IN THE STRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

b ikii ThE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA,

NORTHERN DIVISION

J.B., aihior child, by and through his )

next friend, ADDtE WARD, on behalf of )

himself and all other similarly situated; )

Case No: 2:06-CV-755-MHT

Plaintiff,

vs.

WALTER WOOD, in his individual

capacity,

Defendant.

J.B., a minor child, by and through his )

next friend, ADDlE WARD, on behalf of )

himself and all other similarly situated; )

) Case No: 2:06-C V-908-MHT

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

WALTER WOOD, in his individual )

capacity, )

)

Defendant. )

MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD

Comes now the Defendant J. Walter Wood, Jr., and

moves for leave to amend the record with the submission

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 3
of the attached affidavit of Hon. Danielle Lipow, with

attachments (Exhibit 1).

Respectfully submitted

. t)udley Perry, Jr.

Bar Number: 3985- 67T

General Couns

Alabama Dept of Youth Services

Post Office Box 66

Mt. Meigs, AL 36057

Telephone: (334) 215-3803

Fax: (334) 215-3872

E-Mail:

dudley . perry@dys . alabama . gov

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the

above and forgoing via United States mail, properly

addressed to the following:

Michael J. Crow, Esq.

Beasley, Allen

Post Office Box 4160

Montgomery, AL 36103-4160

Robert D. Drummond, Jr., Esq

Attorney At Law

323 De La Mare Avenue

Fairhope, AL 36532

Dated this the 16th day of November, 2007.

2

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 3
. Dudley Perr9'\Jr.

General Cour}sel

Alabama Depa'trne€ of

Youth Services

Deputy Attorney General

Alabama Department of

Youth Services

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 3 of 3
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITE1 S'i'ATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT O ALAB

NORTHERN DIVJSION

J.R., a minor child, by and through his

next friend, ADDlE WARD;

Casc No: 2:06-CV-755-MJTT

Plaintiff,

vs.

WALTE1 WOOD, in his individual

capacity.

Defendant.

J,B., a minor child, by and through his

next friend, ADDlE WARD;

Plaintiff,

vs.

WALTER WOOD, in his individual

capacity,

Defendant.

STATh OF ALABAMA

COUN'lY OF BALDWIN

Case No: 2:06-C V-908-Ml IT

AFFIDAViT

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, a Nolary Public in and for said County and

StaLe, personally appeared I-Ion. Danidlle Lipow. who being known tp me and being by me first

duly sworn, deposes and says as 1'oflows;

1. 1 am over the age of twenty one (21).

1

EXHIBIT

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-2 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 17
2. 1 have been a member of the Alabama Bar since 2002. 1 am y employed by the

Southern Poverty Law Center, where I have worked as an attorney si 20)1. My practice has

been concentrated mi Livenhle justice since 2002, and I have served Co-Director of the

Southern Juvenile Defender Center (SJDC) since 2005. As SJf)C's o-Dircctor, 1 also serve on

the National Advisory Board for the National Juvenile Defender I have been actively

and substantively engaged in comprehensive system reform campai S iii Louisiana in

cooperation with theY Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana, in Mississppi in cooperation with the

Mississippi Youth Justice Project, and in Alabama as the coordinator of the Alabama Youth

Justice Coalition. 1 I have also consulted on and assisted with similar rekn-m elThrrs in other

slates. All of my juvenile justice work shares three common goals: t reduce juvenile

incarceration, to expand access to community-based services for troubled youth and lainilies, and

to improve the quality of legal representation for court-involved children.

3. At present, I am heavily involved in a number of interrelated juvenile justice refonii

ellorts in Alabama. 1 am a niember of the Statewide Steering ('ommiuee flr the Juvenile

Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI), the Juvenile Code Revision Legislative Subcommittee.

the Juvenile Probation Officer Fducalion Planning Committee, the Jtistice and Mental Health

Interagency Taskforce, the CITY Long Range Planning Committee, and the Board of f)ireetors

of the Children First Foundation.

4. Most relevant to this affidavit is my work as a member of the RFP (Request fbr

Proposals) Planning Committee at the Alabama Department of Youth Services (DYS). As noted

rh Alabama Youth Justice Coalition is a collaborative venture of fatuity members and advocacy groups dedicated

to reduciiig juvenile Crime, ensuring that taxpayer money i spent wisely, crnpowcr1n families and curninunitics.

und providing youth with the tools and opportunities they riced to become and remain healthy, responsible,

productivc adijlt.

2

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-2 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 17
be served much more

services. Accordingly, I

Ut' in conjunction vvith a

sive and unnecessary

proven to

help them lead productive

in an affidavit executed by DefndaiiE Walter Wood in support of his hiotion thr summary

judgment, 'lo]ne major function of the RIP committee is to attempt tb anticipate, for the coming

three year period, thc placement needs of' juveniles expected to be cothmiited to state custody."

5/29/07 Def.'s Motion for Summ. J (Doc. 30), Ex. 3 (Wood Aff) at 3L The RFP Committee has

just hgun the planning process for the upcoming three-year cycle. ['he first meeting of this

cycle look placc on October 30, 2007. The next meeting will take plce on November 20, 2007.

5. Because a large majority of the children admitted to DYS eve7 year are patenily

inappropriate for out-of-home placements, see ifth at ¶IJ 9-I I. several members of the RFP

Planning Committee (including myself) believe that DYS should subtanti ally reduce its

residential capacity and redireci. resources to more effective and less expensivc interventions.

Currently only 8% of' children admitted to DYS have been committe for a violent felony. See

Ex. 1: Annie E. Casey Foundation. Casey Strategic Consulting Grou, Reducing Reliance ofl

Juvenile Jnccirceraiion in Alabama: Discussion document for meeting with the Youth Services

Board at 4 (Sept. 28, 2007).

The low-risk children who fill DYS residential placements

effixtively - and for fir less money - in the community via Jioni

anticipate that the reduction in residential capacity within DYS will

variety of other re1oms, all designed to redirect resources floin

residential facilities to individualized, home-based, family-focused

rehabilitate troubled children, hold them accountable for their acti

and law-abiding lives, and strengthen families in crisis.

7. 1 have reviewed the pleadings and record in the above-referened case. T am Familiar

with the facts and the legal issues. I understand that the Plaintiff has aised two distinct claims

3

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-2 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 3 of 17
material issues:

and DYS facilities in

against Walter Wood, tIle Executive Director of DYS, who has bccn ued in his individual

capacity First, PlaintiFf claims that the Defendant violated his federai on5Ei tutional rights by

failing to incarcerate him in a DYS facility within forty-one days of his commitment order on

May 1 8, 2005, and failing to incarcerate him in a DYS facility within thirty-Live days of his

commitment order on April 4, 2006. Second, Plainti It' claims that th Defendant violated state

law by failing to incarcerate him in a DYS facility within seven days of the commitment order.2

8. I am submitting this affidavit to provide evidence relevant to

a. A large majority of children confined in detention cen

Alabama are non-violent and pose no threat to public

h. A growing body of research and scholarship has d

of institutionalization is damaging to children and

likelihood that a child will break the law

strated that the experience

actually increase the

c. Previous litigation against DYS on this issue has drivn signi iiant expansions in

residential capacity at DYS. As a result of those expansions, Alabama now has

one f the most institutionally-biased systems in the cuntry. A finding

liability in this case is likely to create incentives to further expand capacity.

draining public resources that could otherwise be inveted in non-residential

interventions that are proven to reduce crime and help children and families

succeed.

d. tn partnership with C+overnor Bob Riley and th Anni E. Casey F'oundation, the

Defendant is presently engaged in a comprehensive sytcms reform elThrt aimed

at rcducing juvenile incarceration statewide. That rcMrm effort began in 2005.

A1abam Has an Exccptionally High Commitment Rate and a llih icrccntage of LowRisk Children in Custody

9. Relative to other states, Alabama incarcerates a much higher percentage of its youth.

Overall, Alabama's commitment rate (number ofj uveniles committed to residential juvenile

2 This Court has also suggested that this second cisim may have constitutional implications. Set' 5/20/07 Mem.

Opinion & Order Denying Pt's Motion Ibr Class Ceii at 13-14 (Doe. 31) (noting Uiat the Plaintiff "might wish to

pursue ihe legal theory that, regardless of individu! circumstances. DYS's lailure to place a juvenile within seven

day% oVa corrunitment order is per so unconstitutional," but declining to recognize piedornmancc for RuI 23

purposes "under such i dubious legal theoiy). I

4

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-2 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 4 of 17
justice placements for every I 00.000 juveniles aged 10 to 17 in the population) w 22%

higher than the national average, in Alabama, 267 youth are cornmi Lbr cvery 100,00(1 in

population; the national figure is only 21 9. In 2003. Alabama's con I rate was the fourth

highest in the nation. See Ex. 2: Howard N. Snyder & Melissa Sick National Center for

Juvenile Justice, Juvenile Of/enders and Victims: 2006 National Reprt at 201.

10. Alabama's exceptionally high commitment rate is not attributjible to an exceptionally

high juvenile crime rate. More than 70% of children admitted to DYS institutions in Alabama

are non-violent. See Ex. 3: FY 2007 Demographics (showing 77% admitted for non-violent

offenses): Ex. 4: FY 2006 Demographics (showing 79% admitted for ion-violent offenses). In

2003 (the most recent year for which national data is available), an astonishing 40% children in

IDYS institutions iii Alabama were in custody us a result of a status of'ense (e.g., being truant,

ungovernable, etc.) or a technical violation (e.g.. a pmhalion violation). Nationally, only 20% of'

youth confined in juvenile justice facililies were held for status offenses and technical violations.

See Ex. 1: .Juvenile Offenders and Victi,ns: 2006 Naikrnul Report at 203. Alabama's high

commitment. rate is driven largely by the tendency ofjuvcnile courts ii many ul ihc statcs sixtyseven counties to commit children to DYS for prohation violations. lji fact, youth referred to

eoLLrt for probation violations arc even more likely to he committed to DYS than youth refcrred

for felony offenses. See Ex, 2: CSCG, Reducing Juvenile incarceration in Alabama at 7,

I I. 'l'he purpose of DYS is to protect public safety by rehabilitating dangerous youth. But

there is tic, correlation between the number of children admitted to DYS custody and the number

of children arrested for violent crimes, Thirteen years ago. the ratio of DYS admissions to

juveniles arrested jbr violent crimes was nearly one-to-one. In 1994, here were 1,448 juvenile

arrests for violent offenses and 1,747 admissions to DYS. When juvenile crime dropped in 1995,

5

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-2 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 5 of 17
the I.)YS admission za.te declined accordingly: there were 1 232 juveniles arrested (r violent

otfcnscs, and 1 .385 admissions to DYS custody. See Ex. 5: DYS Ad issions v. Violent Juvenile

Arrests (1994-2006) (compiling statistics from the Alabama Criminal Justice information Center

and DYS); see also Ex. 2: C.SCU, Reducing Juvenile Incarceration irAlahan:a at 7. But since

1995, DYS admissions (and DYS capacity) have risen steadily, despile a continuing decline in

juvenile arrests for violent offenses. By 20O5 the ratio of DYS admisions to juveniles arrested

for violent offenses had risen from 1.1 to 4.6.

Violent Juvenile Arrests and DYS Admissions

4000

DYS Admissions

3,500

3,000

2500

2,000

15o0

Juv. Arrests (\ñol

1,000

500

0

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Incarceration is Harmful to Children and Communities

12. Research has demonstrated that. the experience of institutionalization is damaging to

children arid may actually increase the likelihood that a child will hrekk the law, The lollc>wrng

excerpts arc illustrative of current scholarship on this issue:

there is. . a growing body 01' evidence that. exposure of youth to secure

6

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-2 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 6 of 17
correctional confinement is detrimental and increases rather than decreases their

likelihood of further penetrating the justice system. I

Secure correctional confinement of youth is not only the most expensivc

dispositional option available in most jurisdictions, it is also idely recognized as

possessing [he greatest number 01' potentially damaging consequcnccs for young

people. .. Secure correctional eon lThcment of youth is increasingly viewed as a

disposition of last resort, for use only when all other less secu'c options have heeii

cxhausted. Research conducted over the past 20 years has established thai: youth

exposed to secure custody exhibit higher rates of recidivism than those in lcss

restrictive settings; they are more likely to experience deterioration in their menial

health and an increased propensity toward suicidal behavior; they are less likely to

further or complete thei.r education, and their prospects for gainful employment

arc significantly reduced.

Ex, 6: Tim Roche & Kelly Dedcl, conditions of ConfInement at the rkansas .Jui'eni/e

Assex.v?nenl and Treatment Center at 10 (2007).

A recent literature review ol' youth corrections shows that detention has a

profoundly negative impact on young people's mental and physical well-being.

their education, and their employment. One psychologist foud that for one-third

of incarcerated youth diagnosed with depression, the onset ofhe depression

occurred after they began their incarceration, and another sugcsts that poor

mental health, and the conditions oleonlinement together coispire to make it

more likely that incarcerated teens will engage in suicide and elf-harm.

Economists have shown thai the process of incarcerating youth will reduce their

future earnings and their ability to remain in the workforcc, and could change

formerly detained youth into less stable employees. Educational researclicrs have

lbund that upwards o140 percent of incarcerated youth have learning disability,

and they will litce significant challenges retuniing to school after they leave

detention. Most importantly, for a variety of reasons to be cxlored, there is

credible and significant research that suggests that the experincc oldctcntiori

may make it more likely that youth will continue to engage indeIinquent

behavior, and that the detention expericncc may increase tile adds that youth will

recidivatc, further compromising public safety.

Ex. 7: Barry Holman & Jason Ziedenherg, Justice Policy Institute, The Dangers of Detention:

The J,npacl qf Incarcerating Youth in Detention and Other Secure Fcci1itie.s at 2-3 (2006)

(footnotes omitted).

Behavioral scientists are finding that bringing youth together for treatment or

services may make it more likely that they will become engacd in delinquent

behavior. Nowhere are deviant youth brought together in greter numbers and

7

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-2 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 7 of 17
density than in detention centers, training schools, and other confined congregate

"care" institutions.

Researchers at the Oregon Social Learning Center Jund that óongrcgating youth

together for treatment in a group setting causes them to have higher recidivism

ratc and poorer outcomes than youth who are not grouped together for treatment.

The researchers call this process 'peer deviancy training" and reported

statistically significant higher levels of substance abuse, scho1 di liiculte,

delinqucncy, violence, and adjustment difficulties in adulthood for those youth

treated in a peer group setting. The researchers found that "unintended

consequences of grouping children at-risk for externalizing diorders may include

negative changes in attitudes toward antisocial behavior, affiliation with antisocial

peers, and identification with deviancy."

Id. at 5; see also Rx. : Richard A. Mendel. American Youth Policy l9orurn. Less Cost, More

Safety: Guiding Lights for Rejàrm in juvenile ,Ju,vuice at 8-9 (2001) ('[L}arge training schools

have never proved effective in rehabilitating youthful offenders or them from crime.

Recidivism from large training schools is unrfonTlly high. . . IV] every study examining

recidivism among youth sentenced to juvenile training schools in the past three decades has

found that at least 50 to 70 percent of offenders are arrested within oie or two years after

release.").

13. Incarceration is particularly harmful and counterproductive for low-risk children. See,

e.g.. Ex. 9: National Institutes of Health, Siate-o/ihe -Science Conference Statement. Preventing

Vio1nce and Related health-Risking S'ocial Behaviors in Adüle.cent 34 J. Abnormal Child

Psychology at 461 (2006) (noting that the incarceration of juvenile offenders raises "the hazard

ol 'contagion" because "[w]hen young people with delinquent proclivities are brought together.

the more sophisticated can instruct the more naïve in precisely the behaviors that the intervener

wishes to prevent").

14. Given this ever-expanding universe of evidence about the individual and societal harms

of institutionalization, it makes no sense to frame the constitutional to rehabilitative

8

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-2 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 8 of 17
treatment a including a per se right to be incarcerated in a state facility (i.e., a DYS institution)

rather than a county fiwility (i.e., a juvenile detention. center).

Pressures created by litigation over the waitlist have contributed to the steady expansion of

residential capacity withn DYS.

15. In my opinion, litigation similar to the present case has played a significant role in

driving the expansion of residential capacity within DYS. Although here has been a substantial

decline in juvenile arrests lbr violent offenses since 1994, DYS adrnisions have risen

drarnaLically. See Ex. 5. It is riot a coincidence that DYS saw spikes n their admissions

numbers in the wake of A.W. v. Dupre (1993-1996) and SS. v. Woo (2001). See Ex. 10:

Children First Trust Fund, 2003 Annual Report at 15 (IisLin "to pro de adequate bed space in

order to comply with the Si5 v. Wood Consent Decree" as a long-term goa1) Ex. 11: Children

First 'l'rust Funds 2004 Annual Report at 42 (noting that DYS "jsjupported compliance with the

S.S v Wood Consent J)ecree through the purchase of 309 bed spaces for committed youths').

Both A. W and S.S fueled expansions that were quickly consumed not only by children who had

previously awaited placement in detention - hut also by children wh clear'y would not

otherwise have been committed to DYS.

9

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-2 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 9 of 17
4,000

Violent Juvenile Arrests and DYS Adm

DYS Admissions

3500 if A. W. v. Dp,ve (199_

3,0001 I

S.S. v. Wood

Juv. Arrests ('tfO

"I

500i

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

16. As a result. of these expansions, the juvenile. justice system in Alabama today is one of the

nl()St institutionally-biased systems in the country. .Sec' Ex. I at 203 (howing that Alabama has

the fourth highest commitment rate in the nation). In 2006, there weie 512,625 children aged 10-

17 in Alabama 3 and I 461 juvenile justice beds. See Lx. 12: List oFitistiLutions in the DYS

System (showing 1,195 state-tUndcd beds in 33 [fl'S institutions); E. 13: List of countyoperated CAMP programs subsidized by DYS (showing an additional 266 hed in 8 statesubsidized hoot camps operated at the county level). In other words, Alabama'sjuvenile justice

system has sufficient capacity to incarcerate 1 out of every 351 youth in the ut-risk population

(10- to 17-ycar-olds). By contrast, the State ol' Mississippi had 345,660 children aged 10-17 in

2006. As oIiasl week, no more than 278 children were confined in jivcni1e justice facilities (see

See Puzzancheri, C.. Finnegan, I. & Kazig, W,, EasyAccess to Juvenile Populwins, online rcsource derived from

data originally collected by the U.S. Census Bureau anti subsequently inodi lied by lie National Center for Health

Statistics, available at

10

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-2 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 10 of 17
in Alabama.

nation's fOremost experts

cal assisturice with

he Defendant, the Chief

- Casey is preseni.ly

of' Aabaxna.

Ex. 14: Dccl. of S. J3cdi) - re., 1 out of every 1,243 youth in the at population.

Current Reform Efforts

17. 'l'here is flO question that juvenile justice retbrni is badly nccd

Recognizing that obvious fact, Uovemor Bob Riley reached out to th

in child-care systems, thc Annie U. Casey Foundation, to ask for tech

reform. As a result of th Governor's request - which was echoed by

Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, and numerous juvenile court

cngacd in a comprehensive juvenile justice reform effort in the

18. The Casey Foundation is the only iOtndation in the country thit is exclusively dedicated

to improving outcomes For disadvantaged youth across the United States. Casey has particular

expenise in child welfare and juvenile justice. l'hc foundation's juvenile justice reI'orni agenda

is designed to improve the odds that delinquent youth can make succ ssful transitions to

adulthood, primarily by refOrming juvenile justice system so that they lock up Fewer youth. rely

more on proven, family-focused interventions, and create opportunities for positive youth

developmenL"4

19. The State of Alabama's efforts to attract the Casey Foundation to invest in juvenile

justice ret'orm in Alabama began in 2005. when Governor Riley first wrote to the Casey Strategic

Consulting Group to solicit their assistance:

We would be very grateful for the Strategic Consulting Group's guidance iii

helping the State of Alabama to design and implement a netwrk of more.

effective, less expensive community-based sanctions for our eurt-involved

youth As Walter Wood. . . has repeatedly told his Board, th Alabama

The Annie E. Casey Founddlioii, Our Work: Juwnile Ju5(ice, available a:

ht p;/!wunilOurWoik/JuveniIeJusticc.apx (visited Ncv II, 2007).

•1i

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-2 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 11 of 17
legislature, and the public, there are fitr too many "non-criminal" youth i1i state

custody in Alabama. .1 hope Casey ill help us reduce reliance on large secure

care )nstitutiOflS and develop programs that will effectively anä elliciently reduec

juvenile crime.

Sce Ix. 15 12/21/05 Ltr. by Governor Riley to K. Feely et aJ.

20. Governor Riley's initial letter to Casey specifically referenced thc "waitlist" that is

central to this litigation. The Governor's letter suggested that the wailist was best understood as

a by-product of the large volume of inappropriate commitments of low-risk children to DYS:

Of youth admitted to DYS in 2004, 57% were committed to residential care for

"public order' and status offenses - including Children in Ned of Supervision,

probation violations, and atlereare violations. At the rnoment we have more than

1,000 youth in custody at DYS and an additional 130 on a wating list. DYS

Director Wood estimates that at least 25% of those youth could be served iii the

coinniunity.

Id.

21. Upon learning that the Casey Foundation was unable to imme iately respond to

Alabama's request for technical assistance, both the Governor and Defendant Wood sent ft'llowup letters in early 2006, urging Casey to seriously consider the Governor's invitation. Both

letters emphasized the severity of the problem and the depth of the State's commitment to

ref onn. The Governor wrote:

Alabama presents a unique opportunity lbr Casey. We have a very serious

problem with incarcerating non-criminal youth, but we recognize that problem

and are dedicated to correcting it. This dedication is not limitd to my lfice.

The Department of Youth Services ("DYS") and the advocac)f community agree

that dc-institutionalization is a priority issue and would welcome Casey's

assistance in developing a network of graduated sanctions iornon-crirnina1 youth

and low level offenders.

Ex 16: 3/17/06 Ltr. by Gov'r Riley to K. Feely et al. The Dcfcndant,IDYS Director Waiter

Wood, elaborated on the same theme:

Why get involved with Alabama? As is not the ease in most tates, you will find

the enviroilment hcrc "ripe br change." Our Governor, the Youth Services

12

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-2 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 12 of 17
Alternatives liii i aLive

ry, and

juvcnilc detention for

work in Alabama in

Department and staff, r.egislativc Leadership working in the ju'cnile justice arena

and system advocates arc communicating on a regular basis, idcnti ring problems,

arid working together to address needs, logcther. We need a ctalyst lo bring OUT

work to full consensus and to ussist LIS with implementing needed changes. You

will not find this level of cooperation in other states.

Ex, 17: 4120/06 Ltr. by W. Wood to K. Fccly et al.

22. The Casey Strategic Consulting Group (CSCG) began working in Alabama in April 2007

and is now working closely with the Defendant, the Governor's polic' staff, and senior DYS

oflicials to help the state reduce juvenile incarceration and expand access to conununui.y-bu.sed.

non-residential services for troubled youth and families.

23. Another division of the Casey Foundation, the Juvenile

(iDA!). has begun working with juvenile courts in Jefferson. Mobile,

Tuscaloosa Counties to help those jurisdictions reduce reliance on

children who are pending trial or pending placement at DYS. JDAI

August 2007. See Lx. 18: 8/1/07 l.tr. from B. Lubow to Chief Justice! Cobb (T am pleased to

inform you thai. Alabama has been chosen as a. replication site for the Juvenile Detention

Alternatives Initiative (JDAI). We look fOrward to a stimulating multi-year partnership with

state and county officials in these endeavors to strengthen juvenile justice.").

24. JDAI became involved in Alabama at ihe request of Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb. When

JDAT personnel responded to the ChiefJustice's request by corning to Alabama to visit with a

group ofjuvenile justice professionals, the Dctindant provided the financial support needed to

allow judges, ...ivenile probation officers, and detention administrators to attend the meeting. See

Lx. 19: 3/20/07 Ur. by Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb to U. Lipow.

With assistance from Cascy, the Dcfcndant and the RFP PJannin Committee are on track

to ünplement profound changes that would address (he issues raised in this lawsuit.

13

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-2 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 13 of 17
25 Over the past two years, the Defendant has taken a number of to reduce the how of

inappropriate commitments to DYS custody. l'he most significant step was the Defendant's

dccision to solicit technical assistance from the Casey Foundation. lr addition, L)YS has

participated in a collaborative, multi-agency process to craft to Alabama's Juvenile

Code. The revisions proposed in the 2007 Regular Session of the Legislature included

sentencing restrictions that prohibited the use of secure custody to ne cxtrcmcly low-risk

youth. Although that legislative effort was ultimately unsuccessful i the 2007 session, the

sentencing restrictions will be reintroduced in the 200 session.

26. The Defendwn has also sought to reduce the flow of inappropriate commitments to DYS

by providing grants to 3urisdictions that pledge to reduce DYS nicnts. For example, DYS

provides $300,000 per year to the Morgan County Commission 1r a called "SOS"

(System of Services). As a result oF the SOS program, Morgan consistently has one of'

the lowest DYS commitment rates in the state 1 admission to DYS tr every 1,000 children

under 18 in the county. By comparison, the statewide average is 3 admissions to DYS for every

1 .000 children in the state. See Lx. 20: DYS Commitment Rates by ounEy (FY 2006 and FY

2007).

27. Under the Defendant's leadership, DYS has become more strategic about grants for

alternatives to DYS. For example, based on the historically high number of commitments from

Jefferson County, the Defendant is currently engaged in discussions 'ith th Jehirson County

Family Court about a possible grant to fund alternatives in that count)L As part of the Casey

Foundation's engagement in Alabama, CSCG is providing technical assisLince 1 DYS and to the

Jefferson County Family Court to ensure that DYS-fundcd programs are effective and that they

arc used to serve children who would otheiwise have been committed to DYS.

:14

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-2 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 14 of 17
28. 'l'he Defendant has also recently taken steps to accelerate Ihe rèleasc of children who no

longer require - and perhaps never required - confinement within a stnte institution. Rather than

seeking the committing court's permission 10 release a child who is n longer in need of DYS

supervision, the agency now adheres to tile process outlined in the Alabama Codc, see Ala. Code

§ 44-1-36(d), and simply provides the court with notice ofrelease. Ti new procedure has

allowed the agency to reduce the number of children Who remain in qYS custody beyond the

completion of their individual service plans. That reduction has co

ability to quickly accept custody of committed children.

29. Adrnission to DYS have declined in the past year. In FY 2

admissions to DYS custody. See Ex. 4: FY 2006 Demographics.

September 30 2006, it is my understanding that an additional 45 ci

In FY 2007, there were 3,262 admissions to DYS. See Ex. 3: FY 2

the fiscal year closed in September 2007, there were no ehildrcn on

placement. If children who wcrc still on thc waitlist on September

hated to the agency's

there were 3,340

the fiscal year closed on

were on the waitlist.

Denograph ics. When

waillist pending

2006, are included in the

admissions total for FY 2006 (when they would have been admitted if DYS had unlimited

capacity) instead off Y 2007 (when they were actually admitted), the totals are 3,385 in

FY 2006 and 3,217 in FY 2007— a 5% drop.

3ft When a specific child has been committcd to DYS custody and is being held in a juvenile

detention center pending placement, the only action that DYS may take Lo cause that child to be

released from detention is to place the child in DYS custody 5 At present, the DYS system

Lit rriy capacity as the Co-Director of the Southern Juvenile Defender Center (SJIX), I help support trainiog 'or

juvenile defense attorneys in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South

Caroliva. During th pus twlvc n1(rnth, I havu personally conducted Iur trainings forjuvcnilc dcienst attorneys

in Alabama; SJDC has helped to coordinate arid ftmd six additional trainins, Jachofthose trainings has included a

specific discussion ofajuveuitic dcfinsc attorney's ongoing rwponsibi1ity to a waitlisled clicrit. Whcncver I conduct

15

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-2 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 15 of 17
consists exclusively of residential placements. Over the next several months, the RFP Planning

Committee will explore a number of options for building state and local capacity to provide

rehabilitative services for youth who are not appropriate ftr out-of-home placements. One

option might be br DYS to contract for truly community-based servi es that would allow DYS

to "J)lace" a child under lI)YS supervision in his or her own home.

31 The RFP Committee may also choose to borrow a page floni Mississippi, where the

Division of Youth Services recently issued an RFP to encourage and uppoi-t the development of

home-based supervision plans (including wrap-around services) for 19w-risk childrer who might

otherwise have been committed to a DYS facility. See Lx. 21: State iMississippi, Department

of If urnan Services 1 Division of Youth Services, Request for Proposals: The Tony Gohar

Individualized Assessment & Comprehensive Community Intervention Initiative (IACCII)

(issued 2007). The pilot initiative described in that RFP was designed:

I. 'fo prevent low-risk, low-need youth from entering th juvenile justice

system and then receiving high ICVCIN of' supervision an.d services.

2. To prevent low-risk, high-need (IA.CCII eligible) yout from entering the

training school by providing them with individua1ized strenth-hased

assessments and comprehensive community treatment plans.

3. To identi 1ACCII eligible youth who are committed o the training

schools and to divert them to the community by developing

individualized, strength-based assessments and comprhensive comm unity

treatment plans.

Id. at 12.

32. With support Liom the Casey Foundation and DYS leadership (including the Defendant).

members of the RFP Committee reflect a more community-based orientation than in the past,

tiaiflings, I urgc ittorflcys to tnonitor the status of their clients following the isuc of the disposition order to make

sure that children are not languishing iO deieiition unnecessarily. When a client is in dctcniion pending plaeometit.

16

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-2 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 16 of 17
underscoring the desire of DYS to shift it.s Ibeus away from reliance n secure and other

residential placements. 'this change in orientation is a signilicunt shilt in DYS policy, and will

only succeed in nihination with a number ol'othcr reforms currently undcr consideration. In

my opinion, it would have been difficult - and perhaps impossible - r DYS to successl'ully

implement such profound reforms in the absence of the Casey Stratcic Consulting Group's

engagement in Alabama. which did not begin until April 2007

DATED THIS -_____ day of November, 2007.

Lipow

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME, this day of Nvembcr, 2007.

b 7 //i/

NOTARY NJBLIC

MY COMMiSSION EIRES: f4!

urge attorneys to develop superviion plans and file motions with the committing eurt to ock rae pending

placement I do nOt know whether such a motion was tiled on behalfol' thc Plaintiff in this case,

17

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-2 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 17 of 17
Annie E. Casey Foundation

taber

Reducing Reliance on Juvenile

Incarceration in Alabama

Discussion document for meeting with Youth Services Board

Date: September 28, 2007

Casey Strategic Consulting Group

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-3 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 14
We want to provide an overview of the Alabama juvenile justice

system, share major findings, and discuss next steps

• Review Alabama 's juvenile justice system, where

outcomes are influenced by many constituents

Analysis found three serious factors:

1. There are too many low-risk youth entering the system

and inappropriately incarcerated

2. There are inadequate community-based alternatives

that support and hold youth accountable

3. There is significant commitment variability for youth

across the system including racial disproportionality

• Discuss the need to develop a detailed, action plan to

transform the juvenile justice system

2

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-3 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 14
By statute, the Alabama juvenile justice system seeks to

promote safe, supportive communities and facilities

Goals for Delinquency Proceedings

• Advance family preservation

• Reunify child and family as quickly as

possible

• Secure appropriate treatment for

children removed from parental custody

• Promote a continuum of care from

prevention to aftercare

• Support the use of alternatives to

incarceration

• Encourage the use of restitution such as

community service

• Achieve goals in least restrictive setting

necessary with a preference at all times

to preserve the family

Goals for Juvenile Justice System

• Offer social and educational services

and facilities for youth that meet

minimum standards

• Develop programs that prevent, control

and treat delinquency through

collaborative public and private

partnerships

• Provide programs to improve risky

community conditions and aid parents in

discharging their responsibilities for the

care, development and well-being of

their children

• Coordinate public service programs that

prevent juvenile justice delinquency and

rehabilitate delinquent youth

Source: Code of Alabama Title 12-5a-1

3

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-3 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 3 of 14
We have identified misalignment between the Juvenile Justice

system goals and reality

Observed inconsistencies

Less than one in five youth ordered to DYS are high-risk

Just 8% of youth are ordered to DYS custody for violent felonies,

along with 13% for index property offenses

Youth are more likely to be committed for a probation violation than

any other type of offense

25% of all referrals are from school

Commitment rates differ greatly across counties for youth accused

of similar offenses

Limited community options to prevent out-of-home placement

4

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-3 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 4 of 14
At each stage of this complex system, multiple factors appear to

drive the overuse of incarceration

IDENTIFIED CAUSES FOR OVERUSE OF INCARCERATION IN ALABAMA

Event(s)1

Contributing

Factors

Event(s)1

Contributing

Factors

COMMUNITY2 I COUNTY AND LOCAL JURISDICTIONS STATE

Ji1 l. Iit1f

Referrals for reasons I I I

Inappropriate referrals Low-risk youth Low-risk youth sent to DYS Youth placed other than delinquent move forward sent to detention inappropriately

acts______________________ __________________ _____________________________________________ _________________

Misunderstand Lack graduated, community-based DYS Lack clear, referral criteria alternatives to incarceration commitment = standardized criteria

Lack alternatives for Lack local services (e.g., MH, substance out-of-home

Inconsistent disruptive, but non- Juvenile Detention abuse) placement

practices across delinquent behavior Alternative Frustration with repeated misbehavior even if Placement not judges! counties (esp. schools and Initiative non-delinquent based on

DHR) Lack disincentives ' Inconsistent practices across judges! risk/need

to move Lack disincentives . counties DYS not fully

or consequences for inappropriate youth

through the system Public pressure to punish and/or send "bad" utilizing their

misuse kids away authority

PROBATION

IY&11!.]iiliiItmflhl

I I

Violation of probation for other than I Hundreds of youth sent to DYS for Don't get enough support and/or "right"

delinquent acts probation! after care violations support to successfully transition back to

home and avoid future trouble

Supervision and compliance focus vs. youth development and tailored support In addition, the following are unique factors:

Pressure to make best use of scarce resources creates incentive to violate most Insufficient planning prior to release

vexing youth Lack of supportive services to successfully

Frustration with repeated misbehavior reintegrate youth with their families and

Limited ability to vary intensity of supervision and support given capacity, communities

resources, authority, and overwhelming case load (as high as 150 in some ' Coordination challenges between DYS and

counties) other entities involved in reentry

These are events that lead to the overuse and/or inappropnate use of incarceration for at-risk Alabama youth = primary entity for process step

2 Community referral sources include: police, schools, neighbors, victims, family. Other state agencies such as DHR also refer youth to the system = major juvenile justice process step Source: Teem interviews with DYS, AOC, local court officials and staff, pnvate providers, and Alabama youth 5

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-3 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 5 of 14
We want to provide an overview of the Alabama juvenile justice

system, share major findings, and discuss next steps

• Review Alabama's juvenile justice system, where outcomes are

influenced by many constituents

Analysis found three serious factors:

- There are too many low-risk youth entering the system

and inappropriately incarcerated

- There are inadequate community-based alternatives that

support and hold youth accountable

- There is significant commitment variability for youth

across the system including racial disproportionality

• Discuss the need to develop a detailed, action plan to transform

the juvenile justice system

6

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-3 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 6 of 14
Other Southern U.S. AL

States1

PERCENTAGE OF YOUTH IN

CUSTODY FOR TECHNICAL

VIOLATIONS AND STATUS

ENS ES , 20 03

Other Southern U.S. AL

States I

Felony Offense Probation Violation

Alabama's high commitment

rate is driven largely by

probation violators

Due in part to the high number of probation violations, Alabama

commits a large number of youth to DYS

PROBABILITY OF

COMMITMENT BY

REFERRAL REASON

29%

22%

I Southern states included in the anysis are FL, LA, MS. GA, TN, SC

Sources Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, "Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement Databook" and Juvenile Offenders and Victims (2006); Team analysis of AOC 2006 data

7

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-3 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 7 of 14
VIOLENT JUVENILE DYS ADMISSIONS

ARRESTS

1,232

tnrsi I

3,157

1995 2005 1995 2005

4.6

Despite a significant decline in serious juvenile arrests, DYS

admissions have not decreased

RATIO OF DYS ADMISSIONS

PER VIOLENT JUVENILE

ARREST2

1995

2005

Ratio increased

(312% since 1995)

DYS admissions are not correlated with violent juvenile arrests

In 2005, DYS admissions were nearly 5 times greater than violent juvenile

arrests, while 10 years earlier the ratio was nearly I to I

1 This calculation is the Compound Annual Growth Rate, which is the year-over-year rate of change in a value between two specified times

2 If this data was calculated based on the Federal Bureau of Investigabon 1995-2005 data the ratio would be 1 3 for 1995 and 6.8 for 2005

Sources: Alabama Criminal Justice Information Center (iipI/a c ictete.al us/crime cfm#cia); DYS Website (dys,alabsma.gov ), Youth Admitted by DYS in 1990-2006

8

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-3 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 8 of 14
NonPerson

Offense

Other Person

Offense

Violent

Felony

HINS

Probation

Violation

3,333 Youth

POTENTIAL AL YOUTH

COMMITMENT PROFILE

100% = 2,309

Other Person

- Offense

IILLUSTRATIVE I

Just by reducing commitments for CHINS/violations to the national

average would result in a significant reduction of DYS youth

This slide is only meant to be illustrative of the effect that this one transformation would have on

the size of the DYS population. It is not representative of all desired changes to the system.

CURRENT AL YOUTH

COMMITMENT PROFILE

100% = 3,333

NUMBER OF YOUTH ADMITTED TO AL

DYS BY OFFENSE TYPE

NonPerson

Offense

Assumes reduction of CHINS and

Probation Violations so they only

account for 20% of commitments which

is the U.S. average

Potential System Current System (Addressing low risk

youth issue1)

Assumes AL prevented CHINS admissions and limited percentage of youth in custody for technical and status offenses to national average

Source: Team analysis of DYS (2006) data base

9

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-3 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 9 of 14
The high commitment rate in Alabama is partially driven by

inadequate availability of community-based services

QUOTES

2 OUT OF TOP 3

ARE JJ RELATED

SERVICE NEEDS

ALABAMA COUNTIES NAMING JJ

SERVICESI AS TOP 3 SERVICE NEED

100% = 67 Counties

3 OUT OF TOP 3 SERVICE

NEEDS ARE JJ RELATED

0 OUT OF TOP 3

PRTY NEEDS AREK

r

1 OUT OF TOP3

SERVICE NEEDS

ARE JJ RELATED

87% of counties list JJ community

services as a top three service need

"I commit kids to DYS because services like substance abuse

treatment are not available in my community." - Juvenile Judge

"For the record, in my tenure here I've never seen the huge

numbers (of referrals) from schools like we have had in the past

two weeks. I don't know what is going on out there..." - Court

intake officer (in August, 2007)

"Many youth we currently have here at Mt Meigs can be safely

managed in their communities if more certified therapist and

related resources existed there." - Therapist, DYS Mt Meigs

"We need to reduce barriers to screening and referral for

treatment of children and youth with mental health, mental

retardation, or behavioral disorders to avoid unnecessary and

expensive incarceration or other inappropriate placements." -

Executive Director, Mobile County Children's Policy Council

The need for more appropriate services is broadly shared across the state

The requested Juvenile Justice services include adolescent substance abuse treatment anti truancy programs, afterschool programs, juvenile court programs

Source. 2006 Childrens Policy Council Report; Interviews with court and DYS personnel and county offidala

10

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-3 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 10 of 14
The commitment rate for low-risk youth is inconsistent across the

state

COMMITMENT VARIABILITY ACROSS COUNTIES

Top 10

Committing Total & Probation Violation/CHINS % Probation

Counties Commitments Violation! CHINS

Jefferson__________________________________________ 544 36%

194

Mobile_____________________ 264 55%

145

Tuscaloosa__________________ 227 49%

112

Madison__________________ 225 79

106

::: Baldwin______________ 194

Houston __________ 134 ______ 57%

76 _____________________________________

Montgomery •30 133 { 23%

Lee 67% 104

Elm ore 86 60%

aowah 85

29%

Alabama Avg. = 39%

Source: Team analysis of DYS 2006 data

Even among the top committing

counties, there is considerable

variation in the type of offenses

for which youth have committed

I

The percentage of youth

ordered to DYS custody for

violations and as CHINS ranged

from less than a quarter to twothirds

Total admission

U Admission for VOP/CHINS

11

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-3 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 11 of 14
45%

31%

12%

9%

14%

10%

31%

28%

3%

2%

Violent Felony

Other Person

Offense

Non-Person

Offense

Probation

Violation

CHINS

Alabama's Black youth are more likely than Whites to be referred

to the juvenile justice system and committed to DYS facilities

LIKELIHOOD OF ORDER TO DYS

FACILITY BY COURT REFERRAL

OFFENSE1

REFERRALS TO JUVENILE

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Referral Rate per 100,000

Youth by Race

14,494

7,430

White Black

Total Number of Referrals

by Race

502K - - - 49K

White

51%

67%

Black

AL Referrals

Population to Juvenile '10-17 Court

5.17

COMMITTED TO DYS

FACILITIES

DYS Admissions Rate per

100,000 Youth by Race

1,247

377

White Black

Total Number of DYS

Admissions by Race

502K 3.3K

38%

White 67%

Black

AL Committed

Population to DYS

10-17 10-19

Black youth are disproportionately committed to DYS

1 lncludes youth wavier to adult court

Source: Team analysis of AOC data (2006), DYS Data 2006 Black Youth

White Youth

12

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-3 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 12 of 14
We want to provide an overview of the Alabama juvenile justice

system, share major findings, and discuss next steps

• Review Alabama's juvenile justice system, where outcomes

are influenced by many constituents

Analysis found three serious factors:

- There are too many low-risk youth entering the system

and inappropriately incarcerated

- There are inadequate community-based alternatives

that support and hold youth accountable

- There is significant commitment variability for youth

across the system including racial disproportionality

• Discuss the need to develop a detailed, action plan to

transform the juvenile justice system

13

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-3 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 13 of 14
HIGH LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS

Significantly reduce number of youth in

secure and group care

Proposed next steps are to complete an action plan to improve

the system

Potential responses to address recommendations

Decrease inappropriate referrals and

minority disproportionality

Close beds and reinvest savings into

community-based services

POTENTIAL RESPONSES

• DYS should not accept CHINS and VOP unless in exceptional

circumstances

• Ensure consistent and effective use of risk assessment tools

• Explore changes to the juvenile code

• Educate constituents and stakeholders in the system that these two

issues are "big" problems

• Close residential beds and reinvest in alternatives

• Shift incentives to increase usage of home based services and stop

sending low-risk youth to DYS

Expand community-based service options

Identify and implement best-practice

monitoring and accountability methods

• Use evidence-based programs as alternative to incarceration (e.g.

Multi-systemic therapy (MST), Family Functional Therapy (FFT))

through DYS service solicitation process

• Assist residential providers transition to community service

providers

• Set up tracking mechanism to monitor state's improvement

• Create cross-county forums so counties can learn from each other

14

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-3 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 14 of 14
National

A Report

A

t%O

t%ic'-fl

,

,

Rport Ijtl,' EXHIBIT

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-4 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 35
Statistical

Briefing Book

L1J11 I

:J:

The fastest path to the latest

statistical information on:

Juvenile offending

Victimization of juveniles

Youth in the juvenile justice system

SBB makes it easy for policymakers,

juvenile justice practitioners, the

media, and the general public to

access information on topics that mirror the major sections of

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: National Report.

Find timely, reliable answers to frequently asked questions.

• With "Easy Access" tools and downloadable spreadsheets, create

your own national, state, and county tables on juvenile populations, arrests, court cases, and custody populations.

• Consult the "Compendium of National Juvenile Justice Data Sets"

for practical guidance on how to use a set of major national data

resources that inform juvenile justice issues.

• Link to more than 25 Web-based resources.

• Search OJJDP's online library of hundreds of statistical

publications.

Make SBB your first stop for statistical information on juvenile

justice. Visit the OJJDP Web site at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp and

click on "Statistics'

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-4 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 35
a a a I I

Juvenile Offenders

and Victims: 2006

National Report

Howard N. Snyder

Melissa Sickmund

National Center for Juvenile Justice

March 2006

Office of Justice Programs

Partnerships for Safer Communities

www ojp. usdoj.gov

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-4 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 3 of 35
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street NW

Washington, DC 20531

Alberto R. Gonzales

Attorney General

Regina B. Schofield

Assistant Attorney General

J. Robert Flores

Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

This Report was prepared by the National Center for Juvenile Justice, the research division of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, and was supported by

cooperative agreement #1999—JN—FX--K0002 with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not

necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Copyright 2006

National Center for Juvenile Justice

3700 S. Water Street, Suite 200

Pittsburgh, PA 15203-2363

Suggested citation: Snyder, Howard N., and Sickmund, Melissa. 2006. Juvenile Offenders

and Victims: 2006 National Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice Programs,

which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance,

the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute

of Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-4 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 4 of 35
Foreword

1: - I 1 1 1

America's youth are facing an everchanging set of problems and barriers to successful lives. As a result,

we are constantly challenged to develop enlightened policies and programs to address the needs and

risks of those youth who enter our

juvenile justice system. The policies

and programs we create must be

based on facts, not fears. Too often,

the facts are unknown or not readily

available. This Report is designed

to remedy, at least in part, that information gap.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006

National Report draws on reliable

data and relevant research to provide a comprehensive and insightful

view of juvenile crime across the

nation. The Report offers Congress,

state legislators and other state and

local policymakers, professors and

teachers, juvenile justice professionals, and concerned citizens empirically based answers to frequently asked questions about the nature

of juvenile crime and victimization

and about the justice system's

response.

Citing FBI and other data sources,

the Report demonstrates that the

rate of juvenile violent crime arrests

has consistently decreased since

1994, falling to a level not seen

since at least the 1970s. However,

during this period of overall decline

in juvenile violence, the female proportion of juvenile violent crime arrests has increased (especially for

the crime of assault), marking an

important change in the types of

youth entering the juvenile justice

system and in their programming

needs. The Report also describes

when and where juvenile violent

crime occurs, focusing attention on

the critical afterschool hours.

Statistics presented throughout the

Report find that racial disparity in

the juvenile justice system is declining. For example, the black juvenile

violent crime arrest rate in the late

1980s was six times the white rate—.

by 2003, it had fallen to four times

the white rate. During the same period, the black juvenile arrest rate

for drug abuse violations fell from

five times to less than double the

white rate.

The Report also presents new findings from OJJDP's national Census

of Juveniles in Residential Place--

ment. The daily number of committed youth held in public and private

facilities increased 28% between

1991 and 2003, with the increase far

greater in private than in public facilities. However, after peaking in

1999, the number of youth in custody began to fall—for the first time

in a generation.

In sum, Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report offers a

clear view of juvenile crime and the

justice system's response at the beginning of the 21st century. It is an

indispensable resource for informed

professionals who strive to shape

the juvenile justice system today.

J. Robert Flores

Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention

-

-

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-4 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 5 of 35
i. RI •* U

Acknowledgments

This Report is the result of an ongoing effort that has benefited from

the assistance of many individuals

in addition to the authors.

Information and/or assistance

were provided by the following

individuals:

Chris Bailey

National Council of Juvenile and

Family Court Judges

Allen Beck

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Latrice Brogsdale-Davis

Census Bureau

I-leather Hammer

Temple University

James Howell

National Youth Gang Center

Michael Rand

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Charlene Sebold

Census Bureau

Andrea Sedlak

Westat, Inc.

Regina Yates

Census Bureau

Within the Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention, Janet

Chiancone serves as the project

manager under the direction of J.

Robert Flores. Additional reviews of

the report within OJJDP were pro--

vided by Barbara Allen-Hagen, Steve

Antkowiak, Catherine Doyle, Heidi

Hsia, Dennis Mondoro, Stephanie

Rapp, Elissa Rumsey, Robert

Samuels, Karen Stern, Gregory

Thompson, and Phelan Wyrick.

Within NCJJ, Nancy Tierney was responsible for report production

(desktop publishing, graphics design, page layout, and copy editing).

Assistance and review were provided by Gregg Halemba and Hunter

Hurst, Jr. (child maltreatment case

processing), Carl McCurley (juvenile

offending behavior), Patrick Griffin

(gangs), Linda Szymanski (statutes),

Charles Puzzanchera (population

and juvenile court data), Anne Stahl

(juvenile court data), Sarah Livsey

(index), Terrence Finnegan and Anthony Sladky (computer programming), and Kevin Spangenberg (re--

source library).

Production assistance was also provided by the staff of the Juvenile

Justice Clearinghouse under the direction of Catherine Doyle, OJJDP:

Denise Collins (cover design), Sam

Brown (print preparation and quality control of electronic files), and

Lynn Marble and Beverly Sullivan

(editing and document quality control) under the supervision of Pearl

Coleman.

Ultimately, this work would not be

possible without the efforts of the

many individuals who collect and

report the data at the local, state,

and federal levels—data that are the

heart and soul of this report.

-

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-4 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 6 of 35
I.. lu I

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Juvenile population characteristics .................1

Juvenilepopulation demographics ...............................2

Juvenilesin poverty ............................................7

Livingarrangement of juveniles .................................10

Birthsto teens ................................................12

Schooldropouts ..............................................14

Chapter1 sources .............................................16

Chapter2: Juvenile victims ............................... 19

Juvenilehomicide victims ......................................20

Firearm-related homicides of juveniles ...........................23

Juvenilesuicide ...............................................25

Victimizationsurvey of juveniles ................................27

Victimsof school crime ........................................29

Victimizationrisk factors .......................................30

Juvenile victims of reported violent crimes .......................31

Offenderswho victimize juveniles ...............................33

Time-of-day analysis of juvenile victimization .....................34

Locationof juvenile victimization ...............................36

Juvenilevictims of statutory rape ...............................37

Juvenile victimization on the Internet ............................38

Juvenilekidnap victims ........................................40

Missingchildren ..............................................42

Runawayand thrownaway children ..............................45

Missingchildren trends ........................................46

Childmaltreatment case processing .............................47

Childmaltreatment trends .....................................51

Childmaltreatment demographics ...............................54

Childmaltreatment perpetrators ................................55

Childmaltreatment fatalities ....................................56

Fostercare ...................................................57

Adoption....................................................59

Chapter2 sources .............................................60

Chapter3: Juvenile offenders ............................. 63

Self-reports vs. official data .....................................64

Homicidesby juveniles ........................................65

Juvenile homicide offender characteristics .......................67

Juvenile offending behavior demographics .......................70

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-4 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 7 of 35
Table of contents

Offendinginto the adult years .................................. 71

Juvenile offending behavior and associated factors ................ 72

Schoolcrime ................................................. 73

Weaponsuse ................................................. 74

Drugand alcohol use .......................................... 75

Drugand alcohol use trends .................................... 79

Co-occurrence of substance use behaviors ....................... 81

Gangs....................................................... 82

Time-of-day analysis of juvenile offending ........................ 85

Chapter3 sources ............................................. 90

Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process ......93

History and overview of the juvenile justice system ............... 94

U.S. Supreme Court cases and the juvenile justice system ......... 100

State definitions of juvenile court jurisdiction .................... 103

Juvenile justice system case processing ......................... 104

Publicaccess to juvenile proceedings ........................... 108

State provisions for trying juveniles as adults .................... 110

Judicial waiver, concurrent jurisdiction, and statutory exclusion 112

Blendedsentencing .......................................... 115

Juveniles in the federal justice system .......................... 117

Chapter4 sources ............................................ 119

Chapter 5: Law enforcement and juvenile crime .............121

Introduction to juvenile arrest data ............................. 122

Gender, age, and racial variations in juvenile arrests .............. 125

Juvenileproportion of arrests ................................. 126

Juvenilearrest 10-year trends .................................. 127

Femalejuvenile arrest trends .................................. 128

Youngjuvenile arrest trends ................................... 130

ViolentCrime Index arrest trends .............................. 132

Murderarrest trends ......................................... 133

Forciblerape arrest trends .................................... 134

Robberyarrest trends ........................................ 135

Aggravatedassault arrest trends ............................... 136

PropertyCrime Index arrest trends ............................. 137

Burglaryarrest trends ........................................ 138

Larceny-theft arrest trends .................................... 139

Motorvehicle theft arrest trends ............................... 140

Arsonarrest trends .......................................... 141

Simpleassault arrest trends ................................... 142

Weaponslaw violation arrest trends ............................ 143

Drugabuse violation arrest trends ............................. 144

Juvenilecrime vs. adult crime ................................. 145

Clearancestatistics .......................................... 146

Violentcrime arrest rates by state ............................. 148

Violentcrime arrest rates by county ............................ 149

Propertycrime arrest rates by state ............................ 150

Property crime arrest rates by county .......................... 151

Policedisposition of juvenile arrests ............................ 152

Chapter5 sources ............................................ 153

Jt,venhie Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-4 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 8 of 35
Table of contents

Chapter 6: Juvenile offenders in court .....................155

Introduction to Juvenile Court Statistics .......................... 156

Delinquencycaseload ........................................ 157

Trendsin delinquency cases ................................... 158

Gender variations in delinquency cases ......................... 160

Offenseprofiles by gender .................................... 162

Racial variations in delinquency cases .......................... 163

Agevariations in delinquency cases ............................ 166

Detention................................................... 168

Detention variations by demographics .......................... 169

Formalvs. informal case processing ............................ 171

Adjudication................................................ 173

Disposition.................................................. 174

Delinquencycase processing .................................. 177

Delinquency case processing by offense and demographics ........ 178

Judicialwaiver .............................................. 186

Monitoring racial disparity in the justice system ................. 188

Statusoffense cases .......................................... 191

Chapter6 sources ............................................ 193

Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities ....... . 195

Introductionto custody data ..................................196

Juvenilecustody population ...................................197

Offense trends in private and public facilities ....................198

Offender trends in juvenile facilities ............................199

Detainedand committed populations ...........................200

Statecustody rates ...........................................201

Offense profiles of the custody population by state ...............203

Offense profiles of detained and committed offenders by state ......204

Gender variations in the custody population .....................206

Racial variations in the custody population ......................211

Racial variations in custody rates by state .......................213

Length of stay for juveniles in custody ..........................215

Typesof facilities ............................................218

Facilitysecurity features ......................................219

Security arrangements for juveniles in custody ...................220

Facilitysize .................................................222

Crowding in juvenile custody facilities ..........................223

Screening for substance abuse, mental health, and suicide risk .....225

Deathsin custody facilities ....................................229

Sexual violence in custody facilities ............................230

Youthreentry population .....................................232

Recidivism and the youth custody population ...................234

Juvenilesin jails .............................................236

Juvenilesin prisons ..........................................237

Deathpenalty ...............................................239

Chapter7 sources ............................................241

Index ................................................. 243

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-4 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 9 of 35
U • * I U • H

Juvenile Offenders

and Victims: 2006

National Report

-. - - -- --. -...- ----- - .-..-

Chapter 1: Juvenile population characteristics .................1

Juvenilepopulation demographics ...............................2

Juvenilesin poverty ............................................7

Livingarrangement of juveniles .................................10

Birthsto teens ................................................12

Schooldropouts ..............................................14

Chapter1 sources .............................................16

Copyright 2006

National Center for Juvenile Justice

3700 S. Water Street, Suite 200

Pittsburgh, PA 15203-2363

Suggested citation: Snyder, Howard N., and Sickmund, Melissa. 2006. Juvenile

Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-4 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 10 of 35
u

Chapter 1

Juvenile population

characteristics

Juveniles in the U.S. today live in a

world very different from that of

their parents or grandparents. Problems experienced by children at the

turn of the century are the products

of multiple and sometimes complex

causes. Data presented in this chapter indicate that in many ways conditions have improved in recent

years, but only marginally. For example, the proportion of juveniles

living in poverty has declined recently, but juveniles are still far

more likely to live in poverty today

than 20 years ago. Similarly, teenage

birth rates have declined in recent

years but still remain high. Fewer

children are being raised in two-parent families. Although high school

dropout rates have fallen for most

juveniles, the rates are still too

high, especially in an employment

market where unskilled labor is

needed less and less.

