Improving Outcomes for Youth in Colorado

Improving Outcomes for Youth in Colorado Second Presentation to Task Force: Assessment Findings July 23, 2018 CSG Justice Center Presenters: Nancy Arrigona, Research Shanelle Johnson, Juvenile Justice Nina Salomon, Juvenile Justice

About The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center National nonprofit, nonpartisan, membership association of state government officials that engages members of all three branches of state government Provides practical, nonpartisan research-driven strategies and tools to increase public safety and strengthen communities Council of State Governments Justice Center 2

About the National Reentry Resource Center Authorized by the passage of the Second Chance Act in April 2008 Launched by The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center in October 2009 Administered in partnership with the U.S. Department of Justice s Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Council of State Governments Justice Center 3

Colorado has a history of state leaders being committed to improving outcomes for youth in the juvenile justice system. Commitment to transparency and improvement Adoption and implementation of SB94 and reduction of detention bed admissions Expansion of the Collaborative Management Program to provide funding or youth and families involved with multiple agencies Improving conditions of confinement in Department of Youth Services facilities History of collaboration through the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Council and the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition Council of State Governments Justice Center 4

Governor Hickenlooper launched IOYouth in May in partnership with Representative Lee, Justice Boatright, Senator Gardner, and Director Bicha. Council of State Governments Justice Center 5

A statewide task force oversees IOYouth to determine what steps can be taken to strengthen public safety and improve outcomes for youth. Senator Bob Gardner, Cochair Colorado General Assembly Rep. Pete Lee, Cochair Colorado General Assembly Reggie Bicha Colorado Department of Human Services Justice Brian Boatright Supreme Court of Colorado Stacie Nelson Colling Office of the Alternate Defense Council Jeff Cuneo Colorado Juvenile Defender Center Sheri Danz Office of the Child Representative Julie DeNicola Stepping Stones Advocacy Hon. Leslie J. Gerbracht 3rd Judicial District Court Rebecca Gleason 18 th Judicial District Arnold Hanuman Colorado District Attorney s Council Will Hays Hilltop Community Resources, JJDPC Emily Humphrey 8 th Judicial District Anders Jacobson Division of Youth Services Bill Kilpatrick City of Golden Police Department Elizabeth (Elise) Logemann Colorado Bar Association Rep. Paul Lundeen Colorado General Assembly Daniel Makelky Douglas County Department of Human Services Hon. Ann Gail Meinster 1st Judicial District Court Lanie Meyers-Mireles Prowers County Department of Human Services Rep. Dafna Michaelson- Jenet Colorado General Assembly Jenifer Morgen 17th Judicial District Barrie Newberger-King Office of the Colorado State Public Defender Mike O Rourke 11th Judicial District Chris Ryan Colorado Judicial Branch Lindsey Sandoval Office of the Colorado State Public Defender Rebecca Wallace ACLU of Colorado Meg Williams Office of Adult and Juvenile Justice Assistance & Juvenile Parole Board Adam Zarrin Office of Governor John Hickenlooper Council of State Governments Justice Center 6

01 IOYouth Assessment Process 02 Assessment Results 03 Next Steps

Today s presentation focuses on the front end of Colorado s juvenile justice system. Diversion Detention and SB94 Council of State Governments Justice Center 8

Case-level and survey data from multiple sources inform the assessment results presented today. Data Source Arrest Data SB94 Screening and Services Data Detention and Detention Screen Data DYS Budget and Expenditure Data Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal Justice Colorado Bureau of Investigation Colorado Department of Human Services, Division of Youth Services Colorado Department of Human Services, Division of Youth Services Colorado Department of Human Services, Division of Youth Services Survey Data (Diversion) District Attorneys/ Diversion Directors Council of State Governments Justice Center 9

Notes about the System Assessment Results 1. Based on data available through the Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal Justice, and the Department of Health Services, Division of Youth Services 2. Data includes information on: Youth referred to and provided services through SB94 Youth screened for detention Youth admitted to and released from detention Appropriations and expenditures for SB94 and DYS detention Details findings from: FY2013 to FY2017 for juvenile detention screens and youth detained FY2015 to FY2017 for juveniles receiving SB94 services 2012 to 2016 for juvenile arrests Council of State Governments Justice Center 10

