +.3 +.1% 1.2 1. -. -.%.1. +. +.% Burlington 1.. -. -.%.2. -. -3.% 1.1. +1. +3.% Camden. 1. +1. +.% 11.. -. -.%.. +1.3 +2.% Essex..2 -. -11.%.1. -. -3.%.. -2. -3.% Hudson..3 +. +.%.. -. -.%. 3. +. +.% Mercer.. +. +.%.1. +. +.% 3. 1.2 +. +.% Monmouth.. -.1 -.% 11..2-3. -.%..1-3. -.2% Ocean. 1.2 +. +2.% 11.. -.1-3.%.. -. -.% Passaic --.1 -- -- --. -- -- --.1 -- -- Somerset.2.3 -. -2.2%.. -1. -1.% 1.. -. -11.% Union 11.. +. +3.%.3. +3.1 +2.%..2 +. +.% TABLE. TOTAL ANNUAL DEPARTURES FROM DETENTION Atl Cam Esx Mon Hud Mer Uni Ber Ocn Bur Som Pas 33 3 11 1 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 1 3 33 21 3 11 2 2 1 1 3 11 1 2 1 11 3 2

TABLE. NATURE OF DEPARTURES FROM DETENTION RELEASE TO: Atl Cam Esx a Mon Hud b Mer Uni c Ber Ocn Bur Som Pas 2.% 3.%.%.% 1.% 2.%.1%.%.% Detention Alternative, Shelter 2.2% 3.2% 3.% 2.% 2.% 31.%.2% 11.%.% 1.%.1%.% 1.3%.% 31.% 3.%.%.%.%.%.3% 3.% 31.% 2.2%.1% 2.%.1% 3.%.3%.3% 1.3%.1%.%.3%.% 1.%.% 1.% 1.%.% 3.% 2.% 31.%.1%.2% 3.%.%.% 11.%.%.%.%.% 3.1% 1.%.3%.%.%.% 3.% Parent, Other Adult, ROR Pre-Dispo 3.2%.% 33.2% 1.%.2%.%.%.%.1%.% 1.% 1.3%.%.%.2% 11.% 3.% 2.% 2.%.2% 1.%.%.%.%.%.1% 3.2% 3.%.%.%.%.%.% 1.1%.%.%.% 33.3% 3.%.%.%.%.%.%.% 1.%.%.% 2.% 2.%.% 1.%.3%.3%.%.%.%.% 3.%.% Other Service Agency/ Plcmnt Pre-Dispo 2.2% 2.1%.3% 1.% 1.%.%.%.3% 1.%.3%.3%.% 1.%.2% 1.%.%.%.%.%.1% 2.1% 1.1%.%.% 1.% 2.%.3% 1.% 3.% 1.%.2%.% 1.1% 2.2%.% 2.2%.%.%.2% 1.% 2.%.3%.1% 2.%.2% 1.%.%.% 11.%.% 1.%.%.1% 2.% 31.%.% 3.1% 33.3%.%.2% Dispositional Placement.1%.2%.2%.% 33.%.%.2%.% 2.%.%.%.2%.%.3%.% 3.%.%.2%.% 2.%.%.2% 3.% 3.1%.%.%.% 1.% 2.1%.%.% 2.1%.% 3.% 33.% 1.%.% 2.3%.%.3%.2% 2.% 3.%.% 3.%.%.2%.1%.%.3% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 2.% 3.%.% 2.%.% 2.2% Jail, Bail, Upon/After Waiver 3.% 1.% 1.1%.% 1.%.%.% 2.2% 1.% 1.%.% 1.% 2.3% 1.1% 1.% 3.% 1.% 2.1% 3.3% 1.3%.% 2.% 1.3% 2.1% 1.% 1.%.%.% 1.% 3.%.% 3.3%.2% 2.2% 1.3%.% 2.3%.%.2% 3.% 3.%.%.3% 3.1% 1.% 2.3% 3.% 1.%.%.% 1.% (Table continued on next page)