This chapter presents a brief overview of some of the more commonly

requested demographic, economic,

and sociological statistics on juveniles. These statistics pertain to factors that are directly or indirectly

associated with juvenile crime and

victimization. Although these factors may be correlated with juvenile

crime and/or victimization, they

may not be the immediate cause

and may be linked to the causal

factor. The sections summarize de--

mographic, poverty, and living

arrangement data developed by the

U.S. Census Bureau, birth statistics

from the National Center for Health

Statistics, and education data from

the National Center for Education

Statistics.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-4 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 11 of 35
Chapter 1: Juvenile population characteristics

ru

At the beginning of the 21 st century. 1 in 4 US.

residents was under age 18

The juvenile population is

increasing similarly to other

segments of the population

For 2002, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that 72,894,500 persons in

the United States were under the

age of 18, the age group commonly

referred to as juveniles. The juvenile

population reached a low point in

1984, at 62.5 million, then grew each

year through 2002, increasing 17%.

Current projections indicate that

the juvenile population will continue to grow throughout the 21st century. The Census Bureau estimates

that it will increase 14% between

2000 and 2025—about one-half of

one percent per year. By 2050, the

juvenile population will be 36% larger than it was in 2000.

In 2002, juveniles were 25% of the

U.S. resident population. The Census Bureau estimates that this proportion will remain essentially constant through at least 2050; i.e., the

relative increases in the juvenile

and adult populations will be equivalent during the first half of the 21st

century.

The racial character of the

juvenile population is changing

The Census Bureau has changed its

racial classifications. Prior to the

2000 decennial census, respondents

were asked to classify themselves

into a single racial group: (1) white,

(2) black or African American, (3)

American Indian or Alaska Native,

or (4) Asian or Pacific Islander. In

the 2000 census, Asians were separated from Native Hawaiians and

Other Pacific Islanders. In addition,

respondents could classify themselves into more than one racial

group. In 2000, 1.4% of the total U.S.

population and 2.5% of the juvenile

population classified themselves as

multiracial.

Most national data systems have

not yet reached the Census Bureau's

level of detail for racial coding—and

historical data cannot support this

new coding structure, especially the

mixed-race categories.* Therefore,

this report generally uses the fourrace coding structure. For ease of

presentation, the terms white,

black, American Indian, and Asian

are used.

With that understood, in 2002,

77.9% of the juvenile population was

classified as white, 16.4% black,

1.4% American Indian, and 4.4%

Asian. These proportions will

change in the near future if the anticipated differential growth of these

subgroups comes to pass.

Percent change within racial segments

of the juvenile population (ages 0-17):

1980– 2000–

Race 2000 2020

White 8% 7%

Black 25 9

American Indian 85 16

Asian 160 59

Total 14 10

The Hispanic portion of the

juvenile population will increase

In 2002, 18% of juveniles in the U.S.

were of Hispanic ethnicity. Ethnicity

is different from race. More than 9

of every 10 Hispanic juveniles were

classified racially as white. More

specifically, 92% of Hispanic

* To facilitate the transition to a more

broad-based use of the new racial coding

structure, the National Center for Health

Statistics modified Census' population

data, removing the 31 mixed-race categories. Bridging the new racial coding

structure back to the old structure was accomplished by estimating a single racial

group classification of mixed-race persons,

based on responses to the National Health

Interview Survey that asked respondents

to classify themselves using both the old

and new racial coding Structures.

juveniles were white, 5% black, 2%

American Indian, and 1% Asian.

In 2002, 21% of white juveniles were

also Hispanic. A similar proportion

of American Indians (24%) also described their ethnicity as Hispanic.

This proportion was far smaller for

black juveniles and Asian juveniles

(5% each).

The Census Bureau estimates that

the number of Hispanic juveniles in

the U.S. will increase 58% between

2000 and 2020. This growth will

bring the Hispanic proportion of the

juvenile population to 23% by 2020

and to 31% by 2050.

How useful are race/ethnicity

classifications?

Using race and Hispanic origin as

characteristics to classify juveniles

assumes meaningful differences

among these subgroups. If Hispanic

and non-Hispanic juveniles have

substantially different characteristics, then such comparisons could

be useful. Furthermore, if Hispanic

ethnicity is a more telling demographic trait than race, then a fivecategory classification scheme that

places all Hispanic youth in their

own category and then divides

other youth among the four racial

categories may be useful—assuming

available data support such

groupings.

However, this is only one of many

race/ethnicity classification

schemes. For example, some argue

that the Hispanic grouping is too

broad—that data should, for example, distinguish youth whose ancestors came from Mexico, Puerto Rico,

Cuba, and other countries. Similar

proposals make finer distinctions

among juveniles with ancestry in

the various nations of Asia and the

Middle East, as well as the various

American Indian nations.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-4 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 12 of 35
Chapter 1: Juvenile population characteristics

In the 1920s, the Children's Bureau

(then within the U.S. Department of

Labor) asked juvenile courts to classify referred youth by their nativity,

which at the time distinguished primarily among various European ancestries. Today, the idea of presenting crime and justice statistics that

distinguish among juveniles with

Irish, Italian, and German ancestry

seems nonsensical. The demographic classification of juveniles is not a

scientific process, but a culturally

related one that changes with time

and place. Those reading our reports 100 years from now will likely

wonder about the reasons for our

current racial/ethnic categorizations.

Juvenile justice systems serve

populations that vary greatly in

racial/ethnic composition

In 2002, at least 9 of every 10 juve--

niles in Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, and West Virginia were nonHispanic and white. In contrast,

New Mexico's juvenile population

was 51% Hispanic. Other states with

large Hispanic juvenile populations

were California (45%), Texas (42%),

Arizona (37%), Nevada (30%), and

Colorado (24%). In 2002, three quarters of all Hispanic juveniles lived in

California, Texas, New York, Florida,

Illinois, Arizona, and New Jersey.

In 2002, four states had juvenile

populations with more than 10%

American Indians or Alaska Natives.

These states were Aiaska (2 1%),

South Dakota (14%), New Mexico

(12%), and Oklahoma (12%).

The states with the greatest proportion of black juveniles in their populations in 2002 were Mississippi

(45%), Louisiana (40%), South Carolina (37%), Georgia (34%), Maryland (33%), and Alabama (32%). The

juvenile population in the District of

Columbia was 72% black.

In 2002, more than 1 in 4 juveniles in New Mexico, California,

Texas, Arizona, and Nevada were Hispanic

2002 juvenile population (ages 0-17)

Non-Hispanic Percent

American change

State Number White Black Indian Asian Hispanic 1990-2002

U.S. total 72,894,500 61% 16% 1% 4% 18% 14%

Alabama 1,107,100 64 32 1 2 5

Alaska 192,400 62 5 21 5 6 8

Arizona 1476,900 50 4 7 2 37 47

Arkansas 677,500 72 21 1 5 9

California 9,452,400 36 8 1 11 45 18

Colorado 1,151,100 67 5 1 3 24 31

Connecticut 872,900 70 12 0 3 14 .16

Delaware 189,700 65 25 0 3 7 15

Dist. of Columbia 112,100 15 72 0 2 11

Florida 3,882,300 55 22 0 2 20 30

Georgia 2,268,500 56 34 0 2 7 30

Hawaii 295,500 23 3 0 61 13 6

Idaho 370,400 84 2 12 18

IllInois 3,254,500 59 19 0 4 18 11

IndIana 1594,900 82 11 0 5 ii

Iowa 698,000 89 4 0 2 5 -3

Kansas 696,500 77 8 2 11 5

Kentucky 931,600 87 10 0 2 -2

Louisiana 1,185,700 55 1 -2

Maine 279,100 95 -9

Maryland 1379,900 57 33 0 4 6 17

Massachusetts 1463,300 76 8 0 5 11 8

Michigan 2,570,300 73 19 1 2 5 4

Minnesota 1,252,100 83 7 2 5 5 6

Mississippi 760,700 52 45 2 4

Missouri 1,397,500 80 1 1 3 6

Montana 216,300 85 10 3 -3

Nebraska 439,400 82 6 2 9 2

Nevada 572,600 55 9 5 30 81

New HampshIre 308,400 94 0 2 3 11

New Jersey 2,127,400 59 17 0 7 17 17

New Mexico 500,500 33 2 12 51 10

New York 4,613300 55 19 0 6 20 8

North Carolina 2,068,800 63 27 2 7 27

North Dakota 146,800 87 8 1 2 -14

Ohio 2,879,900 80 16 0 3 4

Oklahoma 873,600 68 11 12 2 8 4

Oregon 855,100 77 3 2 4 14 15

Pennsylvania 2,863,500 79 14 0 2 5 2

Rhode Island 239,200 74 8 3 15 6

South Carolina 979,200 59 37 0 3 6

South Dakota 195,600 81 2 14 1 2 -2

Tennessee 1404,700 74 22 0 1 3 15

Texas 6,102,300 42 13 0 3 42 24

Utah 713,000 83 2 3 12 14

Vermont 139,700 96 1 1 -3

VirgInia 1,779,400 65 24 0 4 17

Washington 1,513,400 73 6 2 7 12 16

West Virginia 389,200 94 4 0 -11

Wisconsin 1,338,100 81 9 1 3 6 3

Wming 122,300 85 3 1 9 -10

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of rounding.

Source: Authors' adaptation of Puzzanchera et al's Easy access to juvenile populations

[online anatysisj.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-4 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 13 of 35
I

I

A

•

1i • I

t Jii

I

Pj • '!I :ui;i ':

-:. -

ir4 t

I

4 -

41

4

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-4 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 14 of 35
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-4 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 15 of 35
r:., IøJii

b

&f' 

Ilu Ii' Pi

I €1! .1r::LJ?' ;;;;i;:;' ...- :: -

- .

..-I.•

II.....: '••-,-• q ..Lr 1...• P

-

•• r '

UI

•..Iil.Ir ,

- r.' 1

:1

.4'& J

6

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-4 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 16 of 35
0%'.

76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02

Year

• In the mid-i 970s, the proportions of juveniles and senior citizens living in

poverty were essentially equal. In the last quarter of the 20th century, the

proportion of senior citizens living in poverty deciined, while the juvenile

poverty rates increased before falling back at the end of the century to the

levels of the mid-i 970s.

In 2002, black juveniles and Hispanic juveniles were more than 3

times as likely to live in poverty as non-Hispanic white juveniles

Percent under age 18 in poverty

50%

Hispanic - 30%

I1⁄4go 65 and oer

25% Asian

10%

5%

0%

76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02

Year

• Regardless of race or Hispanic ethnicity, the proportions of juveniles living in

poverty in 2002 were at or near their lowest levels since the mid-i 970s.

Notes: Poverty statistics on American Indians and Alaska Natives were not presented in

the source reports. Racial categories do not include persons of Hispanic ethnicity.

Source: Authors' adaptation of Proctor and Daiaker's Poverty in the United States: 2002,

Current Population Reports.

Chapter 1: Juvenile population characteristics

I:I jI1

In 2002, poverty was more common among children

under age 5 than any other age group

Juvenile poverty appears to be

associated with juvenile crime

Research has often found a connection between poverty and selfreported delinquency. For example,

Farrington found that low family income measured when the youth

was age 8 predicted self-reported violence in the teenage years and

conviction rates for violent offenses. Research, however, indicates

that the linkage may not be direct.

For example, Sampson found that

poverty exerts much influence on

family disruption (e.g., marital separation, divorce), which in turn has a

direct influence on juvenile violent

crime rates. He also found that famiiy disruption had a stronger influence on juvenile violence than adult

violence. Therefore, differential

poverty levels are likely to influence

juvenile crime trends.

One of every six juveniles lived

in poverty in 2002

Each person and family is assigned

a poverty threshold according to

the size of the family and the ages

of the members.* The national

poverty thresholds are used

throughout the U.S. and are updated

for inflation annually. In 1990, the

poverty threshold for a family of

four with two children was $13,254.

In 2002, this threshold was $18,244.

In comparison, the poverty threshold for a family of six with four children was $24,038 in 2002. Although

the thresholds in some sense reflect

families' needs, they are not intended

to be a complete description of what

individuals and families need to

live.

In 2002, 12% of all persons in the

U.S. lived at or below their poverty

* Family members are defined as being related by birth, marriage, or adoption.

Although the proportion of juveniles living below the poverty level

has declined substantially from its peak in 1993, it is still

considerably larger than that of older Americans

Percent in poverty

25% 1

20%J

Underage 18

N

15% Age 65 and over

10%

Ages 18-64

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-4 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 17 of 35
Chapter 1: Juvenile population characteristics

U.

thresholds. This proportion was far

greater for persons under age 18

(17%) than for those ages 18-64

(11%) and those above age 64 (10%).

The youngest children were the

most likely to live in poverty: 16% of

juveniles ages 5-17 lived in households with resources below the established poverty thresholds, but

19% of children under age 5 did so.

Many children live far below their

poverty thresholds. One technique

for gaining a perspective on this is

to see how many children live

below 50% of the poverty levele.g., in 2002, how many children

lived in families of four with two

children and incomes less than

$9,122, or half the poverty threshold of $18,244. In 2002, 6.9% of persons under age 18 were living below

50% of the poverty level, compared

with 4.6% of persons ages 18-64 and

2.2% of persons over age 64. This

proportion was once again highest

for children under age 5 (8.6%). In

all, more than 40% of juveniles living

in poverty lived in what can be characterized as extreme poverty.

More than 1 of every 4 juveniles in the District of Columbia, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and

West Virginia lived below the poverty level in 2002

Percent of persons living

below the poverty threshold

All Ages Ages Over

State ages 0-17 18-64 age 64

United States 12.1% 16.7% 10.6% 10.4%

Alabama 14.5 19.1 12.2 15.7

Alaska 8.8 11.3 7.9 *

Arizona 13.5 19.3 12.6 6.0

Arkansas 19.8 31.2 15.9 16.6

California 13.1 18.7 11.4 8.9

Colorado 9.8 12.5 8.7 9.8

Connecticut 8.3 11.0 7.6 5.9

Delaware 9.1 12.6 8.5 6.0

Dist. of Columbia 17.0 33.0 12.4

FlorIda 12.6 16.5 11.3 11.3

GeorgIa 11.2 16.0 9.2 10.7

Hawaii 11.3 14.4 10.4 9.4

Idaho 11.3 15.0 11.0 3.6

Illinois 12.8 17.7 11.5 8.1

Indiana 9.1 10.5 8.4 9.3

Iowa 9.2 10.7 8.1 11.8

Kansas 10.1 12.0 9.2 10.2

Kentucky 14.2 21.4 12.1 10.9

Louisiana 17.5 26.4 14.4 13.6

Maine 13.4 19.1 11.9 12.0

Maryland 7.4 7.4 6.8 11.0

Massachusetts 10.0 13.0 8.8 10.9

MichIgan 11.6 15.0 10.3 11.5

Minnesola 6.5 7.7 5.9 6.9

Mississippi 18.4 25.3 15.3 19.1

Percent of persons living

below lhe poverty threshold

All Ages Ages Over

State ages 0-17 18-64 age 64

Missouri 9.9% 15.3% 8.4% 6.4%

Montana 13.5 18.5 12.3 10.6

Nebraska 10.6 13.0 9.7 10.6

Nevada 8.9 12.1 7.7 7.8

New Hampshire 5.8 5.8 5.5 7.1

New Jersey 7.9 9.3 7.2 9.1

New Mexico 17.9 24.4 15.7 14.5

NewYork 14.0 20.5 11.9 12.4

North Carolina 14.3 20.6 12.5 10.6

North Dakota 11.6 16.5 9.9 11.1

Ohio 9.8 11.8 9.4 7.5

Oklahoma 14.1 19.3 12.7 10.5

Oregon 10.9 13.9 10.6 6.2

Pennsylvania 9.5 13.8 8.3 7.7

Rhode Island 11.0 15.2 9.2 12.6

South Carolina 14.3 19.0 12.2 14.7

South Dakota 11.5 12.2 10.5 14.4

Tennessee 14.8 20.0 13.0 14.4

Texas 15.6 22.0 12.8 15.4

UIah 9.9 12.5 8.1 12.4

Vermont 9.9 12.8 9.2 8.4

Virginia 9.9 13.8 8.3 9.8

Washington 11.0 14.1 10.3 7.9

West VIrginIa 16.8 25.1 15.2 11.6

Wisconsin 8.6 12.1 7.1 9.1

Wyoming 9.0 10.7 8.7 *

• The percentage has been suppressed because the denominator (i.e., the total population in the age group) is less Ihan 75,000, making it

statistically unreliable.

Source: Authors' adaptation of U.S. Census Bureau's Annual demographic survey, March supplement, P0V46, poverty status by state.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims; 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-4 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 18 of 35
ng

0%

20%

30%

60%

Chapter 1: Juvenile population characteristics

In 2002, almost one-third of black juveniles lived in poverty, and one-fifth of black children under age 5

lived in extreme poverty (incomes less than half the poverty threshold)

Living below the poverty level Living below 50% of the poverty level

All White Black Asian Hispanic All White Black Asian Hispanic

All ages 12.1% 8.0% 24.1% 10.1% 21.8% 4.9% 3.2% 10.6% 4.9% 8.5%

Underage 18 16.7 9.4 32.3 11.7 28.6 6.9 3.6 15.4 5.0 11.2

Underage5 19.0 11.2 37.5 9.2 29.3 8.6 4.6 20.8 4.2 11.9

Ages 5-17 15.8 8.8 30.4 12.7 28.3 6.3 3.3 13.5 5.4 10.9

Ages 18-64 10.6 7.5 19.9 9.7 18.1 4.6 3.3 8.8 5.3 7.3

Overage 64 10.4 8.3 23.8 8.4 21.4 2.2 1.8 4.8 2.1 3.9

• In 2002, for white and Asian populations, the juvenile poverty rates were about 20% above those of adulls ages 18-64. In contrast, for

black and Hispanic populations, the rate differences were about 60%.

Note: Racial categories do not include persons of Hispanic ethnicity.

Source: Authors' adaptation of U.S. Census Bureau's Annual demographic survey, March supplement, POVOI, age and sex of al/people,

family members and unrelated individuals iterated by income-to-poverty ratio and race.

Proportion of juveniles (ages 0-17) living in poverty, 2002

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-4 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 19 of 35
Chapter 1: Juvenile population characteristics

a

In the last half of the 20th century, the proportion of

juveniles living in single-parent households increased

Family structure is related to

juveniles' problem behaviors

A recent study by McCurley and

Snyder explored the relationship between family structure and self-reported problem behaviors. The central finding was that youth ages

12-17 who lived in families with

both biological parents were, in general, less likely than youth in other

families to report a variety of problem behaviors, such as running

away from home, sexual activity,

major theft, assault, and arrest. The

family structure effect was seen

within groups defined by age, gender, or race/ethnicity. In fact, this

study found that family structure

was a better predictor of these

problem behaviors than race or ethnicity. The family structure effect

emerged among both youth who

lived in neighborhoods described as

"well kept" and those in neighborhoods described as "fairly well

kept" or "poorly kept." For these

reasons, it is useful to understand

differences and trends in youth living arrangements. However, it is important to note that family structure

may not be the proximate cause of

the youth behavior, but rather the

conditions often linked with it.

About 7 of every 10 children live

with married parents

Analyses of the 1960 decennial census found that 88% of children

under age 18 lived in two-parent

Families. The Census Bureau's Current Population Survey found that

the proportion of children living in

two-parent families declined

throughout the 1970s and the 1980s

and through the first half of the

1990s. In 2002, 69% of children were

living in two-parent families—a level

that has held since the micl-1990s.

Most other children lived in oneparent households. (Even if a second adult is present and is a biological parent or functions in a parental

role, the Census Bureau still classifies the household as single-parent

if the two adults are unmarried.)

The proportion of children living in

single-parent households increased

from 9% in 1960 to 27% in 2002.

Historical data are not available to

document the changing proportion

of children who live with two unmarried biological parents. However, the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) captured

this distinction for 1996. SIPP found

that only 2% of children lived in

families with two unmarried biological parents in 1996. This proportion

varied with race and ethnicity:

white non-Hispanic (2%), black

(2%), American Indian (6%), Asian

(1%), and Hispanic (5%). SIPP also

found that 69% of U.S. children

under age 18 lived with married parents. This proportion was highest

for Asian (82%) and white nonHispanic (77%) children, lower for

Hispanic (64%) and American Indian

(56%) children, and lowest for black

children (35%).

According to the Census Bureau,

most children who live in singleparent households live with their

mothers. The proportion of children

living with their mothers in singleparent households grew from 8% of

the juvenile population in 1960 to

23% in 2002. In 1970, the mothers of

7% of the children living in single-- mother households had never been

married; this proportion grew to

42% in 2002.

The proportion of children living

with their fathers in one-parent

households grew from 1% in 1960 to

almost 5% in 2002. In 1970, the fathers of 4% of the children living in

single-father households had never

been married; this proportion grew

to 38% in 2002, a pattern similar to

the mother-only households.

The Census Bureau found a major

difference between mother-only and

father-only households: cohabitation

(living with an unrelated adult of

the opposite gender who is not one's

spouse) was much more common in

father-only households. In 2002,

children living in single-parent

households were three times more

likely to have a cohabiting father

(33%) than a cohabiting mother

(11%).

Some children live in households

headed by other relatives or by

nonrelatives. In 2002, 3% of children

lived in households headed by other

relatives, with about 3 of every 5 of

these children living with a grandparent. (Across all household types,

8% of children lived in households

that included a grandparent.) In

2002, 1% of all children lived with

nonrelatives.

Most children live in families

with at least one parent in the

labor force

Overall, 88% of children in 2002

lived in families with one or both

parents in the labor force. (Being in

the labor force means that the person is employed or is actively looking for work.) Of all children living

with two parents, 97% had at least

one parent in the labor force, and

62% had both parents in the labor

force. When just one parent in twoparent families was in the labor

force, 87% of the time it was the

father. Among children living in

single-parent households, those

living with their fathers only were

more likely to have the parent in the

labor force than those living with

their mothers only (89% versus

77%).

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-4 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 20 of 35
50% Black

40%

30%

20%

1 U%

0%

70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02

Year

• Between 1970 and 2002, the proportion of children living in single-parent

households increased from 9% to 22% for whites and from 32% to 53% for

blacks. The proportion for Hispanic children increased from 21% in 1980 to

30% in 2002.

Note: Race proportions include persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race; however, most are white.

Source: Authors' adaptation of the U.S. Census Bureau's Families and living arrangements, historical time series.

Black children were the least likely to live with both parents—

regardless of the marital status of the parents

-

- -- ,(...

-,

-

.

-pa.

11 tII

- -

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percent of children (ages 0-17), 1996

[]Two parents, including nonmarried parents Father only

• Mother only • Neither parent

All races

White

White nonHispanic

Black

American

Indian

Asian

Hispanic

Chapter 1: Juvenile population characteristics

The proportion of children under age 18 living in two-parent

households declined between 1970 and 2002, regardless of race

Percent under age 18 living in two-parent household

Children in single-parent families

are more likely to live in poverty

The economic well-being of children

is related to family structure. In

2002, 17% of all juveniles lived

below the poverty level. However

children living in two-parent families were far less likely to live in

poverty (8%) than were children living with only their fathers (19%),

only their mothers (38%), or neither

parent (48%). Viewed another way,

more than half (52%) of all children

living below the poverty level in

2002 were living in single-mother

families and about one-third (32%)

were living in two-parent families.

Family structure is also related to

the proportion of children in households receiving public assistance or

food stamps. Overall, 5% of children

in 2002 lived in households receiving public assistance and 11% lived

in households receiving food stamps,

but the proportions were far greater

for children living in single-mother

families.

Percent of children

receiving

Family Public Food

structure assistance stamps

All families 5% 11%

Two-parent 2 4

Mother only 13 29

Father only 5 13

Neither parent 12 15

In 2002, 62% of all children receiving

public assistance and 61% receiving

food stamps lived in single-mother

families. Two-parent families accounted for 32% of children receiving public assistance and 23% of

those receiving food stamps.

Note: Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race.

Source: Authors' adaptation of Fields' Living arrangements of children: Fall 1996, Current

Population Reports.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-4 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 21 of 35
• The birth rate for older juvenile females (ages 15-17) fell 21% between 1970

and 1986, and then increased over the next 5 years back to its 1970 level.

• The birth rate for young adult females (ages 18 and 19) dropped even more

than the rate for older juveniles between 1970 and 1986, falling 31%. Although the rate for young adults also then increased to a peak in 1991, this

peak was far below the 1970 level. Similar to older juveniles, the birth rate

for young adults in 2002 was 37% below its 1970 level.

The annual birth rate for females ages 1 5-i 9 declined substantially

between 1950 and 2000, while the proportion of these births that

were to unmarried women increased

Births per 1,000 females ages 15-19 Percent of births to females ages 15-19

00%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

-

-

0%

52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 00

Year

• In 1950, 13% of all births to females ages 15-19 were to unmarried women.

By 2000, this proportion had increased to 79%.

• In 1950, of the 82 births per 1,000 females ages 15-19, 71 were to married

women and 11 were to unmarried women. In 2000, of the 48 births per

1,000 females ages 15-19, 10 were to married women and 38 were to unmarried women.

Source: Authors' adaptation of Martin et al's Births: Final data for 2002, National Vital Statistics Reports, 52(10): Ventura etal.'s Births to teenagers in the United States,

1940-2000, National Vita/Statistics Reports, 49(10): and Ventura etal.'s Births: Final data

for 1999, National Vital Statistics Reports, 49(1).

Chapter 1: Juvenile population characteristics

The teenage birth rate fell substantially between

1950 and 2002

Following a peak in 1991, the birth rate for females ages 15-17 fell

consistently so that by 2002, the rate was 40% below its 1970 level

Teen birth rates continue to

decline

Tatem-Kelley and her coauthors

have stated that having a baby as a

teenager has serious and often deleterious consequences for the lives

of both the young mother and her

baby. Teenage mothers and fathers

are often ill equipped to effectively

parent and often draw heavily on

the resources of their extended families and communities. For teenage

parents who themselves were raised

in dysfunctional or abusive families,

parenting problems may be even

more evident and family support

more limited.

In 2002, the birth rate for older juveniles (i.e., women ages 15-17) was

23.2 live births for every 1,000

women in the age group. In the

same year, the birth rate for young

adults (i.e., women ages 18 and 19)

was 3 times greater (72.8). The birth

rates for older juveniles and young

adults varied by race and Hispanic

ethnicity.

Births per 1,000 women, 2002:

Race! Ages Ages

ethnicity 15-17 18-19

All races 23.2 72.8

White non-Hispanic 13.1 51.9

Black non-Hispanic 41.0 110.3

Hispanic 50.7 133.0

The birth rate for Hispanic females

ages 15-17 in 2002 was almost 4

times that for white non-Hispanics.

The rate for black non-Hispanic females was more than 3 times that

for white non-Hispanics.

Between 1991 and 2002, birth rates

declined more for older juveniles

(40%) than for young adults (23%).

The decline for older juveniles was

greater for non-Hispanic whites

(45%) and blacks (52%) than for Hispanics (27%).

Birlhs per 1,000 females in age group

120

100 Ages 18-19 ,'-

80

60

Ages 15-17

0

70 74 78 82 86 90 94 98 02

Year

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Births per 1,000 females in age group

3°esii/N

70 74 78 82 86 90 94 98 02

Year

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-4 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 22 of 35
The teenage bIrth rate In the

U.S. Is high compared with

other industrialized natIons

A recent report by the National

Center for Health Statistics presented teenage birth rates for a

large number of nations. While it

was not possible to obtain such

rates for a common year the au

thors of the report did show the

most recent data from each nation.

Births per 1.000 women ages

15-19:

Birth Data

Country rate year

United States 48.7 2000

Russian Federation 44.7 1995

New Zealand 34.0 1996

United Kingdom 30.2 1997

Canada 24.5 1995

Portugal 21.3 1997

Australia 20.5 1995

Israel 16.7 1997

Ireland 16.1 1996

AustrIa 14.7 1997

Norway 12.8 1997

Greece 12.1 1997

Belgium 11.9 1992

Germany 9.7 1996

Finland 9.1 1997

Denmark 8.3 1996

France 7.9 1993

Sweden 7.8 1996

Spain 7.5 1996

Italy 6.8 1995

SwItzerland 5.7 1996

Netherlands 5.6 1996

Japan 4.3 1997

Source: Authors' adaptation of Ventura

et al's Births to teenagers in the United

States, 1940-2000, National Vital Statistics Reports, 49(10)

The teenage birth rate in the United States was roughly equal to the

Russian rate; double the rates in

Canada and Australia; 3 times the

rates in Israel and Ireland 6 times

the rates in Denmark France and

Sweden; and more than 10 times

the Japanese rate.

Chapter 1: Juvenile population characteristics

Birth rates for women ages 15-17 varied greatly across states in

2002, ranging from 8.1 in New Hampshire to 38.2 in Texas

Births per 1,000 females in age group, 2002 Ratio of ages

State Ages 15-19 Ages 15-17 Ages 18-19 15-17 to 18-19

United States 43.0 23.2 72.8 32%

Alabama 54.5 31.5 88.7 36

Alaska 39.5 18.9 73.7 26

Arizona 61.2 35.0 102.5 34

Arkansas 59.9 31.6 101.7 31

California 41.1 22.6 69.1 33

Colorado 47.0 26.2 79.1 33

Connecticut 25.8 14.1 45.1 31

Delaware 46.3 24.7 77.8 32

District of Columbia 69.1 44.8 101.5 44

Florida 44.5 23.2 78.4 30

Georgia 55.7 31.4 92.8 34

Hawaii 38.2 17.7 66.4 27

Idaho 39.1 18.4 69.1 27

Illinois 42.2 23.4 70.5 33

Indiana 44,6 22.6 78,5 29

Iowa 32.5 16.4 55.4 30

Kansas 43.0 21.4 74.2 29

Kentucky 51.0 26.5 84.8 31

LoUisiana 58.1 31.7 96.1 33

Maine 25.4 11.9 45.2 26

Maryland 35.4 20.0 59.6 34

Massachusetts 23.3 12.5 39.6 32

Michigan 34.8 18.0 60.8 30

Minnesota 27.5 14.2 47.3 30

MIssisslppi 64.7 37.6 103.3 38

Missouri 44.1 22.2 76.6 29

Montana 36.4 17.8 63.3 28

Nebraska 37.0 18.3 64.2 29

Nevada 53.9 28.0 96.7 29

New Hampshire 20.0 8.1 39.0 21

New Jersey 26.8 14.7 46.1 32

New Mexico 62.4 37.8 99.5 38

New York 29.5 15.7 50.1 31

North Carolina 52.2 28.6 89.3 32

North Dakota 27.2 11.7 48.7 24

Ohio 39.5 20.1 69.4 29

Oklahoma 58.0 0.1 97.6 31

Oregon 36.8 18.2 64.8 28

Pennsylvania 31.6 17.2 53.7 32

Rhode Island 35.6 19.6 59.0 33

South Carolina 53.0 29.2 87.2 33

South Dakota 38.0 17.3 67.8 26

Tennessee 54.3 28.2 94.2 30

Texas 64.4 38.2 104.3 37

Utah 36.8 17.8 62.4 29

Vermont 24.2 10.4 44.4 23

Virginia 37.6 19.0 66.0 29

Washington 33.0 16.8 57.6 29

West VIrginia 45.5 21.5 80.7 27

WisconsIn 32.3 15.9 57.1 28

Wyoming 39.9 17.7 72.1 25

• Comparing birth rates for older juveniles (ages 15-17) to those of young adults

(ages 18 and 19) shows that the older juvenile rate ranged from 21% of the

young adult rate in New Hampshire to 44% of the young adult rate in the District

of Columbia.

Source: Authors' adaptation of Martin et als Births: Final data for 2002, National Vital

Statistics Reports, 52(10).

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-4 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 23 of 35
Chapter 1: Juvenile population characteristics

Although the dropout rate fell over the last 30 years.

nearly a half million youth quit high school in 2000

Educational failure is linked to

law-violating behavior

The difficulties finding employment

for high school dropouts can be

documented by examining their

labor force and unemployment status. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) found that

64% of the 2000/200 1 school year

dropouts were in the labor force

(employed or actively looking for

work), with more than one-third

(36%) of those in the labor force un.

employed. In comparison, 81% of

the 2001 high school graduates who

were not in college were in the

labor force, and a far smaller proportion of this workforce (21%) was

unemployed.

Within the juvenile justice system,

programs often attempt to bring

youth into the labor market. Sherman and his colleagues prepared a

report for Congress in 1997 stating

that, although there are some exceptions, research generally pro--

vides strong theoretical and empirical support for the conclusion that

employment helps to prevent or reduce delinquent behavior.

If, as research has found, educational failure leads to unemployment (or underemployment), and if

educational failure and unemployment are related to law-violating behavior, then patterns of educational

failure over time and within specific

groups may help to explain patterns of delinquent behavior.

The dropout rate varies across

demographic subgroups

NCES develops annual estimates of

(1) the number of persons in grades

10-12 who dropped out of school in

the preceding 12 months and (2)

the percent of persons ages 16-24

The annual proportion of students in grades 10-12 who left school

without completing a high school program was lower in the 1990s

than in the 1970s

Percent of youth who dropped out of grades 10-12 in the preceding 12 months

8/0 Middle-income families

---

High-income families

0%

76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00

Year

Note; Low income is defined as the bottom 20% of family incomes for the year, middle is

between 20% and 80% of all family incomes, and high is the top 20% of all family incomes.

Dropout rates for white youth have remained below the rates for

other racial/ethnic groups

Percent of youth who dropped out of grades 10-12 in the preceding 12 months

14% I

12%

(Hispanic

10%

8% IckA : A

6%

4%

2%

0%

76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00

Year

Note: Race proportions do not include persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Persons of Hispanic

ethnicity can be of any race.

Source; Authors' adaptation of Kaufman et al's Dropout Rates in the United States; 2000.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-4 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 24 of 35
fifth of all family incomes than for

youth living in families with incomes

in the bottom one-fifth of all family

incomes (10.0%).

Over the years, demographic disparities in annual event dropout rates

have accumulated to produce no--

ticeable differences in status

dropout rates—i.e., the proportion

of young adults (persons ages 16-

24) who are not enrolled in school

and have not completed high school

(or received an equivalency certificate). In October 2000, the status

dropout rate among young adults

was 10.9%. The rate was greater for

males (12.0%) than females (9.9%).

The status dropout rate was also

substantially greater for Hispanics

(27.8%) than black non-Hispanics

(13.1%), white non-Hispanics (6.9%),

or Asians (3.8%). A closer look at

the data for Hispanics shows that

the status dropout rate was much

higher for Hispanics born outside

the U.S. (44.2%) than those born in

the U.S. (15.2%).

Chapter 1: Juvenile population characteristics

who were dropouts. The first statistic (the event dropout rate) provides an annual assessment of flow

into the dropout pooi. The second

statistic (the status dropout rate)

provides an assessment of the proportion of dropouts in the young

adult population.

Almost 5 of every 100 persons

(4.8%) enrolled in high school in

October 1999 left school before October 2000 without successfully

completing a high school program—in other words, in the

school year 1999/2000, about

488,000 youth dropped out and the

event dropout rate was 4.8%. The

event dropout rate in 2000 was

higher for males (5.5%) than females (4.1%). The event dropout

rates did not differ statistically

among the various racial/ethnic

groups: Asian (3.5%), white non-Hispanic (41%), black non-Hispanic

(6.1%). and Hispanic (7.4%). However, the event dropout rate was far

lower (1.6%) for youth living in families with incomes in the top oneJuveniles In the labor force

In 2002, 25% of juveniles ages

15-17 were in the labor force.

Being in the labor force means the

juvenile was working either full

time or part time as a paid employ

ee with an ongoing relationship

with a particular employer such as

working in a supermarket Juveniles were not considered to be in

the labor force if they worked in

"freelance jobs" that involved doing

tasks without a specific employer

such as babysitting or mowing

lawns Labor force participation in

creased with age: 9% of 15-yearolds, 26% of 1 6-year-olds, and

41% of 1 7-year-olds. About equal

proportions of males and females

ages 15-17 were in the labor force

in 2002 (24% vs. 26%).

The unemployment rate is the proportion of persons in the labor

force who are unemployed. For juveniles ages 15-17 in 2002, the

unemployment rate was 21%. In

comparison, for adults ages 25-54

the unemployment rate in 2002

was 5%. The unemployment rate

for juveniles ages 15-17 varied by

race and ethnicity in 2002. The unemployment rate for non-Hispanic

white juveniles (18%) was significantly lower than the rates for

black (40%) and Hispanic (24%)

juveniles.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-4 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 25 of 35
Chapter 1: Juvenile population characteristics

Sources

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S.

Department of Labor. 2002. National

Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997

cohort, 1997-1999 (rounds 1-2)

[machine-readable data file]. Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research

Center, University of Chicago [producer]. Columbus, OH: Center for

Human Resource Research, Ohio

State University [distributor].

Farrington, D. 1989. Early predictors

of adolescent violence and adult violence. Violence and Victims, Vol. 4.

Fields, J. 2001. Living arrangements

of children: Fall 1996. Current Population Reports, P70-74. Washington,

DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Fields, J. 2003. Children's living

arrangements and characteristics:

March 2002. Current Population Reports, P20-547. Washington, DC: U.S.

Census Bureau.

Ingram, D., Parker, J., Schenker, N.,

Weed, J., Hamilton, B., Arias, E., and

Madans, J. 2003. United States Census 2000 population with bridged

race categories. Vital and Health Statistics, 2(135). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Kaufman, P., Alt, M., and Chapman,

C. 2001. Dropout Rates in the United

States: 2000. Washington, DC:

National Center for Education

Statistics.

Martin, J., Hamilton, B., Sutton, P.,

Ventura, S., Menacker, F., and Munson, M. 2003. Births: Final data for

2002. National Vital Statistics

Reports, 52(10). Washington, DC: National Center for Health Statistics.

McCurley, C., and Snyder, H. Forthcoming. Risk, protection, and family

structure. OJJDP Juvenile Justice

Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. De--

partment of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention.

National Center for Health Statistics.

Bridged-race intercensal estimates of

the July 1, 1990-July 1, 1999 United

States resident population by state,

county, age, sex, race, and Hispanic

origin [machine-readable data file].

Prepared by the U.S. Census Bureau

with support from the National

Cancer Institute. Released April 15,

2003. <www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/

major/dvs/popbridge/popbridge.htm>.

National Center for Health Statistics.

Estimates of the July 1, 2000-July 1,

2002 United States resident population from the vintage 2002 postcensal

series by year, age, sex, race, and

Hispanic origin [machine-readable

data file]. Prepared under a collaborative arrangement with the U.S.

Census Bureau. Released August 1,

2003. <www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/

major/dvs/popbridge/popbridge.htm>.

Proctor, B., and Dalaker, J. 2003.

Poverty in the United States: 2002.

Current Population Reports, P60-222.

Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Puzzanchera, C., Finnegan, T,. and

Kang, W. Easy access to juvenile populations [online analysis]. Updated

May 10, 2004. .zwww.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/

ojstatbb/ezapop>.

Sampson, R. 1987. Urban black violence: The effect of male joblessness and family disruption. Amencan Journal of Sociology, 93(2).

Sherman, L., Gottfredson, D.,

MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P.,

and Bushway, S. 1997. Preventing

Crime: What Works, What Doesn 't,

What's Promising. Report to the US.

Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Tatem-Kelley, B., Thornberry, 1., and

Smith, C. 1997. In the Wake of Childhood Maltreatment. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

U.S. Census Bureau. Annual demographic survey, March supplement,

POVOI, age and sex of all people,

family members and unrelated individuals iterated by income-to-poverty

ratio and race. Revised July 14, 2004.

<ferret.bls.census.gov/macro/

032003/pov/newo 1 _000.htm>.

U.S. Census Bureau. Annual demographic survey, March supplement,

P0V46, poverty status by state.

Revised July 14, 2004. <ferret.bls.

census.gov/macro/032003/pov/

new46_OOljOOI 25.htm>.

U.S. Census Bureau. Families and

living arrangements, historical

time series. Revised July 1, 2003.

<www.census.gov/population/www/

socdemo/hh-fam.html>.

U.S. Census Bureau. Population projections of the United States by age,

sex, race, Hispanic origin, and nativity: 1999 to 2100. Revised January 19,

2001. <www.census.gov/population/

www/projections/natd et.html>.

U.S. Census Bureau. Small area

income & poverty estimates 2000

[machine-readable data file]. Downloaded August 15, 2004. <www.

census.gov/hhes/www/saipe/

download.html>.

U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. population

estimates by age, sex, race, and

Hispanic origin: 1980 to 1999

[machine-readable data files].

Released April 11, 2000. <www.

census.gov/popest/archives/ 1 990s/

nat-detail-layout.txt>.

-

,Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-4 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 26 of 35
Chapter 1: Juvenile population characteristics

Ventura, S., Martin, J., Curtain, S.,

Menacker, F., and Hamilton, B. 2001

Births: Final data for 1999. National

Vital Statistics Reports, 49(1). Washington, DC: National Center for

Health Statistics.

Ventura, S., Mathews, T, and Hamilton, B. 2001. Births to teenagers in

the United States, 1940-2000. National Vital Statistics Reports, 49(10).

Washington, DC: National Center for

Health Statistics.

Young, B. 2003. Public High School

Dropouts and Corn pleters From the

Common Core of Data. School Year

2000-01. Washington, DC: National

Center for Education Statistics.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-4 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 27 of 35
Lu S S

Juvenile Offenders

and Victims: 2006

National Report

Chapter2: Juvenile victims ............................... 19

Juvenilehomicide victims ...................................... 20

Firearm-related homicides of juveniles ........................... 23

Juvenilesuicide ............................................... 25

Victimizationsurvey of juveniles ................................ 27

Victimsof school crime ........................................ 29

Victimizationrisk factors ....................................... 30

Juvenile victims of reported violent crimes ...................... 31

Offenderswho victimize juveniles ............................... 33

Time-of-day analysis of juvenile victimization ..................... 34

Location of juvenile victimization ............................... 36

Juvenilevictims of statutory rape ............................... 37

Juvenile victimization on the Internet ............................ 38

Juvenilekidnap victims ........................................ 40

Missingchildren .............................................. 42

Runawayand thrownaway children .............................. 45

Missingchildren trends ........................................ 46

Childmaltreatment case processing ............................. 47

Childmaltreatment trends ..................................... 51

Childmaltreatment demographics ............................... 54

Childmaltreatment perpetrators ................................ 55

Childmaltreatment fatalities .................................... 56

Fostercare ................................................... 57

Adoption.................................................... 59

Chapter2 sources ............................................. 60

Copyright 2006

National Center for Juvenile Justice

3700 S. Water Street, Suite 200

Pittsburgh, PA 15203-2363

Suggested citation: Snyder, Howard N., and Sickmund, Melissa. 2006. Juvenile

Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-4 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 28 of 35
U U U I

Chapter 2

Juvenile victims

Juveniles of all ages are the victims

of violent crime. Some of their offenders are family members; this is

often the case for very young victims. Some juveniles are the victims

of abuse and neglect at the hands of

their caregivers. Research has

shown that child victimization and

abuse are linked to problem behaviors that become evident later in

life. So an understanding of childhood victimization and its trends

may lead to a better understanding

of juvenile offending.

This chapter summarizes what is

known about the prevalence and incidence of juvenile victimizations. It

answers important questions to assist policymakers, practitioners, researchers, and concerned citizens

in developing policies and programs

to ensure the safety and well-being

of children. How often are juveniles

the victims of crime? How many are

murdered each year? How often are

firearms involved? Who are their offenders? How many youth commit

suicide? How many children are victims of crime at school? What are

the characteristics of school crime?

When are juveniles most likely to

become victims of crime? What is

known about missing and runaway

youth? How many children are

abused and neglected annually?

What are the trends in child maltreatment?

Data sources include the Bureau of

Justice Statistics' National Crime

Victimization Survey and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Supple--

mentary Homicide Reporting Program and its National IncidentBased Reporting System. School victimization data are drawn from both

the National Center for Education

Statistics and the Bureau of Justice

Statistics. Child maltreatment is reported by the National Center on

Child Abuse and Neglect. Data from

the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention's National

Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway

Children are presented, as well as

suicide information from the National Center for Health Statistics.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-4 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 29 of 35
The number of juvenile homicides in 2002 was 44% below the

peak year of 1993 and at its lowest level since the mid-i 980s

Juvenile homicide victims

3,000

2,500

0'

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

• Between 1980 and 2002, juvenile offenders participated in 1 of every 4

homicides of juveniles in which the offenders were known to law enforcement. In about one-sixth of the juvenile homicides in which juvenile offenders participated, adult offenders were also involved.

Source: Authors' analyses of the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports for the years

1980 through 2002 [machine-readable data files].

1,000

500

Between 1980 and 2002, the likelihood of being a murder victim

peaked for persons in their early twenties, although for females,

the first year of life was almost as dangerous

Homicide victims per 100,000 persons in age/sex group, 1980-2002

35 1

0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72

Age

• Until their teen years, boys and girls were equally likely to be a homicide

victim.

Source: Authors' analyses of the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports for the years

1980 through 2002 [machine-readable data files].

30

25

20

15

10

5

Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

S

On average, between 1980 and 2002 about 2.000

juveniles were murdered annually in the U.S.

Homicide is one of the leading

causes of juvenile deaths

The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (within the Centers for Disease Control and E'revention) reports that homicide was the

fourth leading cause of death for

children ages 1-11 in 2002. Only

deaths caused by unintentional injury, cancer, and congenital anomalies were more common for these

young juveniles. That same year,

homicide was the third leading

cause of death for juveniles ages

12-17, with the more common causes of death being unintentional injury and suicide.

The FBI and NCHS maintain

detailed records of murders

The Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI's) Uniform Crime Reporting Program asks local law enforcement agencies to provide detailed

information on all homicides occurring within their jurisdiction. These

Supplementary Homicide Reports

(SHRs) contain information on victim demographics and the method

of death. Also, when known, SHRs

capture the circumstances surrounding the death, the offender's

demographics, and the relationship

between the victim and the offender. Although not all agencies report

every murder every year, for the

years 1980 through 2002, the FBI received SHR records on more than

90% of all homicides in the U.S.

For 2002, the FBI reported that law

enforcement identified the offender

in 64% of murders nationwide,

which means that for many of these

crimes, the offenders remain unknown. Based on SHR data from

1980 through 2002, an offender was

not identified by law enforcement in

24% of the murders of persons

under age 18, in 34% of the murders

-

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-4 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 30 of 35
The large increase in juvenile homicides between 1984 and 1993

and the subsequent decline were nearly all attributable to changes

in homicides of older juveniles

Juvenile homicide victims

1,6001

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

Ages 15-17

Ages 12-14

Ages 6-11

Ages 0-5

0'

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

Source: Authors' analyses of the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports for the years

1980 through 2002 [machine-readable data files].

In terms of gender, the large increase in juvenile homicides

between 1984 and 1993 and the subsequent decline were nearly

all attributable to changes in homicides of male juveniles

0

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

• Unlike the number of male victims, the annual number of juvenile females

murdered has not differed substantially between 1980 and 2002.

Source: Authors' analyses of the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports for the years

1980 through 2002 [machine-readable data files].

Juvenile homicide victims

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

of adults, and in 33% of murders

overall.

Within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Center for Health Statistics

(NCHS) maintains the National Vital

Statistics System. This system receives reports on homicides from

coroners and medical examiners.

Annual estimates of juvenile homicides by NCHS tend to be about 10%

higher than those from the FBI. The

reasons for this difference are unclear but are probably related to inconsistent reporting and/or to differences in definitions, updating

procedures, and/or imputation

techniques.

A critical aspect of this Report is

the delineation of patterns among

victim and offender characteristics.

Because the NCHS data capture no

offender information, the discussion

that follows is based on the FBI's

SHR data.

The likelihood of being murdered

in 2002 was the same as in 1966

According to FBI estimates, 16,200

murders occurred in the U.S. in

2002. When compared with trends

over the last 40 years, the number

of murders in the U.S. was relatively

stable between 1999 and 2002, with

the 2002 FBI estimate just 4% above

the estimate for the historically low

year of 1999—when the FBI estimated that 15,500 persons were murdered. * Before 1999, 1970 is the

most recent year with fewer murders than in 2002.

However, the U.S. population grew

40% between 1970 and 2002. So, although the number of murders in

The 3,047 victims (9 of whom were

under age 18) of the terrorist attacks

on September 11, 2001, are not in the

counts of murder victims.

Juvenile Offenders and Viclims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-4 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 31 of 35
1970 and 2002 was about the same,

the murder rate in 2002 was actually

about 40% lower than in 1970. Be-.

fore 1999, the most recent year with

a murder rate comparable to 2002

(5.6 murders/100,000 persons in the

U.S. population) is 1966. This means

the probability that a U.S. resident

would be murdered was less in 2002

than in nearly all of the previous 35

years.

In 2002, on average, 4 Juveniles

were murdered daily in the U.S.

An estimated 1,600 persons under

age 18 were murdered in the U.S. in

2002-10% of all persons murdered

that year. About one-third (36%) of

these juvenile murder victims were

female. About 4 in 10 (39%) of these

victims were under age 6, 1 in 10

(10%) were ages 6-11, 1 in 10 (8%)

were ages 12-14, and 4 in 10 (43%)

were ages 15-17.

More than half (51%) of juvenile

murder victims in 2002 were white,

45% were black, and 4% were either

American Indian or Asian. Given

that white youth constituted 78% of

the U.S. resident juvenile population

in 2002 and black youth 16%, the

murder rate for black youth in 2002

was more than 4 times the white

rate. This disparity was seen across

victim age groups and increased

with victim age:

Black to

2002 white

homicide rate* rate

Victim age White Black ratios

0-17 1.4 6.0 4.2

0-5 1.9 6.5 3.4

6-11 0.4 1.6 3.6

12-14 0.7 2.8 4.4

15-17 3.3 18,1 5.5

Homicide rates are the number of homicides per 100,000 juveniles in the age

group.

Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

Between 1984 and 1993, whIle homicides of white juveniles

increased 50%, homicides of black juveniles increased 150%

Juvenile homicide victims

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

• Black youth accounted for 16% of the juvenile population between 1980 and

2002, but were the victims in 47% of juvenile homicides

• In the early 1980s, the homicide rate for black juveniles was 4 times the rate

for white juveniles. This disparity increased so that by 1993 the black rate

was 6 times the white rate. The relatively greater decline in black juvenile

homicides between 1993 and 2002 dropped the disparity in black-to-white

homicide rates back to 4-to-i.

Source: Authors' analyses of the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports for the years

1980 through 2002 [machine-readable data files].

Of the 46,600 juveniles murdered between 1980 and 2002, most

victims under age 6 were killed by a parent, while parents were

rarely involved in the killing of juveniles ages 15-17

Victim ages

Offender relationship Age of victim 0-17

to victim 0-17 0-5 6-11 12-14 15-17 Males Females

Offender known 74% 88% 81% 72% 64% 72% 88%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Parent/stepparent 31 62 40 11 3 26 61

Other family member 7 7 15 11 5 6 7

Acquaintance 47 28 30 58 66 50 29

Stranger 15 3 15 20 25 18 3

Offender unknown 26% 12% 19% 28% 36% 28% 12%

• Over the 23-year period, strangers were involved in at least 15% of the

murders of juveniles. This figure is probably greater than 15% because

strangers are likely to account for a disproportionate share of crimes in

which the offender is unknown.

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of rounding.

Source: Authors' analyses of the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports for the years

1980 through 2002 [machine-readable data files].

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-4 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 32 of 35
The large drop in the number of juveniles killed with a firearm

after 1993 resulted in the overall number of juvenile homicides in

2002 falling to its lowest level since 1984

Juvenile homicide victims

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

The proportion of homicides committed with firearms differed

with victim demographics

• More so than for adults, the period from 1980 through 2002 saw big

changes in the use of firearms in the murders of older juveniles.

• The proportions of firearm-related murders of male and female juveniles

showed similar growth and decline patterns over the period.

• Although firearms were involved in a greater proportion of black juvenile

homicides than white, trends in the proportion of firearm-related homicides

were similar for the racial groups.

Source: Authors' analyses of the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports for the years

1980 through 2002 [machine-readable data files].

Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

Between 1980 and 2002, at least 3 of every 4 murder

victims ages 15-17 were killed with a firearm

Trends in the number of juvenile

homicides are tied to homicides

involving firearms

Almost half (48%) of all juveniles

murdered in 2002 were killed with a

firearm, 22% were killed by the offender's hands or feet (e.g., beaten!

kicked to death or strangled), and

11% were killed with a knife or blunt

object. The remaining 19% of juvenile murder victims were killed with

another type of weapon, or the type

of weapon used is unknown.