Since the last IOYouth Task Force meeting in May, CSG Justice Center staff have spoken with a wide array of stakeholders. State and Local Agencies DYS Leadership and Staff Client Managers County DHS Leadership Department of Corrections Leadership Diversion Directors SB94 Coordinators Colorado Child Protection Ombudsman Colorado Public Education Department Court System Juvenile Court Judges/Magistrates District Attorneys Public Defenders Juvenile Probation Probation Youth and Families DYS Facilities Lookout Mountain YSC Leadership and Staff Platte Valley YSC Leadership and Staff J. Paul Taylor Center Supervisors and Staff Grand Mesa YSC Leadership and Staff Zebulon Pike YSC Leadership and Staff Mount View YSC Leadership and Staff Adams YSC Leadership Gilliam YSC Leadership Facility Youth and Families Other Stakeholders Law Enforcement Colorado Municipal League Community and Residential-based Providers Council of State Governments Justice Center 11

The CSG Justice Center staff have gathered feedback from stakeholders across the state to ensure a diversity of perspectives. Since February 2018 4 Site visits 1 to each DYS region Calls and meetings with more than 100 individuals 6 Facility Visits Council of State Governments Justice Center 12

The following goals and context help guide the IOYouth assessment in Colorado: The goal of the assessment is to identify key barriers to improving outcomes for youth and advance policy, funding, and practice changes to address these barriers. The assessment shows what is happening in Colorado s juvenile justice system and whether policies and practices are aligned with what research shows works to improve outcomes for youth. Most, if not all, juvenile justice systems struggle to prevent youth from reoffending. Every state with which the CSG Justice Center has partnered struggles to match youth with the appropriate level, type, and quality of supervision and services. The CSG Justice Center commends state and local agencies for their transparency, willingness to have their challenges publically reviewed and discussed, and their commitment to improvement. Council of State Governments Justice Center 13

01 IOYouth Assessment Process 02 Assessment Results Diversion Who is getting arrested? Who is getting diverted? What happens to youh on diversion? Detention 03 Next Steps

What does the research say about Diversion? Court involvement for low-risk youth often does more harm than good and takes limited resources away from focusing interventions on youth who are a threat to public safety. Most low risk youth, without court involvement, grow out of their behavior and stop reoffending without system intervention. Diversion is a more cost effective public safety strategy than court processing for low risk youth. Youth s current offenses are a poor predictor of a youth s risk to reoffend. Restorative justice practices are an effective way to hold youth accountable for repairing the harm caused to victims and communities and can reduce reoffending and increase victim s satisfaction with the justice system. Council of State Governments Justice Center 15

DIVERSION ASSESSMENT FINDINGS Who is Getting Arrested? Council of State Governments Justice Center 16

Juvenile arrests have declined 18 percent between 2012 and 2016, with arrests for violent offenses increasing slightly. Juvenile Arrests, 2012 t0 2016 Juvenile Arrests by Type, 2012 to 2016 35,000 33% 33% 30,000 25,000 20,000 24% 25% 24% 23% 15,000 10,000 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 11% 11% 7% 10% 2012 2016 Drug Property Violent Status Other Council of State Governments Justice Center 17

Black youth make up a small proportion of juvenile arrests but are almost three times more likely to be arrested than White youth. Juvenile Age Population and Juvenile Arrests by Race/Ethnicity, 2016 56% Juvenile Arrest Rates per 1,000 by Race/Ethnicity, 2016 111.2 50% 31% 31% 17% 39.6 43.9 7% 6% 2% 12.7 White Hispanic Black Other Juv Pop Juv Arrest White Hispanic Black Other Council of State Governments Justice Center 18

Youth arrested or served a summons may be directed to municipal or district court, depending on offense, and may be diverted pre- or post-filing of their case. Case Diverted Case Not Filed Case Dismissed Juvenile Arrests / Summons Juvenile to Municipal Court Juvenile to District Court Juvenile Court Case Filed Case Sentenced Possible Diversion Cases Council of State Governments Justice Center 19

DIVERSION ASSESSMENT FINDINGS Who is Getting Diverted? Council of State Governments Justice Center 20