TABLE. NATURE OF DEPARTURES FROM DETENTION (Continued from Prior Page) RELEASE TO: Atl Cam Esx a Mon Hud b Mer Uni c Ber Ocn Bur Som Pas Other YDC/ Other Authorities Dismissed, Diverted, Similar Time Served.1% 1.%.% 3.1%.% 2.% 1.%.3%.%.% 1.% 1.% 3.% 1.% 2.3% 3.%.2%.% 2.% 1.%.3% 2.% 2.%.%.3%.% 3.% 3.% 1.%.% 3.2% 3.%.%.% 1.% 11.%.%.2% 2.2% 2.% 3.%.%.1%.% 2.2%.%.%.2%.2% 3.% 1.% 3.% 2.%.%.%.% 3.%.%.% 1.%.%.% 1.2%.%.% 3.%.% 3.% 1.% 1.%.% 2.2%.%.% 2.%.% 3.1%.%.% 3.%.%.%.% 2.1%.% 2.%.%.% 3.%.%.1% 3.% 2.% 1.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.% 2.% 3.% 1.%.3% 1.% 3.%.%.%.2%.1%.% 3.% 2.% 1.% 3.%.%.%.% 3.1%.%.%.%.%.%.%.% 11.%.%.%.% 1.%.%.%.3% 2.2%.%.%.% 1.%.3%.1%.2%.% 1.%.%.%.% 1.%.%.% 1.%.%.% 1.%.%.%.%.% 1.%.%.%.%.%.% 2.3%.%.%.%.%.%.%.% 1.3%.%.%.%.%.%.% a b c Essex s data is Jun-Dec. Hudson s data is Oct-Dec. Union s data is May-Dec. DETENTION ALTERNATIVE OUTCOMES Detention alternatives are short-term placements for youth who would otherwise remain in detention while their cases are pending in court. The primary purpose of detention alternatives is to provide supervision in order to minimize the likelihood that youth will be charged for a new delinquency offense while awaiting disposition of their current case. Alternatives also help to ensure youth appear at each required court hearing. Table 1 describes outcomes for youth supervised in detention alternatives by reporting the nature of departures from alternative placement. In, eleven sites reported detention alternatives outcome data. Across these eleven sites, the vast majority of youth were released from detention alternatives following successful completion, though success rates ranged from 2.% in Somerset to about % in Bergen and Hudson. Importantly, the percentage of youth removed from a detention alternative as the result of a new delinquency charge is small, averaging just 3.% across sites, and ranging from.% in Camden to.% in Somerset. Finally, in youth removed from alternative programs for noncompliance (no new charges) ranged from a low of.% in Hudson to a high of 3.% in Somerset.

Successful Completion TABLE 1. DETENTION ALTERNATIVE OUTCOMES Atl Cam Esx Mon Hud^^ Mer Uni^^ Ber Oce Bur Som.% 1.%.1%.% 3.%.%.%.%.%.% 1.3% 2.3% 3.% 3.%.1% 2.2%.%.%.%.% 2.%.%.%.1% 3.1%.%.% 3.3%.1%.3%.3% 2.%.%.3%.%.% New Charges Violation/ Non- Compliance (No New Charges) 3.%.% 3.% 2.%.1% 3.3%.%.%.3% 3.% 1.%.2% 2.%.% 2.% 3.%.%.%.%.2%.% 3.% 1.% 3.3% 1.%.%.%.% 1.%.3%.2%.%.%.% 11.3%.%.3% 11.%.% 2.%.%.%.1% 11.%.%.%.% 2.%.%.2%.3% 1.% 11.2%.%.3%.3%.% 1.2%.% 3.%