Firearms were used less often in the

killings of young children. In 2002,

firearms were used in 17% of murders of juveniles under age 12 but

in 78% of the murders of juveniles

ages 12-17. In 2002, a greater percentage of black than white juvenile

murder victims were killed with a

firearm (54% vs. 44%). In 2002,

firearms were used more often in

the murders of juvenile males (57%)

than in the murders of juvenile females (33%).

Between 1980 and 2002, the deadliest year for juveniles was 1993,

when an estimated 2,880 were murdered. Within the period, 1993 was

also the year when the proportion

of murdered juveniles killed with a

firearm was the largest (61%). In

fact, across the period, the annual

number of juveniles murdered by

means other than a firearm generally declined—a remarkable pattern

when compared with the large increase and subsequent decline in

the number of firearm-related murders of juveniles. Except for killings

of young children and killings of juveniles by family members, murder

trends in all demographic segments

of the juvenile population between

1980 and 2002 were linked primarily

to killings by firearms.

1,800

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

Firearm percent of homicide victims

80%

60%

40%

-' Juvenile

20%

0%

80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02

Year

Firearm percent of juvenile homicide victims

80%

60

Male,- ,1

0%

80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02

Year

Firearm percent of juvenite homicide victims

100%

40%

20% Ages 0-5

0%

80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02

Year

Firearm percent of juvenile homicide victims

80%

Black

60%

40/

White

20%

0%

80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02

Year

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-4 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 33 of 35
Between 1980 and 2002, murder victims most likely to be killed by

firearms were those age 16, regardless of gender

Firearm percent of homicide victims, 1980-2002

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72

Age

Source: Authors' analyses of the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports for the years

1980 through 2002 [machine-readable data filesi.

Of the 46,600 juveniles murdered between 1980 and 2002, half

(50%) were murdered with a firearm

Victim ages

of victim 0-17

0-17 0-5 6-11 12-14 15-17 Males Females

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Firearm 50 10 41 66 78 60 30

Knife/blunt object 14 11 19 17 14 13 17

Personal 19 48 11 5 2 15 27

Other/unknown 17 31 29 12 6 12 26

• Nearly half (48%) of murder victims under age 6 were killed by offenders

using only their hands, fists, or feet (personal).

• More than three-fourths (78%) of victims ages 15-17 were killed with a

firearm.

• Juvenile male victims were twice as likely as juvenile female victims to be

murdered with a firearm.

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of rounding.

Source: Authors' analyses of the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports for the years

1980 through 2002 [machine-readable data files].

Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

Young children are killed by family members—older juveniles by

acquaintances

In the 2002 SHR data, the offender

information is missing for 27% of

juvenile murder victims either because the offender is unknown or

because the information was not

recorded on the data form. The proportion of unknown offenders in

2002 increased substantially with

victim age: ages 0-5 (13%), ages

6-11 (15%), ages 12-14 (21%), and

ages 15-17 (43%).

Considering only murders in 2002

for which the offender is known, a

stranger killed 4% of murdered children under age 6, while parents

killed 61%, other family members

7%, and acquaintances 28%. Older

juveniles were far more likely to be

murdered by nonfamily members.

Five percent (5%) of victims ages

15-17 were killed by parents, 5% by

other family members, 32% by

strangers, and 58% by acquaintances.

Differences in the characteristics of

the murders of juvenile males and

juvenile females are linked to the

age profiles of the victims. Between

1980 and 2002, the annual numbers

of male and female victims were

very similar for victims at each age

under 13. However, older victims

were disproportionately male. For

example, between 1980 and 2002,

84% of murdered 17-year-olds were

male. In general, therefore, a greater

proportion of female murder victims

are very young. So, while it is true

that female victims were more likely

to be killed by family members than

were male victims (51% vs. 32%),

this difference goes away within

specific age groups. For example,

for victims under age 6, 68% of

males and 70% of females were

killed by a family member between

1980 and 2002,

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-4 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 34 of 35
• Far more males than females ages 12-16 were victims of suicide or murder

between 1981 and 2001. However, for each gender, the number of suicides

was about the same as the number of murders.

• Between 1990 and 2001, suicide was more prevalent than homicide for

non-Hispanic white juveniles, while the reverse was true for Hispanic juveniles and non-Hispanic black juveniles.

• At each age between 12 and 24, suicide was more common than murder

for non-Hispanic whites between 1990 and 2001, in sharp contrast to patterns for Hispanics and non-Hispanic blacks. More specifically, for every 10

white homicide victims ages 10-17 there were 26 suicide victims (a ratio of

10 to 26); the corresponding ratio was 10 to 1 for black juveniles and 10 to

3 for Hispanic juveniles.

Note: White victims and black victims are not of Hispanic ethnicity.

Source: Authors' analysis of the National Center for Health Statistics' WISQARS (Webbased Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System) [interactive database system].

Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

U U .1

Persons ages 7—i 7 are about as likely to be victims

of suicide as they are to be victims of homicide

Between 1981 and 2001, juveniles ages 12-15 were about as likely

to be a suicide victim as they were to be a murder victim

Since the early 1980s, for every 1

juvenile female suicide there

were 4 juvenile male suicides

Through its National Vital Statistics

System (NVSS), NCHS collects information from death certificates filed

in state vital statistics offices, including causes of death of juveniles.

NVSS indicates that 23,900 juveniles

ages 7-17 died by suicide in the U.S.

between 1981 and 2001. For all juveniles ages 7-17, suicide was the

fourth leading cause of death over

this period, trailing only unintentional injury (140,600), homicide

(30,300), and cancer (27,600)—with

the numbers of homicide, cancer,

and suicide deaths being very similar. Suicide was the third leading

cause of death for males ages 7-17

and the fourth leading cause of

death for females in that age group.

Between 1981 and 2001, 79% of all

juvenile suicide victims were male,

with the annual proportion remaining remarkably stable over the period. Consequently, suicide trends

were similar for juvenile males and

females.

Sixty percent (60%) of all juvenile

suicides between 1981 and 2001

were committed with a firearm, 27%

by some form of suffocation (e.g.,

hanging), and 9% by poisoning. The

method of suicide differed for males

and females, with males more likely

than females to use a firearm and

less likely to use poison.

Method of suicide by persons

ages 7-17, 1981-2001:

Method Male Female

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Firearm 63.5 49.0

Suffocation 27.7 23.2

Poisoning 5.6 22.5

Other 3.3 5.3

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Number of victimS, 1981-2001

20,000

All victims

16 000 _______________

12 000 Suicide

:.::

0mi1j

20 22 24

Age

Number of Victims. 1981-2001

14,000

12,000 

Male victims

10,000 . Suicide

20 22 24

Age

Number of victims, 1981-2001

3,000

Female victims

2.500

Age

Number of vIctims, 1990-2001

5,000

White victims

4,000 Suicide

3,000 Homicide

1012141618202224

Age

Number ot Victims, 1990-2001

6.000

Black victims

5,000 ______________

4 000 Suicide

° 14 16 18 1 III

Age

Number of victims, 1990-2001

Hispanic victims

Suicide

• Homicide

12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Age

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-4 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 35 of 35
Between 1981 and 2001, juvenile suicide victims outnumbered

juvenile murder victims in 33 states

DC

State

Total U.S.

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

california

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Dist. of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Micitigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Suicide rate

1981-2001

28.1

28.2

74.7

43,6

36.6

22.3

46.4

19.0

26.0

15.3

26.0

26.9

23.4

59.3

22.5

28.6

35.4

35.3

28.0

32.2

36.9

23.8

17.3

28.3

36.4

28.1

1'

Suicide/

homicide

ratio

0.79

0.79

2.37

1.04

1.02

0.41

1.81

0.64

1.58

0.05

0.72

0.73

2.05

4.98

0.36

1.14

3.49

1.43

1.66

0.57

4.17

0.49

0.92

0.62

2.74

0.73

Slate

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West VIrginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Suicide rate

1981-200 1

30.2

60.5

34.5

41.7

32.7

14.2

56.4

15.4

30.1

50.0

25.4

36.9

37.1

25.6

18.2

25.7

56.3

29.2

32.0

50.2

31.0

30.0

32.4

29.1

35.7

63.1

Suicide!

homicide

ratio

0.71

3.21

1.86

1.03

3.84

0.61

1.34

0.37

1.02

8.77

1.25

1.20

2.04

1.07

0.85

0.89

4.90

1.01

0.76

3.38

3.11

1.07

1.33

1.49

1.77

4.14

Annual Suicides per 1 millioS

juveniles ages 7-17, 1981-2001

• 40 and above (11 states)

El 301040 (17 states)

El 201030(17 States)

El less than 20 (6 states)

Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

American Indians have the

highest juvenile suicide rate

Beginning with the 1990 data, NVSS

distinguished fatalities by the victim's Hispanic ethnicity, enabling

racial and ethnic comparisons of juvenile suicides. Between 1990 and

2001, the juvenile suicide rate for

white non-Hispanic youth (i.e., suicides per million persons ages 7-17

in this race/ethnicity group) was

30.9. The suicide rates were substantially lower for Hispanic (20.0),

black non-Hispanic (18.6), and Asian

non-Hispanic (17.9) juveniles ages

7-17. In contrast, the suicide rate

for American Indian juveniles (59.5)

was nearly double the white nonHispanic rate and triple the rates

for the other racial/ethnic groups.

Over the period 1981 to 2001, the

juvenile suicide rate rose and fell

The juvenile suicide rate grew almost 50% between 1981 and 1988.

The increase over this period was

similar for males and females but

was much larger for black than for

white juveniles. The juvenile suicide

rate remained essentially constant

between 1988 and 1994 and then

began to fall. By 2001, the overall

rate had returned to its levels of the

early 1980s. This general pattern

was reflected in the trends of white

and black juveniles and those of

males and females. The proportion

of juvenile suicides committed with

a firearm peaked in 1994 at 69% and

then fell so that by 2001 less than

half (44%) of juvenile suicides involved a firearm.

Notes: The suicide rate is the average annual number of suicides of youth ages 7-17 divided by the average annual population of youth ages 7-17 (in millions). The

suicide/homicide ratio is the total number of suicides of youth ages 7-17 divided by the

total number of homicides of youth ages 7-17. A ratio of more than 1.0 indicates that the

number of suicides was greater than the number of homicides.

Source: Authors' analysis of the National Center for Health Statistics' WISQARS (Webbased Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System) [interactive database system].

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-5 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 31
Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

s u a;

The nonfatal violent victimization rate of youth ages

12-47 in 2003 was half the rate in 1993

NCVS tracks crime levels

Since 1973, the Bureau of Justice

Statistics (BJS) has used the National Crime Victimization Survey

(NCVS) to monitor the level of violent crime in the U.S. NCVS gathers

information on crimes against persons ages 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of households. For those interested in

juvenile justice, NCVS is critical for

understanding the volume and nature of crimes against juveniles ages

12-17 as well as trends in these

crimes. A major limitation, however,

is that crimes against youth younger

than age 12 are not captured.

Juveniles are more likely than

adults to be victims of violence

NCVS monitors nonfatal violent victimizations (i.e., the crimes of rape,

sexual assault, robbery, aggravated

assault, and simple assault). A 2005

BJS report summarized NCVS data

for the years 1993-2003 to document the trends in nonfatal violent

victimizations of youth ages 12-17.

The report found that these youth

experienced relatively high levels of

violent crimes during these years

and that their rate of nonfatal vio--

lent victimization had declined substantially over the period.

On average from 1993 through 2003,

juveniles ages 12-17 were about 2.5

times more likely than adults (i.e.,

ages 18 and older) to be the victim

of a nonfatal violent crime. That

means that in a typical group of

1,000 youth ages 12-17, 84 experienced nonfatal violent victimizations, compared with 32 per 1,000

persons ages 18 and older.

The victimization rate from 1993 to

2003 was higher among juveniles

than adults for each nonfatal violent

crime. Compared with adults, youth

ages 12-17 were twice as likely to

The large decline in the serious violent victimization rate between

1993 and 2003 was experienced by youth ages 12-14 and 15-17,

male and female youth, and white and black youth

Serious violent victimizations per 1000 juveniles in age group

50

Ages

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Serious violent victimizations per 1,000 juveniles ages 12-17

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

01 03

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

• From 1980 through 2003, the serious violent crime victimization rate for

youth ages 1 5-i 7 averaged about 25% more than the rate for youth ages

12-14, the average rate for juvenile males was more than double the female

rate, and the rate for black juveniles averaged 67% above the white rate.

Notes: Serious violent crimes include aggravated assault, rape, robbery, and homicide.

Aggravated assault, rape, and robbery data are from NCVS and homicide data are from

the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program.

Source: Federal Inleragency Forum on Child and Family Statistics' America's Children:

Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2005.

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

Year

Serious violent victimizations per 1,000 juveniles ages 1 2-i 7

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-5 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 31
Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

be robbery or aggravated assault

victims, 2.5 times as likely to be victims of a rape or sexual assault, and

almost 3 times as likely to be victims of a simple assault.

Between 1993 and 2003, most offenders whose victims were youth

ages 12-14 and ages 15-17 were acquaintances or others well known

to the victim (61% and 47%, respectively). For these two age groups, a

small proportion of offenders were

family members or intimates (5%

and 10%, respectively). Youth ages

12-14 were less likely than youth

ages 15-17 to experience nonfatal

violent victimizations in which the

offender was a stranger (34% vs. 43%).

Between 1993 and 2003, a weapon

(e.g., firearm, knife, or club) was involved in 23% of violent crimes with

victims ages 12-17, with the proportion being greater for youth ages

15-17 (27%) than youth ages 12-14

(18%). Older youth were 3 times as

likely as younger youth to be victims of crimes involving firearms

(9% vs. 3%). In 28% of the violent

victimizations of both younger and

older youth, an injury (mostly

minor) occurred. Serious injuries

(including rape injury) occurred in

2,5% of violent crimes with younger

victims and 4.5% of crimes with victims ages 15-17.

School was the most common setting for violent victimizations: 53%

of the victimizations of youth ages

12-14 and 32% of victimizations of

youth ages 15-17 occurred at or in

school. The NCVS data also showed

that the riskiest period for youth

ages 12-17 was after school (between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m.). Finally,

between 1993 and 2003, 57% of the

offenders ol victims ages 12-14 and

40% of the offenders of victims ages

15-17 were the victims' schoolmates.

From 1993 to 2003, about one quarter of all nonfatal violent victimizations against youth ages 12-14 were

reported to law enforcement. About

one-third of similar victimizations

against youth ages 15-17 were

reported

Victimization rates are higher for

juvenile males and urban youth

From 1993 through 2003, the nonfatal violent victimization rate for

males ages 12-17 (100.4) was about

50% greater than that for females

(66.4). Over this 11-year period,

urban youth ages 12-17 had a significantly higher nonfatal violent victimization rate (98.5) than did suburban (83.4) and rural (65.9) youth.

Over the 1993-2003 period, the nonfatal violent victimization rates of

non-Hispanic white (86.7) and nonHispanic black (87.0) youth ages

12-17 were similar, and these rates

were somewhat higher than the Hispanic rate (76.9). However, when

the crime of simple assault was excluded from the victimization rate

(a statistic that BJS labels the serious violent victimization rate), the

rate for black youth was more than

50% greater than the rate for white

youth.

Declines in violent victimizations

were similar for juveniles and

adults

To study trends in juvenile violent

victimization over the 1993-2003 pe

-riod, BJS compared the average rate

for 1993-1995 to the average for

2001-2003. The rate of nonfatal violent victimization for youth ages

12-17 decreased about 55%, similar

to the decline experienced by adults

(52%). More specifically, the de--

clines over the 1993-2003 period

in robbery and simple assault victimization rates were similar for

juveniles and adults; in contrast, the

aggravated assault victimization

rate declined more for juveniles

than for adults. Between 1993 and

2003, the rape/sexual assault victimization rate for youth ages 12-17 fell

46%. The percent change in the

overall adult rape/sexual assault

victimization rate was not specifically reported, but the declines in

the rates for persons ages 18-24

(42%) and for older adults (55%)

imply that the overall decline in the

adult rate was similar to that for

youth ages 12-17.

Percent change in victimization rate

from 1993-1995 to 2001-2003:

Ages Ages 18

Type of crime 12-17 and older

Nonfatal violence —55% —52%

Rape/sex assault —46 NA

Robbery —59 —59

Aggravated assault —64 —55

Simple assault —52 —50

Declines in the nonfatal violent victimization rates were also similar

for juveniles and adults within subpopulations (i.e., male, female,

white, black, Hispanic, urban, suburban, rural).

The nonfatal violent victimization

rate from 1993 through 2003 de--

clined more for youth ages 12-14

(59%) than for youth ages 15-17

(50%), a pattern replicated in robbery, aggravated assault, and simple

assault victimizations.

Percent change in victimization rate

from 1993-1995 to 2001-2003:

Ages Ages

Type of crime 12-14 15-17

Nonfatal violence —59% —50%

Robbery —66 —53

Aggravated assault —69 —61

Simple assault —57 —46

Note: NCVS samples were too small to produce reliable estimates of rape/sexual

assault trends for these two age groups.

-

-

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-5 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 3 of 31
Both male and female students ages 12-18 experienced far fewer

crimes of violence and theft in their schools in 2001 than in 1992

Crimes per 1000 students ages 12-18

Inn

All students

80

60 -_._,_,.....- -

'

40

20 - Violence at school Theft at si1

Violence away Theft away

from school from school

0

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Crimes per 1 000 students ages 12-18

120 1

Male students

1001

80

60]

40

- Violence at school - Theft at school

20 ---- Violence away Theft away

from school from school

0

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Crimes per 1,000 students ages 12-18

100 1

Female students

80

1

20 - Violence at school --- Theft at school

Violence away Theft away

from school from school

0

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

• Male and female students also experienced large declines in victimizations

outside of school over the same period.

• In 2001, about half of all violent crimes experienced by male students and

by female students (and almost 3 of every 5 thefts) occurred in school or on

the way to and from school.

• Serious violence accounted for about 20% of all violent victimization as measured by NCVS. In 2001, 35% of all serious violent crimes experienced by male

and female students occurred in school or on the way to and from school.

Source: Authors' adaptation of the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey for the years 1992 through 2001.

Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

R U

In 2001. students were safer in school and on their

way to and from school than they were in 1992

Crimes against juveniles fell

substantially between 1992 and

2001 both in and out of school

For several years, a joint effort by

the National Center for Education

Statistics and the Bureau of Justice

Statistics has monitored the amount

of nonfatal crime that students ages

12-18 experience when they are in

(or on their way to and from)

school and when they are away

from school. Findings indicate that

between 1992 and 2001, the rates of

violent crime and theft each declined substantially both in and

away from school.

From 1992 to 2001, the rate of nonfatal crimes against students ages

12-18 occurring away from school

fell about 60%, while the violent

crime rate in school fell about 40%.

In 2001, these youth experienced

roughly equal numbers of violent

crimes in and out of school. From

1992 to 2001, the rate of theft

against students ages 12-18 fell

about 50% both in and out of

school. During this period, about 3

in 5 thefts occurred in school.

In 2001, the violent victimization

rate in school did not differ signif icantly for males and females; [or

whites, blacks, and Hispanics; or for

students living in urban, suburban,

and rural areas. In comparison,

while the violent victimization rate

out of school was again similar for

males and females, it was greater

for students living in urban areas

than for those living in other areas

and greater for black students than

for white students. In 2001, white

students experienced significantly

more theft in school than did black

or Hispanic students, while male

and urban students experienced

more theft out of school.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-5 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 4 of 31
• The different types of communities in which youth live can explain racial and

ethnic differences in juvenile victimization.

• Unlike youth from single-parent families, youth living in two-parent families

appear to be much better protected from the negative consequences of living in the most disadvantaged areas.

Note: Community disadvantage is an index that captures the relative level of socioeconomic disadvantage in an area. The average community disadvantage index for white

youth, black youth, and Latino youth is indicated.

Source: Authors' adaptation of Lauritsen's How families and communities influence youth

victimization, OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin.

Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

LU. 1 U•i

A youth's risk of being a violent crime victim is tied

to family and community characteristics, not race

Factors related to the risk of

juvenile victimization are difficult

to disentangle

Research has shown that a juvenile's risk of becoming a victim of a

violent crime is potentially related

to many factors. In general, factors

can be grouped under three categories: individual characteristics

(e.g., age, gender, race, lifestyle, and

friendship patterns); family characteristics (e.g., family structure, income, and level of supervision); and

community characteristics (e.g.,

crime and poverty levels and the

age profile of the community's population). Even though researchers

know these factors predict victimization, it has been difficult to determine their relative importance. For

example, when juveniles report

higher levels of violent victimization, is it mostly due to their individual factors, to their family factors, or to their community factors?

To assess the relative impact of

these various factors, research must

capture information on the Factors

simultaneously, and this has been

hard to do. But if it could be done,

some factors (such as race) might

be shown to be no longer predictive

once other factors are taken into

account.

New research documents the

large influence of community

characteristics on victimization

A recent study by Lauritsen has

succeeded in looking at individual,

family, and community factors simultaneously. With expanded access to the 1995 National Crime

Victimization Survey data, the re--

searcher linked self-reports of youth

ages 12-17 and their family information with data on the communities

in which the youth lived.

The study found that youth in single-parent families experienced a

50% greater risk of violence than

youth in two-parent families. Youth

were also more likely to be the victim of a violent crime if they lived in

disadvantaged communities (i.e.,

high percentages of persons living

in poverty, single-parent families

with children, unemployment, and

households receiving public assistance). The research found that

youth were at greater risk if they

lived in communities with a high

concentration of single-parent families and young persons and when

they lived in families who had re--

cently moved into the community.

Most importantly, the study found

that after controlling for family and

Neighborhood violent victimizations

per 1,000 juveniles ages 0-17

60

50

::eyouth

20 Latino youth

10

0

0 20 40 60 80 100

Community disadvantage percentite

community influences, there were

no racial or ethnic differences in the

risk of violent victimization. Also, income was not related to victimization risk. This is important because

it suggests that youth in single-parent families are not at greater risk

because they are poor.

These findings indicate that prevention programs should be located on

the basis of areas' family and age

composition rather than racial, ethnic, or economic factors, Youth are

at greater risk when they have

lower levels of supervision, live in a

community with high proportions of

young people, and have not yet

learned the neighborhood's rules

and problem areas because they are

new to the community.

Neighborhood violent victimizations

per 1,000 juveniles ages 0-17

120

100 le'parenVother families

20 ' Two-parent families

0

0 20 40 60 80 100

Community disadvantage percentile

Living in a disadvantaged community strongly influences a

youth's risk of victimization only if the community is severely

disadvantaged

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-5 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 5 of 31
In sexual assaults reported to law enforcement, 67% of female

victims and 88% of male victims were under age 18

0 r - -. ------_=-_-_,__-_

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Victim age

• The modal age for sexual assault victims was age 14 for female victims but

age 5 for male victims.

Source: Authors' analyses of the FBI's National Incident-Based Reporting System master

files for the years 2000 and 2001 [machine-readable data files].

Victims (per 1,000 total sexual assault victims)

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

The number of robbery victims known to law enforcement

increased with age through the juvenile years, peaking at age 19

Victims (per 1,000 total robbery victims)

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

-

0 r-- -

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Victim age

U Persons under age 18 accounted for 14% of all mate robbery victims and

6% of all female robbery victims.

Source: Authors' analyses of the FBI's National Incident-Based Reporting System master

files for the years 2000 and 2001 [machine-readable data filesi.

Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

•1

1 in 4 violent crime victims known to law enforcement

is a juvenile, and most juvenile victims are female

Juvenile victims are common in

violent crimes handled by law

enforcement

Not all crimes committed are reported to law enforcement. Those

that are reported can be used to

produce the portrait of crime as

seen by the nation's justice system.

As noted earlier, based on the FBI's

Supplementary Homicide Reports,

10% of all persons murdered in 2002

were under age 18 and 36% of these

murdered juveniles were female. No

other data source with comparable

population coverage characterizes

the victims of other violent crimes

reported to law enforcement. However, data from the National IncidentBased Reporting System (NIBRS)

covering incidents in 2000 and 2001

capture information on more than

418,000 violent crime victims known

to law enforcement in 22 states.

From these data, an arguably representative description of violent

crime victims can be developed.

Sexual assaults accounted for

just over half of the juvenile

victims of violent crime known

to law enforcement

Defining violent crime to include

murder, violent sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault, NIBRS

indicates that 26% of the victims of

violent crime reported to law enforcement agencies in 2000 and 2001

were juveniles—persons under age

18. More specifically, juveniles were

the victims in 10% of murders, 70%

of sexual assaults, 11% of robberies,

and 17% of aggravated assaults reported to law enforcement. Of all juvenile victims of violent crime

known to law enforcement, fewer

than one-half of 1% were murder

victims, 8% were robbery victims,

39% were victims of aggravated assault, and 52% were victims of sexual assault.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-5 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 6 of 31
In aggravated assaults reported to law enforcement, 18% of male

victims and 16% of female victims were under age 18

Victims (per 1,000 total aggravated assault victims)

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

OT

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Victim age

• Unlike the pattern for simple assaults, more males than females were victims of aggravated assault at each victim age.

Source: Authors' analyses of the FBI's National Incident-Based Reporting System master

files for the years 2000 and 2001 [machine-readable data files].

In simple assaults reported to law enforcement, a greater proportion

of male victims than female victims were under age 18(24% vs. 14%)

Victims (per 1,000 total simple assault victims)

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Victim age

• Until age 16, more simple assault victims were male; at age 20, twice as

many females as males were simple assault victims, a pattern that continued until at least age 50.

Source: Aulhors' analyses of the FBI's National Incident-Based Reporting System master

files for the years 2000 and 2001 [machine-readable data tiles].

Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

Sexual assault accounted for 3

in 4 female juvenile victims and 1

in 4 male juvenile victims of violent crime

The majority (59%) of the juvenile

victims of violent crimes known to

law enforcement in 2000 and 2001

were female. Victims under age 18

accounted for 32% of all female victims of violent crime known to law

enforcement but only 21% of all

male victims. The types of violent

crimes committed against male and

female juvenile victims differed. For

juvenile female victims, 72% of the

crimes known to law enforcement

were sexual assaults, 25% were aggravated assaults, and just 3% were

robberies. In contrast, for juvenile

male victims, 59% of crimes were

aggravated assaults, 16% were

robberies, and 24% were sexual

assaults.

More than one-third of the juvenile victims of violent crime were

under age 12

The age profile of juvenile victims

became clearer with the introduction of NIBRS. Other sources of information on victims had to limit

their focus to persons old enough to

respond reliably to the questions of

interviewers or items on survey instruments. NIBRS data for 2000 and

2001 show that 17% of the juvenile

victims of violent crimes known to

law enforcement were younger than

age 6, 20% were ages 6-il, 27% were

ages 12-14, and 36% were ages

15-17. Victims under age 12 represented half (50%) of all juvenile

murder victims, 47% of juvenile sexual assault victims, 14% of juvenile

robbery victims, and 28% of juvenile

victims of aggravated assault.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-5 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 7 of 31
Who are the offenders of juvenile violent crime victims?

Victim-offender All

relationship juvenile

by offense victims 0-5

Violent crime 100% 100%

Family 31 59

Acquaintance 57 37

Stranger 12 5

Sexual assault 100% 100%

Family 35 56

Acquaintance 60 42

Stranger 5 2

Robbery 100% 100%

Family 1

Acquaintance 35

Stranger 64

Aggravated asslt. 100% 100%

Family 27 59

Acquaintance 61 31

Stranger 12 10

Simple assault 100% 100%

Family 27 65

Acquaintance 65 30

Stranger 7 4

Percent of all offenders

Victim age

6-11 12-14 15-17

100% 100% 100%

43 23 17

49 66 65

8 11 17

100% 100% 100%

47 24 19

49 71 74

3 5 7

100% 100% 100%

1 1 1

34 40 34

66 59 66

1 00% 100% 100%

33 24 20

58 65 66

9 11 15

100% 100% 100%

30 22 25

63 70 67

7 7 8

Juvenile

victim gender

Female Male

100% 100%

33 27

59 56

8 17

100% 100%

34 41

61 55

5 3

100% 100%

0

29 37

70 63

100% 100%

33 23

58 63

9 14

100% 100%

31 24

64 66

6 9

Percent of offenders

All

juvenile

Offense victims 0-5

Violent crime 40% 34%

Sexual assault 37 47

Robbery 49 *

Aggravated ass It. 47 12

Simple assault 52 14

Juvenile

Victim age victim gender

6-11 12-14 15-17 Female Male

45% 46% 33% 34% 49%

43 35 22 33 51

76 68 35 30 53

53 62 42 41 50

56 68 45 47 57

• Although relatively uncommon overall, the proportion of juvenile victims victimized by strangers is greater in robberies than in other violent crimes.

• Aggravated and simple assaults of juvenile females are more likely to involve a family member than are assaults of juvenile males.

• In crimes reported to law enforcement, the youngest juveniles (those under

age 6) are far more likely than the oldest juveniles (those ages 15-17) to

be assaulted by a family member: sexual assault (56% vs. 19%), aggravated assault (59% vs. 20%), and simple assault (65% vs. 25%).

Too few victims in sample (fewer than 100) to obtain reliable percentage.

Source: Author's analyses of the FBI's National Incident-Based Reporting System master

files for the years 2000 and 2001 [machine-readable data files].

Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

•

As juveniles age. offenders who violently victimize

them are less likely to be family members

Offenders in juvenile victimizations are likely to be adults

Analyses of the 2000 and 2001 NIBRS

data files provide an understanding

of the offenders who victimize juveniles in violent crime incidents

known to law enforcement. Although

these data may not be nationally

representative, the NIBRS sample,

which includes incidents involving

more than 328,000 juvenile victims

of violent crime (including simple

assault), is large enough to give credence to patterns derived from

NIBRS data.

Based on NIBRS data, an adult (i.e.,

a person over age 17) was the primary offender against 60% of all juvenile victims of violent crime (i.e.,

murder, kidnapping, sexual assault,

robbery, aggravated assault, and

simple assault) known to law enforcement in 2000 and 2001, Adult

offenders were more common in juvenile kidnappings (90%), murders

(86%), and sexual assaults (63%)

and less common in juvenile aggravated assaults (53%), robberies

(51%), and simple assaults (48%).

The proportion of adult offenders in

juvenile victimizations varied with

the juvenile's age. In general, the

proportion was greater for the youngest juveniles (under age 6) and the

oldest juveniles (ages 15-17) than

for those between ages 6 and 14.

This pattern held for juvenile murder,

aggravated assault, simple assault,

and robbery (although robbery of

the youngest juveniles was very

rare). The pattern was different for

sexual assaults of juveniles (the proportion of adult offenders generally

increased with victim age) and for

kidnapping (the proportion declined

consistently with victim age). Due in

part to these age and offense variations, female juvenile violent crime

victims were more likely than male

victims to have an adult offender.

-

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-5 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 8 of 31
• Sexual assaults with juvenile victims are more frequent in the late evening

hours on nonschool days than on school days. Sexual assaults of juveniles

have mealtime peaks on both school and nonschool days and a marked

peak at 3 p.m. on school days.

• Time-of-day patterns of robberies with juvenile victims are the same for

school and nonschool days and do not exhibit an afterschool peak.

• Unlike robbery offenders, sexual assault and aggravated assault offenders

who are strangers to their juvenile victims are far less common than offenders who are acquaintances or family members.

• Sexual assaults by acquaintances or family members are most common at

8 a.m. and noon (i.e., mealtimes) and in the hour after school.

• For all violent crimes against juveniles, crimes by acquaintances peak in the

hour after school, while crimes by strangers peak around 9 p.m.

Source: Authors analyses of the FBI's National Incident-Based Reporting System master

files for the years 2000 and 2001 [machine-readable data fjles].

Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

Some violent crimes with juvenile victims are most

common after school, others around 9 p.m.

The timing of violent crimes with juvenile victims differs on

school and nonschool days and varies with the victim's

relationship to the offender

Juveniles' risk of victimization

varies over a 24-hour period

To understand the nature of juvenile victimization, it helps to study

when different types of crimes

occur. To this end, the authors analyzed the FBI's NIBRS data for the

years 2000 and 2001 to study the

date and time of day that crimes

known to law enforcement occurred. Confirming prior analyses,

the daily timing of violent crimes

differed for juvenile and adult victims. In general, the number of violent crimes with adult victims increased hourly from morning

through the evening hours, peaking

between 9 p.m. and midnight. In

contrast, violent crimes with juvenile victims peaked between 3 and 4

p.m., fell to a lower level in the early

evening hours, and declined substantially after 9 p.m.

The 3 p.m. peak reflected a unique

situational characteristic of juvenile

violence and was similar for both

male and female victims. This situational component was clarified

when the hourly patterns of violent

crimes on school and nonschool

days were compared. For adult victims, the school- and nonschool-day

patterns were the same. On nonschool days, the juvenile victimization pattern mirrored the general

adult pattern, with a peak in the late

evening hours. But on school days,

the number of juvenile violent crime

victimizations peaked in the afterschool hours between 3 and 4 p.m.

Based on violent crimes reported to

law enforcement, juveniles were

140% more likely to be victimized

between 3 and 4 p.m. on school

days than in the same time period

on nonschool days (i.e., weekends

and the summer months). On

school days, juveniles were over

90% more likely to be violently victimized in the 4 hours between 3

Victimizations per 1000 juvenile robbery victims

6a.m. noon 6p.m. m1nigttI 6a.m.

60

50 School days

Aggravated assault

20

10

,/Nonsch

0

6a.m. noon 6p.m. mithght 6a.m.

Victimizations per 1.000 juvenile eesual assault victims

50 Sexual assault

6am. rn 6p.m. midnight 6am.

Victimizations per 1,000 juvenile robbery victims

100

Robbery

80 Stranger;

60 •1

::

Acquaintance

0

.

6a.m. noon 6p.m. midr.t 6a.m.

60 Aggravated assault

5°

40 / ,\\cquatntance

6a.m. noon 6p.m. midnight 6 am.

Victimizations per 1,000 juvenile sexual assault victims

50

Sexual assault

40 /\ /\

/ / \f,'...,,Acquaintance

6am.

PJ

nr 6p.m. midrtt 6a.m.

Victimizations per 1000 juvenile aggravated assault victims Victimizations per 1,000 juvenile aggravated assault victims

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-5 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 9 of 31
• The afterschool peak in juvenile victimizations is found in serious violent

crimes as well as simple assaults.

Children under age 6 are at high risk of violent victimization at

mealtimes (i.e., 8 a.m., noon, and 6 p.m.) by both family and

nonfamily offenders.

• The afterschool peak in victimizations for juveniles ages 6-14 is a result of

crimes committed by nonfamily members.

• The timing of violent crimes with juvenile victims ages 15-17 reflects a transition between the pattern of younger teens (with the afterschool peak) and

adults (with the 9 p.m. peak).

Note: Serious violent crimes include murder, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes include serious violent crimes and simple assault.

Source: Authors' analyses of the FBI's National Incident -Based Reporting System master

files for the years 2000 and 2001 [machine-readable data files].

Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

The timing of crimes with juvenile victims differs from that of

crimes with adult victims

Victimizations per 1000 serious violent

crime victims in age group

Serious

violent crlme/ m_:;f<\ N

5°

40

\ \

,-' Under age 18 \

Age l8and older

0

6a.m. noon 6p.m. n,ick,ht 6a.m.

Violent victimizations per 1,000 victims under age 6

50

Victims under age 6

6a.m. noon 6p.m. mkirtEght 6a.m.

Violent victimizations per 1,000 victims ages 12-14

80

70 Victims ages 12-14

NonfanlY/\\

30 /\_,_/

ly\

6am. noon 6 p.m. rrdrplit 6a.m.

'vicltrnizabons per 1(100 simple

assault v,cbms in age grmp

100

Underage 18A Simple assault

SO

20 ,.

ge 18 and olde

C

6am. rs 6p.m. mnplt 6a.m.

Violent victimizations per 1,000 victIms ages 6-it

70

60 Victims ages 6-11

Nonfamily/ \.

amily

6am. rn 6p.m. nidrght 6a.m.

Violent victimizations per 1,000 victims ages 15-17

70 victims ages 15-17 /\

60 j "\

Nonlamiiy/"/ \

:

Family

6a.m. noon 6p.m. mdrdghl 6a.m.

and 7 p.m. than they were in the 4

hours between 8 p.m. and midnight.

Similarly, the risk of violent juvenile

victimization was 60% greater in

the 4 hours after school than in the

8 p.m-to-midnight period on nonschool days.

Peak hours for juvenile victimization varied with victim age. The

hour of the day that violent crimes

against older juveniles (ages 15-17)

were most common was 9 p.m., with

a slight peak in the afterschool hour

of 3 p.m. Violent crimes against juvenile victims ages 6-14 showed a

clear peak in the afterschool hour.

For younger victims, the peaks were

at mealtimes (8 a.m., noon, and 6

p.m.).

The timing of juvenile violence is

linked to offender characteristics

It is informative to consider when

various types of offenders victimize

juveniles. When the offenders of juvenile victims are divided into three

classes (i.e., family members, acquaintances, and strangers), different timing patterns emerge. Most violent offenders were acquaintances

of their juvenile victims. The timing

of crimes by acquaintances reflected the afterschool peak, indicating

the importance this time period

(and probably unsupervised interactions with other juveniles) has for

these types of crimes. Crimes by

family members were most frequent

at noon and in the hours between 3

and 7 p.m., although, unlike acquaintance crime, there was no conspicuous peak at 3 p.m. Violent

crimes committed by strangers

against juvenile victims peaked at

9 p.m. but were relatively frequent

throughout the 3-11 p.m. period.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-5 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 10 of 31
100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

• $:

About two-thirds of violent crimes with juvenile

victims occur in a residence

Where juvenile violence occurs

varies with crime and victim age

A portrait of violence against juveniles requires an understanding of

where these crimes occur. The

NIBRS data capture locations of

crimes reported to law enforcement

agencies. The 2000 and 2001 data

show that the location of violent

crime against juveniles varies with

the nature of the crime and the age

of the victim.

Overall, 64% of violent crimes (i.e.,

murders, sexual assaults, robberies,

and aggravated assaults) with a juvenile victim occurred in a residence,

19% occurred outdoors, 10% in a

commercial area, and 6% in a school.

Most sexual and aggravated assaults occurred in a residence (81%

and 51%, respectively) and most

robberies occurred outdoors (51%).

Sexual Aggravated

Location assault Robbery assault

Total 100% 100% 100%

Residence 81 17 51

Outdoors 6 51 30

Commercial 7 27 11

School 6 4 8

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

The location of juvenile violence

varied with victim age. For example,

88% of violence with victims under

age 6 occurred in residences, compared with 50% of crimes with victims ages 15-17. Compared with

other juveniles, victims ages 12-14

had the largest proportion of crimes

committed in schools.

Under Ages Ages Ages

Location age 6 6-11 12-14 15-17

Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

Residence 88 75 59 50

Outdoors 6 15 21 26

Commercial 5 5 9 17

School 2 4 10 7

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Violent crime with juvenile victims peaked in residences in the

afterschool hours

Victimizations per 1,000 juvenile violent crime victims

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

___________________________________

6a.m. noon 6p.m. midnight 6a.m.

• Violent victimization of juveniles outdoors also peaked between 3 and

4 p.m.

• Violent victimization of juveniles in commercial areas peaked between 9

and 10p.m.

The proportion of juvenile victimizations occurring outdoors

remained relatively constant between 3 and 10 p.m.

Percent of violent crimes with juvenile victims within hour

ii;:!:;IiiI!1I!!I!I!!II!i

1 .

') .1

00/I_. -:. •.

6a.m. noon 6p.m. midnight 6a.m.

Residence U Outdoors School • Commerc1

Note: The detailed NIBRS coding structure of location can be simplified for analyses into

four general locations: a residence (that may be the victim's, the offender's, or someone

else's); the outdoors (streets, highways, roads, woods, fields, etc.); schools (including colleges); and commercial areas (such as parking lots, restaurants, government buildings,

office buildings, motels, and stores).

Source: Authors' analyses of the FBI's National Incident-Based Reporting System master

files for the years 2000 and 2001 (machine-readable data files].

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-5 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 11 of 31
Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

Few statutory rapes reported to law enforcement

involve both juvenile victims and juvenile offenders

Statutory rape victims are

considered incapable of giving

informed consent

Statutory rape occurs when individuals have voluntary and consensual

sexual relations and one is either

too young or otherwise unable (e.g.,

mentally retarded) to legally consent to the behavior. The victims of

statutory rape are primarily juveniles, and the crime has some attributes of child abuse.

A recent study exploring the victim

and offender characteristics in

statutory rapes known to law enforcement analyzed the 1996

through 2000 data from the FBI's

NIBRS. In that work, the FBI's definition of statutory rape was used:

nonforcible sexual intercourse with

a person who is under the statutory

age of consent.

To develop a rough idea of the annual number of statutory rapes in

the U.S., the researchers counted

the number of statutory rapes and

the number of forcible rapes with

juvenile victims in the NIBRS data.

They found 1 statutory rape for

every 3 forcible rapes. If this ratio

holds nationally, then an estimated

15,700 statutory rapes were reported to law enforcement in 2000.

The majority of victims were

females ages 14 or 15

Although a small proportion (5%) of

statutory rape victims were male,

most were female. Fifty-nine percent

(59%) of female victims and 56% of

male victims were either age 14 or

age 15, with roughly equal proportions in each age group.

Some of the attributes of statutory

rape incidents and forcible rape

incidents are similar, For example,

the vast majority of forcible rapes

(83%) and statutory rapes (85%)

took place in a residence. (From the

data, it is impossible to tell if the

residence is that of the victim, an

offender, or someone else.) Locations of the other statutory rapes

(from most frequent to least frequent) were hotels/motels, fields/

woods, streets/highways, parking

lots, and schools.

Male offenders were much older

than their female victims

In the NIBRS data for 1996 through

2000, almost all (over 99%) of the offenders of female statutory rape victims were male, while 94% of the offenders of male victims were female.

Numerous incidents undoubtedly

involve underage juveniles having

consensual sexual relations with

persons close to their ages, but

these are not the typical statutory

rape incidents reported to law enforcement. Overall, 82% of the offenders of female victims were age

18 or older (i.e., adults). The offender was an adult in 99% of the incidents involving a 17-year-old female

victim. The proportion of adult offenders declined as the victim's age

declined: age 16 (98%), age 15

(87%), and age 14 (86%). Even for

the youngest female victims (under

age 14), two-thirds (68%) of the offenders in statutory rape incidents

were adults.

Not only were most offenders

adults, most were substantially

older than their victims. Almost half

(48%) of the offenders of 17-year-old

females were over age 24—at least a

7-year difference in age. About 4 of

every 10 (42%) of the offenders of

16-year-old female victims were age

24 or older, as were 1 in 4 (25%) of

the offenders of 15-year-old victims.

In general, about half of the male offenders of female victims in statutory rapes reported to law enforcement were at least 6 years older

than their victims. For male victims,

the difference was even larger; in

these incidents, half of the female

offenders were at least 9 years older

than their victims.

The probability of arrest

increased with offender age

In the NIBRS data used in this study,

an arrest occurred in 35% of forcible

rape incidents and 42% of statutory

rape incidents. The probability of

arrest in statutory rape incidents

was related to several factors. First,

the younger the victim, the more

likely the offender was arrested. For

example, arrests occurred in 30% of

incidents with 17-year-old victims

and 42% of incidents with 14-yearold victims. The probability of arrest increased with offender age.

For example, 37% of offenders ages

15-17 were arrested, compared with

45% of offenders over age 20.

Arrest was also related to the nature of the relationship between the

victim and the offender. In statutory

rape incidents, law enforcement

coded the victim/offender relationship as boyfriend/girlfriend in 3 of

every 10 (29%) of the incidents, as

acquaintances in 6 of every 10

(62%), and as a family member in

about I of every 10 (7%). Incidents

involving boyfriends and girlfriends

were less likely to result in arrest

than were those involving acquaintances or family members (37%,

44%, and 47%, respectively).

Juvenile Offenders and Victims. 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-5 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 12 of 31
What Is online victimizatIon?

People can be victimized online in

many ways. The Youth Internet

Safety Survey asked respondents

about three kinds of victimization

that have been promInent in dis

cusSions of youth and the Internet:

sexual solicitation and approaches,

unwanted exposure to sexual material, and harassment.

Sexual solicitations and approaches Requests to engage in

sexual activities or sexual talk or

give personal sexual information

that were unwanted or, whether

wanted or not, made by an adult.

Aggressive sexual solIcItation:

Sexual solicitations involving offline

contact with the perpetrator

through regular mail, by telephone,

or in person or attempts at or requests for offline contact.

Unwanted exposure to sexual

material: When doing online

seanhes, surfing the Web, or

opening e-mail or e-mail links, and

without seeking or expecting sexual material, being exposed to pictures of naked people or people

having sex.

Harassment: Threats or other offensive behavior (not sexual solicitation) sent online to the youth or

posted online about the youth for

others to see.'

Not all such incidents were distressing to the youth who experienced them. Distressing mcidents were episodes in which

youth rated themselves as very or

extremely upset or afraid as a result of the incident

Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

• S

Many youth are subjected to inappropriate and

potentially dangerous experiences on the Internet

Study highlights several different

types of online victimization

In 1999, the Youth Internet Safety

Survey collected information about

incidents of possible online victimization. The survey conducted telephone interviews with a national

sample of 1,500 youth ages 10-17

who used the Internet at least once

a month for the prior 6 months.

More than three-quarters of the re--

spondents said they had used the

Internet in the past week. About half

of the respondents were male

(53%); most were non-Hispanic

whites (73%), 10% were black, and

2% were Hispanic. The survey addressed three main issues: sexual

solicitations and approaches, unwanted exposure to sexual material,

and harassment.

Unwanted or inappropriate

online sexual solicitations of

youth were relatively common

Although nearly 1 in 5 Internet users

ages 10-17 surveyed said they had

received an unwanted sexual solicitation in the past year, none of the

solicitations led to an actual sexual

contact or assault. Most of the

youth who were solicited appeared

to brush off the encounter, treating

it as a minor annoyance. A small

proportion (5%) of the surveyed

youth said they received a solicitation that made them feel very or extremely upset or afraid. A smaller

proportion (3%) were solicited by

someone who asked to meet them

somewhere, called them on the telephone, or regularly sent them something (mail, money, or gifts). Females were twice as likely as males

to be solicited; females accounted

for 2 in 3 youth solicited. Most of

those who were solicited were teens

14-17 years old (76%), but younger

youth (ages 10-13) were more likely

to be upset by the solicitation.

The majority of these unwanted solicitations happened when the

youth was using a computer at

home (70%), and most of the re--

maining 30% happened at someone

else's home. Chat rooms accounted

for the bulk of solicitations (66%),

and 24% were received through instant messages (e-mail messages

sent and received in real time).

Solicitors often did not fit the

stereotype of an older male

predator

Youth reported that most of the solicitors were strangers (97%). Because identities are easy to disguise

on the Internet, the solicitors may

not have been the age or gender

they claimed to be. According to the

youth, adults (age 18 or older) made

24% of all solicitations and 34% of

aggressive solicitations. Juveniles

made 48% of all solicitations and

48% of aggressive solicitations. The

age of the solicitor was unknown in

the remaining incidents. Two-thirds

of all solicitations came from males.

One-quarter of aggressive solicitations came from females.

Youth often did not tell anyone

about unwanted solicitations

In almost half of incidents (49%), the

youth did not tell anyone about the

solicitation. In 29% of incidents, the

youth told a friend or sibling, and in

24% the youth told a parent. In most

incidents, the youth ended the solicitations, using strategies like logging

off, leaving the site, or blocking the

person. Only 10% were reported to

an authority such as a teacher, an

Internet service provider, or a law

enforcement agency. Even with aggressive episodes, youth did not tell

anyone in 36% of incidents and only

18% were reported to an authority.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-5 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 13 of 31
Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

Unwanted exposure to sexual

material via the Internet was

more common than unwanted

solicitation

One-quarter of the surveyed youth

said they had been exposed to sexually explicit pictures online in the

past year without seeking or expecting it. Most of these exposures occurred while the youth was searching or surfing the Internet (71%),

and 28% happened while the youth

was opening e-mail or clicking on

links in e-mail or instant messages.

More than 60% of the unwanted exposures happened to youth age 15

or older. Seven percent (7%) happened to 11- and 12-year-old youth.

None of the 10-year-olds reported

unwanted exposures to sexual

images.

Approximately one-quarter of both

boys and girls were exposed to unwanted sexual material. To what

sorts of images were youth exposed?

• 94% of the images were of naked

persons.

• 38% showed people having sex.

• 8% involved violence, in addition

to nudity and/or sex.

• 23% of the incidents of unwanted

exposure were described as very

or extremely upsetting; however,

most incidents were not reported

to be distressing.

In 67% of the incidents, youth were

at home when the unwanted exposure occurred; in 15%, they were at

school; in 13%, they were at someone else's home; and in 3%, they

were at a library. Youth reported

39% of episodes to parents; 44% of

incidents were undisclosed.

Most families did not use filtering or blocking software

At the time of the survey, most of

the families with youth who used

the Internet regularly did not use f iitering or blocking software. Thirtyeight percent (38%) had used such

software at some time in the past

year, but 5% had discontinued its

use.

Some youth experienced online

harassment

A small proportion of the survey respondents (6%) reported harassment incidents (threats, rumors, or

other offensive behavior) during the

past year. Two percent (2%) of the

surveyed youth reported episodes

of distressing harassment (i.e., the

incident made them feel very or extremely upset or afraid).

The harassment took the form of instant messages (33%), chat room exchanges (32%), and e-mails (19%);

76% of incidents occurred when the

youth was logged on at home. Boys

and girls were about equally likely

to say they were harassed (51% and

48%). Seven in 10 episodes happened to youth age 14 or older;

fewer than 2 in 10 targeted youth

were age 12 or younger. Most harassment perpetrators were reported to be male (54%), but 20% were

reportedly female. In 26% of instances, the gender was unknown.

Nearly two-thirds (63%) of harassment perpetrators were other juve--

niles. Almost a quarter (24%) of harassment perpetrators lived near

the youth (within an hour's drive).

In distressing episodes, 35% of perpetrators lived near the youth. In

contrast to the sexual solicitation

episodes, where only 3% of perpe--

trators were known to the youth of fline, 28% of the harassment episodes

involved known perpetrators. Of the

harassment episodes involving perpetrators who were not face-to-face

acquaintances of the youth, 12% included an actual or attempted contact by telephone, regular mail, or

in person.

Parents were told about harassment

episodes half the time. Slightly more

than a third of youth told friends.

More than one-quarter of the

episodes were reported to Internet

service providers, teachers, or a

law enforcement agency, but onequarter were undisclosed. It is noteworthy that, compared to sexual solicitations and unwanted exposures,

a larger proportion of the harassment episodes were reported to

parents and authorities. As with solicitation, in most incidents, the harassment ended when the youth

used strategies like logging off, leaving the site, or blocking the person.

-

-

-

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-5 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 14 of 31
The risk of kidnapping increased substantially for juvenile females

after age 9; the risk for males remained essentially constant

Victims (per 1,000 total kidnapping victims)

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Victim age

• The risk of kidnapping peaked at age 20 for females and at age 2 for males.

Source: Authors' analyses of the FBI's National Incident-Based Reporting System master

files for the years 2000 and 2001 [machine-readable data files].

Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

Lu:

One-third of all kidnap victims known to law

enforcement are under age 18

NIBRS provides insight in

kidnappings

The FBI defines kidnapping as the

unlawful seizure, transportation,

and/or detention of a person

against his or her will. For minors

(who are legally too young to provide consent), kidnapping includes

situations in which a minor is transported without the consent of the

custodial parent(s) or legal guardian.

Although there is no accepted annual estimate of kidnappings reported

to law enforcement, NIBRS can depict the characteristics of a large

number of these crimes and provide a rough national estimate of

them (see box on next page). (A national study of missing children discussed later in this chapter provides even more insight into the

prevalence and characteristics of

kidnapping cases.)

In the 2000 and 2001 NIBRS data on

kidnapping incidents, it was the

only offense in about half of the incidents. In the remaining incidents,

the kidnapping occurred along with

other crimes, such as sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault,

and simple assault. About 3 of

every 4 kidnap victims (72%) were

female, but this ratio varied with

victim age. Among kidnap victims

under age 6 known to law enforcement, the numbers of male and fe--

male victims were essentially equal.

For victims ages 12 to 17, the ratio

was almost three female victims for

each male victim. For victims ages

25-34, the ratio was almost 4 to 1.

One of every 5 kidnap victims

known to law enforcement (19%)

was under age 12, and 1 of every 3

(35%) was under age 18—a juvenile.

A greater proportion of male than

female kidnap victims were under

age 18. Almost half (47%) of male

kidnap victims known to law enforcement were juveniles, compared

with 30% of female kidnap victims.

Characteristics of kidnappings

vary with victim age

In more than half (55%) of adult kidnappings known to law enforcement, the offender was an acquaintance. Twenty-two percent (22%) of

adult victims were kidnapped by a

family member and 23% by a

stranger. In 97% of adult kidnappings, the offender was also over

age 17. In 67% of adult kidnappings,

another crime occurred; in 24% the

offender possessed a firearm; and in

41% the adult victim was injured. Finally, 47% of offenders in adult kidnappings were arrested.

In contrast, most kidnappings of juvenile victims were committed by a

family member (50%). Thirty percent (30%) were kidnapped by an

acquaintance and 20% by a

stranger. In 90% of juvenile kidnappings, the offender was over age 17.

In just 23% of juvenile kidnappings,

another crime occurred; in 8% the

offender possessed a firearm; and in

12% the juvenile victim was injured.

Finally, 26% of offenders in juvenile

kidnappings were arrested.

The attributes of the kidnappings of

younger and older juveniles differed. Compared with kidnappings

of victims ages 12-17, kidnappings

of victims under age 12 were less

likely to involve another crime (9%

vs. 4 1%), more likely to involve an

adult offender (95% vs. 84%), more

likely to involve an offender who

was a family member (70% vs. 22%),

and less likely to involve an offender who was a stranger (15% vs.

28%). Younger juvenile victims were

less likely to be injured (5% vs.

2 1%), and their victimizations were

less likely to involve a firearm (4%

vs. 12%). Finally, offenders in the

kidnappings of younger juveniles

were less likely to be arrested (21%

vs. 31%).