Colorado lacks a centralized approach to to tracking diversion participation, services, and outcomes. There is no statewide data system or entity responsible for collecting, tracking, or evaluating diversion data There is no comprehensive picture of how many youth get diverted statewide, who gets diverted, and diversion outcomes The Department of Criminal Justice (DCJ) collects data on diversion programs funded through the DCJ grant, however, this represents only a subset of youth that are diverted From DCJ FY2016-2017 Evaluation 19 grant awards 1350 youth began diversion More than 50% were for misdemeanor offenses More than 2/3 were result of property, theft or drug charges Majority male, White, or Hispanic Council of State Governments Justice Center 21

The CSG Justice Center conducted a survey of all judicial districts to better understand diversion programs across the state. Survey Questions Survey sent to all 22 judicial districts to district attorneys and diversion directors in Colorado Structure and oversight Eligibility criteria Programming and services Funding sources Data collection 21 responses According to the survey, at least 2800 youth started diversion in FY2017, more than double the number in the DCJ evaluation. Council of State Governments Justice Center 22

District attorney offices administer the majority of juvenile diversion, with most jurisdictions offering diversion pre- and post-filing. 15 Post File 12.5% 8 Pre and Post File 75% Pre File 1[VALUE].5 % 3 2 DAs Office Non-Profit Law Enforcement Municipality Pre Pre and Post Post In six JDs, multiple entities oversee diversion programs. Three JDs do not administer juvenile diversion programs due to a lack of resources or too few kids eligible. Council of State Governments Justice Center 23

A variety of funding sources are used to support juvenile diversion programs. DAs Office 12 DCJ 11 County (non DA) 6 Marijuana Funds 7 SB94 4 Other 5 12 judicial districts use multiple funding sources to fund diversion programs in their jurisdictions. In three judicial districts, juvenile diversion is funded solely by the district attorney s office. Council of State Governments Justice Center 24

Eligibility criteria for diversion varies significantly across the state. Broad statutory authority is provided to judicial districts to determine eligibility criteria for diversion Districts do not see a lot of diversion failures as most diversion youth are first time low level offenders Family support and stability is often a factor in determining youth eligibility, and some districts require families to pay for participation in diversion Cases are often times formally filed in order to get other services for youth, like psychiatric evaluations, and JDs can always divert later ]Youth identified or perceived to have higher needs are often not diverted because of limited resources for services Council of State Governments Justice Center 25

Judicial districts report using a variety of factors to determine a youth s eligibility for diversion. Current Offense 15 Prior Offenses 14 Risk to Reoffend 10 Service Need 12 Family Support 8 Ability to Pay 3 Other 6 Other refers to victim input and youths amenability to treatment. Council of State Governments Justice Center 26

DIVERSION ASSESSMENT FINDINGS What Happens to Youth on Diversion? Council of State Governments Justice Center 27

Diverted youth are usually supervised by a case manager or diversion officer, and average 6 months or more on supervision in nearly half of districts. Average Number of Monthly Contacts with a Case Manager Average LOS on Diversion 6 3-6 Months 4 9 2 3 2 6-9 Months 6 9 Months - 1 Year 2 0 1 2 3 4+ Council of State Governments Justice Center 28

In most districts, diverted youth are required to participate in services and programming. Can Youth be Diverted Completely Without Supervision/Services? 0 3 Judicial districts report a variety of programming and services available to youth on diversion, including education, restorative justice, restitution, community service, and treatment. 14 Yes No Services are often paid for by youth and families directly or through insurance, in addition to some funds used by the DA s offices and grant programs. Council of State Governments Justice Center 29

Diversion: Key Assessment Findings 1 Overall juvenile arrests are declining, however local discretion in arrest and referrals to court can lead to inconsistencies further in the juvenile justice system. 2 The structure and implementation of juvenile diversion varies significantly across jurisdictions in Colorado, resulting in inconsistent adherence to best practice and limited data on performance. 3 Youth who are diverted from formal court involvement still receive substantial system supervision and services. Council of State Governments Justice Center 30