MINORITY YOUTH IN DETENTION Average Daily Population. On any given day in, across the twelve JDAI sites there were 33 fewer youth of color in detention than prior to JDAI implementation, a decrease of -.% (Table 1). Youth of color account for.1% of the total drop in ADP. The number of minority youth in secure detention has dropped by more than half in Essex (-.%), Mercer (-.%), Camden (-.%), and Hudson (-.2%). Length of Stay. As noted earlier, at the close of, multi-year length of stay data was available in eleven sites. Tables and 1 report ALOS trends for youth of color and white youth in these eleven sites. As noted earlier, the collective increase in ALOS across sites has been driven by an increase in ALOS for minority youth. Averaging across sites, ALOS for minority youth is up by +.1 days since JDAI implementation, but ALOS for white youth is down by just about one day (-.). A similar pattern is evident over the past year, with ALOS for minority youth up +2. days, but down by -3.1 days for white youth. Table reveals that these trends have led to an increase in the gap between youth of color and white youth with regard to ALOS. Across sites, prior to JDAI implementation youth of color remained in detention. days longer than white youth, by this gap had been reduced slightly to.3 days, but in it increased to. days. The length of stay gap has increased in eight sites, with the largest disparity evident in Monmouth (2.2 days), Mercer (. days), and Hudson (. days); Bergen is the only site where in minority youth did not remain in detenton longer than white youth. Disproportionality. Despite the substantial drop in the number of minority youth in detention, disproportionality in ADP has not been reduced (Table ). For the sites collectively, since JDAI implementation the percentage of ADP comprised of youth of color has remained essentially flat, up +1.1 percentage points. Regarding individual sites, three have seen sizable increases in disproportionality (Burlington, Monmouth, Ocean), though over the past year, two of those sites (Monmouth, Ocean) saw some reversing of the upward trend. Finally, Table provides additional context for the data presented in Tables 1 through. For each JDAI site, Table reports the proportion of detention average daily population comprised of minority youth, as compared to minority representation in the general youth population. Disproportionality is evident in all twelve sites, ranging from. percentage points in Hudson to.3 points in Monmouth. TABLE 1. ADP OF MINORITY YOUTH IN DETENTION Original 1-Year Change Pre-Post Change 3 Sites Kids % Kids % Atlantic.. 1. +3.3 +.% -. -2.2% Camden. 3. 3.3 -. -.% -3. -.% Essex 2. 1.. -. -11.% -2. -.% Monmouth 2..2. -. -.% -.2 -.% Hudson 2. 1. 3. -. -3.% -. -.2% Phase 2 1-Year Change Pre-Post Change Sites Kids % Kids % Mercer. 2.. -.1 -.% -33.2 -.% Union 3. 31. 2. -2. -.% -. -.% Bergen 1.1.. +. +11.% -. -.% Burlington... -. -.% -. -3.% Ocean... -. -.% -.2-3.% Phase 3 1-Year Change Pre-Post Change Sites Kids % Kids % Somerset... -. -.% -2. -.1% Passaic.2.3 3.1 -.2 -.% -2.1-1.% TOTAL.1 3. 3. -. -1.% -33. -.% 1