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-5 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 15 of 31
The kidnappings of persons under age 12 were most likely to be

committed by a family member—primarily a parent

Victims (per 1000 total kidnapping victims)

25 7", / \Acquaintance All victims

20 /

\,

/ \ 15 (\amily /

10 Stranger

:

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Victim age

Victims (per 1,000 total kidnapping victims)

251

Female victims

•

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Victim age

20

15

10 Family

5

Acquaintance

Victims (per 1,000 total kidnapping victims)

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Victim age

Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

NIBRS can provide a rough

estimate of Juvenile

kidnappings

The NIBAS data for the years 2000

and 2001 can be used to develop

an estimate of kidnappings report

ed to law enforcement in the U S

once an assumption is made The

assumption is this: the ratio of the

estimated number of reported

crimes in the FBI's Crime in the

United States (CIUS) report to the

number of crimes in the NIBRS

data is similar for all offenses

This assumption can be tested by

first calculating the ratio of the

FBI's estimate of reported aggravated assaults in 2001 to the num

ber reported in the 2001 NIBAS

data This ratio is 6 5—meaning for

every I aggravated assault reported in the 2001 NIBRS file, the FBI

estimated there were 6.5 aggravated assaults in the U.S. When this

same ratio is calculated for forcible

rape, It is 5.5. The two ratios are

not equal, but they are close

enough to indicate the ratio has

some value for developing a rough

estimateN of kidnappings

Based on an average 2001 CIUSto-NIBAS ratio of 6 to 1, and the

8,700 kidnappings reported in the

2001 NIBRS file, a rough estimate

of kidnappings reported to law, enforcement in the U S in 2001 is

about 50,000. NIBRS data show

that about 35% of all kidnappings

involve juvenile victims. Therefore,

roughly 17,000 kidnappings of persons under age 18 were reported

to law enforcement in the U.S. in

2001.

• About two-thirds of female victims ages 15-17 were kidnapped by an acquaintance, and one-quarter by a stranger.

• The kidnappings of males and females under age 6 are similar in both volume and offender type.

Source: Authors' analyses of the FBI's National Incident-Based Reporting System master

files for the years 2000 and 2001 [machine-readable data files].

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-5 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 16 of 31
Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

I

Only a small fraction of missing children are

abducted—most by family members

The types of missing-child episodes that were counted in

NISMART-2 ranged from abduction-homicides to benign situations

involving caretaker-child miscommunication

A child can be "missing" because

of a range of circumstances

The stereotypical missing child scenario involves a nonfamily abduction where the child is transported

at least 50 miles away, held overnight or for ransom, abducted with

the intent to keep the child permanently, or killed. This scenario is a

parent's worst nightmare and attracts much media attention, but it

represents an extremely small proportion of all missing children.

The most recent National Incidence

Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children

(NISMART-2) provided national estimates of missing children based

on surveys of households, law enforcement agencies, and juvenile

residential facilities. In conceptualizing the missing child problem,

NISMART-2 researchers noted that,

"fundamentally, whether a child is

'missing' depends on the knowledge

and state of mind of the child's

caretaker, rather than the child's actual condition or circumstance."

They counted two basic categories

of missing children:

Caretaker missing. The child's

whereabouts were unknown to the

primary caretaker and the caretaker

was alarmed for at least 1 hour and

tried to locate the child.

Reported missing. The child's

whereabouts were unknown to the

primary caretaker and the caretaker

contacted police or a missing children's agency to locate the child.

NISMART-2 researchers considered

several different types of episodes

that might cause a child to become

missing: nonfamily abductions (including stereotypical kidnappings);

family abductions; runaway/thrownaway; missing involuntary, lost, or

injured; and missing benign explanation. (See box.)

Nonfamlly abductIon. A nonfamily

abduction occurs when a nonfamily

perpetrator takes a child by the use of

physical force or Threat of bodily harm

or detains a child for at least one hour

in an isolated place by the use of

physical force or threat of bodily harm

without lawful authority or parental

permission; or when a child who is

younger than 15 years old or is mentally incompetent, without lawful authority or parental permission, is

taken or detained by or voluntarily accompanies a nonfamily perpetrator

who conceals the child's whereabouts, demands ransom, or expresses the intention to keep the child permanently.

Stereotypical kidnapping. A stereotypical kidnapping occurs when a

stranger or slight acquaintance perpetrates a nonfamily abduction in which

the child is detained overnight, transported at least 50 miles, held for ransom, abducted with intent to keep the

child permanently, or killed.

FamIly abductIon. A family abduction

occurs when, In violation of a custody

order, a decree, or other legitimate

custodial rights, a member of the

child's family, or someone acting on

behalf of a family member, takes or

fails to return a child, and the child is

concealed or transported out of state

with the intent to prevent contact or

deprive the caretaker of custodial

rights indefinitely or permanently. (For

a child 15 or older, unless mentally incompetent, there must be evidence

that the perpetrator used physical

force or threat of bodily harm to take

or detain the child.)

Runaway/thrownaway. A runaway incident occurs when a child leaves

home without permission and stays

away overnight; or a child 14 years old

or younger (or older and mentally incompetent) who is away from home

chooses not to return when supposed

to and stays away overnight; or a child

15 years old or older who is away from

home chooses not to return and stays

away two nights. A thrownaway incident occurs when a child Is asked or

told to leave home by a parent or another household adult, no adequate alternative care is arranged for the child

by a household adult, and the child is

out of the household overnight; or a

child who is away from home is prevented from returning home by a parent or another household adult, no adequate alternative care is arranged for

the child by a household adult, and the

child is out of the household overnight.

MIssing Involuntary, lost, or Injured.

A missing involuntary, lost, or injured

episode occurs when a child's whereabouts are unknown to the child's

caretaker and this causes the caretaker to be alarmed for at least one hour

and try to locate the child, under one

of two conditions: (1) the child was trying to get home or make contact with

the caretaker but was unable to do so

because the child was lost, stranded,

or injured; or (2) the child was too

young to know how to return home or

make contact with the caretaker.

MissIng benign explanatIon. A missing benign explanation episode occurs

when a child's whereabouts are unknown to the child's caretaker and this

causes the caretaker to (1) be

alarmed, (2) try to locate the child, and

(3) contact the police about the

episode for any reason, as long as the

child was not lost, injured, abducted,

victimized, or classified as runaway!

thrownaway.

Source: Sedlak et aI?s National estimates of missing chIldren: An overview.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-5 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 17 of 31
National 95% confidence Rate per

sode type estimate interval* Percent 1,000

Caretaker missing 1,315,600 1,131,100-1,500,100 100% 19

Runaway/thrownaway 628,900 481,000-776,900 48 9

Missing benign

explanation 374,700 289,900-459,500 28 5

Missing involuntary,

lost, or injured 204,500 131,300-277,800 15 3

Family abduction 117,200 79,000-155,400 9 2

Nonfamily abduction** 33,000 2,000-64,000 3 <1

Reported missing 797,500 645,400-949,500 100% 11

Runaway/thrownaway 357,600 238,000-477,200 45 5

Missing benign

explanation 340,500 256,000-425,000 43 5

Missing involuntary,

lost, or injured 68,100 24,800-111,300 8 1

Family abduction 56,500 22,600-90,400 7 1

Nonfamily abduction** 12,100 <100-31,000 2 <1

• 48% of caretaker missing children and 45% of reported missing children

were missing because of a runaway/thrownaway episode.

• The second most common category was children who became missing because of benign explanation circumstances (28% of caretaker missing and

43% of reported missing).

• Children abducted by family members were less than 1 0% of missing children (9% of caretaker missing and 7% of reported missing children).

• The least common category was children abducted by nonfamily members.

Nonfamily abductions accounted for just 3% of caretaker missing children

and 2% of reported missing children.

Note: Estimates are rounded to the nearest 100. Detail sums to more than totals because children could experience more than one episode type.

•The 95% confidence interval indicates that if the study were repeated 100 times, 95 of

the replications would produce estimates within the ranges noted.

**Estimates of nonfamily abductions are based on an extremely small sample of cases;

therefore, their precision and confidence intervals are unreliable.

Source: Authors' adaptation of Sedlak et al.'s National estimates of missing children: An

overview; and Sedlak et al's National estimates of children missing involuntarily or for

benign reasons.

Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

In 1999, the annual missing child

rate was 19 per 1,000 children ages

0-17 in the general population

Runaway/thrownaway episodes were the most common type of

missing children episode, accounting for almost half of cases

According to NISMART-2, in 1999,

an estimated 1.3 million children

were missing from their caretakers.

This figure includes those who were

reported missing and those who

were not. It represents a rate of 19

per 1,000 children ages 0-17. An estimated 797,500 children were reported missing (11 per 1,000). Thus,

about 60% of children missing from

caretakers were reported missing to

police or a missing children's

agency.

According to NISMART-2 researchers,

"only a fraction of 1 percent of the

children who were reported missing

had not been recovered by the time

they entered the study data. Thus,

although the number of caretaker

missing children is fairly large and a

majority come to the attention of

law enforcement or missing children's agencies, all but a very small

percentage are recovered fairly

quickly."

Children may not be where they

are supposed to be, but may not

be considered "missing"

For example, NISMART-2 estimated

that there were 1,682,900 runaway

or thrownaway children in 1999, but

only 37% were counted as caretaker

missing and 21% were reported

missing. The others may have run

away, but either their caretakers did

not realize they were gone, knew

they were away from home but

knew where they were, or were not

alarmed or did not try to find them.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-5 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 18 of 31
Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

NISMART-2 profiles family

abduction episodes

NISMART-2 estimated that family

members abducted 203,900 children

during 1999. 01 these, 117,200 were

considered missing by their caretakers; 56,500 of them were reported to

authorities. The remaining children

abducted by family members

(86,700) were not considered missing because their caretakers knew of

their whereabouts but were unable

to recover them.

NISMART-2 family abduction

caretaker screening questions

• Was there any time when anyone tried to take the child away

from you against your wishes?

• In the past 12 months, did any

family member outside your

household, such as a spouse,

an ox-spouse an ox partner

brother, sister, parent, in-law, or

any other person you consider

a family member or someone

acting for them do any of the

following things:

• Take or try to take the child

in violation of a custody

order, an agreement, or

other child living arrangement?

• Keep or try to keep the child

from you when you were

supposed to have him/her

even if for just a day or

weekend?

• Conceal the child or try to

prevent you from having

contact with himTher'

• Kidnap or try to kidnap the

child9

Source Authors adaptation of Hammer

et al's Children abducted by family

members National estimates and

characteristics

Most children abducted by family

members were taken by a perpetrator acting alone (6 1%), in most

cases their biological father (53%).

Many family-abducted children were

younger than 6 (44%); substantially

fewer were age 12 or older (2 1%).

Nearly half were gone less than 1

week (46%), and very few had not

been returned by the time of the

survey.

Characteristics of

family abductions Percent

Total (n=203,900) 100%

Age of child

0-2 21

3-5 23

6—il 35

12-17 21

Gender of child

Male 49

Female 51

Race/ethnicity of child

White, not Hispanic 59

Black 12

Hispanic 20

Other/no information 10

Perpetrators

One 61

Two or more 35

No information 4

Relationship to child

Father 53

Mother (or her boyfriend) 27

Grandparent 14

Stepparent/other relative 7

Child's prior location

Own home/yard 36

Other home/yard 37

Other location 28

Duration of episode

Less than 1 day 23

1-6 days 23

1 week—i month 24

1 month or more 21

Located, but not returned 6

No information 3

Note: Detail may not total 1 OO°k because of

rounding.

Source: Authors' adaptation of Hammer et

al's Children abducted by family members:

National estimates and characteristics.

Stereotypical kidnappings of

children are extremely rare

NISMART-2 researchers caution

that nonfamily abductions are so

rare that "the estimates of the

number of caretaker missing and reported missing children abducted

by a nonfamily perpetrator are not

very reliable and have very large

confidence intervals." As noted earlier, the stereotypical kidnapping is the

type of nonfamily abduction that receives the most public attention;

however, these kidnappings account

for a tiny proportion of all missing

children. Most nonfamily child

abductions do not include the elements of the extremely alarming

kind of crime that comes to mind

when we think about kidnapping by

strangers. According to NISMART-2,

an estimated 115 of the children abducted by nonfamily members were

stereotypical kidnappings (with the

true figure somewhere between 60

and 170) and 90 of those were re--

ported missing (with the true figure

somewhere between 35 and 140).

(Even stereotypical kidnappings

might not be reported if no one notices the child is missing or if the

discovery of the child's body is the

first evidence of the episode.)

Contrary to public perceptions,

NISMART-2 found that the majority

of victims of stereotypical and

other nonfamily abductions were

teens—not younger children—and

most were kidnapped by someone

they knew somewhat—not by

strangers or slight acquaintances.

The NISMART-2 researchers point

out the implications these findings

have for prevention efforts, which

have tended to focus on "stranger

danger" and have targeted young

children.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-5 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 19 of 31
Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

I

An estimated 1.7 million youth had a runaway or

thrownaway episode; fewer than 4 in 10 were "missing"

Most runaway/thrownaway youth

were older teens

Teens ages 15-17 accounted for 68%

of the estimated 1.7 million youth in

1999 who were gone from their

homes either because they had run

away or because their caretakers

threw them out. Males and females

were equally represented. Most runaway/thrownaway youth were nonHispanic whites (57%).

Characteristics of

ru naways/th rownaways Percent

Total (n=1,682,900) 100%

Age of child

7-11 4

12-14 28

15-17 68

Gender of child

Male 50

Female 50

Race/ethnicity of child

White, not Hispanic 57

Black 17

Hispanic 15

Other/no information 11

Season

Summer 39

Fall 20

Winter 20

Spring 20

Police contact 32

Miles traveled

Not more than 1 8

More than 1 to 10 30

More than 10 to 50 31

More than 50 to 100 10

Morethan 100 13

No information 9

Duration of episode

Less than 1 day 19

1-6 days 58

1 week to less than 1 month 15

1 month or more 7

Located, but not returned <1

Not located <1

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Source: Authors adaptation of Hammer et

al's Children abducted by family members:

National estimates and characteristics.

The most common time of year for

youth to run away was the summer

(39%). Less than one-quarter of

runaways/thrownaways traveled 50

miles or more from home; 9% left

their home state, The vast majority

of youth who ran away or were

thrown away were gone less than I

week (77%).

Runaway/thrownaway episodes

vary greatly in their seriousness

or dangerousness

The stereotype of a runaway is a

youth roaming the streets of a large,

unfamiliar city alone or in the company of drug dealers or pimps.

NISMART-2 data show that not all

runaway/thrownaway youth experience episodes filled with such dangers. Some youth stay with friends

or relatives who care for them.

For 21% of the 1.7 million runaway!

thrownaway youth, their episode involved abuse (physical or sexual) at

home prior to their leaving or fear

of abuse upon their return. For

these youth, being returned home

may increase rather than decrease

their risk of harm.

Substantial numbers of youth were

considered endangered during their

episode because they reported that

they were substance dependent

(19%), were in the company of

someone known to abuse drugs

(18%), or were using hard drugs

(17%). Youth were also considered

endangered if they spent time in a

place where criminal activity was

known to occur (12%) or engaged in

criminal activity during the course of

the episode (11%). Runaway! thrownaway youth may also be at risk of

physical assault-7% were with a violent person, 4% were victims of assault (actual or attempted). Four

percent (4%) of youth had previously attempted suicide, which also put

them at risk of harm. A substantial

NISMART-2 runaway!

thrownaway caretaker

screening questions

In the last year, did the child leave

home without permission and stay

away for at least a few hoUrs?

Did the child stay away for at least

one night?

Did the child choose not to come

home from somewhere when

he/she was supposed to, and stay

away for at least two nights?

Did you or any adult member of

your household force or tell the

child to leave home, or decide not

to allow him/her back in the home?

Did the child leave for at least one

night?

Was there any time when having

the child in your home became a

lot of trouble and he/she left?

Other than anything you have already told me about, has there

been any time, either currently or

during the past 12 months, when

you did not know where the child

was living?

Source: Authors' adaptatIon of Hammer

et al's Runaway/thrownaway children:

National estimates and characteristics.

number of runaway/thrownaway

youth missed at least 5 days of

school (70,500 or 4%).

Fewer than 1% of youth reported

that they exchanged sex for money,

drugs, food, or shelter. One percent

(1%) of runaway/thrownaway youth

reported that they were victims of

sexual assault (actual or attempted)

and 2% were with a sexually exploitative person. NISMART.-2 estimated that 38,600 youth were at risk

of some form of sexual endangerment

or exploitation because they were

runaways/thrownaways.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-5 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 20 of 31
Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

Comparisons of NISMART-1 and -2 find no evidence

of an increase in the incidence of missing children

NISMART-2 enabled comparisons

of missing children for 1988-1999

NISMART-1 provided estimates of

children reported missing for 1988.

NISMART-2 provided estimates for

1999. Although researchers changed

definitions and methodology for the

second study based on what was

learned in the first study, they also

conducted analyses using the original definitions to permit comparisons between 1988 and 1999 for

family abductions, runaways, and

lost, injured, or otherwise missing

children. Nonfamily abductions and

thrownaway children were excluded

from the trend analyses because differences between the NISMART-2

and NISMART-1 definitions of these

categories of missing children and

the methods used to develop incidence estimates could not be reconciled.

Incidence rates for broadly

defined family abductions and

lost, injured, or otherwise missing children declined

The incidence rate for children who

experienced broadly defined family

abductions went from 5.62 per 1,000

children ages 0-17 in 1988 to 4.18

in 1999—a statistically significant

decline. For the broadly defined

category of lost, injured, or otherwise missing, the incidence rate

drop from 1988 to 1999 was also

statistically significant (from 6.95

per 1,000 children to 3.40).

Although the incidence rate for

broadly defined runaways in 1999

(5.28) was lower than the rate for

1988 (7.09), the difference was not

statistically significant. The observed difference in estimated rates

may have resulted merely from

chance (or sampling error) and not

from a decline in the actual rate.

None of the incidence rates for

more serious types of family abductions, runaways, and lost, injured,

or otherwise missing children

showed a statistically significant

change from 1988 to 1999.

NISMART-1 defInitions used in trend analysis distinguished two

levels of seriousness for several types of missing child episodes

Broadly defined: DefIned as serious:

Parental/family abduction

A family member took a child or failed

to return a child at the end of an

agreed-upon visit in violation of a custody agreement/decree, with the child

away at least overnight.

Runaway

A child who left home without permission and stayed away at least

overnight or who was already away

and refused to return home.

Otherwise missIng

Children missing for varying penods

depending on age, disability and

whether the absence was due to

injury.

A family member took the child out of

state or attempted to conceal/prevent

contact with the child, or an abductor

intended to keep the child or permanently change custodial privileges.

A runaway who during a runaway

episode was without a secure and familiar place to stay.

An otherwise missing child case where

police were called.

The NISMART trends are

encouraging, but

The authors of the NISMART-2

trends bulletin comment that, 'The

period between 1988 and 1999

saw a significant mobilization on

behalf of missing children. Law enforcement officers received special

training, and public awareness

grew as a result of media coverage

and educational programs disseminated to schools and families

Although the findings reported

[here] are encouraging, they are no

cause for complacency. The .. . estimates for 1999 ... reveal large

numbers of children and youth still

caught up in circumstances of crisis and vulnerability. The family and

community problems these statistics reflect are unlikely to disappear

anytime soon'

Sourse: Authors' adaptation of Hammer

et aIs National estimates of missing

chIldren: Selected trends, 1988-1999.

Source Authors adaptation of Finkeihor Hotahng and Sedlaks M:ss,ng Abducted Run

av.y, and Throwneway Children in America. First Report: Numbers and Characteristics,

National Incidence Studies.

4'

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-5 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 21 of 31
Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

ii• i

Most abuse and neglect cases enter the child welfare

system through child protective services agencies

What are child protective

services?

The term "child protective services"

generally refers to services provided by an agency authorized to act

on behalf of a child when parents

are unable or unwilling to do so. In

all states, laws require these agencies to conduct assessments or investigations of reports of child

abuse and neglect and to offer rehabilitative services to families where

maltreatment has occurred or is

likely to occur.

Although the primary responsibility

for responding to reports of child

maltreatment rests with state and

local child protective services (CPS)

agencies, prevention and treatment

of abuse and neglect can involve

professionals from many disciplines

and organizations.

States vary in the way child maltreatment cases are handled and in

the terminology that is used to describe that processing. Although

variations exist among jurisdictions,

community responses to child maltreatment generally share a common set of decision points and can

thus be described in a general way.

State laws require many

professions to notify CPS of

suspected maltreatment

Individuals likely to identify maltreatment are often those in a position to observe families and children on an ongoing basis. This may

include educators, law enforcement

personnel, social services personnel, medical professionals, probation officers, daycare workers, mental health professionals, and the

clergy, in addition to family members, friends, and neighbors.

Professionals who come into contact with children as part of their

jobs, such as medical and mental

health professionals, educators,

childcare providers, social services

providers, law enforcement personnel, and clergy, are required by

law to notify CPS agencies of suspicions of child maltreatment. Some

states require reporting by any

person having knowledge of child

maltreatment.

CPS or law enforcement agencies

usually receive the initial referral alleging abuse or neglect, which may

include the identity of the child, information about the nature and extent of maltreatment, and information about the parent or other

person responsible for the child.

The initial report may also contain

information identifying the individual suspected of causing the alleged

maltreatment, the setting in which

maltreatment occurred, and the person making the report.

CPS agencies "screen in" most

referrals as reports to be investigated or assessed

Protective services staff must determine whether the referral constitutes an allegation of abuse or neglect and how urgently a response is

needed. If the intake worker determines that the referral does not

constitute an allegation of abuse or

neglect, the case may be closed. If

there is substantial risk of serious

physical or emotional harm, severe

neglect, or lack of supervision, a

child may be removed from the

home under provisions of state law.

Most states require that a court

hearing be held shortly after the removal to approve temporary custody by the CPS agency. In some

states, removal from the home requires a court order.

Some referrals are out-of-scope for

CPS and may be referred to other

agencies. Other referrals lack sufficient information to enable followup, Agency workload and re--

sources may also influence

screening decisions. For these and

other reasons, CPS agencies "screen

out" about a third of all referrals.

Once a referral is accepted or

"screened in," CPS must determine

whether the child was maltreated.

CPS may initiate an investigation or

assessment of the alleged incident,

or it may pursue an alternate re--

sponse. Whether the agency investigates or seeks another response, it

must decide if action is required to

protect the child. The CPS agency

also determines if the child and family are in need of services and

which services are appropriate.

The initial investigation involves

gathering and analyzing objective

information from and about the

child and family to determine if the

allegations are substantiated. Protective services agencies may work

with law enforcement and other

agencies during this period. Caseworkers generally respond to re--

ports of abuse and neglect within 2

to 3 days. A more immediate re--

sponse may be required if it is de--

termined that a child is at imminent

risk of injury or impairment.

Following the initial investigation,

the protective services agency de--

cides whether the evidence substantiates the allegations. Should

sufficient evidence not exist to support an allegation of maltreatment,

additional services may still be provided if it is believed there is risk of

abuse or neglect in the future. In a

few states, the agency may determine that maltreatment or the risk

of maltreatment is indicated even if

sufficient evidence to conclude or

substantiate the allegation does not

exist. Some states use an alternative

response system that provides for

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-5 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 22 of 31
Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

responses other than substantiated,

indicated, and unsubstantiated. In

these states, children may or may

not be determined to be maltreatment victims.

CPS agencies assess child and

family needs before developing

case plans

Protective services staff attempt to

identify the factors that contributed

to the maltreatment and determine

what services would address the

most critical treatment needs.

CPS staff then develop case plans in

conjunction with other treatment

providers and the family in an attempt to alter the conditions and/or

behaviors resulting in child abuse

or neglect. Together with other

treatment providers, CPS staff then

implement the treatment plan for

the family. If the family is uncooperative, the case may be referred for

court action.

Protective services agencies are

also responsible for evaluating

and monitoring family progress

After the treatment plan has been

implemented, protective services

and other treatment providers evaluate and measure changes in family

behavior and the conditions that

led to child abuse or neglect, assess

changes in the risk of maltreatment,

and determine when services are no

longer necessary. Case managers

often coordinate the information

from several service providers

when assessing a case's progress.

CPS agencies provide both preventive and remedial services

Preventive services are targeted toward families with children at risk

of maltreatment and are designed to

improve caregivers' child-rearing

competencies. Types of preventive

services include such things as

respite care, parenting education,

substance abuse treatment, home

visits, counseling, daycare, and

homemaker help. CPS agencies offer

postinvestigation (remedial) services on a voluntary basis. Courts may

also order services to ensure children's safety. Postinvestigation

services are designed to address

the child's safety and are typically

based on an assessment of the

family's strengths, weaknesses,

and needs. These services might include counseling, in-home family

What are the stages of child maltreatment case processing through the child protective services and

juvenile/family court systems?

Professional

I enforcement noestigatien family court planning. child Permanency Pernianency J

Law

CPS intake

CPS Juvenile! Formal I

not returned determination review sources court intake processing

home closed

Child refereed

_________ ___________________ home: services Terminatiun Other ____ of !

and protective parental rights1 Adoption seercea nape rviniun

Note: This chart gives a simplified view of casef low through these systems. Procedures vary among jurisdictions.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-5 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 23 of 31
Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

preservation services, foster care

services, or other family-based or

court services.

Some cases are closed because, although the family resists intervention efforts, the child is considered

to be at low risk of harm. Other

cases are closed when it has been

determined that the risk of abuse or

neglect has been eliminated or sufficiently reduced to a point where

the family can protect the child

from maltreatment without further

intervention.

If it is determined that the family

will not be able to protect the child,

the child may be removed from the

home and placed in foster care. If

the child cannot be returned home

to a protective environment within

a reasonable timeframe, parental

rights may be terminated so that a

permanent alternative for the child

can be found.

One option available to child

protective services is referral to

juvenile court

Substantiated reports of abuse and

neglect may not lead to court involvement if the family is willing to

participate in the CPS agency's

treatment plan. The agency may,

however, file a complaint in juvenile

court if it thinks the child is at serious and imminent risk of harm and

an emergency removal (without

parental consent) is warranted or

if the parents are otherwise

uncooperative.

Emergency removals require the

scheduling of a shelter care hearing

typically 1 to 3 working days before

removal. If an emergency removal is

not requested, the timing of court

proceedings is more relaxed—often

10 days or more after the filing of

court documents alleging child

maltreatment. The juvenile court

holds a preliminary hearing to ensure that the child and parent(s)

are represented by counsel and determine whether probable cause exists, whether the child should be

placed or remain in protective custody, the conditions under which

the child can return home while

the trial is pending, and the types

of services (including visitation)

that should be provided in the interim. At this stage, the parents

may decide to cooperate, and the

court may agree to handle the case

informally.

Adjudicatory hearings focus

primarily on the validity of the

allegations—dispositional

hearings address the case plan

If sufficient probable cause exists,

the petition is accepted. The court

will hold an adjudicatory hearing or

trial to determine whether the evidence supports the maltreatment

allegations and the child should be

declared a dependent of the court.

If petition allegations are sustained,

the court proceeds to the disposition stage and determines who will

have custody of the child and

under what conditions. The disposition hearing may immediately follow adjudication or may be scheduled within a short time period

(typically no longer than 30 days).

Although adjudication and disposition should be separate and distinct decisions, the court can consider both at the same hearing.

Preferred practice in many jurisdictions is to hold a bifurcated

hearing where dispositional issues

are addressed immediately after

adjudication.

If the court finds that the child is

abused or neglected, typical dispositional options include both shortterm and long-term aspects and

address the basic issue of whether

the child should be returned home

and if not, where the child should

be placed:

• Reunification or protective services provided by protective services agencies are designed to

enable the child to return home

safely—subject to specific conditions including ongoing case

involvement and/or supervision

by the agency.

• Custody may be granted to the

state child protective agency, the

noncustodial parent or other relative, or foster care if the court

decides that returning the child

home could be dangerous.

At the disposition hearing, the

agency presents its written case

plan, which addresses all aspects of

the agency's involvement with the

family. In many states, statutes require the court to approve, disapprove, or modify provisions contained in the plan. These include

changes in parental behavior that

must be achieved, services to be

provided to help achieve these

changes, services to be provided to

meet the special needs of the child,

terms and conditions of visitation,

and the timelines and responsibilities of each party in achieving individual case plan objectives.

Juvenile courts often maintain

case oversight responsibility

beyond the disposition hearing

Although not all abuse and neglect

cases come before the court, the juvenile court is playing an increasingly significant role in determining

case outcomes. In the vast majority

of instances, the court will keep

continuing jurisdiction of the case

after disposition and monitor efforts

by the agency to reunify the family.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-5 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 24 of 31
Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

The Federal Adoption Assistance

and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-272) required greater judicial oversight of CPS agency performance. This legislation was

passed in an attempt to keep children from being needlessly placed

in foster care or left in foster care

indefinitely. The goal of the legislation was to enable the child to have

a permanent living arrangement

(e.g., return to family, adoption, or

placement with other relatives) as

soon as possible. More recently, the

Federal Adoption and Safe Families

Act (ASFA) of 1997 (Public Law

103-89) amended the federal foster

care law to make safety and permanency the primary focus of the law.

ASFA was enacted to remedy chronic problems with the child welfare

system. The regulations went into effect in March 2000.

Courts routinely conduct review

hearings to revisit removal decisions and assess progress with

agency case plans both before and

after a permanency plan has been

developed. The court must also

decide whether to terminate

parental rights in cases involving

children unable to return home.

Courts maintain ongoing involvement until the child either is returned home; placed in a permanent, adoptive home; or reaches the

age of majority.

Federal law establishes

permanency preferences

After the initial disposition (placement of the child, supervision of

the child and family, and services

delivered to the child and family),

the court holds review hearings to

assess the case service plan and

determine if the case is progressing.

After 12 months, during which time

the child and family receive services and the family must comply with

conditions set forth by the court,

the court must make a permanency

determination. The court considers

five basic permanency choices in

the following hierarchy:

1. Reunification with the family is

the preferred choice.

2. Adoption is considered when

family reunification is not viable

(termination of parental rights is

required).

3. Permanent legal guardianship (a

judicially created relationship

that includes certain parental

rights) is considered when neither reunification nor adoption is

possible.

4. Permanent placement with a fit

and willing relative is considered

if reunification, adoption, and

guardianship are not feasible.

5. An alternative planned permanent living arrangement (APPLA)

may be found, but the agency

must document "compelling reasons" why the other four choices

are not in the best interests of

the child.

APPLA placements may be independent living arrangements that include the child's emancipation. Although ASFA doesn't define these

types of placements, they are nevertheless intended to be permanent

arrangements for the child. APPLA

placements are not foster care

placements that can be extended indefinitely.

In many states, the juvenile court

will continue to conduct postpermanency review hearings at

periodic intervals to ensure that the

permanency plan remains satisfactory and that the child is safe and

secure. This is in addition to any

termination of parental rights,

guardianship, and/or adoption finalization hearings that may be re--

quired to accomplish the selected

permanency goal. The final action

the court makes is to terminate the

child's status as a dependent and

close the case.

The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) establishes deadlines

courts must meet In handlIng dependency cases

ASFA requIrement Deadline Start date

Case plan 60 days Actual removal

Reasonable effort to prevent child's

removal from the home 60 days Actual removal

6 month periodic review 6 months Foster care entry*

Permanency determination 12 months Foster care entry*

Reasonable efforts to finalize

permanency plan 12 months Foster care entry*

Mandatory filing of a termination

of parental rights petItion 15 monthst Foster care entry*

* Foster care entry is the earlier of the date the court found the child abused or neglected

or 60 days after the child s actual removal from the home

A termination of parental rights petition must be filed when a child accrues 15 months in

foster care wfthln a 22-month period Time when the child Is on a trial home visit (or dur

ing a runaway episode) does not count toward the 15 month limit

Source Authors adaptation of Ratterman et al a Making Sense of the ASFA Regulations

A Roadmap for Effective Implementation.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-5 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 25 of 31
Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

* •u

Child protective services agencies receive 50.000

maltreatment referrals weekly—i 8°Io are substantiated

The National Child Abuse and

Neglect Data System monitors

the child protective services

caseloads

In response to the 1988 amendments

to the Child Abuse Prevention and

Treatment Act, the Children's Bureau in the U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services developed the National Child Abuse and

Neglect Data System (NCANDS) to

collect child maltreatment data

from state child protective services

(CPS) agencies. The Children's Bureau annually collects and analyzes

both summary and case-level data

collected under NCANDS. For 2003,

43 states and the District of Columbia reported case-level data on all

children who received an investigation or assessment by a CPS

agency. These states accounted for

79% of the U.S. population younger

than 18. The case-level data provide

descriptive information on cases referred to CPS agencies during the

year, including:

• Characteristics of the referral of

abuse or neglect made to CPS.

• Characteristics of the victims.

• Alleged maltreatments.

• Disposition (or findings).

• Risk factors of the child and the

caregivers.

• Services provided.

• Characteristics of the perpetrators.

The remaining seven states that

are unable to provide case-level

data submit aggregate counts of key

indicators that are used with the

case-level data to develop national

estimates.

In 2003, referrals were made to

CPS agencies at a rate of 39 per

1,000 children

In 2003, CPS agencies in the U.S. received an estimated 2.9 million referrals alleging that children were

abused or neglected. An estimated

Referral: Notification to the CPS

agency of suspected child maltreatment. This can include one or more

children. It is a measure of "flow" into

the CPS system.

Report: A referral of child maltreatment that was accepted for an investigation or assessment by a CPS

agency.

InvestIgation: The gathering and assessment of objective information to

determine If a child has been or is at

risk of being maltreated. It results in a

disposition as to whether the alleged

report is substantiated.

Assessment: The process by which

CPS determines if a child or other

person involved in a report of alleged

maltreatment needs services.

Alleged victIm: Child about whom a

report regarding child maltreatment

has been made to a CPS agency.

VIctIm: Child having a maltreatment

disposition of substantiated, indicated,

or alternate response.

SubstantIated: investigation disposition that concludes that the allegation

of maltreatment (or risk of maltreatment) was supported by or founded

on state law or state policy This is the

highest level of finding by a CPS

agency.

IndIcated: Investigation disposition

that concludes that maltreatment cannot be substantiated under state law

5.5 million children were included in

these referrals. This translates into

a rate of 39 referrals for every 1,000

children younger than 18 in the U.S.

population. The referral rate for

2003 was up slightly from the 2002

referral rate of 36 per 1,000.

or policy, but there is reason to suspect that the child may have been

maltreated or was at risk of maltreatment. Only a few states distinguish

between substantiated and indicated

dispositions.

Alternate response system: A maltreatment disposition system used in

some states that provides for responses other than substantiated, indicated,

and unsubstantiated. in these systems,

children may or may not be determined to be maltreatment victims.

These systems are also referred to as

"diversified" or "in need of services"

systems.

UnsubstantIated: Investigation disposition that determines that there is not

sufficient evidence under state law to

conclude or suspect that the child has

been maltreated or is at risk ot maltreatment. Included in this category are

intentionally false allegations.

Court action: Legal action initiated by

the CPS agency on behalf of the child.

This includes authorization to place the

child in foster care, filing for temporary

custody or dependency, or termination

of parental rights. As used here, It

does not include criminal proceedings

against a perpetrator.

Alleged perpetrator: Person who is

alleged to have caused or knowingly

allowed the maltreatment of a child.

Perpetrator: Person who has been determined to have caused or knowingly

allowed the maltreatment of a child.

The National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System counts several

different aspects of child maltreatment

-

-

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-5 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 26 of 31
The child maltreatment investigation rate increased 27% from

1990 to 2003, but the child maltreatment victimization rate

declined 7%

-

-

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

• In 2003, CPS agencies conducted investigations or assessments involving

3,353,000 children. This translates to an investigation rate of 45.9 per 1,000

children ages 0-17.

• An estimated 906,000 children were found to be victims—about 26% of all

children who received an investigation or assessment in 2003 (or about

18% of initial referrals).

• In 2003, the national rate of maltreatment victimization was 12.4 victims per

1,000 children ages 0-17.

Note: A child was counted as a victim each time he or she was found to be a victim of

maltreatment.

Source: Authors' adaptation of Walter A. McDonald and Associates Child Maltreatment 2003.

Number per 1,000 children ages 0-17

50

40

30

20

10

Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

Professionals were the most

common source of maltreatment

reports

Professionals who come in contact

with children as a part of their occupation (e.g., teachers, police off icers, doctors, childcare providers)

are required by law in most states

to notify CPS agencies of suspected

maltreatment. Thus, professionals

are the most common source of

maltreatment reports (57%). Sources

other than professionals account

for the remaining 43% of reports.

Source Percent of total

Professional 57%

Educator 16

Law enforcement 16

Social services 12

Medical 8

Mental health 3

Child daycare provider 1

Foster care provider 1

Family and community 43%

Relative—not parent 8

Parent 7

Friend or neighbor 6

Anonymous 9

Other* 13

includes alleged victims, alleged perpetrators, and sources not otherwise identified.

CPS response times vary, but

average 3 days

CPS agencies receive referrals of

varying degrees of urgency; therefore, the time from referral to investigation varies widely. State response

time standards also vary. Some

states set a single standard and others set different standards depending on the priority or urgency of the

case. Many specify a high-priority

response as within 24 hours; some

specify 1 hour. Lower priority

responses range from 24 hours

to 14 days. In 2003, the average

response time for states that reported this information was 3 days.

CPS agencies investigate more

than two-thirds of referrals

In 2003, CF'S agencies screened in

68% of all referrals received. Thus,

CPS agencies conducted investigations or assessments in an estimated 1.9 million reports in 2003 involving more than 3.3 million children.

Once a report is investigated or

assessed and a determination is

made as to the likelihood that

maltreatment occurred or that the

child is at risk of maltreatment, CPS

assigns a finding to the report—

known as a disposition. States' dispositions and terminology vary

but can be summarized into the

following categories: substantiated,

indicated, alternate response (victim and nonvictim), and unsubstantiated (terms defined in box on previous page).

Nationally, 26% of investigated reports were substantiated, 4% were

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-5 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 27 of 31
Maltreatment victims per 1,000

chitdren ages 0-17, 2003

• 20.1 and above (5 states>

• 15.1 to 20.0(9 states>

LI 10.1 to 15.0 (12 States)

LI 5.1 tolO.0(l7states)

El 1.0 to 5.0(7 stateS)

LI No data (1 State>

• Child maltreatment victimization rates ranged from a low of 1.6 to a high of

42.2 per 1,000 children ages 0-17.

• Half of states had child maltreatment victimization rates lower than 10.4 per

1,000 children ages 0-17.

Note: A child was counted as a victim each time he or she was found to be a victim of

maltreatment.

Source: Authors' adaptation of Walter Fl. McDonald and Associates' Child Maltreatment 2003.

Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

State child maltreatment victimization rates varied substantially

in 2003

DC

and investigation workers, the investigation workers outnumbered

the screening workers nearly 7 to 1.

Even in locations with specialized

personnel, CPS staff typically perform numerous other activities and

some CPS workers may be responsible for more than one function.

Neglect was the most common

form of maltreatment for victims

in 2003

Many children were the victims of

more than one type of maltreatment, but if categories of maltreatment are considered independently,

61% of victims experienced neglect

(including medical neglect), 19%

were physically abused, 10% were

sexually abused, 5% were emotionally or psychologically maltreated,

and 17% experienced other forms

of maltreatment such as threats of

harm, abandonment, and congenital

drug addiction. The rates of most

types of abuse remained relatively

stable from 1998 through 2003.

indicated, and 57% were unsubstantiated. Dispositions of alternate

response victim accounted for less

than 1% and dispositions of alternate response nonvictim were 6%

of investigated reports.

Law enforcement or other legal!

justice personnel were the referral

source for 27% of substantiated

reports and 11% of unsubstantiated

reports. Educators accounted for

14% of substantiated and 18% of unsubstantiated reports.

The average CPS investigator

handled about 63 investigations

in 2003

In most sizable jurisdictions, different CPS personnel perform screening and investigation functions. In

smaller agencies, one staff person

may perform both functions. In

2003, the average yearly number of

investigations or assessments per

investigation worker was 63. Among

states with specialized screening

Different types of maltreatment

have different source-of-referral

patterns

Nearly half of all physical abuse victims were reported by education

(22%) or law enforcement/justice

system (21%) personnel. Law enforcement/justice system personnel

also accounted for substantial proportions of victims reported to CPS

for neglect (26%), sexual abuse

(26%), and psychological maltreatment (30%). Medical personnel reported 27% of medical neglect

victims.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-5 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 28 of 31
The rate of maltreatment victimization was inversely related to

age—the youngest children had the highest rate

Percent of victims

10%

9%

8%

7%

6%

5%

4%

3%

2%

1%

0%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Age of victim

• Infants younger than 1 accounted for 1 in 10 victims of maltreatment in

2003. One-year-olds accounted for 6% of victims, as did each age through

age 7—about the proportion expected if victimization were spread evenly

over all ages. The proportion of victims dropped off sharply for older teens;

1 7-year-olds accounted for just 2% of victims.

• Infants and toddlers were victimized at a rate of 16.4 per 1,000 children age

3 or younger. The victimization rate decreased steadily with age: 13.8 for

ages 4-7, 11.7 for ages 8-11, 10.7 for ages 12-15, and 5.9 for ages 16-17.

Note: A child was counted as a victim each time he or she was found to be a victim of

maltreatment.

Source: Authors' adaptation of Walter R. McDonald and Associates' Child Maltreatment 2003.

Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

Rates of child maltreatment victimization varied

across demographic groups

Girls' victimization rate was

higher than the rate for boys

In 2003, girls made up a slightly

greater share of maltreatment victims than did boys (52% vs. 48%).

The victimization rate for girls was

13.1 per 1,000 girls younger than

age 18, and the rate for boys was

11.6 per 1,000 boys younger than

age 18.

More than half of all victims of

child maltreatment were white

In 2003, white children made up the

largest share of child maltreatment

victims (54%), followed by black

children (26%) and Hispanic children (12%). American Indian/Alaska

native children (2%) and Asian!

Pacific Islander children (1%) made

up substantially smaller proportions of maltreatment victims.

Although they accounted for a small

share of victims, Pacific Islanders

and American Indians had higher

child maltreatment victimization

rates than other race/ethnicity

groups—nearly double the rate for

white children. Similarly, the rate

for black children was well above

the rate for white children.

Victim race/ethnicity

Pacific_______________21.4 Islander

American I 21.3 Indian

Black ] 20.4

Multiple I 12.8 race I

White 11.0

Hispanic 9.9

Asian •2.7

0 10 20 30

Child maltreatment victimizations

per 1 000 in race/ethnicity group

Note: Children of Hispanic ethnicity may be

of any race.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-5 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 29 of 31
Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

S

The overwhelming majority of child maltreatment

perpetrators are parents of the victims

Women are overrepresented

among both caregivers and

maltreatment perpetrators

Child maltreatment is by definition

an act or omission by a parent or

other caregiver that results in harm

or serious risk of harm to a child. Incidents where children are harmed

by individuals who are not their parents or caregivers would generally

not come to the attention of child

protective services agencies, but

rather would be handled by law enforcement.

Compared to their share of the population (5 1%), women are overrepresented among child caregivers.

Within families, mothers usually are

the primary caregivers, and women

far outnumber men in caregiver occupations. Women account for more

than 90% of childcare providers and

early childhood teachers, more than

80% of nonphysician healthcare

workers, and more than 70% of

recreation workers and teachers

below college level. In 2003, females

made up more than half of maltreatment perpetrators (58%). This proportion is lower than their proportion among child caregivers

Among perpetrators, females tended

to be younger than males. Half of all

female perpetrators were younger

than 31 years old; half of all male

perpetrators were older than 34. A

higher proportion of female than

male perpetrators were in their 20s.

Perpetrator age profile:

Perpetrator

Age Total Male Female

Total 100% 100% 100%

Younger

than20 5 6 4

Ages 20-29 34 27 40

Ages 30-39 39 38 39

Ages 40-49 17 22 14

Older than 49 5 7 4

Median age 32 34 31

The vast majority of perpetrators were parents (80%), including

birth parents, adoptive parents, and stepparents

Percent of perpetrators

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Parent Other Other Parent's Unknown Daycare

relative caregiver partner staff

Perpetrator relationship to victim

• Nonparental relatives, unmarried partners of parents, and daycare providers

each made up small proportions of child maltreatment perpetrators in 2003.

Foster parents, residential facility staff, and legal guardians each made up

less than lob of all maltreatment perpetrators.

Notes: A child was counted as a victim each time he or she was found to be a victim of

maltreatment. A victim can have more than one perpetrator. 'Other caregivers" are camp

counselors, school employees, hospital staff, etc.

Source: Authors' adaptation of Walter R. McDonald and Associates' Child Maltreatment 2003.

Parents were less likely to commit sexual abuse than were other

types of perpetrators

Perpetrator relationship to victim

Types of Parent's Other Foster Facility

maltreatment Total Parent partner relative parent Daycare staff

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Neglect 57 62 38 38 50 48 46

Physical abuse 11 11 17 10 17 13 19

Sexual abuse 7 3 11 30 6 23 11

Psychological or

other abuse 9 9 14 6 7 2 8

Multiple types 16 15 20 16 20 13 15

• Perpetrators who were nonparental relatives had the highest proportion of

sexual abuse maltreatment (30%) and parents the lowest (3%).

Notes: A child was counted as a victim each time he or she was found to be a victim of

maltreatment. A victim can have more than one perpetrator and can suffer more than one

type of maltreatment. Total includes relationships not detailed. Detail may not total 100%

because of rounding.

Source: Authors' adaptation of Walter R. McDonald and Associates' Child Maltreatment 2003.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-5 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 30 of 31
Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

m , •U

Reported child maltreatment fatalities typically

involve infants and toddlers and result from neglect

The youngest children are

the most vulnerable child

maltreatment victims

Although children younger than 1

year old were just 10% of all maltreatment victims in 2003, they accounted for 44% of maltreatment fatalities. Similarly, children younger

than 4 were 28% of all victims but

79% of maltreatment fatalities.

Maltreatment victim age profile:

Victim age Fatalities All victims

Total 100% 100%

Younger than 1 44 10

1 16 6

2 13 6

3 7 6

4-7 10 24

8-11 5 21

12-17 6 25

Note: Detail may not total 100% because at

rounding.

Several factors make infants and

toddlers younger than 4 particularly

vulnerable, including their dependency, small size, and inability to defend themselves.

Infant boys had the highest

maltreatment fatality rate in 2003

Boys younger than 1 year old had a

maltreatment fatality rate of 17,7

deaths per 100,000 boys of the same

age in the population. For infant

girls, the rate was 14.1 per 100,000.

For both males and females, fatality

rates declined with children's age.

Maltreatment fatality rate per 100,000

children in age/gender group:

Victim age Male Female

Mothers were the most common

perpetrators in child

maltreatment fatalities

Nearly 4 in 10 maltreatment fatalities resulted from neglect alone.

Physical abuse accounted for 3 in 10

fatalities, and about the same proportion resulted from multiple forms

of maltreatment in combination.

Mothers were involved in 59% of

maltreatment fatalities. Fathers were

involved in 39% of maltreatment

fatalities.

Fatality perpetrators Percent

Total 100%

Mother alone 30

Mother and other than father 8

Mother and father 20

Father alone 18

Father and other than mother 1

Nonparent 18

Unknown 4

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Most maltreatment fatality

victims were previously

unknown to the CPS agency

Most child maltreatment fatalities

involved families without a recent

history with CPS. Of all child maltreatment fatalities, 11% involved

children whose families had received family preservation services

from a CPS agency in the previous 5

years and 3% involved children who

had been in foster care and reunited

with their families in the previous 5

years.

Is the child maltreatment

fatality rate Increasing?

The rate of child maltreatment fatalities Increased from 1.85 per

100,000 in 2000 to 2.00 in 2003.

Estimates of maltreatment fatalities

are based on data reported by

CPS agencies and data from other

sources such as health depart

ments and child fatality review

boards Child maltreatment fatalities particularly those resulting

from neglect, are thought to be underreported Some studies have

estimated that as many as 50% of

maltreatment deaths are not

recorded Some child fatalities

recorded as child homicides:' accidents, or Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) might be attributed

to maltreatment if more comprehensive investigations were conducted and if coding of maltreatment on death certificates were

more uniform.

An estimated 1,500 children died

from abuse or neglect In 2003. In

2000, the figure was 1,300. It is not

dear whether this increase represents an actual increase in maltreatment fatalities or is the result

of improved reporting.

Total 2.2 1.9

Younger than 1 17.7 14.1

1 5.8 5.7

2 5.2 4.0

3 2.4 2.9

4-7 1.1 0.9

8-11 0.6 0.4

12-17 0.4 0.3

Juvenile Offenders and Victims; 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-5 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 31 of 31
Between 1998 and 2003, entries into foster care remained

relatively stable and exits increased slightly

Number during 12-month period

350,000 1

300,000

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

Children entering foster care

Children exiting foster care

0

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

• An estimated 297,000 children entered foster care in 2003. Between 1998

and 2003, foster care entries remained stable—around 300,000 per year.

The number of children exiting foster care annually increased from an estimated 248,000 to roughly 278,000.

The number of children in foster care has decreased steadily

since 1999

Number on September 30th

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

Or

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

• An estimated 523,000 children were in foster care on September 30, 2003,

down 7% from the 1998 figure.

• Despite the drop in the number of children in foster care, child welfare agencies reported little change in the number of children served during the year.

For every two children in foster care, three children received services. In

2003, child welfare agencies served an estimated 800,000 children.

Source: Authors' adaptation of the Children's Bureau's National adoption and foster care

statistics.

Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

U

Increases in children exiting foster care led to a

drop in the foster care rolls between 1998 and 2003

AFCARS data track trends in

foster care and adoption

Foster care is defined in federal regulations as 24-hour substitute care

for children outside their own

homes. Foster care settings include,

but are not limited to, family foster

homes, relative foster homes

(whether payments are being made

or not), group homes, emergency

shelters, residential facilities, childcare institutions, and preadoptive

homes.

Under federal regulation, states are

required to submit data to the

Adoption and Foster Care Analysis

and Reporting System (AFCARS),

which collects case-level information on all children in foster care for

whom state child welfare agencies

have responsibility and on children

who are adopted under the auspices of state public child welfare

agencies. AFCARS also includes information on foster and adoptive

parents. Data are reported for 12

months as of September 30th of

each year.

Children ages 11-15 make up

the largest share of foster care

entries

The median age of children who entered foster care in 2002 was 8.6

years. Logically, the average age of

the standing foster care population

is greater than the average age of

children entering foster care. The

average age of children in foster

care in 2002 was 10.8 years.

Age profile of children entering foster

care:

Age 1998 2002

Total 100% 100%

Younger than 1 13 14

1-5 25 26

6-10 22 20

11-15 29 29

16-18 11 11

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 33
Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

Minority youth are overrepresented

in foster care

In 2002, minority youth were 22% of

the U.S. population ages 0-17. In

comparison, 60% of children in foster care in 2002 were minority youth.

Race/ethnicity profile of children in

foster care:

Race/ethnicity 1998 2002

Total 100% 100%

White 36 40

Minority 64 60

Black 45 38

Hispanic 16 17

American Indian 2 2

Asian/Pacific Islander 1 1

Two or more races NA 3

NA = data not available

Note: Youth of Hispanic ethnicity can be of

any race.

Half of children in foster care on

September 30, 2002, entered

foster care before April 2001

On September 30, 2002, half of chilclren in foster care had been in foster care for 18 months. On September 30, 1998, the median time in

foster care was 21 months.

Profile of children in foster care on

September 30th:

Median time in

foster care 1998 2002

Total 100% 100%

Less than 1 month 4 5

1-5 months 15 18

6-11 months 15 16

12-17 months 11 12

18-23 months 9 8

24-29 months 7 7

30-35 months 5 5

3-4years 16 13

5 years or more 18 16

For children who exited foster care

during 2002, the median time in foster care was 12 months. The figure

for those who exited in 1998 was 11

months.

Reunification was the permanency goal for 45% of children in

foster care in 2002

Profile of children in foster care

Permanency goal 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Reunify with parent(s) 40 42 43 44 45

Adoption 20 19 20 22 21

Guardianship 3 3 3 3 3

Live with other relative(s) 3 5 5 5 5

Long-term foster care 7 8 9 8 9

Emancipation 5 6 6 6 6

Goal not yet established 23 18 15 11 10

• Reunification with parents was the most common permanency goal (45% in

2002); adoption was the second most common goal (21% in 2002). Other

permanency goals together accounted for less than one-quarter of children

in foster care in 2002.

• The proportion of children in the goal not yet established" category

changed substantially from 1998 to 2002. In 1998, children without permanency goals were 23% of those in foster care. By 2002, the figure had

dropped to 10%.

The most common placement setting for children in foster care in

2002 was the home of an unrelated foster family

Profile of children in foster care

Placement 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Foster family (nonrelative) 48 47 47 48 46

Foster family (relative) 29 26 25 24 23

Institution 8 10 10 10 10

Group home 8 8 8 8 9

Preadoptive home 3 4 4 4 5

Trial home visit 3 3 3 3 4

Runaway 1 1 2 2 2

Supervised independent living 1 1 1 1 1

• Nearly half of all children in foster care on September 30, 2002, were living

in the home of an unrelated foster family (46%). Relative foster families had

23% of children in foster care.

• Other placement settings were less common, each accounting for no more

than 10% of children in foster care.

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of rounding.

Source: Authors' adaptation of the Children's Bureau's National adoption and foster care

statistics.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 33
Outcome

Total

Reunify with parent(s)

Adoption

Live with other relative(s)

Emancipation

Transfer to another agency

Runaway

Guardianship

Profile of children exiting foster care

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

62 59 57 57 56

14 16 17 18 18

9 10 10 10 10

7 7 7 7 7

3 3 3 3 4

3 2 2 2 3

2 3 4 3 2

In 2002, foster parents adopted approximately 32,500 (61%) of the

children adopted from foster care.

Relatives accounted for 24% of

adoptions, and the remaining 15% of

adoptions involved nonrelatives.

The proportion of children adopted

by relatives in 2002 (24%) was

greater than in 1998 (15%).

• In 2002, more than half (56%) of children exiting foster care were reunited

with their parent(s) and 18% were adopted. Compared with 1998, a smaller

proportion were reunited and a greater share were adopted in 2002.

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of rounding.

Source: Authors' adaptation of the Children's Bureau's National adoption and foster care

statistics.

An estimated 53,000 children were adopted from the public foster

care system in 2002; in 2003, the figure was 49,000

Number of children

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

or

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

• Adoption requires termination of parental rights for the child's parents. In

2003, parental rights were terminated for the parents of an estimated

67,000 children in foster care.