Best Practices Best in Juvenile Practices Diversion in Juvenile Diversion Divert lower risk youth from system involvement; provide minimal or no supervision for these youth; and focus limited resources on supervision/services for youth with a high risk of reoffending. Use risk screening tools to objectively identify low risk youth that are appropriate for diversion. Establish clear criteria to identify youth that should be eligible for and/or automatically participate in diversion programs. Use needs screening tools to identify youth with potential mental health and substance use needs to match youth with appropriate services. Collect data on diversion program participation and quality to evaluate performance. Council of State Governments Justice Center 31

01 IOYouth Assessment Process 02 Assessment Results Diversion Detention Who is getting detained? How long are youth staying in detention? Are youth in detention/alternatives getting needed services? 03 Next Steps

What does the research say about detention? Research demonstrates that detention can have a negative impact on young people s mental and physical well-being, and when used inappropriately, detention may make it more likely that youth will reoffend. Youth who are detained are more likely to penetrate deeper into the juvenile justice system than similar youth who are not detained. Detention alternatives should be based on the principle of using the least restrictive setting possible and on identifying and addressing youth s needs as identified from validated screening tools. Council of State Governments Justice Center 33

DETENTION ASSESSMENT FINDINGS Who is Getting Detained? Council of State Governments Justice Center 34

Between 2013 and 2017, detention admissions declined by 18 percent while the juvenile age population increased 5 percent. 8000 Juvenile Age Population and Detention Admissions FY2013 to FY2017 580000 Detention Rate per 1,000 Juveniles in Population FY2013 and FY2017 13.5 7000 570000 10.5 6000 560000 5000 550000 4000 540000 3000 530000 2000 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 520000 FY13 FY17 Detention Admits Juvenile Age Pop

Males represent 2/3 of new detention admissions, and minority youth comprise more than 60 percent of new detention admissions. Admissions by Gender, FY2017 Admissions by Race/Ethnicity, FY2017 38% 75% 25% 19% 3% Male Female 40% White Black Hispanic Other Admissions by Age, FY2017 Admissions by Region, FY2017 29% 23% 29% 50% 3% 26% 19% 44% 10-12 13-14 15-16 17+ Central Southern Northeast Western Council of State Governments Justice Center 36

Discretion in judicial district policies can lead to the placement of youth in secure detention that are not a public safety risk. The JDSAG is used statewide to screen youth for detention eligibility; however, screening policies and override guidelines are most often determined by the chief judge. In most judicial districts, youth with warrants are automatically detained regardless of public safety risk or risk of reoffense. Some magistrates report not always getting all of the information that they need in order to make detention decisions. The lack of collaboration in some districts across youth serving agencies can lead to more youth being placed in secure detention. Council of State Governments Justice Center 37

More than 2/3 of youth screened on the JDSAG receive a mandatory hold to secure detention, but more than half are not identified as a public safety risk. Percent of Screens Resulting in a Mandatory Hold, FY2017 Mandatory Hold No Hold Of youth screened in FY2017 with a Mandatory Hold: 80% 68% 32% Reason for Mandatory Hold, FY2017 52% were NOT considered a public safety risk 45% had committed a misdemeanor or lesser offense 34% were low risk 68% had a responsible adult to provide supervision if released 16% 4% Warrant Only Offense Only Combination Council of State Governments Justice Center 38

Almost half of detention admissions are the result of a violation, the majority of which are for a failure to comply. Detention Admissions by Detention Reason*, FY2013 and FY2017 11% 5% Type of Violation, FY2017 49% 39% 49% 45% Failure to Comply: 66% Failure to Appear: 23% Probation Technical Violation: 11% Truancy VCO: <1% FY13 Offense Violation Sanction FY17 * other detention reason accounted for 1% of in both FY13 and FY17, missing not included Council of State Governments Justice Center 39

More than 1/3 of youth who screen to a level below secure detention on the JDSAG still end up in secure detention. JDSAG Screen Results Compared to Actual Level Received, FY2017 Actual Level Received Screen Level Secure Detention Staff Secure Residential or Shelter Home Detention/ Services Release Total Detention 93% 1% >1% 2% 3% Staff Secure 91% 4% 2% 2% 1% Residential 38% 2% 1% 30% 29% Home Detention 34% 1% 1% 38% 26% 100% (5,755) 100% (265) 100% (187) 100% (833) Release 23% 0% 0% 33% 44% 100% (228) Council of State Governments Justice Center 40