TABLE. AVERAGE LOS IN DETENTION FOR MINORITY YOUTH Original Sites a 1-Year Change Pre-Post Change 3 Kids % Kids % Atlantic 31.2.. +.2 +.1% -1.2-3.% Camden. 3. 33. -1. -2.% +11. +3.% Essex.3 33.3 31.2-2.1 -.3% -.1 -.% Monmouth 3. 2.. +2. +.1% +.1 +.% Hudson.2 33.. -3.1 -.2% +. +1.% 1-Year Change Pre-Post Change Phase 2 Sites Kids % Kids % Mercer 2. 2.. +1. +.2% +2. +.% Union 2. 2.. +3. +11.% +3.2 +.% Bergen 2.. 33. +.3 +2.% +. +.1% Burlington.1. 2. +3. +.2% +. +.3% Ocean. 3. 3. -. -.% +3.3 +.3% 1-Year Change Pre-Post Change Phase 3 Sites Kids % Kids % Somerset 1.3 1.1 31. +. +.% +. +.% TOTAL 2.1. 33.2 +2. +.1% +.1 +.1% a 3 figures are based on a -month sample (Jan, Apr, Jul, Oct) for each site. TABLE 1. AVERAGE LOS IN DETENTION FOR WHITE YOUTH Original Sites a 1-Year Change Pre-Post Change 3 Kids % Kids % Atlantic...1 -.3-3.1% -. -.% Camden.2..2 -. -3.1% +. +.2% Essex...3 +. +.% -. -1.1% Monmouth. 1.2 1. +. +3.% -3. -.% Hudson..1. -.2-2.2% -. -3.% 1-Year Change Pre-Post Change Phase 2 Sites Kids % Kids % Mercer.3.. -1.3-1.% -11. -.% Union 1. 1.3. -1. -2.% +.2 +3.% Bergen. 2. 3. +. +2.% +11. +.% Burlington..1. +. +1.% -. -3.% Ocean 3.3 33.3 2. -. -1.1% -. -1.% 1-Year Change Pre-Post Change Phase 3 Sites Kids % Kids % Somerset..1 1. -. -.% +. +3.% TOTAL.1. 1.3-3.1 -.% -. -.% a 3 figures are based on a -month sample (Jan, Apr, Jul, Oct) for each site. 1

Original Sites TABLE. DISPARITY IN LOS BETWEEN MINORITY YOUTH & WHITE YOUTH Minority LOS is Greater Than (+) or Less Than (-) White LOS by (in Days): 3 Atlantic +. +2. +. Camden +. +11. +11.3 Essex +1. +. +. Monmouth +1.2 +.2 +2.2 Hudson +. +. +. Phase 2 Sites Mercer +. +.2 +. Union +. -11. +. Bergen +2. -1. -3.1 Burlington -2.3 +2. +. Ocean +1.2 +.2 +11.2 Phase 3 Sites Somerset +3. -. +.2 SITE AVG +. +.3 +. TABLE. % OF DETENTION ADMISSIONS COMPRISED OF MINORITY YOUTH 1-Year Change Pre-Post Change Original Sites 3 Pts % Pts % Atlantic.%.%.% +2. +3.1% +. +.2% Camden.%.% 2.% -3. -.2% +2. +3.2% Essex.%.%.%..% +.1 +.1% Monmouth 2.%.3% 1.% -. -.% +. +.3% Hudson 3.%.1%.% -.3 -.3% +. +1.% 1-Year Change Pre-Post Change Phase 2 Sites Pts % Pts % Mercer.%.3% 2.% +2.1 +2.3% -2.2-2.3% Union.%.%.1% +. +.% +1.3 +1.% Bergen.%.%.% +. +.% +2. +3.% Burlington.%.%.2% +. +.2% +.3 +.% Ocean 3.% 2.% 3.% -1.1 -.% -. -.3% 1-Year Change Pre-Post Change Phase 3 Sites Pts % Pts % Somerset.%.% 2.3% -. -.% +2. +3.% Passaic 2.% 2.% 3.% +1. +1.% +1.3 +1.% TOTAL.%.3%.% +.1 +.1% +2. +2.%