• For half of all adopted children, less than 1 year passed between termination of parental rights and adoption.

Source: Authors' adaptation of the Children's Bureau's National adoption and foster care

statistics.

Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

.

The number of children adopted from public foster

care increased 40010 from 1998 to 2003

Most children adopted from

foster care were adopted by their

foster parents

Reunification was the most common outcome for children exiting

foster care in 2002

Married couples adopted the majority of children adopted out of foster

care (66%), although many were

adopted by single females (30%).

Single males and unmarried couples

each accounted for about 2% of children adopted out of foster care. The

family structures of adoptive families showed a similar profile in 1998.

The race profile of adoptions

changed between 1998 and 2002,

but the median age did not

Minority youth were about the same

proportion of children adopted out

of foster care (60%) as children in

foster care (59%). Compared with

1998, adoptions in 2002 had a smaller proportion of black children and

a larger proportion of Hispanic children. The median age of children

adopted out of foster care was 6.3

years in 2002—the same as in 1998.

Race/ethnicity profile of children adopted:

Race/ethnicity 1998 2002

Total 100% 100%

White 38 41

Minority 62 59

Black 46 37

Hispanic 13 17

American Indian 1 1

Asian/Pacific Islander 1 1

Two or more races NA 3

NA = data not available

Note: Youth of Hispanic ethnicity can be of

any race.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 3 of 33
Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

Sources

Baum, K. 2005. Juvenile victimization and offending, 1993-2003. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. Washington, DC: Bureau of

Justice Statistics.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Various

years. National Crime Victimization

Survey for the years 1992 through

2001 [machine-readable data files].

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

BJS.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2004.

Women in the Labor Force: A Databook. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.

Children's Bureau. National adoption

and foster care statistics. Updated

December 6, 2004. <www.acf.

hhs.gov/programs/cb/dis/afcars/

publications/afcars.htm>.

DeVoe, J., Peter, K., Ruddy, S., Miller,

A., Planty, M., Snyder, T., and Rand,

M. 2003. Indicators of School Crime

and Safely: 2003. Washington, DC:

National Center for Education Statistics and Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. Various years. National Incident-Based

Reporting System master files for the

years 1996 through 2001 [machinereadable data files]. Washington,

DC: FBI.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. Various years. Supplementary Homicide

Reports for the years 1980 through

2002 [machine-readable data files].

Washington, DC: FBI.

Federal Interagency Forum on Child

and Family Statistics. America's children: Key indicators of well-being,

2005. Accessed September 2005.

<www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/

xls/beh4a.xls>.

Federal Interagency Forum on Child

and Family Statistics. 2005. America's Children: Key Indicators of WellBeing, 2005. Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office.

Finkelhor, D., Hammer, H., and Sedlak, A. 2002. Nonfamily abducted

children: National estimates and

characteristics. NISMART: National

Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention.

Finkeihor, D., Hotaling, C., and Sedlack, A. 1990. Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children in

America. First Report: Numbers and

Characteristics, National Incidence

Studies. Washington, DC: U.S. De--

partment of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention.

Finkelhor, D., Mitchell, K., and

Wolak, J. 2001. Highlights of the

youth Internet safety survey. OJJDP

Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention.

Finkelhor, D., Mitchell, K., and

Wolak, J. 2000. Online Victimization:

A Report on the Nation's Youth.

Alexandria, VA: National Center for

Missing and Exploited Children.

Hammer, H., Finkelhor, D. and Sedlak, A. 2002. Children abducted by

family members: National estimates

and characteristics. NISMART: National Incidence Studies of Missing,

Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Hammer, H., Finkelhor, D. and Sedlak, A. 2002. Runaway/thrownaway

children: National estimates and

characteristics. NISMART: National

Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention.

Hammer, H., Finkelhor, D., Sedlak,

A., and Porcellini, L. 2004. National

estimates of missing children: Selected trends, 1988-1999. NISMART:

National Incidence Studies of Missing,

Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Klaus, P., and Rennison, C. 2002. Age

Patterns in Violent Crime Victimization, 19 73-2000. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice

Statistics.

Lauritsen, J. 2003. How families and

communities influence youth victimization. OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention.

National Center for Health Statistics,

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. WISQARS (Webbased Injury Statistics Query and

Reporting System) [interactive database system]. Accessed June 2004.

<www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars.

-

'I

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 4 of 33
Chapter 2: Juvenile victims

National Center for Health Statistics

Bridged-race intercensal estimates of

the July 1, 1990—July 1, 1999 United

States resident population by county,

single-year of age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin [machine-readable data

files]. Prepared by the U.S. Census

Bureau with support from the National Cancer Institute. Released

July 26, 2004. <www.cdc.gov/nchs/

about/major/dvs/popbridge/

popbridge.htm>.

National Center for Health Statistics.

Estimates of the July 1, 2000—July 1,

2003, United States resident population from the vintage 2003 postcensal

series by year, county, age, sex, race,

and Hispanic origin [machine-readable data files I . Prepared under a

collaborative arrangement with the

U.S. Census Bureau. Released September 14, 2004. <www.cdc.gov/

nchs/about/major/dvs/popbridge/

popbridge.htm>.

National Center for Juvenile Justice.

1993. Processing of Abuse, Neglect

and Dependency Cases in the Ham ilton County Department of Human

Services Family and Children's Services Division. Pittsburgh, PA: NCJJ.

National Center on Child Abuse and

Neglect. 1996. The Third National incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (N!S-3). Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Health and Human

Services,

Ratterman, D., Davidson, H., Epstein, H., Fiermonte, C., Hardin, M.,

Hemrich, V., Hicks, M., Klain, E.,

Lancour, A., Layer, M., and Renne, J.

2001. Making Sense of the ASFA Regulations: A Roadmap for Effective

Implementation. Rauber, D. (ed.).

Washington, DC: American Bar

Association.

Sedlak, A., Finkelhor, D., and Hammer, H. 2004. National estimates of

children missing involuntarily or

for benign reasons. N/SMART National incidence Studies of Missing,

Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Sedlak, A., Finkelhor, D., Hammer,

H., and Schultz, D. 2002. National

estimates of missing children: An

overview. NISMART National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted,

Runaway, and Thrownaway

Children. Washington, DC: U.S. De--

partment of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Troup-Leasure, K., and Snyder, H.

2005. Statutory rape known to law

enforcement. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention.

Walter R. McDonald and Associates,

American Humane Association.

2004. Child Maltreatment 2002: Reports from the States to the National

Child Abuse and Neglect Data

System. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children's Bureau.

Walter R. McDonald and Associates,

American Humane Association.

2005. Child Maltreatment 2003: Reports from the States to the National

Child Abuse and Neglect Data

System. Washington, DC: U.S. De--

partment of Health and Human Services, Children's Bureau.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 5 of 33
_u U U S U U

Juvenile Offenders

and Victims: 2006

National Report

- - --

Chapter 3: Juvenile offenders ............................. 63

Self-reports vs. official data .....................................64

Homicidesby juveniles ........................................65

Juvenile homicide offender characteristics .......................67

Juvenile offending behavior demographics .......................70

Offendinginto the adult years ..................................71

Juvenile offending behavior and associated factors ................72

Schoolcrime .................................................73

Weaponsuse .................................................74

Drugand alcohol use ..........................................75

Drugand alcohol use trends ....................................79

Co-occurrence of substance use behaviors .......................81

Gangs.......................................................82

Time-of-day analysis of juvenile offending ........................85

Chapter3 sources .............................................90

Copyright 2006

National Center for Juvenile Justice

3700 S. Water Street, Suite 200

Pittsburgh, PA 15203-2363

Suggested citation: Snyder, Howard N., and Sickmund, Melissa. 2006. Juvenile

Offenders and Victims.' 2006 National Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 6 of 33
11 H

Chapter 3

Juvenile offenders

TTT

High profile—often very violent—

incidents tend to shape public perceptions of juvenile olfending. It is

important for the public, the media,

elected officials, and juvenile justice

professionals to have an accurate

view of (1) the crimes committed by

juveniles, (2) the proportion and

characteristics of youth involved in

law-violating behaviors, and (3)

trends in these behaviors. This understanding can come from studying victim reports, juvenile self-reports of offending behavior, and

official records.

As documented in the following

pages, many juveniles who commit

crimes (even serious crimes) never

enter the juvenile justice system.

Consequently, developing a portrait

of juvenile law-violating behavior

from official records gives only a

partial picture. This chapter presents what is known about the prevalence and incidence of juvenile offending prior to the youth entering

the juvenile justice system. It relies

on data developed by the Bureau

of Justice Statistics' National Crime

Victimization Survey, the Bureau

of Labor Statistics' 1997 National

Longitudinal Survey of Youth, the

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey, the Federal Bureau

of Investigation's Supplementary

Homicide Reports and its National

Incident-Based Reporting System,

and the National Institute on Drug

Abuse's Monitoring the Future

Study. Information on gangs is

drawn from the National Youth

Gang Survey, supported by the

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). Information on the association between

offending and contact with the juvenile justice system comes from one

of OJJDP's Causes and Correlates

Studies.

On the pages that follow, readers

can learn the answers to many commonly asked questions: How many

murders are committed by juve--

niles, and whom do they murder?

What proportion of youth are involved in criminal behaviors? How

many students are involved in

crime at school? Is it common for

youth to carry weapons to school?

Are students fearful of crime at

school? What is known about juve--

niles and gangs? How prevalent is

drug and alcohol use? When are

crimes committed by juveniles most

likely to occur? Are there gender

and racial/ethnic differences in the

law-violating behaviors of juvenile

offenders?

-

-

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 7 of 33
The growth and decline in violent crime by juveniles between 1980

and 2003 are documented by both victim reports and arrests

Percent difference from the 24-year average

60% 1

400/ Violent victimizations

0 with juvenile offenders

20% A

0%

-20%

Juvenile Violent Crime Index arrests

-40%

-60%

1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Violent crimes include rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and homicide. Victimizations

are those in which the victim perceived that at least one offender was between the ages

of 12 and 17.

In every year from 1980 to 2003, the number of victimizations was substantially greater

than the number of arrests. To more clearly show the comparative trends in the two statistics, however, each value on the graph is the annual number's percent difference from the

24-year average of the statistic.

Source: Authors' analysis of BJS's Victim's perception of the age of the offender in serious

violent crime and of the FBI's Crime in the United States for the years 1980 through 2003.

Chapter 3: Juvenile offenders

Ii

Self-reports and official records are the primary

sources of information on juvenile offending

Self-report studies ask victims

or offenders to report on their

experiences and behaviors

There is an ongoing debate about

the relative ability of self-report

studies and official statistics to describe juvenile crime and victimization. Self-report studies can capture

information on behavior that never

comes to the attention of juvenile

justice agencies. Compared with official studies, self-report studies

find a much higher proportion of

the juvenile population involved in

delinquent behavior.

Self-report studies, however, have

their own limitations. A youth's

memory limits the information that

can be captured. This, along with

other problems associated with interviewing young children, is the

reason that the National Crime Victimization Survey does not attempt

to interview children below age 12.

Some victims and offenders are also

unwilling to disclose all law violations. Finally, it is often difficult for

self-report studies to collect data

from large enough samples to develop a sufficient understanding of relatively rare events, such as serious

violent offending.

Official statistics describe cases

handled by the justice system

Official records underrepresent juvenile delinquent behavior. Many

crimes by juveniles are never re--

ported to authorities. Many juve-.

niles who commit offenses are

never arrested or are not arrested

for all of their delinquencies. As a

result, official records systematically underestimate the scope of juvenile crime. In addition, to the extent

that other factors may influence the

types of crimes or offenders that

enter the justice system, official

records may distort the attributes

of juvenile crime.

Official statistics are open to

multiple interpretations

Juvenile arrest rates for drug abuse

violations in recent years are substantially above those of two decades ago. One interpretation of

these official statistics could be

that juveniles have been breaking

the drug laws more often in recent

years. National self-report studies

(e.g., Monitoring the Future), however, find that illicit drug use is substantially below the levels of the

mid-1980s. If drug use is actually

down, the higher arrest rates for

drug crimes may represent a

change in society's tolerance for

such behavior and a greater willingness to bring these youth into the

justice system for treatment or

punishment.

Although official records may be inadequate measures of the level of

juvenile offending, they do monitor

justice system activity, Analysis of

variations in official statistics

across time and jurisdictions provides an understanding of justice

system caseloads.

Carefully used, self-report and

official statistics provide insight

into crime and victimization

Delbert Elliott, Director of the Center for the Study and Prevention of

Violence, has argued that to abandon either self-report or official statistics in favor of the other is "rather shortsighted; to systematically

ignore the findings of either is dangerous, particularly when the two

measures provide apparently contradictory findings." Elliott stated

that a full understanding of the etiology and development of delinquent behavior is enhanced by using and integrating both self-report

and official record research.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 8 of 33
3.5001

3,0001

2,500

Chapter 3: Juvenile offenders

In 2002, the number of murders by juveniles

dropped to its lowest level since 1984

About one-third of murders in

the U.S. are not solved

In 2002, the FBI reported that 16,200

persons were murdered in the U.S.

In about 10,400 (64%) of these murders, the incident was cleared by arrest or by exceptional means—that

is, either an offender was arrested

and turned over to the court for

prosecution or an offender was

identified but law enforcement

could not place formal charges (e.g.,

the offender died). In the other

5,800 murders (36%) in 2002, the offenders were not identified and

their demographic characteristics

are not known.

Estimating the demographic characteristics of these unknown offenders

is difficult. The attributes of unknown offenders probably differ

from those of known murder offenders. For example, it is likely that a

greater proportion of known offenders have family ties to their victims

and that a larger proportion of

homicides committed by strangers

go unsolved. An alternative to estimating characteristics of unknown

offenders is to trend only murders

with known juvenile offenders. Either approach—to trend only murders with known juvenile offenders

or to estimate characteristics for

unknown juvenile offenders—creates

its own interpretation problems.

Acknowledging the weaknesses in

the approach, the analyses of the

FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHRs) presented in this Report assume that the offenders in

cleared murders (known offenders)

are similar to the offenders in unsolved murders (unknown offenders). This approach ensures that

the number and characteristics of

murder victims are consistent

throughout the report.

Between 1994 and 2002, the number of murders involving a

juvenile offender fell 65%, to its lowest level since 1984

Homicide victims of juvenile offenders

4,000i

I [One juvenile

• More than one juvenile

Juvenile with adult

u

2,000 iI

1500 :U., •H

1.000

: H

500

I

, ,

0 P-'-. ' ,''•'"" ...,

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

• In the 1980s, 25% of the murders involving a juvenile offender also involved

an adult offender. This proportion grew to 31% in the 1990s and averaged

36% for the years 2000-2002.

Source: Authors' analyses of the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports for the years

1980 through 2002 [machine-readable data files].

Murders by juveniles in 2002 were less likely to be committed by a

juvenile acting alone than in any year since at least 1980

Homicide victims of juvenile offenders

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0'

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

• Between 1980 and 2002, the annual proportion of murders involving a juvenile offender acting alone gradually declined, from 66% in the 1980s, to

59% in the 1990s, to 55% in the years 2000 to 2002.

• Between 1994 and 2002, murders by juveniles acting alone fell 68% and

murders with multiple offenders declined 60%.

Source: Authors' analyses of the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports for the years

1980 through 2002 [machine-readable data files].

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 9 of 33
Between 1980 and 2002, the murder victims most likely to be killed

by a juvenile offender were age 14

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Victim age

• Among all murder victims from 1980 through 2002, the proportion killed by

juvenile offenders dropped from 34% for victims age 14 to 5% for victims

age 25, then remained at or near 5% for all victims older than 25.

Source: Authors' analyses of the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports for the years

1980 through 2002 [machine-readable data files].

Percent of all murder victims in age group killed by juveniles, 1980-2002

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Chapter 3: Juvenile offenders

In 2002, 1 in 12 murders involved

a juvenile offender

Juvenile offenders were involved in

an estimated 1,300 murders in the

U.S. in 2002-8% of all murders. The

juvenile offender acted alone in 52%

of these murders, acted with one or

more other juveniles in 9%, and

acted with at least one adult offender in 39%.

Because nearly half (48%) of the

1,300 murders with juvenile offenders involved multiple offenders, the

number of offenders in these murders was greater than the number of

victims. The 1,300 murders involved

an estimated 1,600 juvenile offenders. Also involved in these 1,300

murders were 900 adult offenders,

the vast majority (87%) of whom

were under age 25.

In 2002, 82% of the victims of juvenile murderers were male, 51% were

white, and 46% were black. Most

(69%) were killed with a firearm.

Family members accounted for 16%

of the victims, acquaintances 47%,

and strangers (i.e., no personal relationship to the juvenile offenders)

37%.

From 1980 through 2002, the proportion of murders with a juvenile

offender that also involved multiple

offenders gradually increased. In the

first half of the 1980s, about onethird of all murders with juvenile offenders involved more than one offender; in 2002, this proportion was

nearly half (48%). Similarly, the proportion of murders with a juvenile

offender that also involved an adult

gradually increased, from less than

25% in the first half of the 1980s to

39% in 2002. Throughout this period, on average, 89% of these adult

offenders were under age 25.

Between 1980 and 2002, half of all murder victims killed by

juveniles were ages 14-24

Homicide victims of juvenile offenders, 1980-2002

3,500 1

3,000

Any juvenile offender

2,500

Only juvenile

2,000 offenders

1,500 Juvenile offenders

1,000

/ with adults

500

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Victim age

• Of all the murder victims of juvenile offenders, 25% were themselves under

age 18, and 4% were over age 64.

Source: Authors' analyses of the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports for the years

1980 through 2002 [machine-readable data files].

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 10 of 33
The annual number of male juvenile homicide offenders varied

substantially between 1980 and 2002, unlike the number of

female offenders

0

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

• The number of known male juvenile murder offenders in 2002 was lower

than in any year since 1984.

Source: Authors' analyses of the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports for the years

1980 through 2002 [machine-readable data files].

Known juvenile homicide offenders

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

In 2002, as in 1980, equal numbers of black juveniles and white

juveniles committed murders

Known juvenile homicide offenders

2,000

1,800

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0 !---t-,--;- .:---. ...:.

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

• Between 1984 and 1994, the number of known white juvenile murder offenders doubled and the number of black offenders quadrupled.

• In 2002, the numbers of known white murder offenders and black murder offenders were near their lowest levels in a generation.

Source: Authors' analyses of the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports for the years

1980 through 2002 [machine-readable data files].

Chapter 3: Juvenile offenders

The drop in minority males killing minority males with

firearms drove the decline in murders by juveniles

Murder trends shaped public

perception of crime in the 1990s

During the 1990s, widespread concern about juvenile violence resulted in a number of changes in state

laws with the intent to send more

juveniles into the adult criminal justice system. The focal point of this

concern was the unprecedented increase in murders by juveniles between 1984 and 1994. Then just as

quickly the numbers fell: by 2002,

juvenile arrests for murder were

below the levels of the early 1980s.

A better understanding of this rapid

growth and decline is useful for juvenile justice practitioners and the

public.

The overall trend in murders by

juveniles is a composite of

separate trends

Examining the FBI's SHR data to understand the characteristics of juvenile murder offenders and their

crimes makes it clear that specific

types of murders drove the overall

trends. Between 1984 and 1994, the

overall annual number of juveniles

identified by law enforcement as responsible for a murder tripled. However, the number of juvenile females

identified in murder investigations

increased less than 40%, while the

number of juvenile males increased

more than 200%. Thus, the increase

between 1984 and 1994 was driven

by male offenders.

During the same period, the number

of juveniles who committed murder

with a firearm increased about

320%, while murders committed

without a firearm increased about

40%. Thus, the overall increase was

also linked to firearm murders.

Finally, from 1984 to 1994, the number of juveniles who killed a family

member increased about 20%, while

the numbers of juveniles who killed

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 11 of 33
The national trend in murders by juvenile offenders reflected the

growth and subsequent decline in crimes committed with firearms

Known juvenile homicide offenders

0'

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

• The large growth and decline in the annual number of juvenile offenders

who committed their crimes with a firearm between 1980 and 2002 stands

in sharp contrast to the relative stability of the nonfirearm pattern over the

period.

Source: Authors' analyses of the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports for the years

1980 through 2002 [machine-readable data filesl.

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

Between 1980 and 2002, the annual number of juvenile offenders

who killed family members changed little, in stark contrast to the

number of those who killed acquaintances and strangers

Known juvenile homicide offenders

1,8001

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

Chapter 3: Juvenile offenders

an acquaintance or a stranger both

increased about 240%. Therefore,

during the period, murders by f emale juveniles, murders with

weapons other than a firearm, and

murders of a family member contributed little to the large increase

in juvenile murders. In fact, just 10%

of the increase in murders by juveniles between 1984 and 1994 can be

attributed to murders with these

characteristics.

So what types of murders by juveniles increased between 1984 and

1994? Ninety percent (90%) of the

overall increase was murders of

nonfamily members committed by

males with a firearm—generally a

handgun. This type of murder increased 400% between 1984 and

1994. A closer look at these crimes

reveals that the increase was somewhat greater for murders of acquaintances than strangers and

somewhat greater for juveniles acting with other offenders than for a

juvenile offender acting alone. Nearly three-quarters of the increase

was the result of crimes committed

by black and other minority males—

and in two-thirds of these murders,

the victims were minority males.

The decline in murders by juveniles

from 1994 to 2002 reversed the earlier increase. About 80% of the overall decline was attributable to the

drop in murders of nonfamily members by juvenile males with a

firearm; most of this decline was in

murders of minority males committed by minority juvenile males.

0

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

• In 1980, 16% of known juvenile homicide offenders killed family members.

The proportion was 7% in 1994 and 13% in 2002.

Source: Authors' analyses of the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports for the years

1980 through 2002 [machine-readable data fileal.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 12 of 33
Chapter 3: Juvenile offenders

In the 10 years from 1993 through 2002, the nature of murders committed by juvenile offenders varied

with the age, gender, and race of the offenders

Known juvenile offenders, 1993-2002

Younger than

Characteristic All Male Female age 16 Age 16 Age 17 White Black

Victim age 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Underl3 5 4 23 8 4 3 6 4

13to17 21 22 13 24 22 19 24 19

18to24 30 31 22 22 30 35 29 31

Above 24 44 44 42 46 43 43 41 46

Victim gender 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Male 85 87 62 81 85 87 83 86

Female 15 13 38 19 15 13 17 14

Victim race 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

White 50 50 51 51 50 49 90 22

Black 46 46 46 45 46 47 8 76

Other 4 4 3 4 4 4 2 2

Victim/offender relationship 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Family 9 7 36 15 8 7 14 7

Acquaintance 54 55 46 50 54 57 54 54

Stranger 37 38 18 35 38 37 32 40

Firearm used 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Yes 74 77 35 70 74 77 66 80

No 26 23 65 30 26 23 34 20

Number of offenders 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

One 46 45 55 47 45 46 44 48

More than one 54 55 45 53 55 54 56 52

• Between 1993 and 2002, a greater percentage of the victims of male juvenile murder offenders were adults than were

the victims of female offenders (75% vs. 64%). The juvenile victims of female offenders tended to be younger than the

juvenile victims of male offenders.

• Adults were the victims of 70% of white juvenile murder offenders and 77% of black juvenile murder offenders.

• Although 76% of the victims of black juvenile murder offenders were black, black murder offenders were much more

likely than white offenders to have victims of another race (24% vs. 10%). In contrast, juvenile murder offenders' age

and gender were unrelated to the race of the victim.

• Female juvenile murder offenders were much more likely than male juvenile murder offenders to have female victims

(38% vs. 13%) and to have victims who were family members (36% vs. 7%).

• Firearms were more likely to be involved in murders by male offenders than female offenders (77% vs. 35%) and in

murders by black offenders than white offenders (80% vs. 66%).

• Female juvenile murder offenders were more likely than male offenders to commit their crimes alone (55% vs. 45%). In

contrast, juvenile murder offenders' age was unrelated to the proportion of crimes committed with co-offenders, and offenders' race was only weakly related to this aspect of the incident.

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of rounding.

Source: Authors' analyses of the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports for the years 1993 through 2002 [machine-readable data files].

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 13 of 33
Chapter 3: Juvenile offenders

8°Io of 1 7-yearolds reported ever belonging to a

gang. 1 6°Io sold drugs. and 1 6°Io carried a handgun

Survey provides a portrait of

law-violating behavior of youth

Most juvenile crime does not come

to the attention of the juvenile justice system. To understand the

amount of violent crime committed

by juveniles, one could ask their

victims. However, to understand the

proportion of youth who commit

various types of crimes (i.e., violent

and nonviolent crime), one must

ask the youth themselves.

To provide this and other information about youth, in 1997 the Bureau of Labor Statistics mounted

the National Longitudinal Survey of

Youth (NLSY97). Between 1997 and

2001, the NLSY97 annually interviewed a nationally representative

sample of nearly 9,000 youth who

were ages 12-16 on December 31,

1996, asking them about many aspects of their lives—including lawviolating behaviors. Results from

the first five waves of interviews

(through 2001) provide a detailed

portrait of the law-violating behaviors of youth ages 12-17 at the beginning of the 21st century.

For most law-violating behaviors

studied, males were significantly

more likely than females to report

engaging in the behavior by age 17.

The one exception was running

away from home. The differences

among white, black, and Hispanic

youth were not as consistent. For

some behaviors (i.e., running away

and carrying guns) there were no

differences among the three racial

groups. White youth were significantly more likely than black or Hispanic youth to report committing

vandalism. Black youth were significantly more likely than white or Hispanic youth to report committing

an assault. Black youth at age 17

were significantly less likely than

white or Hispanic youth to report

having sold drugs.

The prevalence of problem behavior among juveniles differs by

gender, race, and age

Proportion of youth reporting ever

engaging in the behavior by age 17

Behavior All youth Male Female White Black Hispanic

Suspended from school 33% 42% 24% 28% 56% 38%

Ran away from home 18 17 20 18 21 17

Belonged toagang 8 11 6 7 12 12

Vandalized 37 47 27 39 33 34

Theft less than $50 43 47 38 44 38 41

Theft morethan $50 13 16 10 12 15 14

Assaulted with intent

to seriously hurt 27 33 21 25 36 28

Sold drugs 16 19 12 17 13 16

Carriedahandgun 16 25 6 16 15 15

Proportion of youth reporting

behavior at specific ages

Behavior Age 12 Age 13 Age 14 Age 15 Age 16 Age 17

Suspended from school 6% 9% 14% 13% 12% 10%

Ran away from home na na 5 6 7 6

Belonged to a gang 2 2 2 2 2 2

Vandalized 14 17 16 14 13 9

Theft less than $50 0 13 14 13 12 11

Theft more than $50 3 3 4 5 5 4

Assaulted with intent

to seriously hurt 9 10 11 11 11 9

Solddrugs 1 2 5 6 8 8

Carried a handgun 5 4 5 6 5 4

• By age 17, 33% of all youth said they had been suspended from school at least

once, 18% had run away from home (i.e., had at least once left home and

stayed away overnight without a parent's prior knowledge or permission), and

8% had belonged to a gang.

• By age 17, a greater proportion of juveniles reported that they had committed

an assault with the intent of seriously hurting the person than reported ever

having run away from home, sold drugs, carried a handgun, stolen something

worth more than $50, or belonged to a gang.

• Males were significantly more likely than females to report ever being suspended from school (42% vs. 24%) or ever belonging to a gang (11% vs. 6%) and

were 4 times more likely to report ever carrying a handgun (25% vs. 6%).

• White youth were significantly less likely than black or Hispanic youth to report

ever belonging to a gang.

• With the exception of selling drugs, the proportions of youth who reported committing the above behaviors at age 17 are either the same or less than the proportions reporting the same behaviors at earlier ages.

Note: As a general rule, the confidence interval around the above percentages is about

plus or minus 2 percentage points. Readers should consider figures to differ only when

their confidence intervals do not overlap (i.e., a difference of at least 4 percentage points).

Source: Authors' adaptation of McCurley's Self-reported law-violating behavior from adolescence to early adulthood in a modern cohort.

S

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 14 of 33
24%

27

17

21

30

21

57%

55

59

60

45

57

26%

29

23

24

33

27

27%

28

27

29

28

27

46%

44

51

47

39

45

58

55

62

61

50

53

57

57

58

59

49

60

40

37

46

42

29

35

23

25

20

23

22

21

14

14

14

14

14

12

29

31

26

30

28

27

24

27

6

27

14

26

31

32

27

28

44

37

30

29

37

21

53

46

Vandalized

Male

Female

White

Black

Hispanic

Theft less than $50

Male

Female

White

Black

Hispanic

Theft more than $50

Male

Female

White

Black

Hispanic

20% Assaulted to seriously hurt

18 Male

24 Female

19 White

25 Black

22 Hispanic

19 Sold drugs

20 Male

18 Female

16 White

29 Black

26 Hispanic

29 Carried a handgun 46

29 Male 44

29 Female 56

27 White 52

37 Black 33

28 Hispanic 28

Chapter 3: Juvenile offenders

• i S

About one-quarter of juveniles who offended at ages

16-17 also offended as adults at ages 18-19

Many juvenile offenders do not

continue their law-violating

behaviors into adulthood

Some persons commit crimes when

they are juveniles and continue to

do so into their adult years. Others

commit crimes only as juveniles,

while others begin their offending

careers as adults. The analysis that

follows summarizes the National

Longitudinal Survey of Youth data

for all youth who were interviewed

at ages 16, 17, 18, and 19 during the

first five waves of data collection

(1997-2001) to study the continuity

in offending from the juvenile years

(ages 16-17) to the early adult years

(ages 18-19).

Although the details vary somewhat

with the type of offending behavior,

the general pattern is consistent.

For example, when interviewers

asked youth at ages 16, 17, 18, and

19 if they had assaulted someone

since the last interview with the intent of seriously hurting them, most

(78%) reported never committing

such a crime. Among the other 22%

of youth who reported an assault in

at least one of the four interviews,

most (74%) reported the behavior

at ages 16-17 and fewer (54%) reported assaulting someone at ages

18-19; about one-quarter (27%) reported the behavior at least once in

both the juvenile period (ages

16-17) and the adult period (ages

18-19). This means that most of the

youth who reported committing an

assault in the later juvenile years

stopped the behavior, reporting

none in the early adult years. It also

implies that half of the respondents

who reported committing an assault

as young adults did not do so as

older juveniles. (The accompanying

table provides similar details on

other types of offenses and for subgroups of offenders.)

About two-thirds of juveniles who reported committing specific offenses at ages 16 or 17 did not

report doing so at ages 18 or 19

Of all youth reporling the behavior at Of all youth reporting the behavior at

ages 16-19, the percent reporting: ages 16-19, the percent reporting:

Behavior! Only at ages In both Only al ages Behavior! Only at ages In both Only at ages

demographic 16-17 age groups 18-19 demographic 16-17 age groups 18-19

• Among black youth ages 16-19 who reported assaulting someone with the intent to seriously injure, 39% reported the behavior only in the older juvenile years (ages 16-17), 33% only in the young adult years (ages 18-19), and 28% in both the older

juvenile and young adult years. Among the 67% of black offenders who reported assaulting someone as older juveniles, less

than half (28%) also reported assaulting someone as young adults.

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of rounding.

Source: Aulhors' analyses of the Bureau of Labor Statistics' National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 cohort, 1997-200 1 (rounds 1-5)

[machine-readable data files].

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 15 of 33
Family structure is linked to problem behavior similarly for

females and males

Female respondents Male respondents

Both All Both All

biological other biological other

Experience All parents families All parents families

Suspended ever 17% 9% 26% 33% 23% 45%

Runaway ever 12 7 17 11 7 15

Sex in past year* 28 20 35 30 22 40

Smoke in past month* 21 17 25 20 17 23

Drink in past month*t 23 21 26 23 23 24

Marijuana in past month 9 6 11 10 8 13

Vandalize in past yeart

10 8 13 19 18 21

Petty theft ever 30 25 34 38 33 43

Major theft in past year 3 2 4 6 4 8

Assault in past year 8 5 12 14 11 18

Gang in past year 1 1 2 3 2 4

Handgun in past year 2 1 2 9 9 10

Sell drugs in past year 4 3 5 7 5 9

Arrested in past year 4 2 5 7 4 10

Not significantly different at the 95% level of confidence for comparisons of females and

males.

t Not significantly different at the 95% level of confidence for comparisons of the two

types of family structures for males.

t Not significantly different at the 95% level of confidence for comparisons of the two

types of family structures for females or males.

Source: Authors' adaptation of McCurley and Snyder's Risk, protection, and family

structure.

Chapter 3; Juvenile offenders

S U I

Juvenile law-violating behavior is linked to family

structure and to school/work involvement

Juveniles' self-reported lawviolating behavior is related to

their family structure

A recent study using data from

NLSY97 explored the factors associated with a youth's self-reported

law-violating behaviors. One significant factor was a youth's family

structure. In general, the research

showed that juveniles who lived

with both biological parents had

lower lifetime prevalence of lawviolating behaviors than did juveniles who lived in other family

types.

For example, the study found that

5% of youth age 17 who lived with

both biological parents reported

ever being in a gang, compared with

12% of youth who lived in other

family arrangements. Similarly,

youth at age 17 living with both biological parents reported a lower lifetime prevalence, compared with

youth living in other types of families, for a wide range of problem

behaviors: marijuana use (30% vs.

40%), hard drug use (9% vs. 13%),

drug selling (13% vs. 19%), running

away from home (13% vs. 25%), vandalism (34% vs. 4 1%), theft of something worth more than $50 (19% vs.

17%), assault with the intent to seriously injure (20% vs. 35%).

Family structure is correlated with

a youth's race and ethnicity; that is,

white non-I-lispanic youth are more

likely to live in families with two

biological parents than are black

or Hispanic youth. Therefore, patterns that indicate racial or ethnic

differences in self-reported behavior

may in reality be reflecting differences in family structure.

Many other factors influence a

youth's involvement in lawviolating behaviors

The study also found other factors

related to juveniles' self-reported involvement in law-violating behaviors. The most closely related factor

was the presence of friends or family members in gangs. For example,

compared with juveniles who did

not have friends or families in

gangs, those who did were at least 3

times more likely to report having

engaged in vandalism, a major theft,

a serious assault, carrying a handgun, and selling drugs. They were

also about 3 times more likely to

use hard drugs and to run away

from home.

Connectedness to school and/or

work also was related to juveniles'

self-reported law-violating behavior.

Juveniles who were neither in

school nor working had a significantly greater risk of engaging in a

wide range of problem behaviors—

using marijuana and hard drugs,

running away from home, belonging

to a gang, committing a major theft

or a serious assault, selling drugs,

and carrying a handgun.

Some problem behaviors cluster

Analyses of NLSY97 data also found

that involvement in some problem

behaviors predicted elevated involvement in other problem behaviors. For example, juveniles who reported belonging to a gang were

twice as likely as other juveniles to

have committed a major theft, 3

times more likely to have sold

drugs, 4 times more likely to have

committed a serious assault, and 5

times more likely to have carried a

handgun.

-

-

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 16 of 33
Chapter 3: Juvenile offenders

• U U

School crime was common in 2003-1 in 8 students

were in fights. 1 in 3 had property stolen or damaged

National survey monitors youth

health risk behaviors

The Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention's Youth Risk Behavior

Survey (YRBS) monitors health risk

behaviors that contribute to the

leading causes of death, injury, and

social problems among youth in the

U.S. Every 2 years, YRBS provides

data representative of 9th-l2th

graders in public and private schools

nationwide. The 2003 survey included responses from 15,214 students

from 32 states and 18 large cities,

Fewer than 4 in 10 high school

students were in a physical

fight-4 in 100 were injured

According to the 2003 survey, 33%

of high school students said they

had been in one or more physical

fights during the past 12 months,

down from 43% in 1993. Regardless

of grade level or race/ethnicity,

males were more likely than females

to engage in fighting. Fighting was

more common among black and Hispanic students than white students.

Percent who were in a physical fight in

the past year:

Total Male Female

Total 33.0% 40.5% 25.1%

9th grade 38.6 44.8 31.9

10th grade 33.5 41.8 25.0

11th grade 30.9 38.5 23.0

12th grade 26.5 35.0 17.7

White 30.5 38.4 22.1

Black 39.7 45.6 34.0

Hispanic 36.1 42.6 29.5

Although physical fighting was fairly common among high school students, the proportion of students

injured and treated by a doctor or

nurse was relatively small (4%).

Males were more likely than females

to have been injured in a fight.

Black and Hispanic students were

more likely than white students to

suffer fight injuries.

Percent who were injured in a physical

fight in the past year:

Total Male Female

Total 4.2% 5.7% 2.6%

9th grade 5.0 6.4 3.6

10th grade 4.2 6.2 2.2

11th grade 3.6 4.9 2.4

12th grade 3.1 4.3 1.8

White 2.9 4.0 1.7

Black 5.5 7.3 3.7

Hispanic 5.2 6.5 3.9

Nationwide, 13% of high school students had been in a physical fight

on school property one or more

times in the 12 months preceding

the survey, down from 16% in 1993.

Male students were substantially

more likely to fight at school than

female students at all grade levels

and across racial/ethnic groups. Hispanic and black students were more

likely than white students to fight at

school, Fighting at school decreased

as grade level increased.

Percent who were in a physical fight at

school in the past year:

Total Male Female

Total 12.8% 17.1% 8.0%

9th grade 18.0 23.3 12.2

10th grade 12.8 18.1 7.3

11th grade 10.4 14.2 6.4

12th grade 7.3 9.6 4.7

White 10.0 14.3 5.3

Black 17.1 21.5 12.6

Hispanic 16.7 19.3 13.8

About 3 in 10 high school

students had property stolen

or vandalized at school

High school students were more

likely to experience property crime

than fights at school. Nationally,

30% said they had property such as

a car, clothing, or books stolen or

deliberately damaged on school

property one or more times during

the past 12 months. A greater proportion of male than female students experienced such property

crimes at school, regardless of

grade level or race/ethnicity. Students' reports of school property

crime decreased as grade level

increased.

Percent who had property stolen or

deliberately damaged at school in the

past year:

Total Male Female

Total 29.8% 33.1% 26.2%

9th grade 34.8 37.4 31.9

10th grade 30.5 34.3 26.6

11th grade 27.2 30.5 23.9

12th grade 24.2 27.9 20.2

White 28.2 30.6 25.6

Black 30.4 33.9 27.0

Hispanic 32.3 37.0 27.6

Fear of school-related crime kept

5 in 100 high schoolers home at

least once in the past month

Nationwide in 2003, 5% of high

school students missed at least I

day of school in the past 30 days

because they felt unsafe at school

or when traveling to or from school,

up from 4% in 1993. Hispanic and

black students were more likely

than white students to have missed

school because they felt unsafe.

Freshmen were more likely than

other high school students to miss

school because of safety concerns.

Percent who felt too unsafe to go to

school in the past 30 days:

Total Male Female

Total 5.4% 5.5% 5.3%

9th grade 6.9 7.1 6.6

10th grade 5.2 5.3 5.1

11th grade 4.5 4.3 4.6

12th grade 3.8 3.8 3.9

White 3.1 3.3 2.9

Black 8.4 7.9 9.0

Hispanic 9.4 8.9 10.0

The proportion of high school students who said they had avoided

school because of safety concerns

ranged from 3% to 9% across states.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 17 of 33
Chapter 3: Juvenile offenders

The proportion of high school students who carried

a weapon to school dropped to 6°Io in 2003

One-third of students who

carried a weapon took it to

school

The 2003 Youth Risk Behavior Survey found that 6% of high school

students said they had carried a

weapon (e.g., gun, knife, or club) on

school property in the past 30

days-down from 12% in 1993.

Males were more likely than females

to say they carried a weapon at

school. The proportion who carried

a weapon to school was about onethird of those who said they had

carried a weapon anywhere in the

past month (17%). In addition, 6% of

high schoolers reported carrying a

gun (anywhere) in the past month,

down from 8% in 1993.

Percent who carried a weapon on

school property in the past 30 days:

Total Male Female

Total 6.1% 8.9% 3.1%

9th grade 5.3 6.6 3.8

10th grade 6.0 8.9 3.0

11th grade 6.6 10.3 2.7

12th grade 6.4 10.2 2.5

White 5.5 8.5 2.2

Black 6.9 8.4 5.5

Hispanic 6.0 7.7 4.2

In 2003, 9% of high school students were threatened or injured

with a weapon at school

The overall proportion of students

reporting weapon-related threats or

injuries at school during the year

did not change from 1993.

Percent threatened or injured with a

weapon at school in the past year:

Total Male Female

Total 9.2% 11.6% 6.5%

9th grade 12.1 15.4 8.3

10th grade 9.2 11.3 7.0

11th grade 7.3 9.2 5.4

12th grade 6.3 8.5 3.9

White 7.8 9.6 5.8

Black 10.9 14.3 7.5

Hispanic 9.4 11.9 6.9

Across reporting states, the proportion of high school students

carrying weapons to school in 2003 ranged from 3% to 10%

Percent reporting they

Percent reporting they were threatened or injured

carried a weapon on school with a weapon on school

property in the past 30 days property in the past year

Reporting states Total Male Female Total Male Female

U.S. total 6.1% 8.9% 3.1% 9.2% 11.6% 6.5%

Alabama 7.3 11.7 2.8 7.2 9.0 5.2

Alaska 7.1 11.8 1.7 8.1 10.9 4.9

Arizona 4.9 7.5 2.5 9.2 12.6 5.8

Delaware 5.0 6.6 2.9 7.7 9.7 5.5

Florida 5.3 7.7 2.8 8.4 10.5 6.2

Georgia 5.0 7.7 2.3 8.2 9.8 6.4

Idaho 7.7 11.1 3.9 9.4 12.0 6.5

Indiana 6.2 9.7 2.7 6.7 8.4 4.9

Kentucky 7.4 11.5 3.0 5.2 7.7 2.3

Maine 6.6 11.0 1.8 8.5 10.6 5.7

Massachusetts 5.0 7.6 2.2 6.3 8.2 4.2

Michigan 5.1 6.8 3.4 9.7 12.6 6.5

Mississippi 5.2 8.6 1.8 6.6 8.1 5.2

Missouri 5.5 8.5 2.2 7.5 9.3 5.6

Montana 7.2 10.6 3.2 7.1 9.0 4.8

Nebraska 5.0 8.3 1.5 8.8 12.0 5.5

Nevada 6.3 9.0 3.5 6.0 7.0 5.0

New Hampshire 5.8 8.9 2.4 7.5 9.5 5.3

New York 5.2 7.5 2.8 7.2 9.7 4.6

North Carolina 6.3 8.3 4.3 7.2 8.2 6.1

North Dakota 5.7 9.6 1.4 5.9 7.1 4.6

Ohio 3.6 5.2 2.0 7.7 8.9 6.3

Oklahoma 8.0 13.5 2.5 7.4 7.9 6.6

Rhode Island 5.9 8.6 3.0 8.2 10.8 5.2

South Dakota 7.1 12.4 1.5 6.5 8.6 4.4

Tennessee 5.4 8.4 2.5 8.4 10.7 6.1

Texas* 5.8 9.1 2.3 7.7 9.5 5.6

Utah 5.6 8.8 2.1 7.3 9.9 4.6

Vermont 8.3 12.8 3.3 7.3 9.5 4.9

West Virginia 6.6 9.5 3.5 8.5 10.3 6.7

Wisconsin 3.2 4.2 2.2 5.5 5.9 4.8

WyomIng 10.1 16.0 3.9 9.7 13.3 5.9

Median 5.8 8.8 2.5 7.5 9.5 5.4

* Survey did not include students from one of the state's large school districts.

Source: Authors' adaptation of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Youth

risk behavior surveillance-United States, 2003.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 18 of 33
In 2003, 8% of seniors said they had

used cocaine at least once in their

life. More than half of this group

(5% of all seniors) said they used it

in the previous year, and about

In 2003, more than 3 in 4 high

school seniors said they had tried

alcohol at least once; nearly 2 in 4

said they used it in the previous

month. Even among 8th graders, the

Chapter 3: Juvenile offenders

More than half of high school seniors have used an

illicit drug at least once-more have used alcohol

The Monitoring the Future Study

tracks the drug use of secondary

school students

Each year, the Monitoring the Future (MTF) Study asks a nationally

representative sample of nearly

50,000 secondary school students in

approximately 400 public and private schools to describe their drug

use patterns through self-administered questionnaires. Surveying seniors annually since 1975, the study

expanded in 1991 to include 8th and

10th graders. By design, MTF excludes dropouts and institutionalized, homeless, and runaway youth.

In 2003, 14% of high school seniors

reported using amphetamines at

least once, making amphetamines

the second most prevalent illicit

drug after marijuana. Amphetamines also ranked second to marijuana in terms of current (past

month) use. Specifically, 6% of seniors had used methamphetamine at

least once and 4% had used ice

(crystal methamphetamine). Narcotics other than heroin were the

next most prevalent drug after amphetamines: 13% of seniors reported using a narcotic such as Vicodin,

Percocet, or Oxycontin.

one-quarter of users (2% of seniors)

had used it in the preceding 30

days. About 1 in 28 seniors reported

previous use of crack cocaine:

about I in 45 in the previous year,

and about 1 in 110 in the previous

month. Heroin was the least commonly used illicit drug, with less

than 2% of seniors reporting they

had used it at least once. Nearly

half of seniors who reported heroin

use said they only used it without a

needle.

Alcohol and tobacco use is

widespread at all grade levels

Half of seniors in 2003 said they

had used illicit drugs

In 2003, 51% of all seniors said they

had at least tried illicit drugs. The

figure was 41% for 10th graders and

23% for 8th graders. Marijuana is by

far the most commonly used illicit

drug. In 2003, 46% of high school

seniors said they had tried marijuana. About half of those in each

grade who said they had used marijuana said they had not used any

other illicit drug.

Put another way, more than half of

the 8th and 12th graders and nearly

half of the 10th graders who have

ever used an illicit drug have used

something in addition to, or other

than, marijuana. About 3 in 10 seniors (28%) (slightly more than half

of seniors who used any illicit

drugs) used an illicit drug other

than marijuana. Almost half of high

school seniors had used marijuana

at least once, 35% used it in the

past year, and 21% used it in the

previous month. MTF also asked

students if they had used marijuana

on 20 or more occasions in the previous 30 days. In 2003, 6% of high

school seniors said they used marijuana that frequently.

More high school seniors use marijuana on a daily basis than

drink alcohol daily

Proportion of seniors in 2003 who used

in lifetime in last year in last month daily*

Alcohol 76.6% 70.1% 47.5% 3.2%

Been drunk 58.1 48.0 30.9 1.6

Cigarettes 53.7 - 24.4 15.8

Marijuana/hashish 46.1 34.9 21.2 6.0

Amphetamines 14.4 9.9 5.0 0.5

Narcotics, not heroin 13.2 9.3 4.1 0.2

lnhalants 12.2 4.5 2.3 0.4

Tranquilizers 10.2 6.7 2.8 0.2

Sedatives 9.1 6.2 3.0 0.2

MDMA (ecstasy) 8.3 4.5 1.3 0.1

Cocaine, not crack 6.7 4.2 1.8 0.1

Methamphetamine 6.2 3.2 1.7 0.2

LSD 5.9 1.9 0.6 <0.1

Crystal methamphetamine 3.9 2.0 0.8 0.1

Crack cocaine 3.6 2.2 0.9 0.1

Steroids 3.5 2.1 1.3 0.2

PCP 2.5 1.3 0.6 0.2

Heroin 1.5 0.8 0.4 0.1

• Three out of 10 seniors said they were drunk at least once in the past

month.

Used on 20 or more occasions in the last 30 days.

- Not included in survey.

Source: Authors' adaptation of Johnston et al's Monitoring the Future: National survey on

drug use, 1975-2003.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 19 of 33
Drug use was more common among males than females and

among whites than blacks

Proportion of seniors who used in previous year

Male Female White Black Hispanic

Alcohol* 51.7% 43.8% 52.3% 29.9% 46.4%

Been drunk* 34.9 26.9 35.6 11.7 23.9

Cigarettes* 26.2 22.1 29.4 10.0 19.0

Marijuana/hashish 37.8 31.6 37.9 26.3 31.1

Narcotics, not heroin 10.7 7.8 10.2 2.1 5.2

Amphetamines 9.8 9.6 12.4 2.8 6.8

Tranquilizers 6.9 6.3 8.7 1.3 4.5

Sedatives 6.7 5.4 7.6 1.7 4.1

Cocaine, not crack 5.4 2.9 4.9 1.0 3.9

lnhalants 5.2 2.9 4.9 1.5 2.7

MDMA (ecstasy) 4.8 4.0 6.4 1.4 5.3

Steroids 3.2 1.1 2.4 1.1 1.8

LSD 2.5 1.2 3.0 0.8 1.8

Crack cocaine 2.3 1.9 2.2 1.2 2.9

Heroin 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.8

Note: Male and female proportions are for 2003. Race proportions include dala for 2002

and 2003, to increase subgroup sample size and provide more stable estimates.

*Alcohol and cigarette proportions are for use in the past 30 days.

Source: Authors' adaptation of Johnston et al's Monitoring the Future: National survey on

drug use, 1975-2003.

Chapter 3: Juvenile offenders

use of alcohol was common: twothirds had tried alcohol, and almost

one-fifth used it in the month prior

to the survey.

Perhaps of greater concern are the

juveniles who indicated heavy

drinking (defined as five or more

drinks in a row) in the preceding 2

weeks. Recent heavy drinking was

reported by 28% of seniors, 22% of

10th graders, and 12% of 8th

graders.

Tobacco use was less prevalent

than alcohol use, but it was the

most likely substance to be used on

a daily basis. In 2003, 54% of 12th

graders, 43% of 10th graders, and

28% of 8th graders had tried cigarettes, and 24% of seniors, 17% of

10th graders, and 10% of 8th

graders smoked in the preceding

month. In addition, 16% of seniors,

9% of 10th graders, and 5% of 8th

graders reported currently smoking

cigarettes on a daily basis. Overall,

based on various measures, tobacco use is down compared with use

levels in the early to mid-1990s.

Higher proportions of males than

females were involved in drug and

alcohol use, especially heavy use

In 2003, males were more likely than

females to drink alcohol at all and

to drink heavily. Among seniors,

52% of males and 44% of females reported alcohol use in the past 30

days, and 34% of males and 22% of

females said they had five or more

drinks in a row in the previous 2

weeks. One in 20 senior males reported daily alcohol use compared

with 1 in 50 females.

Males were more likely than females

to have used marijuana in the previous year (38% vs. 32%), in the previous month (25% vs. 17%), and daily

during the previous month (8% vs.

3%). The proportions of male and

female high school seniors reporting overall use of illicit drugs other

than marijuana in the previous year

were more similar (21% and 18%),

but there were variations across

drugs. Males had higher annual

use rates for cocaine, inhalants,

steroids, LSD, and heroin. Males

and females had similar use rates

for amphetamines.

Blacks had lower drug, alcohol,

and tobacco use rates than

whites or Hispanics

In 2003, 10% of black seniors said

they had smoked cigarettes in the

past 30 days, compared with 29% of

whites and 19% of Hispanics. Fewer

than one-third of black seniors re--

ported alcohol use in the past 30

days, compared with more than

one-half of white seniors and nearly

one-half of Hispanic seniors. Whites

were 3 times more likely than blacks

to have been drunk in the past

month (36% vs. 12%). The figure for

Hispanics was 24%.

The same general pattern held for illicit drugs. The proportion of seniors who reported using marijuana

in the past year was lower among

blacks (26%) than whites (38%) or

Hispanics (31%). Whites were nearly

5 times more likely than blacks to

have used cocaine in the previous

year. Hispanics were nearly 4 times

more likely.

Fewer than 1 in 10 high school

students used alcohol or marijuana at school

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 2003

Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 6% of

high school students said they had

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 20 of 33
High school students were nearly 3 times more likely to use

alcohol than marijuana before age 13

Percent who had used before age 13

Alcohol Marijuana

Total Male Female Total Male Female

27.8% 32.0% 23.3%

36.4 39.4 33.3

28.5 33.3 23.5

23.0 27.6 18.2

20.3 25.1 15.2

25.7 30.0 21.2

31.2 35.7 26.8

30.2 34.1 26.3

Chapter 3: Juvenfe offenders

at least one drink of alcohol on

school property in the past month.

Similarly, 6% said they used marijuana on school property during the

same time period.

Overall, males were more likely than

females to drink alcohol or use marijuana at school. This was true for

most grades and racial/ethnic

groups. Females showed more variation across grade levels than males,

with a greater proportion of 9th

graders drinking alcohol or using

marijuana at school than 12th

graders. Hispanic students were

more likely than non-Hispanic white

students to drink alcohol or use

marijuana at school.

Percent who used on school

property in the past 30 days:

Total Male Female

Alcohol

Total 5.2% 6.0% 4.2%

9th grade 5.1 5.1 5.2

10th grade 5.6 6.1 5.0

11th grade 5.0 6.4 3.5

12th grade 4.5 6.5 2.6

White 3.9 4.5 3.2

Black 5.8 7.9 3.8

Hispanic 7.6 7.4 7.9

Marijuana

Total 5.8% 7.6% 3.7%

9th grade 6.6 8.1 5.1

10th grade 5,2 7.2 3.0

11th grade 5.6 7.9 3.3

12th grade 5.0 7.1 2.6

White 4.5 5.8 3.1

Black 6.6 9.7 3.6

Hispanic 8.2 10.4 6.0

In 2003, fewer than 1 in 3 high

school students said they were

offered, sold, or given drugs at

school in the past year

Nationally, 29% of high school students said they were offered, sold,

or given an illegal drug on school

property at least once during the

past 12 months. The proportion

was higher for males than for

Total

9th grade

10th grade

11th grade

12th grade

White

Black

Hispanic

females, especially among black and

Hispanic students and among seniors. Hispanic students were more

likely than white or black students

to report being offered, sold, or

given illegal drugs at school. Among

females, seniors were less likely

than 9th, 10th, and 11th graders to

say they were offered, sold, or given

an illegal drug on school property.