Detention rates vary by judicial district, from a high of 17.4 per 1,000 youth to a low of 2.2. Rate of Detention (per 1,000 youth) by Judicial District, FY2017 Judicial District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Total State 2.2 2.8 5.9 6.5 7.0 6.5 8.1 8.1 8.4 8.9 8.4 8.5 9.2 10.5 10.5 12.9 16.6 15.2 14.7 16.0 17.4 17.1 17.3 Less than 8 per 1,000 8 11 per 1,000 More than 11 per 1,000 0 5 10 15 20 Council of State Governments Justice Center 41

Females are more likely to be detained for a violation and for a misdemeanor or petty/status offense than males. Detention Reason by Gender, FY2017 Offense Level by Gender, FY2017 55% 41% 47% 46% 34% 38% 27% 30% 6% 5% 4% 8% Male Female Offense Violation Sanction Male Female Felony Misdemeanor Petty/Status Council of State Governments Justice Center 42

Black youth are more likely to be arrested via warrant or on-view, and White youth are more likely to be arrested through a summons, which can lead to differences in detention rates. Juvenile Arrests by Type and Race/Ethnicity, 2016 Percent Resulting in On-View Arrest by Offense Type and Race/Ethnicity, 2016 White Hispanic Black Custody/Warrant 19% 26% 35% Drug 13% 26% 38% On-View 19% 25% 33% Summons 62% 49% 32% Property 25% 43% 56% Total 100% 100% 100% Violent 40% 38% 53% White Hispanic Black Council of State Governments Justice Center 43

Black youth were more than 4 times as likely to be detained, and Hispanic youth almost twice as likely, as White youth. Statewide Detention Rates per 1,000 by Race/Ethnicity, FY2013 and FY2017 Detention Rates per 1,000 by Rural/Urban by Race/Ethnicity, FY2017 37.9 30.4 17.8 Rural FY17 7.5 7.6 28.4 9.4 7.6 12.9 White Black Hispanic FY13 FY17 Urban FY17 7.6 13.6 White Hispanic Black 30.4 Council of State Governments Justice Center 44

Detention rates vary for minority youth across judicial districts. Rate of Detention (per 1,000 youth) by Judicial District and Race, FY2017 Less than 8 per 1,000 8 11 per 1,000 More than 11 per 1,000 WHITE HISPANIC AFRICAN-AMERICAN Council of State Governments Justice Center 45

The average cost per detention bed per day increased 40 percent between FY2013 and FY2017, primarily due to increases in direct care staff and declines in youth detained. Average Cost per Bed per Day for Detention, FY2013 and FY2017 Average Cost per Bed and per Youth for Detention, FY2013 and FY2017 $407.96 $286.58 $286.58 $204.50 FY13 FY17 Cost per Bed Cost per Youth ADP: 308 ADP: 257 ADP: 366 ADP: 257 Council of State Governments Justice Center 46

DETENTION ASSESSMENT FINDINGS How long are youth staying in detention? Council of State Governments Justice Center 47

Overall lengths of stay in detention has remained the same, with detentions resulting from offenses/violations decreasing slightly. 20 Average Length of Stay (days) in Detention by Detention Reason, FY2013 FY2017 18 17.2 16 14 16.0 15.7 15.6 Average LOS in Detention 12 10 8 6 9.2 11.6 Offense Violation Sanction FY2013: 15.1 days FY2017: 15.3 days 4 2 0 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 Council of State Governments Justice Center 48

Detention lengths of stay vary by judicial district, from a low of 7.3 days to a high of 25.9 days. Average Length of Stay (days) in Detention by Judicial District, FY2017 Judicial District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 7.3 8.4 9.5 12.1 18.4 14.8 15.7 17.9 12.9 16.3 13.0 11.7 15.7 11.2 15.5 14.3 13.1 10.5 15.1 10.1 17.0 25.9 Less than 10 days 10 14 days More than 14 days 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Council of State Governments Justice Center 49