TABLE. % OF DETENTION ADP COMPRISED OF MINORITY YOUTH 1-Year Change Pre-Post Change Original Sites 3 Pts % Pts % Atlantic.%.3% 1.% +2. +3.1% +1.3 +1.% Camden.% 1.%.2% -3. -.% +3. +.% Essex.%.%.% -.2 -.2% -.1 -.1% Monmouth.%.% 3.% -. -.3% +.3 +.% Hudson.1%.%.2% -2. -2.% +1.1 +1.2% 1-Year Change Pre-Post Change Phase 2 Sites Pts % Pts % Mercer.%.%.% +1. +2.% +1. +1.% Union.1% 1.%.3% +. +.% -1. -1.% Bergen.%.%.% +2.2 +2.% +1.2 +1.% Burlington.% 2.% 1.2% +.2 +.% +. +.% Ocean.%.2% 1.2% -. -.% +. +.3% 1-Year Change Pre-Post Change Phase 3 Sites Pts % Pts % Somerset 1.%.%.1% +1.3 +1.% -. -.% Passaic.%.%.% +. +1.% -. -.% TOTAL 1.1% 2.% 2.2% -.2 -.2% +1.1 +1.2% TABLE. YOUTH POPULATION AND ESTIMATE OF MINORITY OVERREPRESENTATION IN DETENTION Difference: % Minority Minority Representation Minority Representation Total Youth Population in Youth Population a in Detention b in Youth Population vs. Detention Atlantic 2,3.% 1.% +. Bergen, 3.%.% +1. Burlington,2.% 1.2% +.3 Camden,3.2%.2% +3. Essex 1,3.%.% +. Hudson,.%.2% +. Mercer 3,33.%.% +. Monmouth,.% 3.% +.3 Ocean, 1.1% 1.2% +.1 Passaic 1,3.%.% +3.3 Somerset 3,3.%.1% +1. Union,1.%.3% +.3 a Percent of population ages -1 years,. Source: OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book. b Based on detention ADP. 1

GIRLS IN DETENTION The average daily population of girls in detention has dropped substantially across the twelve JDAI sites. Comparing each site s pre-jdai year to, on any given day there were 2 fewer girls in detention, a decrease of -.3%. TABLE. ADP OF GIRLS IN DETENTION Original 1-Year Change Pre-Post Change 3 Sites Kids % Kids % Atlantic. 2.3 2.3..% -1. -2.% Camden..3. +2.3 +3.% -. -.1% Essex... +1. +.% -. -3.% Monmouth.2 1. 1. -.3-1.% -2. -.3% Hudson.. 2. -2.1 -.% -.3 -.2% Phase 2 1-Year Change Pre-Post Change Sites Kids % Kids % Mercer. 1.1 2.3 +1.2 +.1% -2.2 -.% Union. 1. 1.2 -. -2.% +.3 +33.3% Bergen 3... -.2 -.2% -2.3 -.% Burlington. 2.2 2.2..% -1. -.% Ocean 3.1 1.1 1. +. +3.% -1. -1.% Phase 3 1-Year Change Pre-Post Change Sites Kids % Kids % Somerset 1.2..3 -.2 -.% -. -.% Passaic.3 3. 1. -2. -.% -2. -.% TOTAL 1.3.2 2. -. -1.3% -1. -.3% DETENTION -DAY COMMITMENT PROGRAMS Of the JDAI sites described in this report, two house youth in centers which have been approved by the Juvenile Justice Commission to operate -day commitment programs as a dispositional option. Table provides some basic information regarding the use of the detention center commitment program by these two sites Ocean and Somerset. The most serious offense for which youth were admitted to the detention commitment program was most commonly a violation of probation (.3%), followed by a disorderly persons offense (.%), and offenses of the third degree (.%). Very few youth were committed for an offense of the first (.%) or second (1.%) degree. TABLE. DEGREE OF MOST SERIOUS OFFENSE FOR WHICH COMMITTED () Ocean Somerset TOTAL 1 ST.%.%.% 2 ND 1.% 2.% 1.% 2 3 RD.%.% 1.% 2 TH.%.%.% DP.%.%.% VOP.%.% 3.3% Other Violation 3.%.% 3.% TOTAL.%.%.% 3

Detention Alternatives -Month ADP Trend: ATLANTIC DETENTION ALTERNATIVES ADP Minority Female High ADP Minority Female 3 3.1.% 11.%. 1.2%.%..%.% 1. 3.2%.1%. 1.% 11.3%..%.2%..1%.% 3.3.%.%.3 3.%.% 3..% 11.%..2% 11.% 3.3 3.%.1% 1.3.3%.%..%.% 1. 1.% 11.%.3.%.3% 1 1 1 1 1 YDC Capacity (2) 11 1 -Month ADP Trend: CAMDEN * ^ DETENTION ALTERNATIVES ADP Minority Fem High ADP Minority Fem 3..% 1.3% 1..%.1% 1 1..%.% 2..%.%..2%.% 2..%.%. 1.%.2% 1 () 3.3 3.3% 1.% 1.2.2% 1.1% () 3..%.% 3 1 3 3 3 2 33 3 3 3 3 1 JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' 3 OCT ' 3 3 31 2 2 2 NOV ' DEC ' JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' DEC ' JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' 1 1 OCT ' NOV ' DEC ' JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' DEC ' YDC Capacity (1)