Percent who were offered, sold, or

given an illegal drug on school

property in past 12 months:

Total Male Female

Total 28.7% 31.9% 25.0%

9th grade 29.5 32.1 26.7

10th grade 29.2 31.9 26.5

11th grade 29.9 33.5 26.1

12th grade 24.9 29.7 19.6

White 27.5 30.2 24.5

Black 23.1 27.7 18.3

Hispanic 36.5 40.6 32.5

9.9% 12.6% 6.9%

11.7 13.6 9.7

10.8 14.3 7.3

8.1 10.9 5.2

7.8 11.0 4.3

8.7 10.5 6.8

12.1 18.5 5.8

10.7 13.0 8.5

Drinking and driving is a

high-risk teen behavior

Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for high school

students, accounting for 77% of all

deaths in 2002 among teens ages

14-17. According to the 2003

Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance

Survey 3 in 10 high school stu

dents said that in the past month

they rode In a vehicle with a driver

who had been drinking The proportion vaned across states ranging from 18% to 43%

In addItion 3 in 25 high school stu

dents said that In the past month

they drove a vehicle after drinking

alcohol The proportion was lower

for freshmen (who typically are not

yet of driving age) than for other

high school students Across

states the proportion ranged from

7% to 27%

• Fewer than 1 in 3 high school students said they had drunk alcohol (more

than just a few sips) before they turned 13; 1 in 10 high school students reported trying marijuana before age 13.

• Females were less likely than males to have used alcohol or marijuana before age 13, and whites were less likely than blacks.

• Juniors and seniors were generally less likely to say they used alcohol or

marijuana before age 13 than were freshmen and sophomores.

Source: Authors' adaptation of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Youth

risk behavior surveillance-United States, 2003.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 21 of 33
Chapter 3: Juvenile offenders

Across states, the proportion of high school students who were offered, sold, or given an illegal drug

on school property during the past year ranged from 18% to 35%

Percent who used

marijuana on school property

in the past 30 days

Total Male Female

5.8% 7.6% 3.7%

2.6 3.5 1.7

6.5 7.9 4.9

5.6 7.4 3.9

6.0 7.4 4.4

4.9 6.8 2.9

3.2 4.4 2.0

2.7 3.7 1.5

3.8 4.9 2.7

4.3 5.8 2.6

6.3 9.1 3.3

6.3 8.6 3.9

7.0 8.4 5.5

4.4 7.3 1.5

3.0 4.0 1.9

6.4 8.6 3.8

3.9 5.4 2.3

5.3 5.5 5.1

6.6 8.6 4.2

4.5 6.0 3.0

3.5 4.9 2.0

6.3 7.9 4.4

4.2 5.0 3.4

4.3 5.6 3.1

7.4 10.3 4.5

4.5 5.6 3.4

4.1 6.3 1.9

4.8 6.8 2.7

3.7 5.9 1.3

8.0 10.0 5.7

4.5 6.6 2.3

5.1 6.4 3.8

4.5 6.4 3.1

Percent who used

alcohol on school property

in the past 30 days

Reporting states Total Male Female

U.S. total 5.2% 6.0% 4.2%

Alabama 4.1 5.4 2.7

Alaska 4.9 5.4 4.0

Arizona 6.6 9.3 4.1

Delaware 4.8 5.5 3.9

Florida 5.1 6.6 3.6

Georgia 3.7 4.3 3.1

Idaho 3.8 4.5 3.0

Indiana 3.9 4.2 3.6

Kentucky 4.8 5.4 4.1

Maine 3.7 4.9 2.1

Massachusetts 5.3 6.8 3.7

Michigan 4.6 4.9 4.3

Mississippi 4.9 6.0 3.8

Missouri 2.6 3.3 1.8

Montana 6.7 8.0 5.3

Nebraska 4.6 5.9 3.3

Nevada 7.4 7.7 7.1

New Hampshire 4.0 4.1 3.9

New York 5.2 6.5 3.9

North Carolina 3.6 3.8 3.4

North Dakota 5.1 7.5 2.6

Ohio 3.9 4.6 3.1

Oklahoma 3.2 3.4 2.7

Rhode Island 4.6 5.9 3.2

South Dakota 5.4 7.8 3.0

Tennessee 4.2 5.3 2.9

Texas* 4.6 5.7 3.4

Utah 3.8 5.0 2.7

Vermont 5.3 6.4 4.1

West Virginia 4.1 4.5 3.7

Wisconsin - - -

Wyoming 6.2 6.3 6.1

Median 4.6 5.4 3.6

Percent who were

offered, sold,or given an

illegal drug on school property

in the past year

Total Male Female

28.7% 31 .9% 25.0%

26.0 28.1 23.8

28.4 30.8 25.8

28.1 31.2 25.2

27.9 33.4 22.1

25.7 29.9 21.3

33.3 38.4 28.3

19.6 21.3 17.6

28.3 32.3 23.9

30.4 31.7 28.9

32.6 38.5 26.4

31.9 36.5 27,2

31.3 34.6 28.0

22.3 27.6 16.6

21.6 25.2 18.0

26.9 29.2 24.7

23.3 27.6 18.6

34.5 35.5 33.4

28.2 31.7 24.2

23.0 27.5 18.4

31.9 34.2 29.6

21.3 25.5 16.8

31.1 35.7 26.2

22.2 25.2 19.1

26.0 28.3 23.6

22.1 25.9 18.1

24.3 29.2 19.5

27.3 28.1 26.5

24.7 29.5 19,8

29.4 33.5 24.8

26.5 27.7 25.2

26.3 28.4 23.9

18.1 20.1 16.0

26.7 29.3 23.9

* Survey did not include students from one of the state's large school districts.

- Data not available.

Source: Authors' adaptation of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Youth risk behavior surveillance-United States, 2003.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Reporl

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 22 of 33
Chapter 3: Juvenile offenders

Juvenile illicit drug use has been relatively constant

since the mid- 1 990s after declining during the 1 980s

In 2004, the proportion of high school seniors who reported using illicit drugs in the previous month

was above levels of the early 1 990s but well below levels of the early 1980s

Percent of students reporting use in previous month

40%

35%

25 /o traders

10% 10th graders 8th gi 5%

0%

1976 80 84 88 92 96 00 2004

Percent of students reporting use in previous month

4% graders

Cocaine

1% 10th graders '8th graders

0%

1976 80 84 88 92 96 00 2004

Percent of students reporting use in previous month

25% 1

Any Illicit drug except marijuana

12th graders

10th graders

8th graders

1976 80 84 88 92 96 00 2004

Percent of students reporting use in previous month

80%

° iraderNAlcOhoI*

0 10th graders 40/s ',.........

300/

8th graders

20%

bob

1976 80 84 88 92 96 00 2004

viarijuana 20%

raders 5%

0%

• After years of continuous decline, reported drug use by high school seniors grew in several categories after 1992. Similar increases in drug use were reported by 8th and 10th graders, although their levels of use were below those of 12th

graders.

• In recent years, the proportion of students reporting use of illicit drugs during the 30 days prior to the survey appears to

have stabilized or declined for many categories of drug use. For marijuana, the most widely used illicit drug, use declined from 1997 to 2004 for 12th graders (-16%), 10th graders (-22%), and 8th graders (-37%).

• In 2004, the proportion of seniors who said they used marijuana in the past month was nearly double the proportion

who reported past-month use of illicit drugs other than marijuana (20% vs. 11%) but less than half the proportion who

reported past-month alcohol use (48%).

• Past-month cocaine use among seniors peaked in 1985 at nearly 7%. Although use levels for cocaine increased between 1992 and 1999 (100% for seniors), levels have stabilized recently (at around 2% for seniors).

• For all three grades, past-month alcohol use in 2004 was at or near its lowest levels since the mid-i 970s-48% for 12th

graders, 35% for 10th graders, and 19% for 8th graders.

* The survey question on alcohol use was revised in 1993 to indicate that a 'drink" meant more than a few sips." In 1993, half the sample

responded to the original question and halt to the revised question. Beginning in 1994, all respondents were asked the revised question.

Source: Authors' adaptation of Johnston et al's Overall teen drug use continues gradual decline; but use of inhalants rises. Monitoring the

Future press release.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 23 of 33
Over the past 3 decades, while marijuana and alcohol availability

remained constant, changes in use reflected changes in perceived

harm

Percent of seniors

100%

90% Perceived availability

80%

70% 

Marijuana

60% Perceived risk

50%

40%

30% Past month use

20%

10%

0%

1976 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 2004

Perceived availability: Percent saying fairly easy or very easy to get.

Perceived risk: Percent saying great risk of harm in regular use.

Past month use: Percent using once or more in the past 30 days.

Percent of seniors

80% 1

70%

Past month use

60%

Alcohol

50%

40%

30% Perceived risk

20%

10%

0%

1976 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 2004

Perceived risk: Percent saying great risk of harm in having five or more drinks

in a row once or twice each weekend.

Past month use: Percent using once or more in the past 30 days. (The survey

question on alcohol use was revised in 1993 to indicate that a "drink" meant

"more than a few sips." In 1993, half the sample responded to the original question and half to the revised question. Beginning in 1994, all respondents were

asked the revised question.)

Source: Authors' adaptation of Johnston et al's Overall teen drug use continues gradual

decline; but use of inhalants rises. Monitoring the Future press release.

Chapter 3: Juvenile offenders

Change in students' use of marijuana and alcohol is tied to their

perception of possible harm

from use

The annual Monitoring the Future

Study, in addition to collecting information about students' use of illicit

drugs, alcohol, and tobacco, also

collects data on students' perceptions regarding the availability of

these substances and the risk of

harm from using them.

Between 1975 and 2004, the proportion of high school seniors reporting use of marijuana in the 30 days

prior to the survey fluctuated, peaking in 1978 and then declining consistently through 1992. After that,

reported use increased then leveled

off, although the 2004 rate was still

far below the peak level of 1978.

When the perceived risk of harm

(physical or other) from either regular or occasional use of marijuana

increased, use declined; when perceived risk declined, use increased.

The perception that obtaining marijuana was "fairly easy" or "very

easy" remained relatively constant

between 1975 and 2004.

Students' reported use of alcohol

also shifted from 1975 to 2004. After

1978, alcohol use declined through

1993. Alcohol use fluctuated within

a limited range thereafter, although

the 2004 rate was far lower than the

1978 rate. As with marijuana, when

the perceived risk of harm from either weekend "binge" drinking or

daily drinking increased, use declined; when perceived risk declined, use increased.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 24 of 33
Youth ages 12-17

Used

marijuana:

/ 9%

USed _________

alcohol:

23%

Sold drugs:/

8k / Used alcohol and marijuana: 7%

/

Used alcohol and sold drugs: 5%

./ Used marijuana and sold drugs: 4%

Used alcohol and marijuana

and sold drugs: 4%

• Most youth ages 12-17 who reported using alcohol in the past 30 days did

not report using marijuana or selling drugs in the past 30 days, although

they were more likely to do so than youth who did not use alcohol.

Patterns of substance-related behavior co-occurrence were

similar among males and females ages 12-17

Male youth

ages 12-17

Used

marijuana:

10%

Used

alcohol:

23%

Sold drug

9%

,' Female youth

ages 12-17

Used

marijuana:

9%

Used

alcohol:

23%

Sold drugs:

Used alcohol and marijuana: 7%

Used alcohol and sold drugs: 4%

Used marijuana and sold drugs: 3%

Used alcohol and marijuana

and sold drugs: 3%

Used alcohol and marijuana: 8%

Used alcohol and sold drugs: 6%

Used marijuana and sold drugs: 5%

Used alcohol and marijuana

and sold drugs: 4%

• Although recent drug selling was more prevalent among males than females, the levels of alcohol and marijuana use did not differ significantly.

Source: Authors' adaptation of McCurley and Snyder's Co-occurrence of substance use

behaviors.

Chapter 3: Juvenile offenders

Youth who use alcohol are more likely than other

youth to report using marijuana and selling drugs

Juveniles report co-occurrence

of substance use behaviors

The National Longitudinal Survey of

Youth asked a representative sampie of youth ages 12-17 in 1997 and

1998 to report if in the last 30 days

they had (1) consumed alcohol, (2)

used marijuana, and (3) sold or

helped to sell any of a wide range of

drugs. Analyses found that if one

substance-related behavior was reported, others were much more

likely.

More specifically, among youth ages

12-17 who used alcohol in the past

30 days, 32% reported using marijuana and 23% reported selling

drugs; among youth who did not report using alcohol, just 2% reported

using marijuana and 3% reported

selling drugs. This pattern was seen

in both older and younger youth. Of

all youth ages 15-17 who reported

alcohol use (35% of youth in this

age group), 34% said they used marijuana and 25% reported selling

drugs. Of youth ages 15-17 who re--

ported they did not use alcohol in

the past 30 days, just 4% used marijuana and 6% sold drugs. Of youth

ages 12-14 who reported alcohol

use (11% of youth in this age

group), 27% said they used marijuana and 17% reported selling drugs.

Of youth ages 12-14 who reported

they did not use alcohol in the past

30 days, just 1% used marijuana and

1% sold drugs.

Although a significantly larger proportion of non-Hispanic white youth

(26%) reported recent alcohol use

than did non-Hispanic black (14%)

and Hispanic (22%) youth, the proportion of these youth who also reported marijuana use and drug selling was the same across the three

groups. Regardless of race/ethnicity,

that proportion was greater among

youth who used alcohol than among

those who did not.

Most youth who either used marijuana in the past 30 days or

reported selling drugs in the past 30 days also reported drinking

alcohol in the period

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 25 of 33
The number of law enforcement agencies reporting gang

problems appears to have stabilized

Percent of law enforcement agencies reporting gang problems

100% 1

Large cities

-

---. Suburban counties

Small cities

..

Rural counties

0%'

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Notes: Large cities have populations of 50,000 or more. Small cities have populations of

2,500 to 49,999. The observed changes in the percentage of agencies in small cities and

rural counties reporting gang problems between 2000 and 2004 are within the range attributable to sample error and, thus, do not indicate actual change.

Source: Authors' adaptation of Egley and Ritz's Highlights of the 2004 National Youth Gang

Survey.

Chapter 3: Juvenile offenders

iHU U

The prevalence of youth gangs declined in nonurban

areas, but gangs remain a substantial urban problem

Law enforcement agencies are

the primary source for data on

youth gangs nationwide

Accurately estimating the scope of

the youth gang problem is difficult

in part because of the lack of consensus about what "counts"—what

combination of size, stability, hierarchy, symbolic communication, and

ongoing criminal activity distinguishes a true gang from a transitory collection of individuals, not to

mention what level of involvement

in and adherence to the gang distinguishes a real member from a hangeron or "wannabe." In addition, the

available sources of information on

gangs are unreliable. Gangs are,

after all, inherently secret groups.

Outsiders are apt to miss or misinterpret signs of their presence. Insiders are liable to distort the signs.

Nevertheless, based on surveys of

local authorities, it appears that

the overall number of communities

with active youth gangs grew

sharply during the last few decades

80%

60%

40%

20%

of the 20th century, peaked in the

mid-1990s, and recently declined

somewhat.

A comparison of the number of localities reporting problems with

youth gangs during the 1970s with

the number reporting gang problems in the 1990s found a tenfold increase in gang jurisdictions—including more suburban, small-town, and

rural jurisdictions with reported

gang problems than ever before. On

the basis of law enforcement agency

responses to the 1996 National

Youth Gang Survey, which gathered

data on gangs from a representative

sample of police and sheriff departments across the country, the nation's total youth gang membership

was estimated at more than 846,000,

with 31,000 gangs operating in 4,824

local jurisdictions. Estimates based

on subsequent surveys have stead ily receded from those highs. Based

on the 2004 survey, youth gang

membership was estimated at

760,000 and total youth gangs at

24,000. Youth gangs were estimated

to be active in more than 2,900 jurisdictions served by city (population

of 2,500 or more) and county law

enforcement agencies.

The drop between 1996 and 2004 in

the number of localities reporting

gang problems was almost entirely

attributable to small cities and suburban and rural jurisdictions—

where gang problems had tended to

be relatively minor and less persistent. Nearly 8 in 10 cities with populations of 50,000 or more continued

to report gang problems. Thus,

most Americans still live in or near

areas that have problems with

youth gangs.

A third of public high school and

middle school principals report

gang activity in their schools

In a 1999-2000 survey of a nationally representative sample of public

school principals, 18% reported "undesirable gang activities" in their

schools—including 31% of the middle school and 37% of the secondary school principals. Apart from

being more common in schools lo--

cated in urban areas, in poor communities, and in communities with

large minority populations, gang activity was strongly linked with

school size: principals of schools

with enrollments of 1,000 or more

were about 4 times more likely to

report gang activity than those with

enrollments of less than 500.

In 2001 and again in 2003, as part of

the School Crime Supplement to the

National Crime Victimization Survey, students ages 12-18 were asked

about the presence of gangs in their

schools during the prior 6 months.

In both years, about 1 in 5 reported

that gangs were present. Among minority students, students in city

schools, and those in upper grades,

much higher proportions reported

gang presence. For instance, in 2003,

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 26 of 33
Chapter 3: Juvenile offenders

42% of urban Hispanic students said

they attended schools in which

gangs were present.

Youth gang members are

overwhelmingly male and

predominantly minorities

Law enforcement agencies responding to National Youth Gang Surveys

over a number of years have reported demographic details regarding

gang members in their jurisdictions,

including age, gender, and racial

and ethnic background. Although

reported characteristics varied considerably by locality—with emergent gangs in less populous areas

tending to have more white and

more female members—overall,

gang demographics have been fairly

consistent from year to year.

Estimated race/ethnicity of U.S. youth

gang members, 2004:

Hispanic 49%

Black 37

White 8

Asian 5

Other 1

Total 100%

On the basis of responses to the

2004 survey, gang membership was

estimated to be 94% male. Youth

gang membership was estimated to

consist of 41% juveniles and 59%

young adults (18 or older).

Gang demographic profiles based

on law enforcement estimates differ

from profiles emerging from youth

surveys. Self-reported gang members tend to include many more f emales and nonminority males. For

example, in one large-scale 1995 survey of public school 8th graders,

25% of self-reported gang members

were white and 38% were female.

Even when more restrictive criteria

for gang membership were applied

to these self-report results—in an

effort to filter out fringe or inactive

members and isolate only the most

active core gang members—significant demographic differences from

law enforcement estimates persisted.

Sustained gang membership is

rare even among high-risk youth

Law enforcement estimates of nationwide juvenile gang membership

suggest that no more than about 1%

of all youth ages 10-17 are gang

members. Self-reports, such as the

1997 National Longitudinal Survey

of Youth (NLSY97), find that 2% of

youth ages 12-17 (3% of males and

1% of females) say they were in a

gang in the past year. NLSY97 also

found that 8% of 17-year-olds (11%

of males and 6% of females) said

they had ever belonged to a gang.

These proportions obviously vary

considerably from place to place.

For example, researchers tracking a

sample of high-risk youth in Rochester, NY, reported that 30% joined

gangs between the ages of 14 and

18.

Gang membership tends to be

short-lived, even among high-risk

youth. Among the Rochester gang

members, half of the males and twothirds of the females stayed in

gangs for a year or less, with very

few youth remaining gang members

throughout their adolescent years.

Many factors are related to

whether youth join gangs

When asked directly what led them

to join gangs, 54% of Rochester

gang members said they had followed the lead of friends or family

members who preceded them, 19%

said they did it for protection, and

15% said it was for fun or excitement. Younger gang members were

somewhat more likely to cite protection as the primary motivation.

However they may characterize

their own motivations, gang

members' backgrounds commonly

include certain features that may

make them more inclined to join

gangs. The following risk factors

have been found to predict gang

membership:

• Individual factors: early delinquency (especially violence and

drug use) and early dating and

precocious sexual activity.

• Family factors: non-two-parent

structure, poverty, and other

gang-involved members.

• School factors: low achievement,

commitment, and aspirations;

truancy; negative labeling by

teachers; and lack of a sense of

safety in school.

• Peer factors: associations with

delinquent or aggressive peers.

• Community factors: poverty, drug

availability, gang presence, lack

of a sense of safety and attachment.

Some risk factors are more predictive than others. In a longitudinal

study of youth living in high-crime

neighborhoods in Seattle, for example, pre-adolescents (ages 10-12)

who later joined gangs were distinguished most markedly by very

early marijuana use, neighborhood

conditions making marijuana readily

available, and learning disabilities.

The presence of any of these factors

in a juvenile's background more

than tripled the odds of his or her

later becoming a gang member.

Childhood risk factors that were

predictive of later sustained (as opposed to transient) gang membership included early violence, acting

out, and association with antisocial

peers.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 27 of 33
Chapter 3: Juvenile offenders

The more risk factors present in a

youth's background, the more likely

that youth is to join a gang. In Seattle,

for example, those with two or

three identified risk factors at ages

10-12 were 3 times more likely to go

on to join a gang than those with

none or one, those with four to six

risk factors were 5 times more likely, and those with seven or more

were 13 times more likely. Having

background risk factors in more

than one area of life—that is, individual, family, community, etc.—

increases the likelihood of gang involvement even more than a general

accumulation of factors. The

Rochester study, which divided risk

factors into seven general domains,

found that 61% of the boys and 40%

of the girls with problems in all

seven areas were gang members.

Gang members are responsible

for a disproportionate share of

violent and nonviolent oftenses

By their own account, gang members are more likely to engage in

criminal activity than their peers. In

response to interview questions regarding their activities in the prior

month, Seattle gang members were

3 times more likely than nongang

members to report committing

break-ins and assaults, 4 times more

likely to report committing felony

thefts, and 8 times more likely to report committing robberies. When

asked about their activities during

the prior year, gang members were

3 times more likely to say they had

been arrested, and 5 times more

likely to say they had sold drugs.

In surveys of high-risk youth, gang

members represent a minority of

these youth but account for most

of the reported crime. In the

Rochester study, gang members

made up 30% of the sample but

accounted for 54% of the arrests,

68% of the property crimes, 69%

of the violent offenses, 70% of the

drug sales, and 82% of the serious

delinquencies. A similar study of

high-risk Denver youth found that

gang members constituted just 14%

of the sample but committed 80% of

the serious and violent crimes.

Guns are a key factor in gang

members' heightened criminality

A body of longitudinal research discredits the notion that gangs are

simply collections of antisocial individuals who would be offending at

the same rates even if they were not

organized into gangs. For one thing,

gang members have been found to

be more criminally active and violent than delinquents who are not

gang affiliated, even those who associate to the same extent with

other delinquents. Furthermore,

this heightened criminality and violence occur only during periods of

gang membership—not before or

after. Rochester juveniles who were

gang members during only 1 year

between ages 14 and 18 committed

more offenses during that 1 gang

year than they did in any of the re--

maining 3 years. Denver youth involved in gangs over some part of a

5-year period committed 85% of

their serious violent offenses, 86%

of their serious property offenses,

and 80% of their drug sales while

gang-involved. All of these findings

strongly suggest that the gang

structure itself tends to facilitate or

even demand increased involve--

ment in delinquency.

A significant factor may be the

strong association between gang

membership and gun possession.

Gang members are far more likely

than nonmembers to own or have

access to guns, to carry them on

the street, and to use them to commit crimes. Gang membership both

facilitates juveniles' access to

guns—through illegal markets and

through borrowing—and provides

strong and constant incentives for

being armed in public. Rochester

gang members' rates of gun-carrying were 10 times higher than those

of nonmembers. For these youth,

gun-carrying not only multiplies

opportunities to commit violent

crimes and raises the risk that ordinary disputes will escalate into violence—it may increase a youth's

crime-readiness by supplying an allpurpose, aggressive confidence that

unarmed youth do not have.

Gang membership has lasting

negative consequences for gang

members themselves

Being a member of a gang sharply

raises a young person's risk of being

a victim of violence, not just a perpetrator. Gangs may harm members

in subtle as well as obvious ways,

cutting them off from people and

opportunities that could help them

with the transition to adulthood and

disrupting their lives even after

they have moved beyond the gang.

Researchers tracking the lives of

Rochester gang members to age 22

found evidence of serious adult dysfunction that could not be explained

by other factors. Young adults who

had been in gangs were more likely

to have ended their education prematurely, become pregnant or had

children early, and failed to establish stable work lives—all of which

were associated with an increased

likelihood of being arrested as

adults. The differences were more

notable among those who had been

in gangs for a long time and persisted even when gang members were

compared with nonmembers who

had histories of delinquency and association with delinquent peers.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 28 of 33
Unlike violent crime by adult offenders, violent crime by juvenile

offenders peaks in the afterschool hours on school days

Offenders (per 1,000 violent crime offenders in age group)

120

Violent crime

100

6a.m. noon 6 p.m midnight 6a.m.

Offenders (per 1,000 juvenile violent crime offenders)

80

70 A

j Juvenile violent crime

60 School days

50

40

30

20

10

/'" 1'JonschooI days

0'

6a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6 am.

Offenders (per 1,000 adult violent crime offenders)

Adult violent crime

30

25 Nonschool days

20

15 School days

10

5

0-

6a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6a.m.

• The small difference in the adult patterns on school and nonschool days

probably is related to the fact that nonschool days are also weekend or

summer days.

Notes: Violent crimes include murder, violent sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault,

and simple assault. Data are from 20 states and the District of Columbia.

Source: Authors' analyses of the FBI's National Incident-Based Reporting System master

file for the year 2001 [machine-readable data file].

Chapter 3: Juvenile offenders

The daily patterns of juvenile violent. drug. and

weapons crimes differ on school and nonschool days

Peak time periods for juvenile

violent crime depend on the day

The FBI's National Incident-Based

Reporting System (NIBRS) collects

information on each crime reported

to contributing law enforcement

agencies, including the date and

time of day the crime occurred. For

calendar year 2001, agencies in 20

states and the District of Columbia

reported information on the time of

day of reported crimes. Analyses of

these data show that for many offenses juveniles commit crimes at

different times than do adults, and

the juvenile patterns vary on school

and nonschool days.

The number of violent crimes by

adult offenders increased hourly

through the morning, afternoon,

and evening hours, peaking around

10 p.m., then declining to a low

point at 6 am. In contrast, violent

crimes by juveniles peaked between

3 p.m. and 4 p.m. (the hour at the

end of the school day) and then

generally declined hour by hour

until the low point at 6 a.m. At 10

p.m. when the number of adult violent crimes peaked, the number of

violent crimes involving juvenile offenders was about half the number

at 3 p.m.

The importance of the afterschool

period in juvenile violence is confirmed when the days of the year

are divided into two groups: school

days (Mondays through Fridays in

the months of September through

May, excluding holidays) and nonschool days (the months of June

through August, all weekends, and

holidays). A comparison of the

school- and nonschool-day violent

crime patterns finds that the 3 p.m.

peak occurs only on school days

and only for juveniles. The timing of

adult violent crimes is similar on

school and nonschool days, with

one exception: the peak occurs a

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 29 of 33
Chapter 3: Juvenile offenders

little later on nonschool days (i.e.,

weekends and summer days). Finally, the time pattern of juvenile violent crimes on nonschool days is

similar to that of adults.

Afterschool programs have more

crime reduction potential than

do juvenile curfews

The number of school days in a

year is essentially equal to the number of nonschool days in a year.

Based on 2001 NIBRS data, 61% of

all violent crimes (i.e., murder,

forcible rape, robbery, aggravated

assault, and simple assault) committed by juveniles occur on school

days. In fact, I of every 5 juvenile

violent crimes (20%) occurs in the 4

hours between 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. on

school days. A smaller proportion of

juvenile violent crime (14%) occurs

during the standard juvenile curlew

hours of 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. However,

the annual number of hours in the

curlew period (i.e., 8 hours every

day in the year) is 4 times greater

than the number of hours in the 3

p.m. to 7 p.m. period on school

days (i.e., 4 hours in half of the days

in the year). Therefore, the rate of

juvenile violence in the afterschool

period is almost 6 times the rate in

the juvenile curfew period. Consequently, efforts to reduce juvenile

crime after school would appear to

have greater potential to decrease a

community's violent crime rate than

do juvenile curfews.

The daily patterns of juvenile violent crimes (including the afterschool peak on school days) are similar

for males and females and for whites and blacks

Offenders (per 1,000 male juvenile violent crime offenders)

80

70 A Male

60 I

50

School days/

6a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6a.m.

Offenders (per 1,000 white juvenile violent crime offenders)

80

70 A White

60 School daYsJ \\

6a.m. noon 6p.m. midnight 6a.m.

Offenders (per 1,000 female juvenile violent crime offenders)

80

70 A Female

60 School daYs/ \\

OflSCYS\\\

6a.m. noon 6p.m. midnight 6a.m.

Offenders (per 1,000 black juvenile violent crime offenders)

80

School days('\ Black

50 I '

20 / Nonschool da\\

6a.m. noon 6p.m. midnight 6a.m.

Note: Violent crimes include murder, violent sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. Data are from 20 states and

the District of Columbia.

Source: Authors' analyses of the FBI's National Incident-Based Reporting System master file for the year 2001 [machine-readable data fuel.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 30 of 33
b am.

Chapter 3: Juvenile offenders

Aggravated assaults by juvenile offenders peak at 3 p.m. on school days, coinciding with the end of

the school day

Offenders (per 1,000 aggravated assault offenders in age group) Offenders (per 1000 juvenile aggravated assault offenders)

1001 70

60

Aggravated assault

60 Underage 18

40

20

Age 18 and older

0'

6am. noon 6p.m. midnight 6 am.

Offenders (per 1,000 sexual assault offenders in age group)

Underage 18A

Sexual assault

40\

30

/ 'Age 18 and

20

10

0

6a.m. noon 6p.m. midnight 6a.m.

Offenders (per 1,000 robbery offenders in age group)

120

Robbery

100

6a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight

.JUVVI 1110 OVCIWIJ a000.auI

60

50

40 School days

,7nschoodays

6a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6 a.m.

Offenders (per 1000 juvenile sexual assault offenders)

60

Juvenile sexual assault

50

School days

40

30

20 

/

Nonschool day\

10

0

6 am. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6a.m.

Offenders (per 1,000 juvenile robbery offenders)

60

Juvenile robbery

50

School days /\

40

30

10

20

0

6 a.m. noon 6p.m. midnight 6 am.

• Sexual assaults by juvenile offenders spike at 8 am. and 3 p.m. on both school and nonschool days and at noon on

nonschool days.

• Unlike other violent crimes, the daily timing of robberies by juvenile offenders is similar to the adult patterns, peaking in

the late evening hours on both school and nonschool days.

• Juveniles are most likely to commit a violent sexual assault between 2 p.m. and 5 p.m., especially on school days.

• Before 8 p.m., persons are more at risk of becoming an aggravated assault victim of a juvenile offender on school days

than on nonschool days (i.e., weekends and all summer days).

Note: Data are from 20 states and the District of Columbia.

Source: Authors' analyses of the FBI's National Incident-Based Reporting System master file for the year 2001 [machine-readable data file].

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 31 of 33
Chapter 3: Juvenile offenders

Violent crime that results in injury to the victim is most likely in the afterschool hours on school days

for juvenile offenders, between 9 p.m. and midnight for adult offenders

Offenders (per 1,000 violent crime offenders in age group) Offenders (per 1,000 juvenile violent crime offenders)

120 80

A Juvenile violent crime

100

60 Sc

Violent crime with injury 70

hool da/'

with injury

40

30

20

_____________ onschooays 20

'Age 18 and older

10 -

0

6a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6a.m. 6 am. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6a.m.

In a pattern similar to that for adults, juveniles are most likely to commit a crime with a firearm

between 9 p.m. and 10 p.m.—although there is also a minor peak in the afterschool hours

Offenders (per 1,000 violent crime offenders in age group) Offenders (per 1,000 juvenile violent crime offenders)

120 60

Violent crime with firearm Juvenile violent crime

____ 0 SChoolYs/chooldays\

6a.m. noon 6 p.m midnight 6a.m. 6a.m. noon 6p.m. midnight 6a.m.

The afterschool peak in juvenile violent crime largely involves crimes with victims who are

acquaintances of the offenders

Offenders (per 1,000 juvenile violent crime offenders) Offenders (per 1,000 adult violent crime offenders)

80 40

/

Juvenile violent crime Adult violent crime

Acquaintance1 \

Acquainlance../

40 f' 20 \

30 15

_____________________

Stranger

6a.m. noon 6p.m. midnight 6a.m. 6a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6a.m.

• The timing of violent crimes by adult offenders differs substantially from the juvenile pattern. For adult offenders, violent

crimes against strangers peak in the hours after midnight; for victims who are family members, the most dangerous

hours are between 8 p.m. and 11 p.m.

Note: Violent crimes include murder, violent sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. Data are from 20 states and

the District of Columbia.

Source: Authors' analyses at the FBI's National Incident-Based Reporting System master file for the year 2001 [machine-readable data file].

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 32 of 33
Chapter 3: Juvenile offenders

Unlike violent offending, the time patterns of shoplifting are similar on school and nonschool days for

both male and female juvenile offenders—peaking between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m.

Offenders (per 1,000 male juvenile shoplifting offenders)

6 am. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6 a.m.

Offenders (per 1,000 female juvenile shoplifting offenders)

70

Female juvenile

60 shoplifting

50

40

30 /7:0ldI

10

school days

20

6a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6a.m.

The time and day patterns of drug law violations known to law enforcement for both male and female

juveniles indicate how often schools are a setting for drug crimes and their detection

Offenders (per 1,000 male juvenile drug law violation offenders) Offenders (per 1000 female juvenile drug law violation offenders)

50 Male juvenile 60

drug law vIolation Female JuvenIle

::

::

1//\tçool days drug law violation

201/

i:

Nonschool days Nonschool days

6 am. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6a.m. 6 am. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6 a.m.

• Drug law violations by both male and female juveniles peak during school hours on school days and in the late evening

hours on both school and nonschool days.

The time and day patterns of juvenile weapons law violations by males and especially by females

reflect the major role schools play in bringing these matters to the attention of law enforcement

Offenders (per 1,000 male juvenile weapons law violation offenders) Offenders (per 1,000 female juvenile weapons law violation offenders)

70 120

Male juvenile Female juvenile 60 weapons law vIolation 100 weapons law violation

50 School days ao I \ /'\

40

60 1

\School days

10 Nonschooldays

::

6a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6a.m. 6a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6a.m.

Note: Data are from 20 states and the District of Columbia.

Source: Authors' analyses of the FBI's National Incident-Based Reporting System master file for the year 2001 [machine-readable data file].

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 33 of 33
Chapter 3: Juvenile offenders

IL. U

Sources

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Victim's

perception of the age of the offender in serious violent crime, 1973-2003.

Key facts at a glance. Revised December 12, 2004 <www.ojp.usdoj.

gov/bjs/glance/tables/offagetab.htm>.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S.

Department of Labor. 2002. National

Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997

cohort, 1997-2001 (rounds 1-5)

[machine-readable data file]. Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research

Center, University of Chicago [producer]. Columbus, OH: Center for

Human Resource Research, Ohio

State University [distributor].

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2004. Youth Risk Behavior

Surveillance-United States, 2003.

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 53(SS-2).

DeVoe, J., Peter, K., Kaufman, P.,

Miller, A., Noonan, M., Snyder, T.,

and Baum, K. 2004. Indicators of

School Crime and Safety: 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Departments of Education and Justice.

Egley, A. 2000. Highlights of the 1999

National Youth Gang Survey. OJJDP

Fact Sheet (#20). Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Egley, A. 2002. National Youth Gang

Survey trends from 1996 to 2000.

OJJDP Fact Sheet (#03). Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Egley, A. 2005. Highlights of the

2002-2003 National Youth Gang Surveys. OJJDP Fact Sheet (#01). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Egley, A., and Arjunan, M. 2002.

Highlights of the 2000 National

Youth Gang Survey. OJJDP Fact

Sheet (#04). Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Egley, A., and Major, A. 2003. Highlights of the 2001 National Youth

Gang Survey. OJJDP Fact Sheet

(#0 1). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention.

Egley, A., and Major, A. 2004. Highlights of the 2002 National Youth

Gang Survey. OJJDP Fact Sheet

(#01). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention.

Egley, A., and Ritz, C. Forthcoming.

Highlights of the 2004 National

Youth Gang Survey. OJJDP Fact

Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention.

Elliott, D. 1994. Serious violent offenders: Onset, developmental

course, and termination. Criminology, 32(1).

Esbensen, E., Winfree, L., He, N., and

Taylor, T. 2001. Youth gangs and definitional issues: When is a gang a

gang, and why does it matter?

Crime & Delinquency, 47(1).

Federal Bureau of Investigation.

2003. National Incident-Based Reporting System master file for the year

2001 [machine-readable data files].

Washington, DC: FBI.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. Various years. Crime in the United

States for the years 1980 through

2003. Washington, DC: FBI.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. Various years. Supplementary Horn icide

Reports for the years 1980 through

2002 [machine-readable data files].

Washington, DC: FBI.

Hill, K., Lui, C., and Hawkins, J. 2001.

Early precursors of gang membership: a study of Seattle youth. OJJDP

Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Johnston, L., O'Malley, P., Bachman,

J., and Schulenberg, J. 2004. Demographic subgroup trends for various

licit and illicit drugs, 1975-2003.

Monitoring the Future Occasional

Paper (No. 60). Ann Arbor, Ml: Institute for Social Research.

Johnston, L., O'Malley, P., Bachman,

J., and Schulenberg, J. 2004. Monitoring the Future: National survey

results on drug use, 1975-2003. Volume I: Secondary school students

(NIH Publication No. 04-5507).

Bethesda, MD: National Institute on

Drug Abuse.

Johnston, L., O'MaIIey, P., Bachman,

J., and Schulenberg, J. 2004. Overall

teen drug use continues gradual decline; but use of inhalants rises.

Monitoring the Future press release.

Released December 21, 2004

<www.monitoringthefuture.org/

press. html>.

Loeber, R., KaIb, L., and Huizinga, D.

2001. Juvenile delinquency and serious injury victimization. OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

-

-

S.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-7 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 38
Chapter 3: Juvenile offenders

McCurley, C. 2005. Self-reported lawviolating behavior from adolescence

to early adulthood in a modern cohort. Unpublished manuscript. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

McCurley, C., and Snyder, H. Forthcoming. Co-occurrence of substance

use behaviors. OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

McCurley, C., and Snyder, H. Forthcoming. Risk, protection, and family

structure. OJJDP Juvenile Justice

Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention.

Miller, W. 2001. The Growth of Youth

Gang Problems in the United States:

1970-98 Report. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Moore, J., and Terrett, C. 1998. Highlights of the 1996 National Youth

Gang Survey. OJJDP Fact Sheet (#86).

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Thornberry, T., Huizinga, D., and

Loeber, R. 2004. The Causes and

Correlates Studies: Findings and

policy implications. Juvenile Justice,

(IX) 1.

Thornberry, T., Krohn, M., Lizotte,

A., Smith, C., and Tobin, K. 2003.

Gangs and Delinquency in Developmental Perspective. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

Wyrick, P., and Howell, J. 2004.

Strategic risk-based response to

youth gangs. Juvenile Justice, (IX)1.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-7 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 38
Juvenile Offenders

and Victims: 2006

National Report

Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process ......93

History and overview of the juvenile justice system ...............94

U.S. Supreme Court cases and the juvenile justice system .........100

State definitions of juvenile court jurisdiction ....................103

Juvenile justice system case processing .........................104

Public access to juvenile proceedings ...........................108

State provisions for trying juveniles as adults ....................110

Judicial waiver, concurrent jurisdiction, and statutory exclusion . . . 112

Blendedsentencing ..........................................115

Juveniles in the federal justice system ..........................117

Chapter4 sources ............................................119

Copyright 2006

National Center for Juvenile Justice

3700 S. Water Street, Suite 200

Pittsburgh, PA 15203-2363

Suggested citation: Snyder, Howard N., and Sickmund, Melissa. 2006. Juvenile

Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-7 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 3 of 38
Chapter 4

Juvenile justice system

structure and process

The first juvenile court in the United

States was established in Chicago in

1899, more than 100 years ago. In

the long history of law and justice,

juvenile justice is a relatively new

development. The juvenile justice

system has weathered significant

modifications since the late 1960s,

resulting from Supreme Court decisions, federal legislation, and

changes in state legislation.

Perceptions of a juvenile crime epidemic in the early 1990s fueled public scrutiny of the system's ability to

effectively control violent juvenile

offenders. As a result, states adopted numerous legislative changes in

an effort to crack down on juvenile

crime. Although some differences

between the criminal and juvenile

justice systems have diminished in

recent years, the juvenile justice

system remains unique, guided by

its own philosophy and legislation

and implemented by its own set of

agencies.

This chapter describes the juvenile

justice system, focusing on structure and process features that relate

to delinquency and status offense

matters. (The chapter on victims

discusses the handling of child maltreatment matters.) Sections in this

chapter provide an overview of the

history of juvenile justice in this

country, present the significant

Supreme Court decisions that have

shaped the modern juvenile justice

system, and describe case processing in the juvenile justice system.

This chapter also summarizes

changes made by states with regard

to the system's jurisdictional

authority, sentencing, corrections

programming, confidentiality of

records and court hearings, and victim involvement in court hearings.

Much of the information was drawn

from National Center for Juvenile

Justice analyses of juvenile codes in

each state. (Note: For ease of discussion, the District of Columbia is

often referred to as a state.)

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-7 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 4 of 38
Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process

• i:

The juvenile justice system was founded on the concept

of rehabilitation through individualized justice

Early in U.S. history, children

who broke the law were treated

the same as adult criminals

Throughout the late 18th century,

"infants" below the age of reason

(traditionally age 7) were presumed

to be incapable of criminal intent

and were, therefore, exempt from

prosecution and punishment. Children as young as 7, though, could

stand trial in criminal court for offenses committed and, if found

guilty, could be sentenced to prison

or even given a death sentence.

The 19th-century movement that led

to the establishment of the juvenile

court in the U.S. had its roots in

16th-century European educational

reform movements. These earlier reform movements changed the perception of children from one of

John Augustus—planting the

seeds of juvenile probation

(1847)

I bailed nineteön boys, from 7 to

15 years of age and in bailing them

it was understood and agreed by

the court, that their cases should

be continued from term to term for

several months, as a season of probation thus each month at the call

ing of the docket, I would appear in

court make my report and thus the

cases would pass on for 5 or 6

months At the expiration of this

term, twelve of the boys were

brought into court at one time and

the scene formed a striking and

highly pleasing contrast with their

appearance when first arraigned

The judge expressed much plea

sure as well as surpnse at their appearance and remarked that the

object of. law had bee accomplished and expressed his cordial

approval of my plan to save and

reform."

miniature adults to one of persons

with less than fully developed moral

and cognitive capacities.

As early as 1825, the Society for the

Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency

was advocating the separation of juvenile and adult offenders. Soon, f aduties exclusively for juveniles were

established in most major cities. By

mid-century, these privately operated youth "prisons" were under criticism for various abuses. Many

states then took on the responsibility of operating juvenile facilities.

The first juvenile court in this

country was established in Cook

County, Illinois, in 1899

Illinois passed the Juvenile Court

Act of 1899, which established the

nation's first juvenile court. The

British doctrine of parens patriae

(the state as parent) was the rationale for the right of the state to intervene in the lives of children in a

manner different from the way it intervenes in the lives of adults. The

doctrine was interpreted to mean

that, because children were not of

full legal capacity, the state had the

inherent power and responsibility to

provide protection for children

whose natural parents were not providing appropriate care or supervision. A key element was the focus

on the welfare of the child. Thus, the

delinquent child was also seen as in

need of the court's benevolent

intervention.

Juvenile courts flourished for the

first halt of the 20th century

By 1910, 32 states had established

juvenile courts and/or probation

services. By 1925, all the rest but

two had followed suit. Rather than

merely punishing delinquents for

their crimes, juvenile courts sought

to turn delinquents into productive

citizens—through treatment.

Louise deKoven Bowen—

fighting to make Chicago

safe for chIldren (1920)

"Probably no one thing has so

tended to decrease delinquency as

this public movement to furnish

constructive recreational and social

opportunities to boys and girls who

would otherwise be denied these

privllege&'

The mission to help children in

trouble was stated clearly in the

laws that established juvenile

courts. This benevolent mission led

to procedural and substantive differences between the juvenile and

criminal justice systems.

During the next 50 years, most juvenile courts had exclusive original jurisdiction over all youth under age

18 who were charged with violating

criminal laws. Only if the juvenile

court waived its jurisdiction in a

case could a child be transferred to

criminal court and tried as an adult.

Transfer decisions were made on a

case-by-case basis using a "best interests of the child and public" standard, and were thus within the

realm of individualized justice.

The focus on offenders and not

offenses, on rehabilitation and

not punishment, had substantial

procedural impact

Unlike the criminal justice system,

where district attorneys selected

cases for trial, the juvenile court

controlled its own intake. And unlike criminal prosecutors, juvenile

court intake considered extra-legal

as well as legal factors in deciding

how to handle cases. Juvenile court

intake also had discretion to handle

cases informally, bypassing judicial

action.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-7 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 5 of 38
Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process

The first cases in juvenile court

After years :of development and

months of compromise the Illinois

legislature passed on April 14 1899

a law permitting counties in the state

to designate one or more of their cir

cult court judges to hear all cases In

voMng dependent, neglected, and

delinquent children younger than

age 16 The legislation stated that

these cases were to be heard in a

special courtroom that would be des

ignated as "the juvenile court room

and referred to as the "Juvenile

Court." Thus, the firstjuvenlle court

opened in Cook County on July 3

1899, was not a new court but a division of the circuit court with ongunal

junsdiction over juvenile cases

The judge assigned to this new divi

SPOIl was Richard Tuthill a Civil War

veteran who had been a circuit court

judge for more than 10 years The

first case heard by Judge Tuthill in

juvenile court was that of Henry

Campbell, an 11 year old who had

been arrested for larceny The hear

ing was a public event While some

tried to make the juvenile proceeding

secret the politics of the day would

not permit it The local papers car

nod stories about what had come to

be known as "child saving" by some

and "child slavery" by others *

At the heanng Henry Campbell s

parents told Judge Tuthill that their

son was a good boy who had been

led into trouble by others, an argu

ment consistent with the underlying

philosophy of the court—that individuals (especially juveniles) were not

solely responsible for the crimes they

commit. The parents did not want

young Henry sent to an institution,

which was one of the few options

available to the judge. Although the enacting legislation granted the new juvenile court the right to appoint probation

officers to handle juvenile cases, the

officers were not to receive publicly

funded compensation. Thus, the judge

had no probation staff to provide services to Henry. The parents suggested

that Henry be sent to live with his

grandmother in Rome, New York. After

questioning the parents, the judge

agreed to send Henry to his grandmother's in the hope that he would

"escape the surroundings which have

caused the mischieV' This first case

was handled informally, without a formal adjudication of delinquency on the

youth's record.

Judge Tuthill's first formal case is not

known for certain, but the case of

Thomas Majcheski (handled about two

weeks after the Campbell case) might

serve as an example. Majcheski, a 14-

year-old, was arrested for stealing

grain from a freight car in a railroad

yard, a common offense at the time.

The arresting officer told the judge that

the boys father was dead and his

mother (a washerwoman with nine

children) could not leave work to come

to court. The officer also said that the

boy had committed similar offenses

previously but had never been arrested. The boy admitted the crime The

judge then asked the nearly 300 people in the courtroom if they had anything to say. No one responded.

Still without a probation staff in place,

the judge's options were limited: dismiss the matter, order incarceration

at the state reformatory, or transfer

the case to adult court. The judge decided the best alternative was incàrceration in the state reformatory,

where the youth would "have the

benefit of schooling:'

A young man in the audience then

stood up and told the judge that the

sentence was inappropriate. Newspaper accounts indicate that the objector made the case that the boy was

just trying to obtain food for his family. Judge Tuthill then asked if the objector would be willing to take charge

of the boy and help him become a

better citizen. The young man accepted. On the way out of the courtroom,

a reporter asked the young man of

his plans for Thomas. The young man

said "Clean him up, and get him

some clothes and then take him to

my mother. She'll know what to do

with him:'

In disposing of the case in this manner, Judge Tuthull ignored many pos

sible concerns (e.g., the rights and desires of Thomas's mother and the

qualifications of the young man—or

more directly, the young man's mother). Nevertheless, the judge's actions

demonstrated that the new court was

not a place of punishment. The judge

also made it clear that the community

had to assume much of the responsibility if it wished to have a successful

juvenile justice system.

Beginning in the 1850s private societies in New York City rounded up street children from the urban ghettos and sent

them to farms in the Midwest Child advocates were concerned that these home finding agencies did not properly screen

or monitor the foster homes pointing out that the societies were paid by the county to assume responsibility for the children

and also by the families who received the children Applying this concern to the proposed juvenile court, the Illinois legislation stated that juvenile court hearings should be open to the public so the public could monitor the activities of the court to

ensure that private organizations would not be able to gain custody of children and then sell" them for a handsome profit

and would not be able to impose their standards of morality or religious beliefs on working-class children

Source Authors adaptation of Tanenhaus JuvenIle just,ce In the making

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-7 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 6 of 38
Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process

In the courtroom, juvenile court

hearings were much less formal

than criminal court proceedings. In

this benevolent court—with the express purpose of protecting children

—due process protections afforded

criminal defendants were deemed

unnecessary. In the early juvenile

courts, and even in some to this

day, attorneys for the state and the

youth are not considered essential

to the operation of the system, especially in less serious cases.

A range of dispositional options was

available to a judge wanting to help

rehabilitate a child. Regardless of offense, outcomes ranging from warnings to probation supervision to

training school confinement could

be part of the treatment plan. Dispositions were tailored to "the best interests of the child." Treatment lasted until the child was "cured" or

became an adult (age 21), whichever

came first.

As public confidence in the

treatment model waned, due

process protections were

introduced

In the 1950s and 1960s, many came

to question the ability of the juve--

nile court to succeed in rehabilitating delinquent youth. The treatment

techniques available to juvenile justice professionals often failed to

reach the desired levels of effectiveness. Although the goal of rehabilitation through individualized justice—

the basic philosophy of the juvenile

justice system—was not in question,

professionals were concerned about

the growing number of juveniles institutionalized indefinitely in the

name of treatment.

In a series of decisions beginning in

the l960s, the U.S. Supreme Court

required that juvenile courts become

more formal—more like criminal

courts. Formal hearings were now

required in waiver situations, and

delinquents facing possible confinement were given protection against

self-incrimination and rights to receive notice of the charges against

them, to present witnesses, to question witnesses, and to have an attorney. Proof "beyond a reasonable

doubt" rather than merely "a pre--

ponderance of evidence" was now

required for an adjudication. The

Supreme Court, however, still held

that there were enough "differences

of substance between the criminal

and juvenile courts .. . to hold that

a jury is not required in the latter."

(See Supreme Court decisions later

in this chapter.)

Meanwhile, Congress, in the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and

Control Act of 1968, recommended

that children charged with noncriminal (status) offenses be handled outside the court system. A few years

later, Congress passed the Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Act of 1974, which as a condition for

state participation in the Formula

Grants Program required deinstitutionalization of status offenders and

nonoffenders as well as the separation of juvenile delinquents from

adult offenders. (In the 1980 amendments to the 1974 Act, Congress

added a requirement that juveniles

be removed from adult jail and lockup facilities.) Community-based programs, diversion, and deinstitutionalization became the banners of

juvenile justice policy in the 1970s.

In the 1980s, the pendulum began

to swing toward law and order

During the 1980s, the public perceived that serious juvenile crime

was increasing and that the system

was too lenient with offenders. Although there was substantial misperception regarding increases in

juvenile crime, many states responded by passing more punitive laws.

Some laws removed certain classes

of offenders from the juvenile justice

system and handled them as adult

criminals in criminal court. Others

required the juvenile justice system

to be more like the criminal justice

system and to treat certain classes

of juvenile offenders as criminals

but in juvenile court.

As a result, offenders charged with

certain offenses now are excluded

from juvenile court jurisdiction or

face mandatory or automatic waiver

to criminal court. In several states,

concurrent jurisdiction provisions

give prosecutors the discretion to

file certain juvenile cases directly in

criminal court rather than juvenile

court. In some states, certain adjudicated juvenile offenders face mandatory sentences.

The 1990s saw unprecedented

change as state legislatures

cracked down on juvenile crime

Five areas of change emerged as

states passed laws designed to combat juvenile crime. These laws generally involved expanded eligibility

for criminal court processing and

adult correctional sanctioning and

reduced confidentiality protections

for a subset of juvenile offenders.

Between 1992 and 1997, all but three

states changed laws in one or more

of the following areas:

• Transfer provisions—Laws made

it easier to transfer juvenile offenders from the juvenile justice system to the criminal justice system

(45 states).

• Sentencing authority—Laws gave

criminal and juvenile courts

expanded sentencing options (31

states).

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-7 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 7 of 38
Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process

Several core requirements of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention Act address custody Issues

• Confidentiality—Laws modified

or removed traditional juvenile

court confidentiality provisions

by making records and proceedings more open (47 states).

In addition to these areas, there was

change relating to:

• Victims rights—Laws increased

the role of victims of juvenile

crime in the juvenile justice

process (22 states).

• Correctional programming—As a

result of new transfer and sentencing laws, adult and juvenile

correctional administrators

developed new programs.

The 1980s and 1990s saw significant

change in terms of treating more juvenile offenders as criminals. Recently, states have been attempting

to strike a balance in their juvenile

justice systems among system and

offender accountability, offender

competency development, and community protection. Juvenile code

purpose clauses also incorporate

restorative justice language (offenders repair the harm done to victims

and communities and accept responsibility for their actions).

Some juvenile codes emphasize

prevention and treatment goals,

some stress punishment, but

most seek a balanced approach

States vary in how they express the

purposes of their juvenile courts—

not just in the underlying assumptions and philosophies, but also in

the approaches they take to the

task. Some declare their goals and

objectives in great detail; others

mention only the broadest of aims.

Many juvenile court purpose clauses have been amended over the

years, reflecting philosophical or

rhetorical shifts and changes in emphasis in the states' overall

The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention Act of 2002 (the Act)

establishes four custody related

requirements.

The "deinstltutlonallzatlon of status

offenders and nonoffenders' re

quirement (1974) specifies that juveniles not charged with acts that would

be crimes for adults "shall not be

placed in secure detention facilities or

secure correctional facilities." This requirement does not apply to juveniles

charged with violating a valid court

ordór or possessing a handgun, or

those held under interstate compacts.

The "sight and sound separation"

requirement (1974) specifies that, "juveniles alleged to be or found to be

delinquent and (status offenders and

nonoffenders] shall not be detained or

confined in any Institution in which

they have contact with adult inmates"

in custody because they are awaiting

trial on criminal charges or have been

convicted of a crime. This requires

that juvenile and adult inmates cannot

see each other and no conversation

between them is possible.