The length of stay in detention for males is longer than females on average for the same offense type. Average Length of Stay (days) in Detention by Gender, FY2017 Male LOS for Violent Felony Offenses 21.7 16.0 Female 17.4 13.1 LOS for Felony Offenses Male 18.6 Female 15.7 All offenses LOS for Petty Offenses Male Female Male 13.2 Female 10.8 Council of State Governments Justice Center 50

The length of stay in detention for Black youth is longer than White youth on average for the same offense type, particularly felonies. Average Length of Stay (days) in Detention by Race/Ethnicity, FY2017 White LOS for Violent Felony Offenses 17.8 17.5 Hispanic 20.9 14.4 15.1 Black 24.1 LOS for Felony Offenses White Hispanic 17 17.7 Black 20 All offenses LOS for Petty Offenses White Hispanic Black White Hispanic 10.7 10.9 Black 9.1 Council of State Governments Justice Center 51

Youth undergoing DHS placement evaluation or awaiting DHS placement on average remain in detention longer than other youth. Average Length of Stay (days) in Detention for Youth Awaiting a DHS Action, FY2017 30 25 20 15 10 27.8 15.3 In FY2017, 19% of youth released from stateoperated detention facilities were involved with DHS, awaiting an evaluation or placement prior to release. 5 0 Awaiting DHS Action Not Awaiting DHS Action Source: DYC detention youth awaiting placement evaluation or placement decision, June 2017. Council of State Governments Justice Center 52

DETENTION ASSESSMENT FINDINGS Are youth in detention/alternatives getting needed services? Council of State Governments Justice Center 53

Many jurisdictions cite a lack sufficient alternatives to detention in the community, which results in inappropriate placements. Many judicial districts report a lack of less secure alternatives to detention, including the use of shelters beds, residential placements, foster care, etc. Youth with significant mental health needs, low cognitive abilities, and other more intensive needs often end up in detention due to a lack of alternative placements. Youth who fail out of DHS placements often penetrate into the detention system. SB94 is often used by jurisdictions to also assess and provide services to youth that are on probation, committed, or diverted, stretching resources. Youth are often detained to receive assessments/evaluations and to coordinate service delivery at release Council of State Governments Justice Center 54

Committed Youth that are diverted, committed, or that receive violations are often referred to SB94 for assessment, however in half of these cases services are found not to be needed by youth. Diversion VCO Sentenced Preadjudicated Municipal % of SB94 Cases Found Not in Need of Services by Legal Status, FY2017 SB94 Case LOS (days) by Outcome, FY2017 51% 50% 42% 11.16 17% 15% 10% SB94 Case 56.79 Did Not Need Services All Other Outcomes Council of State Governments Justice Center 55

In FY2017, less than half of SB94 resources allocated by DYS provided direct services to youth. Millions $13.0 $12.5 $12.0 $11.5 $11.0 $10.5 $10.0 SB94 Allocation and Cases Started, FY2015 and FY2017 8247 7742 7520 FY15 FY16 FY17 Cases Started Budget 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 Average Cost per SB94 Case Started, FY15 and FY17 FY 2015 $1,476 FY 2017 $1,647 SB94 Allocation by Service Type, FY17 34% 27% 22% 8% 9% Direct Support Supervision Assessment Treatment / Restorative Plan Admin Council of State Governments Justice Center 56

Assessment/Evaluation Direct Support Supervision Treatment Restorative Services Service Referral Client assessment/evaluation is the most frequent type of service provided to youth through SB94. 47% 31% SB94 Services by Type, FY2017 22% of SB94 cases are for assessments/evaluations only, and do not involve any services 16% 4% 2% 1% Assessment/evaluation can include medical, mental health, substance use, CJRA pre-screen and/or full assessment, JDSAG, psychological, among others. Council of State Governments Justice Center 57

Jurisdictions lack protocols to ensure that youth served through SB94 have their needs accurately identified and met. SB94 Cases by Identified Substance Use Need, FY2017 23% 21% Youth with identified substance use needs received the same level of SB94 services as youth without an identified need. Substance Use Screening or Monitoring No Need Need 69% 76% Direct Support Services No Need Need 33% 28% Supervision No Need Need