Detention Alternatives ` -Month ADP Trend: ESSEX^ DETENTION ALTERNATIVES** ADP Minority Fem High ADP Minority Fem 3 3..%.2% - - - 11..%.% - - -..%.% 11. - - 1.1.1%.%. - -..%.1% 1 1.3.2%.% 1..%.% 2..%.% 1.2.%.% 2 () 1.3 3.%.2%..%.3% 11 (1) 1.2 3.%.% 1 YDC Capacity (2) 1 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 JAN ' 11 111 1 FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' DEC ' JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' 2 1 2 1 NOV ' DEC ' 11 11 111 3 2 1 1 2 -Month ADP Trend: MONMOUTH ^ DETENTION ALTERNATIVES ADP Minority Female High ADP Minority Female 3..%.% 11..%.% 3..% 11.% 11. 3.%.%..%.% 3..% 3.%.2.%.% 3..%.%..3%.% 31. 3.1% 11.% 2..%.%. 2.%.1%..%.% 1. 3.1%.%. 3.%.% 2 11.1.2%.% YDC Capacity () 1 1 1 2 1 1 JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' DEC ' JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' DEC '

Detention Alternatives 1 1 1 YDC Capacity () 1 1 3 -Month ADP Trend: HUDSON DETENTION ALTERNATIVES^^ ADP Minority Female High ADP Minority Female 3..1%.% 11.2.%.2% 1.2.%.%.3.%.% 2 3.1.% 3.%..%.% 2. --.% 2.3.%.2%. 3.%.% 3.3.2%.1%. 1.%.1% 1 1 JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' 1 AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' DEC ' 3 JAN ' 1 FEB ' MAR ' 3 APR ' MAY ' JUN ' 3 3 1 3 1 3 3 3 JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' DEC ' -Month ADP Trend: MERCER DETENTION ALTERNATIVES ADP Minority Female High ADP Minority Female..%.% 1.2.2%.%..%.1% 2..3%.% 2..% 3.% 2..%.1% 3. - - YDC Capacity () 11 1 1 2 2 33 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 JAN ' 2 FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' 2 2 1 SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' DEC ' JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' DEC '

-Month ADP Trend: UNION * ^ Detention Alternatives DETENTION ALTERNATIVES^^ ADP Minority Fem High ADP Minority Fem 3.2.1% 2.%.3.1% 2.% 2 2.3.% 1.%..%.%. -- -- 3. 1.%.% (). -- --..3% 3.% 3 (2).1.%.1% YDC Capacity () 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 33 2 11 11 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' 2 OCT ' NOV ' 2 DEC ' 3 JAN ' 3 FEB ' 3 MAR ' APR ' 3 MAY ' 3 JUN ' JUL ' 2 31 3 3 2 AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' DEC ' -Month ADP Trend: BERGEN * DETENTION ALTERNATIVES ADP Minority Female High ADP Minority Female.3.%.%.2.2%.3%..3% 11.3%..%.3%..%.% 2.3 -- --..%.% 1 2. -- -- 31 2 YDC Capacity (1/) 2 31 33 3 31 31 3 2 2 33 11 11 JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' 1 NOV ' DEC ' JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' DEC '