The "jail and lockup removal" re--

quirement (1980) states that juveniles

shall not be detained or confined in

adult jails or lockups. There are, howevr, several exceptions. There is a 6-

hour grace period that allows adult

jails and lockups to hold delinquents

temporarily while awaiting transfer to

a juvenile facility or making court appearances. (This exception applies

only if the facility can maintain sight

and Sound separation) Under certain

conditions, jails and lockups in rural

areas may hold delinquents awaiting

initial court appearance up to 48

hours. Some jurisdictions have obtained approval for separate juvenile

detention centers that are collocated

with an adult facility; in addition, staff

who work with both juveniles and adult

Inmates must be trained and certified

to work with juveniles.

Regulations implementing the Act exempt juveniles held in secure adult fa

cilities if the juvenile is being tried as a

criminal for a felony or has been convicted as a criminal felon Regulations

also allow adjudicated delinquents to

be transferred to adult institutions once

they have reached the states age of

full criminal responsibility, where such

transfer is expressly authorized by

state law.

In the past, the "dIsproportionate minority confInement" (0MG) requirement (1988) focused on the extent to

which minority youth were confined in

proportions greater than their repre--

sentation in the population. The 2002

Act broadened the DMC concept to

encompass all stages of the juvenile

justice process; thus, 0MG has come

to mean dIsproportionate mInorIty

cOntact.

States must agree to comply with each

requirement to receive Formula Grants

funds under the Acts provisions

States must submit plans outlining

their strategy for meeting these and

other statutory requirements. Noncompliance with core requirements results

in the loss of at least 20% of the

state's annual Formula Grants Program allocation per requirement.

As of 2005, 56 of 57 eligible states and

territones were participating in the For

mula Grants Program Annual state

monitoring reports show that the vast

majonty were in compliance with the

requirements either reporting no viola

tions or meeting de minimis or other

compliance criterIa.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-7 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 8 of 38
States' juvenile code purpose clauses vary in their emphasis

Juvenile Legislative Accountability/ Child

BARJ Court Act Guide protection welfare

State features language language emphasis emphasis

Alabama

Alaska

Arkansas

California

Connecticut

Dist. of Columbia U

Florida

Georgia U

Hawaii U

Idaho

Illinois U

Indiana U

Iowa

Kansas U

Kentucky U

Louisiana

Maine U U

Maryland U

Massachusetts

Michigan U

Minnesota U

Mississippi U

Missouri

Montana

Nevada

New Hampshire •

NewJersey U U U

New Mexico

North Carolina U

North Dakota •

Ohio U

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island •

South Carolina •

Tennessee U

Texas • •

Utah •

Vermont U

Washington U

West Virginia •

Wisconsin U

Wyoming U U

Note: States not listed do not have purpose clauses that fit into these categories.

Source: Authors' adaptation of Griffin and Bozynski's National overviews. State juvenile

justice profiles.

Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process

approaches to juvenile delinquency.

Others have been left relatively untouched for decades. Given the

changes in juvenile justice in recent

decades, it is remarkable how many

states still declare their purposes in

language first developed by standardssetting agencies in the 1950s and

1960s.

Most common in state purpose

clauses are components of Balanced

and Restorative Justice (BARJ).

BARJ advocates that juvenile courts

give balanced attention to three primary interests: public safety, individual accountability to victims and

the community, and development of

skills to help offenders live lawabiding and productive lives. Some

states are quite explicit in their

adoption of the BARJ model. Others

depart somewhat from the model in

the language they use, often relying

on more traditional terms (treatment, rehabilitation, care, guidance,

assistance, etc.).

Several states have purpose clauses

that are modeled on the one in the

Standard Juvenile Court Act. The

Act was originally issued in 1925 and

has been revised numerous times.

The 1959 version appears to have

been the most influential. According

to its opening provision, the purpose of the Standard Act was that

"each child coming within the jurisdiction of the court shall receive.

the care, guidance, and control that

will conduce to his welfare and the

best interest of the state, and that

when he is removed from the control of his parents the court shall secure for him care as nearly as possible equivalent to that which they

should have given him."

Another group of states use all or

most of a more elaborate, multipart

purpose clause contained in the

Legislative Guide for Drafting Family

and Juvenile CourtActs, a late 1960s

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-7 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 9 of 38
Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process

publication. The Guides opening

section lists four purposes:

• To provide for the care, protection, and wholesome mental and

physical development of children

involved with the juvenile court.

• To remove from children committing delinquent acts the consequences of criminal behavior, and

to substitute therefore a program

of supervision, care and rehabilitation.

• To remove a child from the home

only when necessary for his

welfare or in the interests of public safety.

• To assure all parties their constitutional and other legal rights.

Purpose clauses in some states can

be loosely characterized as "tough,"

in that they stress community protection, offender accountability,

crime reduction through deterrence, or outright punishment.

Texas and Wyoming, for instance,

having largely adopted the multipurpose language of the Legislative

Guide, pointedly insert two extra

items—"protection of the public and

public safety" and promotion of "the

concept of punishment for criminal

acts"—at the head of the list.

A few jurisdictions have statutory

language that emphasizes promotion of the welfare and best interests

of the juvenile as the sole or primary purpose of the juvenile court

system. For example, Massachusetts

has language stating that accused juveniles should be "treated, not as

criminals, but as children in need of

aid, encouragement and guidance."

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-7 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 10 of 38
Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process

LI.I U*i

U.S. Supreme Court cases have had an impact on the

character and procedures of the juvenile justice system

The Supreme Court has made its

mark on juvenile justice

Issues arising from juvenile delinquency proceedings rarely come before the U.S. Supreme Court. Beginning in the late 1960s, however, the

Court decided a series of landmark

cases that dramatically changed the

character and procedures of the juvenile justice system.

Kent v. United States

383 U.S. 541,86 S.Ct. 1045 (1966)

In 1961, while on probation from an

earlier case, Morris Kent, age 16,

was charged with rape and robbery.

Kent confessed to the offense as

well as to several similar incidents,

Assuming that the District of Columbia juvenile court would consider

waiving jurisdiction to the adult system, Kent's attorney filed a motion

requesting a hearing on the issue of

jurisdiction.

The juvenile court judge did not rule

on this motion filed by Kent's attorney. Instead, he entered a motion

stating that the court was waiving

jurisdiction after making a "full investigation." The judge did not describe the investigation or the

grounds for the waiver. Kent was

subsequently found guilty in criminal court on six counts of housebreaking and robbery and sentenced

to 30 to 90 years in prison.

Kent's lawyer sought to have the

criminal indictment dismissed, arguing that the waiver had been invalid.

He also appealed the waiver and

filed a writ of habeas corpus asking

the state to justify Kent's detention.

Appellate courts rejected both the

appeal and the writ, refused to scrutinize the judge's "investigation,"

and accepted the waiver as valid. In

appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court,

Kent's attorney argued that the

judge had not made a complete

investigation and that Kent was denied constitutional rights simply because he was a minor.

The Court ruled the waiver invalid,

stating that Kent was entitled to a

hearing that measured up to 'the essentials of due process and fair

treatment," that Kent's counsel

should have had access to all

records involved in the waiver, and

that the judge should have provided

a written statement of the reasons

for waiver.

Technically, the Kent decision applied only to D.C. courts, but its impact was more widespread. The

Court raised a potential constitutional challenge to parens patriae as the

foundation of the juvenile court. In

its past decisions, the Court had interpreted the equal protection

clause of the 14th amendment to

mean that certain classes of people

could receive less due process if a

"compensating benefit" came with

this lesser protection. In theory, the

juvenile court provided less due

process but a greater concern for

the interests of the juvenile. The

Court referred to evidence that this

compensating benefit may not exist

in reality and that juveniles may receive the "worst of both worlds"—

"neither the protection accorded to

adults nor the solicitous care and regenerative treatment postulated for

children."

In re Gault

387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428 (1967)

Gerald Gault, age 15, was on probation in Arizona for a minor property

offense when, in 1964, he and a

friend made a crank telephone call

to an adult neighbor, asking her, "Are

your cherries ripe today?" and "Do

you have big bombers?" Identified

by the neighbor, the youth were arrested and detained.

The victim did not appear at the adjudication hearing, and the court

never resolved the issue of whether

Gault made the "obscene" remarks.

Gault was committed to a training

school for the period of his minority.

The madmum sentence for an adult

would have been a $50 fine or 2

months in jail.

An attorney obtained for Gault after

the trial filed a writ of habeas corpus that was eventually heard by

the U.S. Supreme Court. The issue

presented in the case was that

Gault's constitutional rights (to notice of charges, counsel, questioning

of witnesses, protection against selfincrimination, a transcript of the

proceedings, and appellate review)

were denied.

The Court ruled that in hearings

that could result in commitment to

an institution, juveniles have the

right to notice and counsel, to question witnesses, and to protection

against self-incrimination. The

Court did not rule on a juvenile's

right to appellate review or transcripts, but encouraged the states

to provide those rights.

The Court based its ruling on the

fact that Gault was being punished

rather than helped by the juvenile

court. The Court explicitly rejected

the doctrine of parens patriae as the

founding principle of juvenile justice, describing the concept as

murky and of dubious historical relevance. The Court concluded that

the handling of Gault's case violated

the due process clause of the 14th

amendment: "Juvenile court history

has again demonstrated that unbridled discretion, however benevolently motivated, is frequently a

poor substitute for principle and

procedure."

-

I,

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-7 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 11 of 38
Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process

In re Winship

397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068 (1970)

Samuel Winship, age 12, was

charged with stealing $112 from a

woman's purse in a store. A store

employee claimed to have seen Winship running from the scene just

before the woman noticed the

money was missing; others in the

store stated that the employee was

not in a position to see the money

being taken.

Winship was adjudicated delinquent

and committed to a training school.

New York juvenile courts operated

under the civil court standard of a

"preponderance of evidence." The

court agreed with Winship's attorney that there was "reasonable

doubt" of Winship's guilt, but based

its ruling on the "preponderance" of

evidence.

Upon appeal to the Supreme Court,

the central issue in the case was

whether "proof beyond a reasonable

doubt" should be considered among

the "essentials of due process and

fair treatment" required during the

adjudicatory stage of the juvenile

court process. The Court rejected

lower court arguments that juvenile

courts were not required to operate

on the same standards as adult

courts because juvenile courts were

designed to "save" rather than to

"punish" children. The Court ruled

that the "reasonable doubt" standard should be required in all delinquency adjudications.

McKeiver v. Pennsylvania

403 U.S. 528, 91 S.Ct. 1976 (1971)

Joseph McKeiver, age 16, was

charged with robbery, larceny, and

receiving stolen goods. He and 20 to

30 other youth allegedly chased 3

youth and took 25 cents from them.

A series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions made juvenile courts more like criminal courts but maintained

some important differences

I Waiver of a juvenile to criminal court

I following adjudication in juvenile court

constitutes double jeopardy.

...

. ',(•II ,. .' ........................

Courts must provide the essen- ., . ..

,. .

tials of due process in transferring ' .

.

juveniles to the adult system. The press may report juvenile court

proceedings under certain circumstances.

In hearings that could result in commit- •1 ment to an institution, juveniles have

four basic constitutional rights. l Defendant's youthful age should be considered a mitigating factor in deciding

whether to apply the death penalty. :;?-I

::r:

- Minimum age for death

In delinquency matters the state penalty is set at 18

must prove its case beyond a Preventive pretrial" detention of

reasonable doubt. juveniles is allowable under certain

circumstances.

I i 1;A" 2

required In juvenile court hearings.

Jury trials are not constitutionally

1 - .

Ta 1 -

Minimum age for death penalty I I I issetatl6.

I I i I

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 2005

Death penalty case decisions are discussed in chapter 7.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-7 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 12 of 38
Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process

McKeiver met with his attorney for

only a few minutes before his adjudicatory hearing. At the hearing, his

attorney's request for a jury trial

was denied by the court. He was

subsequently adjudicated and

placed on probation.

The state supreme court cited recent decisions of the U.S. Supreme

Court that had attempted to include

more due process in juvenile court

proceedings without eroding the essential benefits of the juvenile court.

The state supreme court affirmed

the lower court, arguing that of all

due process rights, trial by jury is

most likely to "destroy the traditional character of juvenile proceedings."

The U.S. Supreme Court found that

the due process clause of the 14th

amendment did not require jury trials in juvenile court. The impact of

the Court's Gault and Winship decisions was to enhance the accuracy

of the juvenile court process in the

fact-finding stage. In McKeiver, the

Court argued that juries are not

known to be more accurate than

judges in the adjudication stage and

could be disruptive to the informal

atmosphere of the juvenile court,

tending to make it more adversarial.

Breed v. Jones

421 U.S. 519, 95 S.Ct. 1779 (1975)

In 1970, Gary Jones, age 17, was

charged with armed robbery. Jones

appeared in Los Angeles juvenile

court and was adjudicated delinquent on the original charge and

two other robberies.

At the dispositional hearing, the

judge waived jurisdiction over the

case to criminal court. Counsel for

Jones filed a writ of habeas corpus,

arguing that the waiver to criminal

court violated the double jeopardy

clause of the fifth amendment. The

court denied this petition, saying

that Jones had not been tried twice

because juvenile adjudication is not

a "trial" and does not place a youth

in jeopardy.

Upon appeal, the U.S. Supreme

Court ruled that an adjudication in

juvenile court, in which a juvenile is

found to have violated a criminal

statute, is equivalent to a trial in

criminal court. Thus, Jones had

been placed in double jeopardy. The

Court also specified that jeopardy

applies at the adjudication hearing

when evidence is first presented.

Waiver cannot occur after jeopardy

attaches,

Oklahoma Publishing Company

v. District Court in and for

Oklahoma City

480 U.S. 308, 97 S.Ct. 1045 (1977)

The Oklahoma Publishing Company

case involved a court order prohibiting the press from publishing

the name and photograph of a youth

involved in a juvenile court proceeding. The material in question was

obtained legally from a source outside the court. The U.S. Supreme

Court found the court order to be

an unconstitutional infringement on

freedom of the press.

Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing

Company

443 U.S. 97, 99 S.Ct. 2667 (1979)

The Daily Mail case held that state

law cannot stop the press from publishing a juveniles name that it obtained independently of the court.

Although the decision did not hold

that the press should have access to

juvenile court files, it held that if information regarding a juvenile case

is lawfully obtained by the media,

the first amendment interest in a

free press takes precedence over

the interests in preserving the

anonymity of juvenile defendants.

Schal! v. Martin

467 U.S. 253, 104 S.Ct. 2403

(1984)

Gregory Martin, age 14, was arrested

in 1977 and charged with robbery,

assault, and possession of a

weapon. He and two other youth allegedly hit a boy on the head with a

loaded gun and stole his jacket and

sneakers.

Martin was held pending adjudication because the court found there

was a "serious risk" that he would

commit another crime if released.

Martin's attorney filed a habeas corpus action challenging the fundamental fairness of preventive detention. The lower appellate courts

reversed the juvenile court's detention order, arguing in part that pre--

trial detention is essentially punishment because many juveniles detained

before trial are released before, or

immediately after, adjudication.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the

constitutionality of the preventive

detention statute. The Court stated

that preventive detention serves a

legitimate state objective in protecting both the juvenile and society

from pretrial crime and is not intended to punish the juvenile. The

Court found that enough procedures

were in place to protect juveniles

from wrongful deprivation of liberty.

The protections were provided by

notice, a statement of the facts and

reasons for detention, and a probable cause hearing within a short

time. The Court also reasserted the

parens patriae interests of the state

in promoting the welfare of children.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-7 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 13 of 38
Chapter 4; Juvenile justice system structure and process

U..

State statutes define who is under the jurisdiction of

juvenile court

Statutes set age limits for

original jurisdiction of the

juvenile court

In most states, the juvenile court

has original jurisdiction over all

youth charged with a law violation

who were younger than age 18 at

the time of the offense, arrest, or referral to court. Since 1975, four

states have changed their age criteria: Alabama raised its upper age

from 15 to 16 in 1976 and to 17 in

1977; Wyoming lowered its upper

age from 18 to 17 in 1993; and in

1996, New Hampshire and Wisconsin

lowered their upper age from 17 to

16,

Oldest age for original juvenile court

jurisdiction in delinquency matters, 2004:

Age State

15 Connecticut, New York, North

Carolina

16 Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana,

Massachusetts, Michigan,

Missouri, New Hampshire, South

Carolina, Texas, Wisconsin

17 Alabama, Alaska, Arizona,

Arkansas, California, Colorado,

Delaware, District of Columbia,

Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana,

Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine,

Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi,

Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New

Jersey, New Mexico, North

Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,

South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah,

Vermont, Virginia, Washington,

West Virginia, Wyoming

Many states have higher upper ages

of juvenile court jurisdiction in status offense, abuse, neglect, or de--

pendency matters—typically

through age 20. In many states, the

juvenile court has original jurisdiction over young adults who committed offenses while juveniles.

States often have statutory exceptions to basic age criteria. For

example, many states exclude married or otherwise emancipated juveniles from juvenile court jurisdiction

Other exceptions, related to the

youth's age, alleged offense, and/or

prior court history, place certain

youth under the original jurisdiction

of the criminal court. In some states,

a combination of the youth's age, offense, and prior record places the

youth under the original jurisdiction

of both the juvenile and criminal

courts. In these states, the prosecutor has the authority to decide

which court will initially handle the

case.

As of the end of the 2004 legislative

session, 16 states have statutes that

set the lowest age of juvenile court

delinquency jurisdiction. Other

states rely on case law or common

law. Children younger than a certain

age are presumed to be incapable of

criminal intent and, therefore, are

exempt from prosecution and

punishment.

Youngest age for original juvenile court

jurisdiction in delinquency matters, 2004:

Age State

6 North Carolina

7 Maryland, Massachusetts, New

York

8 Arizona

10 Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas,

Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi,

Pennsylvania, South Dakota,

Texas, Vermont, Wisconsin

Juvenile court authority over

youth may extend beyond the

upper age of original jurisdiction

Through extended jurisdiction mechanisms, legislatures enable the court

to provide sanctions and services

for a duration of time that is in the

best interests of the juvenile and the

public, even for older juveniles who

have reached the age at which original juvenile court jurisdiction ends.

As of the end of the 2004 legislative

session, statutes in 34 states extend

juvenile court jurisdiction in delinquency cases until the 21st birthday.

Oldest age over which the juvenile court

may retain jurisdiction for disposition

purposes in delinquency matters, 2004:

Aqe State

18 Alaska, Iowa, Kentucky, Nebraska,

Oklahoma, Tennessee

19 Mississippi, North Dakota

20 Alabama, Arizona*, Arkansas,

Connecticut, Delaware, District of

Columbia, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois,

Indiana, Louisiana, Maine,

Maryland, Massachusetts,

Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,

Nevada** , New Hampshire, New

Mexico, New York, North Carolina,

Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,

South Carolina, South Dakota,

Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,

Washington, West Virginia,

Wyoming

21 Florida

22 Kansas

24 California, Montana, Oregon,

Wisconsin

Colorado, Hawaii, New Jersey

Note: Extended jurisdiction may be restricted

to certain offenses or juveniles.

*Arjzona statute extends jurisdiction through

age 20, but a 1979 state supreme court

decision held that juvenile court jurisdiction

terminates at age 18.

**Until the full term of the disposition order

for sex offenders.

•**Until the full term of the disposition order.

In some states, the juvenile court

may impose adult correctional sanctions on certain adjudicated delinquents that extend the term of confinement well beyond the upper age

of juvenile jurisdiction. Such sentencing options are included in the

set of dispositional options known

as blended sentencing.

-

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-7 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 14 of 38
Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process

. I

Most young law violators enter the juvenile justice

system through law enforcement agencies

Local processing of juvenile

offenders varies

From state to state, case processing

of juvenile law violators varies.

Even within states, case processing

may vary from community to community, reflecting local practice and

tradition. Any description of juv&.

nile justice processing in the U.S.

must, therefore, be general, outlining a common series of decision

points.

Law enforcement agencies

divert many juvenile offenders

out of the justice system

At arrest, a decision is made either

to send the matter further into the

justice system or to divert the case

out of the system, often into alternative programs. Generally, law enforcement makes this decision after

talking to the victim, the juvenile,

and the parents and after reviewing

the juvenile's prior contacts with

the juvenile justice system. In 2003,

20% of all juvenile arrests were handled within the police department

and resulted in release of the youth;

in 7 of 10 arrests, the cases were referred to juvenile court. The remaining arrests were referred for criminal

prosecution or to other agencies.

Federal regulations discourage

holding juveniles in adult jails and

lock-ups. If law enforcement must

detain a juvenile in secure custody

for a brief period to contact a parent or guardian or to arrange transportation to a juvenile detention facility, federal regulations require

that the juvenile be securely de--

tained for no longer than 6 hours

and in an area that is not within

sight or sound of adult inmates.

Most delinquency cases are

referred by law enforcement

agencies

Law enforcement accounted for 84%

of all delinquency cases referred to

juvenile court in 2000. The remaining referrals were made by others

such as parents, victims, school personnel, and probation officers.

Intake departments screen

cases referred to juvenile

court for formal processing

The court intake function is generally the responsibility of the juvenile

probation department and/or the

prosecutor's office. Intake decides

whether to dismiss the case, to handle the matter informally, or to request formal intervention by the juvenile court.

To make this decision, an intake of ficer or prosecutor first reviews the

facts of the case to determine

whether there is sufficient evidence

to prove the allegation. If not, the

case is dismissed. If there is sufficient evidence, intake then determines whether formal intervention

is necessary.

Nearly half of all cases referred to

juvenile court intake are handled informally. Many informally processed

cases are dismissed. In the other informally processed cases, the juve--

nile voluntarily agrees to specific

conditions for a specific time period. These conditions often are outlined in a written agreement, generally called a "consent decree."

Conditions may include such things

as victim restitution, school attendance, drug counseling, or a curfew.

In most jurisdictions, a juvenile may

be offered an informal disposition

only if he or she admits to committing the act. The juvenile's compliance with the informal agreement

often is monitored by a probation

officer. Thus, this process is some--

times labeled "informal probation."

If the juvenile successfully complies

with the informal disposition, the

case is dismissed. If, however, the

juvenile fails to meet the conditions,

the case is referred for formal processing and proceeds as it would

have if the initial decision had been

to refer the case for an adjudicatory

hearing.

If the case is to be handled formally

in juvenile court, intake files one of

two types of petitions: a delinquency petition requesting an adjudicatory hearing or a petition requesting

a waiver hearing to transfer the

case to criminal court.

A delinquency petition states the allegations and requests that the juvenile court adjudicate (or judge) the

youth a delinquent, making the juvenile a ward of the court. This language differs from that used in the

criminal court system, where an offender is convicted and sentenced.

In response to the delinquency petition, an adjudicatory hearing is

scheduled. At the adjudicatory

hearing (trial), witnesses are called

and the facts of the case are pre--

sented. In nearly all adjudicatory

hearings, the determination that the

juvenile was responsible for the offense(s) is made by a judge; however, in some states, the juvenile has

the right to a jury trial.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-7 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 15 of 38
Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process

During the processing of a case,

a juvenile may be held in a

secure detention facility

Juvenile courts may hold delinquents in a secure juvenile detention facility if this is determined to

be in the best interest of the community and/or the child.

After arrest, law enforcement may

bring the youth to the local juvenile

detention facility. A juvenile probation officer or detention worker reviews the case to decide whether

the youth should be detained pending a hearing before a judge. In all

states, a detention hearing must be

held within a time period defined by

statute, generally within 24 hours.

At the detention hearing, a judge reviews the case and determines

whether continued detention is warranted. In 2000, juveniles were detained in 20% of delinquency cases

processed by juvenile courts.

Detention may extend beyond the

adjudicatory and dispositional hearings. If residential placement is ordered, but no placement beds are

available, detention may continue

until a bed becomes available.

The juvenile court may transfer

the case to criminal court

A waiver petition is filed when the

prosecutor or intake officer believes

that a case under jurisdiction of the

juvenile court would be handled

more appropriately in criminal

court. The court decision in these

matters follows a review of the facts

of the case and a determination that

there is probable cause to believe

that the juvenile committed the act.

With this established, the court

then decides whether juvenile court

jurisdiction over the matter should

be waived and the case transferred

to criminal court.

The judge's decision in such cases

generally centers on the issue of the

juvenile's amenability to treatment

in the juvenile justice system. The

prosecution may argue that the juvenile has been adjudicated several

times previously and that interventions ordered by the juvenile court

What are the stages of delinquency case processing in the juvenile justice system?

Revocation

Diversion

Statutory AProsecutorial Transfer to V A Judicial waiver

I

I

exclusion discretion juvenile court

.1 1

AtRevocaton Release

r'

p

Diversion A

Informal A

Dismissal A

Release

processing/ A

diversion

V V V V V Diversion

Note: This chart gives a simplified view of caseffow through the juvenile justice system. Procedures vary among jurisdictions.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-7 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 16 of 38
Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process

have not kept the juvenile from

committing subsequent criminal

acts, The prosecutor may also argue

that the crime is so serious that the

juvenile court is unlikely to be able

to intervene for the time period necessary to rehabilitate the youth.

If the judge decides that the case

should be transferred to criminal

court, juvenile court jurisdiction is

waived and the case is tiled in criminal court. In 2000, juvenile courts

waived fewer than 1% of all formally

processed delinquency cases. If the

judge does not approve the waiver

request, generally an adjudicatory

hearing is scheduled in juvenile

court.

Prosecutors may tile certain

cases directly in criminal court

In more than half of the states, legislatures have decided that in certain

cases (generally those involving serious offenses), juveniles should be

tried as criminal offenders. The law

excludes such cases from juvenile

court; prosecutors must file them in

criminal court. In a smaller number

of states, legislatures have given

both the juvenile and adult courts

original jurisdiction in certain cases.

Thus, prosecutors have discretion

to file such cases in either criminal

court or juvenile court.

After adjudication, probation

staff prepare a disposition plan

Once the juvenile is adjudicated

delinquent in juvenile court, probation staff develop a disposition plan.

To prepare this plan, probation staff

assess the youth, available support

systems, and programs. The court

may also order psychological evaluations, diagnostic tests, or a period

of confinement in a diagnostic facility.

At the disposition hearing, probation staff present dispositional

recommendations to the judge. The

prosecutor and the youth may also

present dispositional recommendations. After considering the recommendations, the judge orders a disposition in the case.

Most youth placed on probation

also receive other dispositions

Most juvenile dispositions are multifaceted and involve some sort of supervised probation. A probation

order often includes additional re--

quirements such as drug counseling, weekend confinement in the

local detention center, or restitution

to the community or victim. The

term of probation may be for a

specified period of time or it may be

open ended. Review hearings are

held to monitor the juvenile's

progress. After conditions of probation have been successfully met, the

judge terminates the case. In 2000,

formal probation was the most se--

vere disposition ordered in 63% of

the cases in which the youth was

adjudicated delinquent.

The judge may order residential

placement

In 2000, juvenile courts ordered residential placement in 24% of the

cases in which the youth was adjudicated delinquent. Residential

commitment may be for a specific

or indeterminate time period. The

facility may be publicly or privately

operated and may have a secure,

prison-like environment or a more

open (even home-like) setting. In

many states, when the judge commits a juvenile to the state department of juvenile corrections, the department determines where the

juvenile will be placed and when

the juvenile will be released. In

other states, the judge controls the

type and length of stay; in these situations, review hearings are held to

assess the progress of the juvenile.

Juvenile aftercare is similar to

adult parole

Upon release from an institution,

the juvenile is often ordered to a period of aftercare or parole. During

this period, the juvenile is under supervision of the court or the juvenile corrections department. If the

juvenile does not follow the conditions of aftercare, he or she may be

recommitted to the same facility or

may be committed to another facility.

Status offense and delinquency

case processing differ

A delinquent offense is an act committed by a juvenile for which an

adult could be prosecuted in criminal court. There are, however, be--

haviors that are law violations only

for juveniles and/or young adults

because of their status. These "status offenses" may include behaviors

such as running away from home,

truancy, alcohol possession or use,

ungovernability, and curfew violations.

A Juvenile court by any other

name Is stIll a juvenile court

Every state has at least one court

with juvenile jurisdiction, but in

moststates it is not actually called

"juvenile couit' The names of the

courts with juvenile jurisdiction vary

by state—district, superior, circuit,

county, family, or probate court, to

name a few. Often the court of juvenile jurisdiction has a separate

dMsion for juvenile matters. Courts

with juvenile jurisdiction generally

have jurisdiction over delinquency;

status offense, and abuse/neglect

matters and may also have jurisdiction in other matters such as adop

lion termination of parental rights

and emancipation Whatever their

name, courts with juvenile jurisdic

tlon are generically referred to as

juvenile courts.

-

I.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-7 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 17 of 38
Chapter 4: Juveni'e justice system structure and process

In many ways, the processing of status offense cases parallels that of

delinquency cases. Not all states,

however, consider all of these behaviors to be law violations. Many

states view such behaviors as indicators that the child is in need of

supervision. These states handle

status offense matters more like dependency cases than delinquency

cases, responding to the behaviors

by providing social services.

Although many status offenders

enter the juvenile justice system

through law enforcement, in many

states the initial, official contact is

a child welfare agency. About half

of all status offense cases referred

to juvenile court come from law

enforcement.

The federal Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention Act states

that jurisdictions shall not hold

status offenders in secure juvenile

facilities for detention or placement.

This policy has been labeled deinstitutionalization of status offenders. There is an exception to the

general policy: a status offender

may be confined in a secure juvenile

facility if he or she has violated a

valid court order, such as a probation order requiring the youth to attend school and observe a curfew.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-7 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 18 of 38
Delinquency proceedings are open in some states, closed in

others, and in some states, it depends on the type of case

Source: Authors' adaptation of Szymanski's Confidentiality of juvenile delinquency hearings (2005 update).

- ,tate)

Generally closed (15 states)

Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process

I

Once a mainstay of juvenile court, confidentiality has

given way to substantial openness in many states

The first juvenile court was open

to the public, but confidentiality

became the norm over time

The legislation that created the first

juvenile court in Illinois stated that

the hearings should be open to the

public. Thus, the public could monitor the activities of the court to ensure that the court handled cases in

line with community standards.

In 1920, all but 7 of the 45 states

that established separate juvenile

courts permitted publication of information about juvenile court proceedings. The Standard Juvenile

Court Act (1925) did not ban the

publication of juveniles' names. By

1952, however, many states that

adopted the Act had statutes that

excluded the general public from juvenile court proceedings. The commentary to the 1959 version of the

Act referred to the hearings as "private, not secret." It added that reporters should be permitted to

attend hearings, with the understanding that they not disclose the

identity of the juvenile. The rationale for this confidentiality was "to

prevent the humiliation and demoralizing effect of publicity." It was

also thought that publicity might

propel youth into further delinquent

acts to gain more recognition.

As juvenile courts became more formalized and concerns about rising

juvenile crime increased, the pendulum began to swing back toward

more openness. By 1988, statutes in

15 states permitted the public to attend certain delinquency hearings.

Delinquency hearings are open

to the public in 14 states

As of the end of the 2004 legislative

session, statutes or court rules in 14

states open delinquency hearings to

the general public. Such statutes

typically state that all hearings must

be open to the public except on special order of the court. The court

may close hearings to the public

when it is in the best interests of

the child and the public. In 7 of the

14 states, the state constitution has

broad open court provisions. Ohio

has a similar open court provision;

however, in 2000, the Ohio supreme

court ruled that juvenile proceedings are not presumed to be open or

closed to the public. The Ohio court

held that the traditional interests of

confidentiality and rehabilitation

prevent the public from having a

constitutional right of access to juvenile delinquency proceedings.

In 21 states, limits are set on

access to delinquency hearings

In addition to the 14 states with

open delinquency hearings, 21

states have statutes that open delinquency hearings for some types of

cases. The openness restrictions

typically involve age and/or offense

criteria. For example, a statute

might allow open hearings if the

youth is charged with a felony and

was at least 16 years old at the time

of the crime. Some statutes also

limit open hearings to those involving youth with a particular criminal

history. For example, hearings

might be open only if the youth met

age and offense criteria and had at

least one prior felony conviction

(criminal court) or felony adjudication (juvenile court).

Most states specify exceptions to

juvenile court record confidentiality

Although legal and social records

maintained by law enforcement

agencies and juvenile courts have

traditionally been confidential, legislatures have made significant

changes over the past decade in

how the justice system treats information about juvenile offenders. In

most states, the juvenile code specifies which individuals or agencies

are allowed access to such records.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-7 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 19 of 38
Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process

Media can access juvenile offenders' identities in most states

11- .---- WI1

Media access to ident

of juvenile offender in

delinquency case

El Access (15 states)

El Access in certain cases (30 states)

• Access with permission (4 states)

El No access (2 states)

• Access: In 14 of the 15 jurisdictions, media can gain access to the juvenile offender's

identity by attending delinquency hearings, which are open to the public. In the District of Columbia, the statute allows the media to attend hearings (although hearings

are not public) but prohibits the media from revealing the juvenile's identity.

• Access in certain cases: In 30 states, media can access the juvenile offender's identity for certain cases. Media access is tied to public access to hearings or records,

which statutes limit by case characterislics such as the juvenile's age, offense, criminal history, or whether the case is transferred to criminal court.

• Access with permission: In 4 states, media access to delinquency hearings or

records (and thus to juvenile offender identities) can only occur if the court gives permission or the media discover the information independently. In these states, statutes

require that the court decide the issue on a case-by-case basis.

• No access: In 2 states, statutes prohibit release of the names of all juvenile offenders.

• In 3 states (Maryland, New Jersey, and Wisconsin), under certain circumstances, the

media may be prohibited from revealing the juvenile's identity.

Source: Authors' adaptation of Szymanskis Releasing names of juvenile offenders to the

media and/or the public (2005 update).

Formerly confidential records are

now being made available to a wide

variety of individuals. Many states

open records to schools and youthserving agencies as well as individuals and agencies within the justice

system. However, access is not necessarily unlimited or automatic. It

may be restricted to certain parts of

the record and may require a court

order.

As of the end of the 2004 legislative

session, juvenile codes in all states

allow information contained in juvenile court records to be specifically

released to one or more of the following parties: the prosecutor, law

enforcement, social services agencies, schools, the victim, or the

public.

In all states, laws allow those with a

"legitimate interest" to have at least

partial access to juvenile court or

law enforcement records, Interested

parties generally must obtain the

court's permission to gain access.

Many states allow access by the juvenile who is the subject of the proceedings (35 states), the juvenile's

parents or guardian (40 states), or

the juvenile's attorney (40 states).

All states allow certain juvenile

offenders to be fingerprinted and

photographed; most store

information in repositories

As of the end of 2004, all states

allow law enforcement agencies to

fingerprint juveniles who have been

arrested for felonies or who have

reached a certain age. All states

allow juveniles to be photographed

for their criminal history records

under certain circumstances.

In 44 states, information (typically

fingerprints and other identifying information) about certain juvenile offenders can be reported to a

statewide repository. Some states

include such information in the

criminal history repository for adult

offenders; others maintain a separate repository for information on juvenile offenders.

School notification laws are

common

As of the end of the 2004 legislative

session, 44 states have school

notification laws. Under these laws,

schools are notified when students

are involved with law enforcement

or courts for committing delinquent

acts. Some statutes limit notification

to youth charged with or convicted

of serious or violent crimes.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-7 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 20 of 38
Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process

U U $1

All sthtes ailow certain juveniles to be tried in criminal

court or otherwise face adult sanctions

Transferring juveniles to criminal

court is not a new phenomenon

Juvenile courts have always had

mechanisms for removing the most

serious offenders from the juvenile

justice system. Traditional transfer

laws establish provisions and criteria for trying certain youth of juvenile age in criminal court. Blended

sentencing laws are also used to impose a combination of juvenile and

adult criminal sanctions on some offenders of juvenile age.

Transfer laws address which court

(juvenile or criminal) has jurisdiction over certain cases involving offenders of juvenile age. State transfer provisions are typically limited

by age and offense criteria. Transfer

mechanisms vary regarding where

the responsibility for transfer decisionmaking lies. Transfer provisions

fall into three general categories:

Judicial waiver The juvenile court

judge has the authority to waive juvenile court jurisdiction and transfer the case to criminal court. States

may use terms other than judicial

waiver. Some call the process certification, remand, or bind over for

criminal prosecution. Others transfer or decline rather than waive

jurisdiction.

Concurrent jurisdiction: Original

jurisdiction for certain cases is

shared by both criminal and juve--

nile courts, and the prosecutor has

discretion to file such cases in either court. Transfer under concurrent jurisdiction provisions is also

known as prosecutorial waiver, prosecutor discretion, or direct file.

Statutory exclusion: State statute

excludes certain juvenile offenders

from juvenile court jurisdiction.

Under statutory exclusion provisions, cases originate in criminal

rather than juvenile court. Statutory

exclusion is also known as legislative exclusion.

In many states, criminal courts

may send transferred cases to

juvenile court

Several states have provisions for

sending transferred cases from

criminal to juvenile court for

adjudication under certain

circumstances. This procedure,

sometimes referred to as "reverse

waiver," generally applies to cases

initiated in criminal court under

statutory exclusion or concurrent

jurisdiction provisions. Of the 36

states with such provisions at the

end of the 2004 legislative session,

22 also have provisions that allow

certain transferred juveniles to

petition for a "reverse." Reverse

decision criteria often parallel a

state's discretionary waiver criteria

In some states, transfer cases

resulting in conviction in criminal

court may be reversed to juvenile

court for disposition.

Most states have "once an adult,

always an adult" provisions

In 34 states, juveniles who have

been tried as adults must be prosecuted in criminal court for any subsequent offenses. Nearly all of these

"once an adult, always an adult"

provisions require that the youth

must have been convicted of the offenses that triggered the initial criminal prosecution.

Blended sentencing laws give

courts flexibility in sanctioning

Blended sentencing laws address

the correctional system (juvenile or

adult) in which certain offenders of

juvenile age will be sanctioned.

Blended sentencing statutes can be

placed into two general categories:

Juvenile court blended sentencing: The juvenile court has the authority to impose adult criminal

sanctions on certain juvenile offenders. The majority of these blended

sentencing laws authorize the juvenile court to combine a juvenile disposition with a criminal sentence

that is suspended. If the youth successfully completes the juvenile disposition and does not commit a new

offense, the criminal sanction is not

imposed. If, however, the youth

does not cooperate or fails in the juvenile sanctioning system, the adult

criminal sanction is imposed. Juvenile court blended sentencing gives

the juvenile court the power to

send uncooperative youth to adult

prison—giving "teeth" to the typical

array of juvenile court dispositional

options.

Criminal court blended sentencing: Statutes allow criminal courts

sentencing certain transferred juveniles to impose sanctions otherwise

available only to offenders handled

in juvenile court. As with juvenile

court blended sentencing, the juvenile disposition may be conditional

—the suspended criminal sentence

is intended to ensure good behavior. Criminal court blended sentencing gives juveniles prosecuted in

criminal court one last chance at a

juvenile disposition, thus mitigating

the effects of transfer laws (at least

in individual cases).

-

-

-

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-7 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 21 of 38
Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process

Most states have multiple ways to impose adult sanctions on offenders of juvenile age

Once an

adultl

Judicial waiver Concurrent Statutory Reverse always Blended sentencing

State Discretionary Presumptive Mandatory jurisdiction exclusion waiver an adult Juvenile Criminal

Number of states 45 15 15 15 29 25 34 15 17

Aiabama U U U

Alaska U U U U

Anzona U U U U U

Arkansas U U U U

California U U U U U U

Colorado U U

Connecticut U U

Delaware U U U U U

Dist. of Columbia U U U U

florida U U U U

Georgia U U U U

Hawaii U U

Idaho U U U I

IllinoIs U U U U U U U

Indiana U U I U

Iowa U U U U

Kansas U U U

Kentucky U U

Louisiana U U

Maine U U

Maryland U U U U

Massachusetts

Michigan U U U U U

Minnesota U U U U U

Mississippi U U U

Missouri U U U

Montana U U U U

Nebraska U U

Nevada U U U U

New Hampshire U U

NewJersey U U

NewMexico U U U

NewYork U U

North Carolina U U U

North Dakota U U

Ohio U U U

Oklahoma U U U U U U

Oregon U U U U

Pennsylvania U U U U

Rhode Island U U U U U

South Carolina U U

South Dakota U U U

Tennessee U U U

Texas U U U

Utah U U U U

Vermont U U U U U

Virginia U U U U U

Washington U U

West Virginia U U U

Wisconsin U U U U U

Wyoming U U U

U In states with a combination of provisions for transferring juveniles to criminal court, the exclusion, mandatory waiver, or

concurrent jurisdiction provisions generally target the oldest juveniles and/or those charged with the most serious offenses, whereas younger juveniles and/or those charged with relatively less serious offenses may be eligible for discretionary waiver.

Note: Table information is as of the end of the 2004 legislative session.

Source: Authors' adaptation of Griffin's National overviews. State juvenile justice profiles.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-7 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 22 of 38
14 14 14 14

12 12

15 15 15 NS

10 10 14

14 14 14

NS 15 NS

14 14

12 12

14 14 14

13 13 13

14 16 14 14

14

14 14

14 14

NS 14 NS

13 13 15

NS NS NS NS

Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process

In most states. age and offense criteria limit transfer

provisions

Judicial waiver remains the most

common transfer provision In most states, juvenile court judges may waive jurisdiction over

certain cases and transfer them to criminal court

As of the end of the 2004 legislative

session, in 45 states and the District Minimum Judicial waiver offense and minimum age criteria, 2004

age for Any Certain Certain Certain Certain

of Columbia, juvenile court judges judicial criminal Certain Capital person property drug weapon

may waive jurisdiction over certain State waiver offense felonies crimes Murder offenses offenses offenses offenses

cases and transfer them to criminal Alabama 14 14

court. Such action is usually in re- Alanka NS NS NS

sponse to a request by the prosecutor; in several states, however, juveniles or their parents may request California 14 16

• . . . Colorado 12 12 judicial waiver. In most states, laws

limit waiver by age and offense.

Dist, of Columbia NS 16 15

Waiver provisions vary in terms of Florida 14 14

the degree of decisionmaking flexibility allowed. The decision may be

entirely discretionary, there may be Idaho

a rebuttable presumption in favor of Illinois

waiver, or waiver may be mandatory. Some provisions mandate that Kansas

waiver is required once the juvenile Kentacky

court judge determines that certain

statutory criteria have been met.

Mandatory waiver provisions differ Maryland

from statutory exclusion provisions Michigan

in that the case originates in juvenile rather than criminal court. Missouri

Nevada

Some statutes establish waiver

criteria other than age and

offense North Carolina

North Dakota

In some states, waiver provisions

15 NS NS 15

14 14 14

NS

16 NS NS

10 10

dispositional outcomes. Such

amenability criteria are generally

not included in statutory exclusion Wisconsin 14 15 14 14 14 14 14

or concurrent jurisdiction provisions. Wyoming 13 13

Note: Ages in the minimum age column may not apply to all offense restrictions, but represent the youngest

Many statutes instruct juvenile possible age at which a juvenile may be judicially waived to criminal court. "NS" indicates that in at least one

courts to consider other factors of the offense restrictions indicated, no minimum age is specified.

when making waiver decisions, such Source: Authors' adaptation of Griffin's National overviews. State juvenile justice profiles.

as the availability of dispositional

LdIL youtui ciiergeu wiul oisessses Oregon NS involving firearms or other Pennsylvania 14

weapons. Most state statutes also

limit judicial waiver to juveniles

who are "no longer amenable to South Dakota NS

treatment." The specific factors that Tennessee NS

determine lack of amenability vary,

but they typically include the juveVermont 10 nile's offense history and previous Virginia - 14 14 14 14

10

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-7 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 23 of 38
In states with concurrent jurisdiction, the prosecutor has discretion

to file certain cases in either criminal court or juvenile court

Minimum Concurrent jurisdicion offense and minimum age criteria, 2004

age for Any Certain Certain Certain Certain

concurrent criminal Certain Capital person property drug weapon

State jurisdiction offense telonies crimes Murder offenses offenses offenses offenses

Arizona 14 14

Arkansas 14 16 14 14 14

Catornia 14 14 14 14 14 14 14

Colorado 14 14 14 14 l4

Dist. of Columbia 16 16 16 16

Florida US 16 16 US 14 14 14 14

Georgia NS NS

Loulaiana 15 15 15 15 15

Michigan 14 14 14 14 14 14

Montana 12 12 12 16 16 16

Nebraska NS 16 NS

Oklahoma 15 16 15 15 15 16 15

Vermont 16 16

Virginia 14 14 14

Wyomrng 13 14 14 14 14

Note: Ages in the minimum age column may not apply to all offense restrictions, but represent the youngest

possible age at which a juvenile's case may be directly 6led in criminal court. "NS" indicates that in at least

one ot the offense restrictions indicated, no minimum age is specified

Source: Authors' adaptation of Griffin's National overviews. State juvenile justice profiles.

Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process

alternatives for treating the juvenile,

the time available for sanctions,

public safety, and the best interest

of the child. The waiver process

must also adhere to certain constitutional principles of due process.

States have slowed their

expansion of transfer laws

Traditionally, discretionary judicial

waiver was the most common transfer mechanism. Beginning in the

1970s, however, state legislatures

have changed laws to move juvenile

offenders into criminal court based

on age and/or offense seriousness

without the case-specific consideration offered by the discretionary juvenile court judicial waiver process.

State transfer provisions changed

extensively in the 1990s. Since 1992,

all states but Nebraska have

changed their transfer statutes to

make it easier for juveniles to be

tried in criminal court. But the pace

of such changes has slowed considerably. From 1992 through 1995, 40

states and the District of Columbia

enacted or expanded transfer provisions. From 1998 through 2002, legislatures in 18 states enacted or expanded their transfer provisions.

From 2003 through 2004, only 4

states made substantive changes in

transfer provisions, and only 2 of

those states expanded them.

Relatively few states allow

prosecutorial discretion

As of the end of the 2004 legislative

session, 15 states have concurrent

jurisdiction provisions, which give

both juvenile court and criminal

court original jurisdiction in certain

cases. Under such provisions, prosecutors have discretion to file

eligible cases in either court. Concurrent jurisdiction is typically limited by age and offense criteria.

Often, concurrent jurisdiction is

limited to cases involving violent or

repeat crimes or offenses involving

firearms or other weapons. (Juve--

nile and criminal courts often also

share jurisdiction over minor offenses such as traffic, watercraft, or

local ordinance violations.) No national data exist on the number of

juvenile cases tried in criminal

court under concurrent jurisdiction

provisions. In Florida, which has a

fairly broad concurrent jurisdiction

provision, prosecutors sent more

than 2,000 youth to criminal court

in fiscal year 2001. In comparison,

juvenile court judges nationwide

waived fewer than 6,000 cases to

criminal court in 2000.

State appellate courts have taken

the view that prosecutorial discretion is equivalent to the routine

charging decisions prosecutors

make in criminal cases. Thus, prosecutorial transfer is considered an

executive function, which is not

subject to judicial review and is not

required to meet the due process

standards established by the U.S.

Supreme Court. Some states, however, do have written guidelines for

prosecutorial transfer.

Statutory exclusion accounts for

the largest number of transfers

Legislatures "transfer" large numbers of young offenders to criminal

court by enacting statutes that exclude certain cases from juvenile

court jurisdiction. As of the end of

the 2004 legislative session, 29

states have statutory exclusion provisions. State laws typically set age

and offense limits for excluded offenses. The offenses most often

excluded are murder, capital crimes

in general (offenses punishable by

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-7 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 24 of 38
In states with statutory exclusion provisions, certain cases involving

juveniles originate in criminal court rather than in juvenile court

Minimum Statutory exclusion offense and minimum age criteria, 2004

age for Any Certain Certain Certain Certain

statutory criminal Certain Capital person property drug weapon

State exclusion offense felonies crimes Murder offenses offenses offenses offenses

Alabama 16 16 16 16

Alaska 16 16 16

ArIzona 15 15 15 15

California 14 14 14

Delaware 15 15

Florida NS 16 NS 16 16

Georgia 13 13 13

Idaho 14 14 14 14 14

Illinois 13 15 13 15 15 15

Indiana 16 16 16 16 16 16

Iowa 16 16 16 16

LouisIana 15 15 15

Maryland 14 14 16 16 16

Massachuseffs 14 14

MInnesota 16 16

MississIppi 13 13 13

Montana 17 17 17 17 17 17

Nevada NS 16 NS NS 16

NewMexlco 15 15

New'brk 13 13 14 14 14

Oklahoma 13 13

Oregon NS 15 15

Pennsylvania NS NS 15

SouthCaroilna 16 16

South Dakota 16 16

Utah 16 16 16

Vermont 14 14 14 14

Washington 16 16 16 16

Wisconsin NS 10 NS

Note: Ages in the minimum age column may not apply to all offense restrictions, but represent fhe youngesf

possible age at which a juvenile may be excluded from juvenile court. "NS' indicates that in at least one of

the offense resfrictions indicated, no minimum age is specified.

Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process

death or life imprisonment), and

other serious offenses against persons. (Minor offenses such as traffic, watercraft, and wildlife violations

are often excluded from juvenile

court jurisdiction in states where

they are not covered by concurrent

jurisdiction provisions.)

Although not typically thought of as

transfers, large numbers of youth

younger than age 18 are tried in

criminal court in the 13 states

where the upper age of juvenile

court jurisdiction is set at 15 or 16.

Nearly 2 million 16- and 17- yearolds live in these 13 states, If these

youth are referred to criminal court

at the same rate that 16- and 17-

year-olds elsewhere are referred to

juvenile court, then a large number

of youth younger than 18 face trial

in criminal court because they are

defined as adults under state laws.

In fact, it is possible that more youth

younger than 18 are tried in criminal

court in this way than by all other

transfer mechanisms combined.

Many states allow transfer of

certain very young offenders

In 23 states, no minimum age is

specified in at least one judicial

waiver, concurrent jurisdiction, or

statutory exclusion provision for

transferring juveniles to criminal

court. For example, Pennsylvania's

murder exclusion has no minimum

age specified. Other transfer provisions in Pennsylvania have age minimums set at 14 or 15. Among states

where statutes specify age limits for

all transfer provisions, age 14 is the

most common minimum age specified across provisions.

Minimum transfer age specified in

statute, 2004:

Age State

None Alaska, Arizona, Delaware,

District of Columbia, Florida,

Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana,

Maine, Maryland, Nebraska,

Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon,

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,

South Carolina, South Dakota,

Tennessee, Washington, West

Virginia, Wisconsin

10 Kansas, Vermont

12 Colorado, Missouri

13 Illinois, Mississippi, New

Hampshire, New York, North

Carolina, Wyoming

14 Alabama, Arkansas, California,

Connecticut, Iowa, Kentucky,

Louisiana, Massachusetts,

Michigan, Minnesota, New

Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio,

Texas, Utah, Virginia

15 New Mexico

* In Nevada, the exclusion applies to any juvenile with a previous felony adjudication, regardless of the current offense charged, if the current offense involves the use or threafened use of a tirearm.

I

Source: Authors' adaptation of Griffin's National overviews. State juvenile justice profiles.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-7 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 25 of 38
As with transfer laws, states' juvenile court blended sentencing

provisions are limited by age and offense criteria

Minimum

age for Juvenile Court blended sentencing offense and minimum age criteria, 2004

juvenile urt Any Certain Certain Certain Certain

blended criminal Certain Capital person property drug weapon

State sentence offense telonies crimes Murder offenses offenses offenses offenses

Alaska

Arkansas

Colorado

Connecticut

Illinois

Kansas

Massathusetts

Mgan

Minnesota

Montana

New Medco

Ohio

Rhode Island

Texas

Vermont

16

14 NS 14 14

MS NS

14 MS

13

14 14 14

MS MS MS NS NS

14

12 NS NS NS NS NS

14 14 14 14

10 10

NS

NS NO NO NS

Note: Ages rn the minimum age column may not apply to all offense restrictions, but represent the youngest possible age at which a juvenile court blended sentence may be imposed. "NS" indicates that in at least one of the offense restrictions indicated, no minimum age is specified.

Source: Authors' adaptation of Griffin's National overviews. State juvenile justice profiles.

16

NS

NS

NS

13

10 10

14

NS

14

NS

14

10

NS

NS

10 10

Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process

U.li

Like transfer laws. juvenile court blended sentencing

allows imposition of adult sanctions on juveniles

Transfer laws and juvenile court

blended sentencing laws have

similar impact

As of the end of the 2004 legislative

session, 15 states have blended sentencing laws that enable juvenile

courts to impose criminal sanctions

on certain juvenile offenders. Although the impact of juvenile blended sentencing laws depends on the

specific provisions (which vary

from state to state), in general, juvenile court blended sentencing expands the sanctioning powers of the

juvenile court such that juvenile offenders may face the same penalties

faced by adult offenders. Thus, like

transfer laws, juvenile court blended sentencing provisions define certain juvenile offenders as eligible to

be handled in the same manner as

adult offenders and expose those juvenile offenders to harsher penalties.

The most common type of juvenile

court blended sentencing provision

allows juvenile court judges to

order both a juvenile disposition

and a criminal (adult) sentence. The

adult sentence is suspended on the

condition that the juvenile offender

successfully completes the terms of

the juvenile disposition and refrains

In blended sentencIng,

juveniles have the same due

process protections afforded

crimInal defendants

All states with juvenile court blend

ed sentencing give juveniles facing

possible criminal sanctions the

same basic procedural rights at

forded to criminal defendants no

tably the right to be tried by a jury

In Texas youth In juvenile court

blended sentencing cases are also

entitled to have a Jury make sen

tencing determinations

from committing any new offenses.

The criminal sanction is intended to

encourage cooperation and serve as

a deterrent to future offending. This

type of arrangement is known as an

inclusive blend.

Most states with juvenile court

blended sentencing have inclusive

blends (11 of 15). Generally, statutes

require courts to impose a combination of juvenile and adult sanctions

in targeted cases. In Massachusetts

and Michigan, though, the court is

not required to order a combined

sanction. The court has the option

to order a juvenile disposition, a

criminal sentence, or a combined

sanction.

Among the four states that do not

have inclusive juvenile court blended

sentencing, three (Colorado, Rhode

Island, and Texas) have some type

of contiguous blended sentencing

arrangement. Under the contiguous

model, juvenile court judges can

order a sentence that would extend

beyond the state's age of extended

jurisdiction. The initial commitment

is to a juvenile facility, but later the

offender may be transferred to an

adult facility. The fourth state without an inclusive juvenile blend, New

Mexico, simply gives the juvenile

court the option of ordering an

adult sentence instead of a juvenile

disposition. This is referred to as an

exclusive blend.