At least one-third of youth detained in FY2017 were identified as having substance use, mental health, or trauma related needs. Disruptive Substance Use Needs* of Detention Admissions, FY2013 and FY2017 Disruptive Substance Use 34% 41% Mental Health Need FY13 FY17 37% 39% History of Abuse/Neglect History of Abuse /Neglect 28% 30% 63% 61% FY13 FY17 FY13 FY17 No MH Need MH Need * As identified by the CJRA Screen Council of State Governments Justice Center 59

Females entering detention have higher identified needs than males. Mental Health Need, Substance Use Disruption, and History of Abuse/Neglect by Gender, FY2017 MH Need 36% 49% SU Disruption 33% 39% Abuse/Neglect 26% 43% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Male Female Council of State Governments Justice Center 60

White youth in detention are identified as having higher needs than minority youth. Mental Health Need, Substance Use Disruption, and History of Abuse/Neglect by Race/Ethnicity, FY2017 MH Need 29% 29% 54% SU Disruption 29% 33% 39% Abuse/ Neglect 23% 29% 37% Hispanic Black White Council of State Governments Justice Center 61

Youth in secure detention have high needs, but do not always have access to services and treatment that address their needs. Services in secure detention are often only meeting youths basic needs. Services in secure detention are meant to be short-term; however, youth with longer LOS often do not receive the services or treatment that they need and typically repeat programs. Staff report that they do not receive the necessary trauma-informed training to support the needs of youth that are in detention. Youth often are unable to start receiving more intensive mental health treatment while in secure detention and typically just receive psychosocial evaluations and/or crisis stabilization services. Council of State Governments Justice Center 62

Diversion: Key Assessment Findings 1 A significant proportion of youth that are detained are not identified as a public safety risk and detention rates vary substantially by district and youth demographics, in part due to discretion in how youth are referred for screening and how the screening tool is used across districts. 2 Lengths of stay in detention vary significantly based on judicial district and youth demographics, with males, Black youth, and those involved with the child welfare system having the longest stays. 3 Districts are not fully using SB94 to provide needed detention alternatives, and more generally, SB94 is not being used efficiently to target specific youth and identify and address their needs. At the same time, youth who are detained are not receiving needed services. Council of State Governments Justice Center 63

Best Practices in the Appropriate Use of Detention Reserve costly secure detention beds for youth who are a direct risk to public safety or flight risk. Establish specific criteria, policies, and training on the use of detention screening instruments, overrides, and secure vs. alternative vs. no detention. Establish a continuum of alternatives to detention supervision and services in the community matched to the risks and needs of youth. Limit the use of detention as a response to technical violations or failures to comply with supervision, unless youth are at imminent risk of harming themselves or others. Develop strategies to better understand and expressly address racial and other types of disparities in the use of and lengths of stay in detention. Council of State Governments Justice Center 64

01 IOYouth Assessment Process 02 Assessment Results Diversion Detention 03 Next Steps

Immediate Next Steps 1 Establish working groups focused on diversion and detention to develop policy recommendations for full task force consideration (July/August) 2 Present assessment findings related to disposition, probation, commitment, and placement to the task force (September 6) 3 Establish working groups focused on disposition/supervision to develop policy recommendations for full task force consideration (September/October) 4 Reach consensus as a task force around policy options to translate into legislation (October 31) Council of State Governments Justice Center 66

Diversion and Detention Working Groups Timeline & Next Steps July 24 In-person meeting to review findings, identify priorities, and begin discussing recommendations Mid-August In-person meeting to solidify recommendations for the full task force Week of August 27 Conference call to prepare for the full task force presentation September 6 Presentation of recommendations to full task force Council of State Governments Justice Center 67

IOYouth timeline and next steps Project Launch Task Force Meeting #1 Task Force Meeting #2 Task Force Meeting #3 Task Force Meeting #4 Policy Rollout and Bill Introduction April May June July Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019 Session Initial Data Analysis Detailed Data Analysis Final Data Analysis Impact Analysis Stakeholder Engagement Policy Option Development Bill Drafting Policymakers, Media and Stakeholder Engagement Council of State Governments Justice Center 68