Detention Alternatives -Month ADP Trend: BURLINGTON DETENTION ALTERNATIVES ADP Minority Fem High ADP Minority Female..% 1.% 3..%.%.1.% 1.%..1%.2% 2. 2.% 11.% () 1. 1.2%.% 3 (3). -- -- YDC Capacity () 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 3 JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' DEC ' JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' DEC ' -Month ADP Trend: OCEAN^ DETENTION ALTERNATIVES ADP Minority Female High ADP Minority Female..%.1% 33.3 3.%.%.2.2%.% 3..%.%.2.2%.2%. 1.2% 11.% YDC Capacity () 3 2 11 11 1 11 JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' 11 SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' DEC ' JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' DEC '

Detention Alternatives -Month ADP Trend: SOMERSET^^^ DETENTION ALTERNATIVES^^^ ADP Minority Female High ADP Minority Female. 1.%.%..%.1%.3.1%.% 2..%.1% 11 3 1 2 2 11 3 2 2 3 JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' DEC ' JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' DEC ' 1 -Month ADP Trend: PASSAIC^ DETENTION ALTERNATIVES ADP Minority Female High ADP Minority Female.2.%.1%.1.%.% 1.2.% 3.% JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' 3 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 MAY ' 2 JUN ' 3 JUL ' 3 AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' 1 NOV ' 1 2 DEC ' JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' DEC '

Detention Alternatives Month Admissions Trend: ATLANTIC DETENTION ALTERNATIVES Per Month Minority Female Per Month Minority Female 3 3..%.1% 3.3.1%.1% 3.1.% 1.% 3..%.% 3..2%.% 2. 3.% 11.3% 1. 2.%.%..% 1.% 1..3% 1.%..% 11.%.3.%.2% 1 1 11 1 1 11 JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' 31 OCT ' NOV ' DEC ' JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' 1 JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' DEC ' 1 -Month Admissions Trend: CAMDEN DETENTION ALTERNATIVES Per Month Minority Female Per Month Minority Female 3..%.%..%.%. 3.%.%..%.%..%.3%..%.%..%.% 1. 2.%.1% 1. 2.%.% 3..3% 1.% 1 2 3 3 3 1 3 2 31 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 JAN ' FEB ' 3 MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' 33 OCT ' NOV ' DEC ' JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' DEC ' 2

Detention Alternatives -Month Admissions Trend: ESSEX DETENTION ALTERNATIVES*** Per Month Minority Female Per Month Minority Female 3..%.% 1..%.%..1%.% 2..% - 1..%.1%..1% - 1.2.%.% 2.1.2%.2% 3.3.%.% 2.3.2%.%..%.%..%.%.3.% 11.%..%.% 2 3 2 2 2 1 1 3 JAN ' 1 FEB ' 3 MAR ' 1 APR ' 3 MAY ' 1 JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' 1 SEP ' 2 OCT ' 1 NOV ' 3 DEC ' 1 1 111 1 JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' DEC ' -Month Admissions Trend: MONMOUTH DETENTION ALTERNATIVES Per Month Minority Female Per Month Minority Female 3 2.3 2.%.%..2%.%..%.%..1%.% 33..% 1.%. 3.%.% 33. 2.% 1.%.1 2.%.% 2.3.%.%..1% 11.1%..1%.% 11. 2.% 11.2%..3%.%..%.2%.1 1.%.%..1%.1% 31 11 1 3 1 1 3 JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' DEC ' JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' DEC ' 2

1 Detention Alternatives -Month Admissions Trend: HUDSON DETENTION ALTERNATIVES^^ Per Month Minority Female Per Month Minority Female 3 1. 3.% 11.%..1%.2%.3.%.3% 3..%.1% 3..%.%..%.%. -- -- 1.3.1%.% 3..2%.% 3..% 11.% 3.1 1.%.% 2 1 2 3 1 3 33 2 3 3 3 3 33 31 -Month Admissions Trend: MERCER 11 3 3 1 31 2 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 11 JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' 1 AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' DEC ' JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' DEC ' JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' 2 JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' 1 3 3 3 1 31 1 1 3 3 NOV ' DEC ' JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' DEC ' DETENTION ALTERNATIVES Per Month Minority Female Per Month Minority Female 1..%.1%.3 3.%.% 3. 3.%.%.2 3.%.3%. 1.%.1% 3.3.3% 11.% 11.3.% 11.%.3 2.%.%.2.%.% 2

Detention Alternatives -Month Admissions Trend: UNION DETENTION ALTERNATIVES^^ Per Month Minority Female Per Month Minority Female..%.%.2.3%.% 3..%.% 3..% 11.%.1.%.% 2..1%.%..%.% 33 2 3 1 11 31 1 3 1 3 3 2 2 3 JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' 11 DEC ' JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' DEC ' -Month Admissions Trend: BERGEN DETENTION ALTERNATIVES Per Month Minority Fem Per Month Minority Fem..% 1.%. 2.%.%..% 11.% 11. 1.2%.% 2..%.% 1. 2.%.%.3.%.% 1..%.% 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 11 11 JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' DEC ' JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' DEC '

Detention Alternatives -Month Admissions Trend: BURLINGTON DETENTION ALTERNATIVES Per Month Minority Female Per Month Minority Female..% 1.% 1.3 3.%.1% 2.1.2% 1.%. 3.%.%.3.% 1.%.3.%.%.3.2% 1.% 3.3.%.% 31 3 2 3 33 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' DEC ' JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' 11 MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' DEC ' -Month Admissions Trend: OCEAN Per Month Minority Female Per Month Minority Female.2 3.% 1.% 1. 3.%.% 1..%.%. 3.% 1.%. 2.%.%. 2.%.%..%.% 11. 3.% 1.%.3 2.%.% 3 2 JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' 1 1 1 JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' DEC ' JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' DEC ' 31

Detention Alternatives -Month Admissions Trend: SOMERSET Per Month Minority Female Per Month Minority Female..%.3%..%.2%. 2.3%.3% 1. 2.%.3% 2 1 3 3 2 3 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 3 2 11 1 JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' DEC ' JAN ' FEB ' 1 MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' DEC ' 1 -Month Admissions Trend: PASSAIC Per Month Minority Female Per Month Minority Female. 2.%.% 2. 2.%.2%. 3.%.1% JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' 3 1 3 3 2 31 1 MAY ' 1 JUN ' JUL ' 2 AUG ' 3 SEP ' 3 OCT ' 2 NOV ' 3 DEC ' JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' DEC '

-Month Average LOS Trend: ATLANTIC DETENTION 1- Days +Days M F Cauc Af-Amr Hisp TOTAL 33.% 1.3% 2.1.3.3 2.2. 2..% 11.%..3 1..2.3..%.1%. 1... 1.. 2.% 1.2% 2..3... 2. 2.%.%. 1...3 2.1..%.3% 2. 2..1 2. 31. 2. ALTERNATIVES.% 1.%. 3. 1. 3. 3. 3..2%.%.2..1 3. 3. 3..%.%. 2. 3....3 33 1 33 2 JAN ' 3 FEB ' MAR ' 2 APR ' MAY ' JUN ' 3 JUL ' 3 AUG ' 2 SEP ' OCT ' 1 2 2 33 NOV ' DEC ' JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' DEC ' -Month Average LOS Trend: CAMDEN DETENTION 1- Days +Days M F Cauc Af-Amr Hisp TOTAL 3.%.% 1..3 1. 1.3.2. 3.%.3%.1.2.2 1.1 1. 1. 3.%.2%.2.1. 1...1 3.%.%.2..1 2.. 2. 31.% 1.%.... 31.2. 31.% 1.1% 31.2 33..2 3.. 31. ALTERNATIVES 11.3%.% 3.. 3. 3.1 3.3 3..1%.1%.1 33. 2.2 3. 2.. 2 2 JAN ' 2 2 3 2 FEB ' MAR ' APR ' 2 MAY ' 2 JUN ' 33 JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' 3 NOV ' 3 DEC ' JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN ' JUL ' AUG ' SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' DEC ' 33