Reverse waiver laws and

criminal court blended

sentencing laws have similar

impact

Under criminal court blended sentencing, offenders of juvenile age

who have been convicted in criminal court can receive juvenile

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-7 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 26 of 38
Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process

States' "fall-safe" mechanisms—reverse waiver and criminal court

blended sentencing—vary In scope

dispositions. Like reverse waiver

laws, criminal court blended sentencing provisions give defendants

of juvenile age an opportunity to

show that they belong in the juvenile justice system. Criminal court

blended sentencing laws have been

described as a "safety valve" or an

"emergency exit" because they

allow the court to review the circumstances of a case and make an

individualized decision regarding

the youth's suitability for juvenile or

criminal treatment. in this way,

youth are given one last chance to

receive a juvenile disposition.

Seventeen states allow criminal

court blended sentencing. Of these

states, 10 have exclusive blended

sentencing arrangements: the criminal court has an either/or choice

between criminal and juvenile sanctions. Inclusive blend models, in

which juvenile offenders convicted

in criminal court may receive a

combination sentence, exist in the

remaining seven states with criminal court blended sentencing. As

with the juvenile court inclusive

blend model, the criminal court inclusive blend model allows the

criminal court to suspend the adult

sanction on condition of the youth's

good behavior.

Criminal court blended sentencing

provisions, 2004:

Provision State

Exclusive California, Colorado, Illinois,

Kentucky, Massachusetts,

Nebraska, New Mexico,

Oklahoma, West Virginia,

Wisconsin

Inclusive Arkansas, Florida, Idaho,

Iowa, Michigan, Missouri,

Virginia

As with transfer and juvenile court

blended sentencing laws, the scope

of criminal court blended sentencing laws varies from state to state

Many states that transfer youth to

criminal court either automatically or

at the prosecutors discretion also provide a "fail-safe mechanism that

gives the criminal court a chance to

review the case and make an individ

ualized decision as to whether the

case should be returned to the juvenile system for trial or sanctioning

The two basic types of fail safes are

reverse waiver and criminal court

blended sentencing. With such combinations of provisions, a state can define cases to be handled in criminal

court and at the same time ensure

that the court can decide whether

such handling is appropriate in individual cases. Of the 44 states with

mandatory waiver, statutory exclusion,

or concurrent jurisdiction provisions,

29 also have reverse waiver and/or

criminal court blended sentencing as

a fail-safe.

Reverse waiver. In 25 states, provisions allow juveniles whose cases are

handled in criminal court to petition to

have the case heard in juvenile court.

Criminal court blended sentencing.

In 17 states, juveniles convicted in

criminal court are allowed the opportunity to be sanctioned in the juvenile

system.

depending on the specifics of the

statutory provisions. Limitations

typically stem from the transfer provisions. The broadest criminal court

blend statutes allow for juvenile

sanctions in any case involving a juvenile prosecuted in criminal court

(i.e., any transferred juvenile). Others exclude from blended sentencing only those convicted of offenses

that carry a mandatory life or death

sentence. The narrowest of the

criminal court blend provisions

Some states have comprehensive failsafes; others do not.

ComprehensIve fall-safes. In 15

states no juvenile can be subject to

cnminal court tnal and sentencing ei

ther automatically or at the prosecutors discretion without a chance to

prove his or her individual suitability for

juvenile handling: Arkansas, Colorado,

Delaware Idaho Iowa Mississippi

Montana Nebraska Oklahoma Penn

sylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee,

Vermont West Virginia and Wyoming

PartIal fall-safes. In 15 states, failsafe mechanisms do not óover every

transferred case: Arizona, California,

Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,

Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts,

Michigan, Nevada, New York, Oregon,

VIrginia, and Wisconsin.

NO fail-safe. In 15 states, juveniles

have no chance to petition for juvenile

handling or sanctioning: Alabama,

Alaska, District of Columbia, Indiana,

Louisiana, Minnesota, New Jersey,

New Mexico, North Caro!ina, North

Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, South

Carolina, Utah, and Washington.

Need no fail-safe. Six states need no

fail-safe because cases only reach

criminal court through judicial waiver:

Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Missouri, New

Hampshire, and Texas.

limit the juvenile disposition option

to juvenile offenders who have been

convicted of a lesser offense that is

not itself eligible for transfer and

criminal prosecution. in still other

states, statutes require a "fitness

hearing" to determine whether the

disposition for a lesser offense

should be a juvenile sanction. At

the hearing, the court must base its

decision on criteria similar to those

used in juvenile court discretionary

waiver decisions.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-7 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 27 of 38
From 1994 to 2001, the proportion of federal juvenile arrests for

immigration offenses rose while the proportion for violent and

public order offenses dropped

Percent of federal arrests of youth (18 and under)

35% 1

300/

25% -I

20%

Violent 15%

Immigration

Public order

0%I

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

• The number of federal arrests of youth age 18 or younger increased 73%

between 1994 and 2001, driven by an 89% increase in the arrest of 18-

year-olds. In comparison, the number of arrests of juveniles younger than

age 18 rose just 14%.

• These increases in arrests stem largely from 1996 changes in federal laws

relating to immigration offenses. Immigration arrests involving youth age 18

or younger increased 145% between 1994 and 2001.

• Drug arrests outnumbered other offenses every year from 1994 through

2001, except 1998.

Source: Authors' adaptation of Sabol's Juveniles and other young persons (18 and under)

in the federal criminal justice system.

Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process

Some juvenile offenders are handled by federal

rather than state or local authorities

Juvenile prosecutions in the

federal system are rare

There is no separate federal juvenile

justice system. Juveniles who are

arrested by federal law enforcement

agencies may be prosecuted and

sentenced in United States District

Courts and even committed to the

Federal Bureau of Prisons. Federal

law (Title 18 U.S.C. § 5032) lays out

procedures for the handling of juveniles accused of crimes against the

U.S. Although it generally requires

that they be turned over to state

or local authorities, it does provide

exceptions.

Juveniles initially come into federal

law enforcement custody in a variety of ways. The federal agencies

that arrest the most young people

are the Border Patrol and the Immigration and Naturalization Service,*

the U.S. Marshals Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (which

has federal law enforcement responsibility on over 200 Indian reservations), and the Drug Enforcement

Agency.

Arrest data from fiscal years 1994

through 2001 indicate that these

and other federal agencies arrested

an average of about 400 persons

younger than age 18 per year, and

an additional 1,600 l8-year-olds,

some of whom were undoubtedly juveniles younger than 18 at the time

they committed their offenses.

Overall, arrests of youth age 18 or

younger made up less than 2% of

federal arrests. Arrestees 18 or

younger were 85% male and 67%

* In the recently established U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the

Immigration and Naturalization Service

has become U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and its enforcement

functions reside in DHS's Border and

Transportation Security Directorate, as

does the Office of Border Patrol.

white, 19% black, and 10% American

Indian. About 43% were non-U.S. citizens. The most common offenses

for which federal authorities arrested persons age 18 or younger during the period 1994-2001 were drug

offenses (27%) and immigration violations (24%). Marijuana accounted

for half of the drug arrests and illegal entry accounted for more than

three-quarters of the immigration

arrests. Other offenses accounted

for smaller proportions of under-18

arrests: violent (13%), property (9%),

and public order (10%). Weapons offenses accounted for 4 in 10 arrests

for public order offenses.

Federal prosecutors may retain

certain serious cases involving a

"substantial federal interest"

Following a federal arrest of a person under 21, federal law requires

an investigation to determine

whether the offense was a delinquent offense under state law. If so,

and if the state is willing and able to

deal with the juvenile, the federal

prosecutor may Forego prosecution

and surrender the juvenile to state

authorities. However, a case may instead be "certified" by the Attorney

General for federal delinquency

prosecution, if one of the following

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-7 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 28 of 38
Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process

exceptional conditions exists: (1)

the state does not have or refuses

to take jurisdiction over the case;

(2) the state does not have programs or services available that are

adequate to the needs of the juvenile; or (3) the juvenile is charged

with a violent felony, drug trafficking, importation, or firearms offense, and the case involves a "substantial federal interest."

A case certified for federal delinquency prosecution is heard in U.S.

District Court by a judge sitting in

closed session without a jury. Following a finding of delinquency, the

court has disposition powers similar to those of state juvenile courts.

For instance, it may order the juvenile to pay restitution, serve a period of probation, or undergo "official

detention" in a correctional facility.

Generally, neither probation nor official detention may extend beyond

the juvenile's 21st birthday or the

maximum term that could be imposed on an adult convicted of an

equivalent offense, whichever is

shorter. But for juveniles who are

between ages 18 and 21 at the time

of sentencing, official detention for

certain serious felonies may last up

to 5 years.

A juvenile in the federal system

may also be "transferred" for

criminal prosecution

When proceedings in a federal case

involving a juvenile offender are

transferred for criminal prosecution, they actually remain in district

court but are governed by federal

criminal laws rather than state laws

or the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. Federal law

authorizes transfer at the written

request of a juvenile of at least age

15 who is alleged to have committed an offense after attaining the

age of 15 or upon the motion of the

Attorney General in a qualifying

case where the court finds that 'the

interest of justice" requires it. Qualifying cases include those in which a

juvenile is charged with (1) a violent felony or drug trafficking or importation offense committed after

reaching age 15; (2) murder or aggravated assault committed after

reaching age 13; or (3) possession

of a firearm during the commission

of any offense after reaching age 13.

However, transfer is mandatory in

any case involving a juvenile age 16

or older who was previously found

guilty of a violent felony or drug

trafficking offense and who is now

accused of committing a drug trafficking or importation offense or

any felony involving the use, attempted use, threat, or substantial

risk of force.

Most federal juvenile arrests

result in a guilty plea or a

conviction at trial

The U.S. Marshals Service reports

data on the disposition of federal

arrests. The disposition data reflect

both state and federal court results

In 2001, 73% of arrests of youth age

18 or younger resulted in a guilty

plea or a conviction at trial. Another 13% resulted in the charges being

dismissed, prosecution being deferred, or a verdict of not guilty.

Federal arrests of youth age 18 or

younger:

Disposition 1994 2001

Total 100% 100%

Guilty plea 38 68

Convicted at trial 13 5

Dismissed/not guilty 13 13

Otherorunknown 36 14

Arrests of youth age 18 or younger

for immigration offenses were more

likely to result in convictions and

less likely to have charges dropped

than arrests for other offenses.

Juveniles may be committed to

the Federal Bureau of Prisons as

delinquents or adults

From fiscal years 1994 through 2001,

almost 3,000 youth were committed

to the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for offenses

committed while younger than 18.

Of these, 1,639 were committed to

BOP as delinquents and 1,346 as

adults. Among those committed as

delinquents, the vast majority

(about 70%) were American Indians,

but American Indians made up a

much smaller proportion (about

31%) of those committed as adults.

Youth age 18 or younger at offense

committed to Federal Bureau of

Prisons custody, 2001:

Committed as

Total Delinauent Adult

Gender 100% 100% 100%

Male 92 89 96

Female 8 11 4

Race 100% 100% 100%

White 17 13 24

Black 25 4 61

Amer. Indian 57 82 15

Asian 0 1 0

Ethnicity 100% 100% 100%

Hispanic 11 8 14

Non-Hispanic 89 92 86

Citizenship 100% 100% 100%

U.S. citizen 95 96 93

Noncitizen 5 4 7

Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

BOP is required by federal law to

place persons younger than 18 in

suitable juvenile facilities, which

may be operated by private agencies or units of state or local government, rather than in adult

facilities.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-7 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 29 of 38
Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process

ii •: i

Sources

Bernard, T. 1992. The Cycle of Juvenile Justice. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bowen, L. 1920. Fighting to Make

Chicago Safe for Children. Chicago,

IL: Juvenile Protective Association.

As cited in McNamee, G. (ed.). 1999.

A Noble Experiment? The First 100

Years of the Cook County Juvenile

Court: 1899-1999. Chicago, IL: The

Chicago Bar Association with the

Children's Court Centennial Committee.

Feld, B. 1987. The juvenile court

meets the principle of the offense:

Legislative changes in juvenile waiver statutes. The Journal of Criminal

Law and Criminology, 78(3):47l-533.

Feld, B. 1991. Justice by geography:

urban, suburban and rural variations in juvenile administration. The

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82(1):l56-210.

Griffin, P. 2003. Trying and sentencing juveniles as adults: An analysis

of state transfer and blended sentencing laws. Special Projects Bulletin. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center

for Juvenile Justice.

Griffin, P. National overviews. State

juvenile justice profiles. Updated

August 2005. <www.ncjj.org/

stateprofiles/>.

Griffin, P., and Torbet, P. (eds.).

2002. Desktop Guide to Good Juvenile Probation Practice. Pittsburgh,

PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Hurst, H., III. 1985. Confidentiality of

Juvenile Justice Records and Proceedings: A Legacy Under Siege. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Hutzler, J. 1982. Cannon to the left,

cannon to the right: Can the juvenile court survive? In Today's Delinquent. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention Act of 1974, Public Law

93-415, 18 U.S.C. § 5032, as amended

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention Act of 1974, Public Law

93-415, 42 U.S.C. § 5601, as amended.

Krisberg, B. 1992. Juvenile Justice:

Improving the Quality of Care. San

Francisco, CA: National Council on

Crime and Delinquency.

Kuhn, J. 1989. A Digest of Cases of

the United States Supreme Court as to

Juvenile and Family Law, 1962—July

1988. Reno, NV: National Council of

Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

Kuhn, J. 1990. Supplement to a Digest of Cases of the United States

Supreme Court as to Juvenile and

Family Law, Addressing the

1988-1 990 Terms. Reno, NV: National Council of Juvenile and Family

Court Judges.

Maloney, D., Romig, D., and Armstrong, T. 1988. Juvenile probation:

The balanced approach. Juvenile &

Family Court Journal, 39(3).

McNamee, G. (ed.). 1999. A Noble

Experiment? The First 100 Years of

the Cook County Juvenile Court.

1899-1999. Chicago, IL: The Chicago

Bar Association with the Children's

Court Centennial Committee.

Moreland, D. 1941. History and

prophecy: John Augustus and his

successors. In National Probation Association Yearbook. As cited in National Center for Juvenile Justice.

1991. Desktop Guide to Good Juvenile Probation Practice. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

National Center for Juvenile Justice.

1991. Desktop Guide to Good Juvenile Probation Practice. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

National Center for Juvenile Justice.

2003. National Juvenile Court Data

Archive: Juvenile court case records

2000 [machine-readable data file].

Pittsburgh, PA: NCJJ [producer].

National Council on Crime and Del inquency. 1959. Standard Juvenile Court

Act: Sixth Edition. New York, NY:

NCCD.

Puzzanchera, C., Stahl, A., Finnegan,

T., Snyder, H., and Tierney, N. 2004.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2000. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Sabol, W. 2004. Juveniles and other

young persons (18 and under) in

the federal criminal justice system.

Unpublished paper. Pittsburgh, PA:

National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Sheridan, W. 1969. Legislative Guide

for Drafting Family and Juvenile

Court Acts. Washington, DC: U.S.

Children's Bureau.

-

-

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-7 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 30 of 38
Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process

Snyder, H., and Sickmund, M. 1995.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A National Report. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Snyder, H., and Sickmund, M. 1999.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999

National Report. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Snyder, H., Sickmund, M., and PoeYamagata, E. 2000. Juvenile Transfers

to Criminal Court in the 1990's:

Lessons Learned from Four Studies.

Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Stahl, A., Finnegan, T., and Kang, W.

2003. Easy access to juvenile court

statistics: 1985-2000 [online analysis]. Revised August 11,2003.

<www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/

ezajcs/>.

Szymanski, L. 1988. Confidentiality of

Proceedings. Pittsburgh, PA: National

Center for Juvenile Justice.

Szymanski, L. 2004. Confidentiality

of juvenile delinquency hearings

(2004 update). NCJJ Snapshot. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Szymanski, L. 2004. Law enforcement, court notice to school of student's delinquent act (2004 update).

NC/f Snapshot. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Szymanski, L. 2004. Releasing names

of juvenile offenders to the medial

public (2004 update). NCJJ Snapshot.

Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for

Juvenile Justice.

Szymanski, L. 2004. Fingerprinting!

photographing of juvenile offenders

Unpublished manuscript. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Szymanski, L. 2005. Confidentiality

of juvenile delinquency hearings

(2005 update). Unpublished analysis. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center

for Juvenile Justice.

Szymanski, L. 2005. Fingerprinting!

photographing of juvenile offenders

(2005 update). Unpublished analysis. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center

for Juvenile Justice.

Szymanski, L. 2005. Law enforcement, court notice to school of student's delinquent act (2005 update).

Unpublished analysis. Pittsburgh,

PA: National Center for Juvenile

Justice.

Szymanski, L. 2005. Releasing

names of juvenile offenders to the

media/public (2005 update). Unpublished analysis. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Tanenhaus, D. 2000. The evolution

of transfer out of the juvenile court.

In The Changing Borders of Juvenile

Justice. Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press.

Tanenhaus, D. 2004. Juvenile Justice

in the Making. Oxford, NY: Oxford

University Press.

Torbet, P., and Thomas, D. 1997.

Balanced and restorative justice:

Implementing the philosophy. Pennsylvania Progress, 4(3).

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-7 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 31 of 38
P. a

Juvenile Offenders

and Victims: 2006

National Report

Chapter 5: Law enforcement and juvenile crime .............121

Introductionto juvenile arrest data ............................. 122

Gender, age, and racial variations in juvenile arrests .............. 125

Juvenileproportion of arrests ................................. 126

Juvenilearrest 10-year trends .................................. 127

Femalejuvenile arrest trends .................................. 128

Youngjuvenile arrest trends ................................... 130

ViolentCrime Index arrest trends .............................. 132

Murderarrest trends ......................................... 133

Forciblerape arrest trends .................................... 134

Robberyarrest trends ........................................ 135

Aggravatedassault arrest trends ............................... 136

PropertyCrime Index arrest trends ............................. 137

Burglaryarrest trends ........................................ 138

Larceny-theft arrest trends .................................... 139

Motorvehicle theft arrest trends ............................... 140

Arsonarrest trends .......................................... 141

Simpleassault arrest trends ................................... 142

Weaponslaw violation arrest trends ............................ 143

Drugabuse violation arrest trends ............................. 144

Juvenilecrime vs. adult crime ................................. 145

Clearancestatistics .......................................... 146

Violentcrime arrest rates by state ............................. 148

Violentcrime arrest rates by county ............................ 149

Propertycrime arrest rates by state ............................ 150

Propertycrime arrest rates by county .......................... 151

Police disposition of juvenile arrests ............................ 152

Chapter5 sources ............................................ 153

Copyright 2006

National Center for Juvenile Justice

3700 S. Water Street, Suite 200

Pittsburgh, PA 15203-2363

Suggested citation: Snyder, Howard N., and Sickmund, Melissa. 2006. Juvenile

Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-7 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 32 of 38
• Ui* ij

Chapter 5

Law enforcement and

juvenile crime

For most delinquents, law enforcement is the doorway to the juvenile

justice system. Once a juvenile is

apprehended for a law violation, it

is the police officer who first determines if the juvenile will move deeper into the justice system or will be

diverted.

Law enforcement agencies track the

volume and characteristics of

crimes reported to them and use

this information to monitor the

changing levels of crime in their

communities. Not all crimes are re--

ported to law enforcement, and

most of those that are reported re-- main unsolved. Law enforcement's

new incident-based reporting systems include victim reports ol offender characteristics in crimes in

which the victim sees the offender;

for these crimes, even when there is

no arrest, law enforcement records

can be used to develop an understanding of juvenile offending. For

all other types of crimes, an understanding of juvenile involvement

comes through the study of arrest

statistics. Arrest statistics can monitor the flow of juveniles and adults

into the justice system and are the

most frequently cited source of information on juvenile crime trends.

This chapter describes the volume

and characteristics of juvenile

crime from law enforcement's perspective. It presents information on

the number and offense characteristics of juvenile arrests in 2003 and

historical trends in juvenile arrests.

This chapter also examines arrests

and arrest trends for female juvenile

offenders and offenders under age

13 and compares arrest trends for

males and females and different

racial groups. It includes arrest rate

trends for many specific offenses,

including murder and other violent

crimes, property crimes, and drug

and weapons offenses. The majority

of data presented in this chapter

were originally compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as part

of its Uniform Crime Reporting Program, which includes the Supplementary Homicide Reports and the

National Incident-Based Reporting

System.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-7 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 33 of 38
Chapter 5: Law enforcement and juvenile crime

I I1

The FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program monitors

law enforcement's response to juvenile crime

Since the 1930s, police agencies

have reported to the Uniform

Crime Reporting Program

Each year, thousands of police agendes voluntarily report the following

data to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI's) Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program:

• Number of Index crimes reported

to law enforcement (see sidebar).

• Number of arrests and the most

serious charge involved in each

arrest.

• Age, gender, and race of

arrestees.

• Proportion of reported Index

crimes cleared by arrest and the

proportion of these Index crimes

cleared by the arrest of persons

under age 18.

• Police dispositions of juvenile

arrests.

• Detailed victim, assailant, and circumstance information in murder

cases.

What can the UCR arrest data

tell us about crime and young

people?

The UCR arrest data can provide estimates of the annual number of arrests of juvenhles* within specific offense categories. UCR data can also

provide detail on juvenile arrests by

gender, race, and type of location

(urban, suburban, or rural area).

The data can be used to compare

* in this chapter, "juvenile" refers to

persons under age 18. This definition is

different from the legal definition of juveniles in 2003 in 13 states—lO states

where all 17-year-olds are defined as

adults and 3 states where all 16- and 17-

year-olds are defined as adults.

the relative number of arrests of

adults and juveniles within offense

categories, to develop estimates of

change in arrests over various time

periods, and to monitor the proportion of crimes cleared by arrests of

juveniles.

What do UCR data count?

UCR data document the number of

crimes reported to police, not the

number committed. The UCR Program monitors the number of Index

crimes that come to the attention of

law enforcement agencies. Although

this information is useful in identifying trends in the volume of reported

crime, it is important to recognize

that not all crimes are brought to

the attention of law enforcement.

Crimes are more likely to be reported if they involve a serious injury or

a large economic loss and if the victim wants law enforcement involved

in the matter. Therefore, some

crimes are more likely to come to

the attention of law enforcement

than are others. For example, the

National Crime Victimization Survey

for 2003 found that victims reported

77% of motor vehicle thefts to police, 61% of robberies, 59% of aggravated assaults, 54% of burglaries,

42% of simple assaults, 39% of sexual assaults, and 32% of thefts. Overall, victims reported to law enforcement 48% of violent crimes and 38%

of property crimes.

Changes in the proportion of crimes

reported may, therefore, reflect

more than changes in the number of

crimes actually committed. They

may also reflect changes in the willingness of victims to report crimes

to law enforcement agencies.

Another important aspect of UCR

data is that they document the number of arrests made, not the number

of persons arrested. A person can

What are the Crime Indexes?

The designers of the UCR Program

wanted to create indexes (similar in

concept to the Dow Jones lndustri

al Average and the Consumer

Pnce Index) that would be sensitive to changes in the volume and

nature of reported crime They decided to incorporate specific offenses into these Indexes based on

several factors likelihood of being

reported, frequenCy of occurrence,

pervasiveness In all geographical

areas of the country, and relative

seriousness

Violent Crime index—Includes

murder and nonnegligent

manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

Property Crime Index—Includes

burglarc larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.

CrIme Index—Includes all eight

crimes in the Violent Crime Index

and Property Crime Index.

A substantial proportion of the

crimes In the Property Crime Index

are generally considered less sen

ous cnmes such as shoplifting

theft from motor vehicles and bicy

cle theft, all of which are Included

in the larceny theft category The

Violent Crime Index contains what

are generally considered to be se

nous cnmes, although some violent

cnmes, such as kidnapping and extortion, are excluded.However, significant changes in a community's

violent crime problem (e g a dou

bling in the number of murders)

may not be reflected in the Violent

Cnme Index because these murder

counts could be overwhelmed by

small declines In the higher volume

violent crimes of robbery and aggravated assault For this and other

reasons the FBI is constdenng re

visions to the current indexes.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-7 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 34 of 38
Chapter 5: Law enforcement and juvenile crime

be arrested more than once in a

year. Each arrest is counted separately in the UCR data. One arrest

can represent many crimes. If a person were arrested for allegedly committing 40 burglaries, it would show

up in the UCR data as one arrest for

burglary. Also, one crime may result

in multiple arrests. For example,

three youth may be arrested for one

burglary. A single crime with multiple arrests is more likely to occur

with juveniles than with adult offenders because juveniles are more

likely than adults to commit crimes

in groups.

UCR arrest data reflect only the

most serious offense for which a

person was arrested. An arrest of a

person for both aggravated assault

and weapons possession would appear in the UCR data as one aggravated assault arrest. The UCR data

on number of weapons arrests,

therefore, reflect only those arrests

in which a weapons charge was the

most serious offense charged. This

aspect of UCR counting rules must

be taken into consideration when

the data are used in analysis of arrest volume and trends for less serious offenses.

Clearance data provide another perspective on law enforcement. A

crime is considered cleared if someone is charged with the crime or if

someone is believed to have committed the crime but for some reason (e.g., the death of the suspect,

unwillingness of the victim to prosecute) an arrest cannot be made. If a

person is arrested and charged with

committing 40 burglaries, UCR

records 40 burglary clearances. If

three people are arrested for robbing a liquor store, UCR records one

robbery cleared.

Dividing the number of crimes

cleared by the number of crimes reported in a year gives an estimate

of the proportion of crimes cleared

in a year. Historically, a greater proportion of violent crimes than property crimes are cleared.

Proportion of

Most serious crimes cleared

offense in 2003

Violent Crime Index 47%

Murder 62

Forcible rape 44

Robbery 26

Aggravated assault 56

Property Crime Index 16

Burglary 13

Larceny-theft 18

Motor vehicle theft 13

Arson 17

UCR data also document the proportion of cleared crimes that were

cleared by the arrest of persons

under age 18. Assessments of the juvenile contribution to the crime

problem are often based on this

proportion. It is important to note

that clearance and arrest statistics

generally give very different pictures of the juvenile contribution to

crime.

2003 juvenile

proportion

Most serious Crimes

offense Arrests cleared

Violent Crime Index 15% 12%

Murder 9 5

Forcible rape 16 11

Robbery 24 14

Aggravated assault 14 12

Property Crime Index 29 19

Burglary 29 17

Larceny-theft 28 20

Motor vehicle theft 29 17

Arson 51 41

How should juvenile arrest and

clearance data be interpreted?

Considerations in interpreting UCR

data on juvenile arrests and clearances can be demonstrated by

attempting to answer a typical

question about juvenile crime: "In

2003, what proportion of all robberies were committed by juve--

niles?" The UCR data show that 24%

of all arrests for robbery in 2003

were of persons under age 18 and

that 14% of all robberies cleared in

2003 were cleared by the arrest of

persons under age 18.

The key to reconciling the difference between the two percentages

is the fact, noted previously, that juveniles are more likely than adults

to commit crimes in groups. If a police department cleared all seven of

its robberies in a year by arresting

two juveniles for one incident and

six different adults for the other six

incidents, the juvenile proportion

of arrests for robbery would be 25%

(2 in 8), and the juvenile proportion

of robberies cleared would be 14%

(1 in 7). Arrest percentages are

offender based; clearance percentages are incident based.

Clearance data are a better choice

than arrest data for determining the

juvenile proportion of all robberies

committed. There are, however,

questions about what clearance figures actually represent.

One question stems from the fact

that a crime cleared by the arrest of

a juvenile and the arrest of an adult

is classified by the FBI as an adult

clearance. Therefore, some cleared

crimes involving juvenile offenders

are not counted in the proportion of

crimes cleared by juvenile arrest,

which makes the juvenile clearance

proportion an underestimate of juvenile involvement in cleared crimes.

Another question is whether it is

safe to assume that characteristics

of robberies cleared are similar to

characteristics of robberies not

cleared (i.e., whether the 26% of

robberies cleared in 2003 were like

the 74% not cleared).

-

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-7 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 35 of 38
Chapter 5: Law enforcement and juvenile crime

A study by Snyder of more than

21,000 robberies in 7 states between

1991 and 1993 found that robberies

by juveniles were more likely to re--

suit in arrest than were robberies

by adults. The FBI's National Incident-Based Reporting System

(NIBRS) data from these states gave

the victim's perception of the age of

the offender and indicated whether

the offender was arrested. This

study found that robberies by juveniles were 23% more likely to result

in arrest than were robberies by

adults. Therefore, the juvenile proportion of cleared robberies was

substantially greater than the proportion of robberies actually committed by juveniles. Based on this

finding, it appears that UCR clearance percentages overestimate the

juvenile responsibility for crime because juvenile offenders are more

likely to be arrested.

Arrest data and clearance data can

be used to explore different types of

questions. Arrest data provide a

rough estimate of how many juve--

niles entered the justice system in a

given year, but it must be remembered that a particular individual

may have been arrested more than

once during the year (and therefore

counted more than once) and that a

particular arrest may have involved

more than one offense (with only

the most serious charge counted).

Clearance data are more useful than

arrest data in estimating the proportion of crimes committed by juveniles, but evidence that juveniles

are more likely than adults to be

arrested for their crimes indicates

that clearance percentages also exaggerate juveniles' actual share of

crime. However, the most important

thing to remember in using arrest

and clearance data to analyze juvenile crime trends is that changes

in arrest data are likely to reflect

actual changes in the number of juveniles entering the juvenile justice

system, whereas changes in clearance proportions can be used to

monitor changes in the relative responsibility of juveniles for crime.

What is the accuracy of the

UCR-based juvenile arrest and

clearance trends?

Annually, the FBI generates national

estimates of reported crimes for the

8 Index offenses and national estimates of total arrests in 29 offense

categories, It does not currently

produce national estimates of juve--

nile arrests, but recently it has re--

vived production of juvenile arrest

rates for selected offenses. These

estimates are all based on data re--

ported to the FBI by contributing

law enforcement agencies in a given

year. Statisticians characterize

these annual samples as "opportunistic" samples—i.e., each sample

contains data from every agency

that was willing and able to report

to the FBI in that year. The essential

problem is that the sample is not

scientifically determined; therefore,

no one can assume that the sample's characteristics (e.g., juvenile

arrest proportions, juvenile arrest

rates) are representative of all law

enforcement agencies in the U.S.

For example, assume that one sample contained a disproportionate

number of agencies from large metropolitan areas or cities. In that

case, the arrest tables in the FBI's

UCR-based report Crime in the United States would present a picture of

juvenile arrests with a more urban

character compared with the U.S.

as a whole. The data from the re--

porting sample would have a higher

percentage of violent crime arrests,

a higher percentage of juvenile

arrests, higher rates of juvenile

arrests for violent crimes, and higher proportions and rates of arrest

of black juveniles across offense

categories.

The quality of the juvenile arrest

rate trends derived from the sample

data reported in Crime in the United

States is dependent on the consistent representativeness of the annual reporting samples, and the FBI

does not currently assess this representativeness. What is known is that

the coverage of the sample has

changed substantially in recent

years. For 2003, law enforcement

agencies with jurisdiction over 70%

of the U.S. population contributed

data on arrests; between 1980 and

2003, this proportion ranged from

63% to 86%.

The traditional approach to the development of national estimates of

juvenile arrests (and clearances) is

based on the assumption that the

reporting samples in the Crime in

the United States series are nationally representative. The more this assumption is violated, the less reliable are the estimates. It is possible

to adjust for some of the known, or

measurable, biases in the samples,

but this work has not been done.

Even if such adjustments were

made, the validity of the estimates

would still be in question because

of the inherent weaknesses of an

opportunistic sample.

From a pragmatic standpoint, those

who wish to study arrest and clearance trends should turn to the FBI's

UCR Program and its Crime in the

United States reports. This resource

is the best information available,

even though it has weaknesses.

Users, however, should always be

aware of the potential biases in the

data and the potential effects of

these biases.

-

-

-

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-7 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 36 of 38
Chapter 5: Law enforcement and juvenile crime

*

In 2003. law enforcement agencies reported

2.2 million arrests of persons under age 18

The most serious charge in almost half of all juvenile arrests in 2003 was larceny-theft, simple assault,

a drug abuse violation, disorderly conduct, or a liquor law violation

2003 juvenile

Most serious offense arrest estimates

Total 2220300

Violent Crime Index 92,300

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 1,130

Forcible rape 4,240

Robbery 25,440

Aggravated assault 61,490

Property Crime Index 463,300

Burglary 85,100

Larceny-theft 325,600

Motor vehicle theft 44,500

Arson 8,200

Other (simple) assault 241,900

Forgery and counterfeiting 4,700

Fraud 8,100

Embezzlement 1,200

Stolen property (buying, receiving, possessing) 24,300

Vandalism 107,700

Weapons (carrying, possessing, etc.) 39,200

Prostitution and commercialized vice 1,400

Sex offense (except forcible rape and prostitution) 18,300

Drug abuse violation 197,100

Gambling 1,700

Offenses against family and children 7,000

Driving under the influence 21,000

Liquor laws 136,900

Drunkenness 17,600

Disorderly conduct 193,000

Vagrancy 2,300

All other offenses (except traffic) 379,800

Suspicion 1,500

Curfew and loitering law violation 136,500

Runaway 123,600

U.S. population ages 10-17 33,499,000

Percent of total juvenile arrests

Ages American

Female 16-17 White Black Indian Asian

29% 68% 71% 27% 1% 2%

18 67 53 45 1 1

9 89 49 48 1 2

2 63 64 33 2 1

9 75 35 63 0 2

24 64 59 38 1 1

32 63 69 28 1 2

12 65 71 26 1 1

39 62 70 27 1 2

17 75 56 40 1 2

12 39 81 17 1 1

32 57 61 36 1 1

35 87 77 20 1 2

33 82 66 32 1 1

40 94 68 30 0 2

15 73 57 41 1 1

14 56 80 18 1 1

11 64 66 32 1 2

69 86 51 47 0 1

9 49 71 26 1 1

16 83 72 26 1 1

2 85 12 86 0 2

39 65 77 20 2 2

20 98 94 4 2 1

35 90 92 4 3 1

23 87 89 8 2 1

31 59 64 34 1 1

25 75 62 37 1 1

27 72 74 23 1 2

24 74 66 33 1 0

30 71 68 30 1 1

59 64 73 20 2 5

49 24 78 16 1 4

• Females accounted for the majority of arrests for running away from home (59%) and prostitution and commercialized

vice (69%).

• Black youth, who accounted for 16% of the juvenile population in 2003, were involved in a disproportionate number of

juvenile arrests for robbery (63%), murder (48%), motor vehicle theft (40%), and aggravated assault (38%).

Notes: UCR data do not distinguish the ethnic group Hispanic; Hispanics may be of any race. In 2003, 92% of Hispanics ages 10-17 were

classified racially as white. National estimates of juvenile arrests were developed using FBI estimates of total arrests and juvenile arrest

proportions in the reporting sample. Detail may not add to totals because of rounding.

Source: Authors' analyses of the FBI's Crime in the United Slates 2003.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-7 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 37 of 38
Chapter 5: Law enforcement and juvenile crime

•,1ij

In 2003. 1 5°Io of male arrests and 20% of female

arrests involved a person younger than age 18

Based on arrest proportions, the juvenile involvement in crime varies substantially by the type of

offense

Most serious offense

Total

Violent Crime Index

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter

Forcible rape

Robbery

Aggravated assault

Property Crime Index

Burglary

Larceny-theft

Motor vehicle theft

Arson

Other (simple) assault

Forgery and counterfeiting

Fraud

Embezzlement

Stolen property (buying, receiving, possessing)

Vandalism

Weapons (carrying, possessing, etc.)

Prostitution and commercialized vice

Sex offense (except forcible rape and prostitution)

Drug abuse violation

Gambling

Offenses against family and children

Driving under the influence

Liquor laws

Drunkenness

Disorderly conduct

Vagrancy

All other offenses (except traffic)

Juvenile arrests as a percent of total arrests

American

All Male Female White Black Indian Asian

16% 15% 20% 16% 16% 16% 22%

15 15 16 13 19 14 18

9 9 8 9 9 10 12

16 16 24 16 16 20 12

24 24 20 19 27 19 32

14 13 16 13 16 13 15

29 28 30 29 27 35 37

29 30 25 30 28 36 37

28 27 30 29 26 34 38

29 29 30 27 33 40 34

51 53 40 53 41 52 58

19 17 26 18 22 16 21

4 5 4 5 3 6 5

3 3 2 3 3 3 6

7 8 6 7 7 5 9

19 20 16 18 21 25 25

39 41 33 41 33 35 38

23 23 32 25 20 22 34

2 2 2 2 2 2 1

20 20 22 19 22 13 20

12 12 11 13 9 16 15

16 17 3 7 19 20 8

5 4 9 6 3 7 7

1 1 2 2 1 2 1

22 20 30 24 11 23 25

3 3 5 3 2 3 5

30 28 37 29 34 22 37

8 8 9 9 7 2 6

10 10 13 12 8 9 13

• In 2003, a juvenile was the alleged offender in 51% of arson, 39% of vandalism, 29% of motor vehicle theft and burglary, 23% of weapons law violation, 12% of drug abuse violation, and 9% of murder arrests.

• Juveniles were involved in a greater proportion of female arrests than male arrests for liquor law violations (30% vs.

20%), simple assault (26% vs. 17%), weapons law violations (32% vs. 23%), and disorderly conduct (37% vs. 28%).

• Overall, in 2003, 16% of white arrests and 16% of black arrests involved a person younger than age 18. However, for

some offenses, juveniles were involved in a greater proportion of black arrests than white arrests (e.g., robbery and

motor vehicle theft). For other offenses, juvenile involvement was greater in white arrests than black arrests (e.g., liquor

law violations, arson, and vandalism).

Source: Authors' adaptation of the FBI'S Crime in the United States 2003.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-7 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 38 of 38
Chapter 5: Law enforcement and juvenile crime

i:

Between 1994 and 2003. juvenile arrests for violent

crime fell proportionately more than adult arrests

Over the 10-year period from 1994 to 2003, the percent decline In the number of arrests was greater for

juveniles than for adults for each offense within the Violent Crime Index

Percent change in arrests, 1994-2003

Alt persons Juveniles Adults

Most serious offense All Male Female All Male Female All Male Female

Total —3% —7% 12% —18% —22% —3% 1% —3% 17%

Violent Crime Index —16 —20 10 —32 —36 —10 —12 —16 14

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter —36 —37 —30 —68 —69 —49 —30 —30 —28

Forcible rape —22 —23 —1 —25 —25 —30 —22 —22 12

Robbery —25 —26 —12 —43 —44 —38 —17 —18 —2

Aggravated assault —12 —17 14 —26 —31 —2 —10 —15 17

Property Crime Index —23 —27 —12 —38 —44 —21 —15 —18 —8

Burglary —23 —26 —3 —40 —41 —27 —14 —17 9

Larceny—theft —23 —27 —14 —35 —43 —19 —16 —19 —11

Motor vehicle theft —26 —30 —5 —52 —54 —44 —6 —12 34

Arson —29 —29 —24 —36 —36 —38 —18 —19 —10

Other (simple) assault 3 —4 32 10 1 36 1 —5 31

Forgery and counterfeiting 1 —4 10 —47 —46 —47 6 0 16

Fraud —17 —21 —12 —29 —29 —27 —16 —20 —11

Embezzlement 19 2 42 15 8 28 19 2 43

Stolen property (buying, receiving,

possessing) —21 —25 6 —46 —48 —29 —11 —16 18

Vandalism —18 —21 5 —33 —36 —11 —3 —7 16

Weapons (carrying, possessing, etc.) —36 —36 —34 —41 —42 —22 —35 —34 —38

Prostitution and commercialized vice —18 —22 —15 31 —24 86 —18 —22 —16

Sex offenses (except forcible

rape and prostitution) —10 —10 —3 2 0 26 —12 —13 —9

Drug abuse violation 22 20 35 19 13 56 23 21 33

Gambling —49 —51 —37 —59 —58 —70 —48 —50 —35

Offensesagainstfamilyandchildren 11 4 41 19 12 31 10 4 42

Driving under the influence —6 —10 21 33 25 83 —6 —11 20

Liquor laws 16 8 45 4 —5 26 20 12 56

Drunkenness —26 —28 —9 —11 —18 24 —26 —28 —10

Disorderlyconduct —11 —16 4 13 2 46 —19 —21 —11

Vagrancy 16 17 10 —50 —53 —37 32 36 20

All other offenses (except traffic) 17 12 38 —2 —8 17 19 14 42

Curfew and loitering law violation —1 —3 5 —1 —3 5 NA NA NA

Runaway —42 —44 —40 —42 —44 —40 NA NA NA

• Between 1994 and 2003, female juvenile arrests either increased more or decreased less than male juvenile arrests in

many offense categories (e.g., driving under the influence, drug abuse violations, simple assault, liquor law violations,

and aggravated assault). As a result, while male juvenile arrests declined 22% over the period, female juvenile arrests

declined just 3%.

U Between 1994 and 2003, while both juvenile and adult male arrests for simple assault changed little (1% and —5%, respectively), arrests for both juvenile and adult females increased substantially (36% and 31%, respectively). This implies that the increase in juvenile female arrests for simple assault over the period was a trend for females in general,

not for juvenile females specifically.

Source: Authors' adaptation of the FBI's Crime in the United States 2003.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-8 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 35
Between 1980 and 2003, the female percentage of juvenile violent

crime arrests increased, with the overall increase tied mainly to

aggravated assault arrests

Female percent of juvenile arrests

25%

Aggravated assau

20%

15%

1001

Murder

0%

1981 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 2003

The female percentage of juvenile arrests increased between 1980

and 2003 for each of the four Property Crime Index offenses

Female percent of juvenile arrests

40% 1

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

1981 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 2003

Source: Authors' analyses of the FBI's Crime in the United States reports for the years

1980 through 2003.

Chapter 5: Law enforcement and juvenile crime

l

The female proportion of youth entering the juvenile

justice system for law violations has increased

Gender-specific factors influence

juvenile arrest trends

If juvenile males and females were

contributing equally to an arrest

trend, then the female proportion of

juvenile arrests would remain constant. If, however, the female proportion changes, that means that

the female arrest trend differs from

the male trend—and any explanation of juvenile arrest trends must

incorporate factors that affect

males and females differently.

A major story in the last few years

has been the rise in the proportion

of females entering the juvenile justice system. in 1980, 20% of all juvenile arrests were female arrests; in

2003, this percentage had increased

to 29%—with the majority of this

growth since the early 1990s. The

female proportion increased between 1980 and 2003 in juvenile

arrests for Violent Crime Index offenses (from 10% to 18%) and for

Property Crime Index offenses (from

19% to 32%); however, the female

proportion of drug abuse violations

arrests was the same in 1980 and

2003 (16%). This implies there were

(1) different factors influencing the

volume and/or nature of law-violating behaviors by male and female

juveniles over this time period

and/or (2) differential responses by

law enforcement to these behaviors.

A closer look at violence trends

points to possible explanations

If juvenile females had simply be--

come more violent, the female proportion of juvenile arrests would be

expected to have increased for each

violent crime. This did not occur.

For example, the female proportion

of juvenile arrests remained relatively constant between 1980 and

2003 for robbery (7% to 9%). The

change that caused the Violent

Crime Index proportion to increase

between 1980 and 2003 was the increase in the female proportion of

juvenile arrests for aggravated assault (from 15% to 24%). Similarly, a

large increase was seen in the

female proportion of juvenile arrests for simple assault (from 21%

to 32%). To understand the relative

increase in female arrests for violence, it is necessary to look for factors related primarily to assault.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-8 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 35
Chapter 5: Law enforcement and juvenile crime

Between 1980 and 2003, the female proportion of juvenile arrests

increased for simple assault, vandalism, weapons, liquor law

violations, and curfew and loitering law violations

One possible explanation for this

pattern could be the changing response of law enforcement to domestic violence incidents. Domestic

assaults represent a larger proportion of female violence than male violence. For example, analysis of the

2001 NIBRS data finds that 18% of

aggravated assaults known to law

enforcement committed by juvenile

males were against family members

or intimate partners, compared

with 33% of aggravated assaults

committed by juvenile females.

Mandatory arrest laws for domestic

violence, coupled with an increased

willingness to report these crimes

to authorities, would yield a greater

increase in female than male arrests

for assault, while having no effect

on the other violent crimes. Thus,

policy and social changes may be a

stimulus for the increased proportion of juvenile female arrests.

The female proportion of arrests

increased for many offenses

When the female proportion of juvenile arrests remains constant over

time, factors controlling this arrest

trend are unrelated to gender. This

pattern is seen in juvenile robbery

and arson arrests from 1980 through

2003. Over this period, the female

arrest proportions for some other

offenses (e.g., murder, prostitution,

and drug abuse violations) first declined and then increased back to

earlier levels. However, for most

other offenses (e.g., aggravated assault, simple assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, vandalism, weapons, liquor, and

curfew/loitering law violations), the

female proportions of juvenile arrests increased substantially over

the 1980-2003 period.

Female percent of juvenile arrests

35%

30%

25%

20% Other (simple) assault

15%

10%

5%

0%

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Female percent of juvenile arrests

12%

10%

:

4%

2%

0%

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Female percent of juvenile arrests

20%

16%

12°/o Drug abuse-'.

8%

4%

0%

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Female percent of juvenile arrests

35%

30%

25%

20% Curfew and loitering

15%

10%

5%

0%

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Female percent of juvenile arrests

14%

1°!o

10%

8% Vandalism

6%

4%

2%

0%

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Female percent of juvenile arrests

80%

60% °''

40°! Prostitution and

0

commercialized vice

20%

0%

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Female percent of juvenile arrests

35%

30%

15%

10%

5%

0%

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Female percent of juvenile arrests

80%

0 Running away 60/a

40%

20%

0%

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

• Between 1980 and 2003, the large decline and subsequent growth in the female proportion of juvenile arrests for drug abuse violations reflected a decline in the female arrest rate for drug abuse violations during the 1980s

and early 1990s while the male rate generally held constant, followed by a

proportionately greater increase in the female rate after the early 1990s.

Source: Authors' analyses of the FBI's Crime in the United Slates reports for the years

1980_through 2003.

-

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-8 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 3 of 35
While the overall proportion of juvenile arrests involving youth

younger than age 13 declined from 1980 to 2003, their proportion

of juvenile Violent Crime Index arrests grew from 6% to 9%

Young (under age 13) percent of juvenile arrests

14% 1

1981 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 2003

The proportion of juvenile Property Crime Index arrests involving

youth younger than age 13 declined from 16% in the late 1980s to

11% in 2003

Young (under age 13) percent of juvenile arrests

40%

35/0 / Arson

30%

25%

Property Crime Index

Larceny-theft

1981 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 2003

Source: Authors' analyses of the FBI's Crime in the United States reports for the years

1980 through 2003.

Chapter 5: Law enforcement and juvenile crime

i

Violent and drug arrest rates for young juveniles rose

from 1980 to 2003 as their overall arrest rate fell

Arrest rates for very young

juveniles declined for some

offenses, increased for others

A common perception in the last

few years was that the rate and proportion of young juveniles (under

age 13) entering the juvenile justice

system had increased. This statement is not true. In 1980, there were

an estimated 1,476 arrests of perSons ages 10-12 for every 100,000

persons in this age group in the U.S.

population. By 2003, this arrest rate

had fallen to 1,296, a decline of 12%.

In 1980, 9.5% of all juvenile arrests

were arrests of persons under age

13; in 2003, this percentage had decreased to 8.5%—with the majority

of the decrease occurring during

the mid-1990s.

However, while the overall arrest

rate for young juveniles declined,

arrests for some offenses increased

dramatically, and the types of young

juvenile offenders entering the juvenile justice system changed. For example, the Property Crime Index arrest rate for juveniles ages 10-12 fell

51% between 1980 and 2003. Over

the same period, the Violent Crime

Index arrest rate increased 27%. As

a result, while the overall rate of

young juvenile arrests fell, a larger

proportion of those arrested were

arrested for a violent crime. Over

the period 1980-2003, the arrest

rate for juveniles ages 10-12 fell for

burglary (68%), larceny-theft (47%),

vandalism (37%), and running away

from home (45%). Over the same

period, the arrest rate for young juveniles increased for aggravated assault (91%), simple assault (197%),

weapons law violations (138%), sex

offenses (12 1%), drug abuse violations (105%), disorderly conduct

(116%), and curfew and loitering

law violations (126%). As a result,

even though the overall arrest rate

declined, more young juveniles

entered the juvenile justice system

12%

100/ Aggravated assault

0

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%

10% f Burglary

5% =.-

0%

charged with violent and drug

offenses in 2003 than in 1980. This

implies there were (1) different

factors influencing the volume and!

or nature of law-violating behavior

by young juveniles over this time

period and/or (2) differential re--

sponses by law enforcement to

these behaviors.

Rape

Violent Crime Index

Robbery

Arrest rates of young females

outpace those of young males

The 12% decline in the total arrest

rate for youth ages 10-12 between

1980 and 2003 was a combination of

a 20% decline in the young male arrest rate and a 22% increase in the

young female arrest rate. For most

Murder

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-8 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 4 of 35
Chapter 5: Law enforcement and juvenile crime

Between 1980 and 2003, the proportion of Juvenile arrests

involving youth younger than age 13 increased for weapons, sex,

and drug offenses and disorderly conduct

offenses, the arrest rate for young

females either increased more or

decreased less from 1980 to 2003

than the arrest rate for young

males. As a result, a greater number

and proportion of the young juvenile arrestees in 2003 were female

than in 1980, and these females had

very different offending patterns

compared with 1980.

Percent change in young juvenile (ages

10-12) arrest rate,1980-2003:

Offense Male Female

All offenses —20% 22%

Violent Crime Index 14 135

Aggravated assault 75 186

Property Crime Index —57 —28

Burglary —69 —49

Larceny-theft —54 —26

Simple assault 174 284

Stolen property —51 21

Vandalism —42 26

Weapons violation 119 522

Sex offense 116 186

Drug abuse violation 95 143

Disorderly conduct 89 244

Curfew 101 228

Runaway —51 —36

Analysis of race-specific arrest

rate trends for very young

juveniles is not possible

The FBI's UCR Program captures information on the gender of arrestees subdivided into a large set

of detailed age groups (e.g., under

10, 10-12, 13-14, 15, 16, and 17). It

also captures information on the

race of arrestees, but the only age

breakdown associated with these

counts is "under 18" and "18 and

above." Therefore, age-specific arrest trends for racial groups, including trends for young juveniles, cannot be analyzed with UCR data.

Young (under age 13) percent of juvenile arrests

16%

12°/ Other (simple) assault

8%

4%

0%

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Young (under age 13) percent of juvenile arrests

12%

10%

8%

Weapons./

6% - ''/'"-' -

4%

2%

0%

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Young (under age 13) percent of juvenile arrests

3%

0%

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Young (under age 13) percent ot juvenile arrests

7%

6% \

, ,S'-,---. -

Curfew and loitering

3%

2%

1%

0%

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Young (under age 13) percent of juvenile arrests

25%

20%

15% Vandalism

10%

5%

0%

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Young (under age 13) percent of juvenile arrests

20%

16%

12% ../Sex offense

8%

4%

0%

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Young (under age 13) percent of juvenile arrests

12/,

8 - Disorderly conduct

6%

4%

2%

0%

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Young lunder age 13) percent of juvenile arrests

12%

10%

8/ Running a"

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

• In 1980, a greater proportion of juvenile simple assault arrests than aggravated assault arrests involved youth under age 13 (12% vs. 8%); this difference narrowed between 1980 and 2003 (to 13% vs. 11%) because the proportion of juvenile arrests involving youth under age 13 increased more for

aggravated assault than for simple assault.

Source: Authors' analyses of the FBI's Crime in the United States reports for the years

1980 through 2003.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-8 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 5 of 35
By 2003, the juvenile Violent Crime Index arrest rate had fallen to

the levels of the late 1 980s—but not for females

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

600

500

400

300

200

100

1981 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 2003

Violent Crime Index arrest rate trends by gender and race

Source: Authors' analyses of arrest data from the FBI and population data from the U.S.

Census Bureau. [See arrest rate source note at the end of this chapter for details.]

1988 and 1994—and large declines rates for the other races were all

between 1994 and 2003, By 2003, below their 1988 levels: blacks

the white juvenile Violent Crime (-35%), American Indian (-16%),

Index arrest rate had returned to its and Asian (-23%).

1988 level. In contrast, the 2003

Chapter 5: Law enforcement and juvenile crime

U •Ui

In 2003. the juvenile violent crime arrest rate was

lower than it was before its increase in the late 1 980s

The juvenile violent crime arrest

rate is at its lowest level in a

generation

Between 1980 and 1988, the juvenile

Violent Crime Index arrest rate was

essentially constant. The rate began

to increase in 1989; by 1994, it was

61% above its 1988 level. This unsettling trend triggered speculation

that the nature of juvenile offenders

had changed and spurred state legislators to pass laws that made

sanctioning youth in the adult justice system easier. After 1994, however, the juvenile Violent Crime

Index arrest rate fell consistently for

the next 9 years; by 2003, it had fallen below the levels of the early

1980s.

The female violent crime arrest

rate remains relatively high

In 1980, the male juvenile Violent

Crime Index arrest rate was 8.3

times the female rate. With only a

few exceptions, this gender disparity declined annually between 1980

and 2003, so that by 2003, the male

rate was just 4.2 times the female

rate. In the growth period between

1988 and 1994, the female rate increased more than the male rate

(98% vs. 56%). The decline in the juvenile violent crime arrest rate between 1994 and 2003 was driven primarily by the male arrest rate, which

fell more than the female rate (51%

vs. 32%). The convergence in the

male and female rates between 1980

and 2003 reflects an overall 26% decline in the male rate coupled with a

47% increase in the female rate.

Violent crime arrest rates

declined more for black youth

than other racial groups

All racial groups experienced large

increases in their juvenile Violent

Crime Index arrest rate between

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

1,000

800

600 _,/ale \

400

200 otale

0

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

2,000

400

0

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

160

120

80

40

0

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

350

Whit

Amer. Indian

50 Asian

0

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-8 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 6 of 35
The arrest rate for murder in 2003 was the lowest since at least

1980 for white, black, male, and female juveniles

-

1981 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 2003

Murder arrest rate trends by gender and race

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

16

14

12

10

Chapter 5: Law enforcement and juvenile crime

Lu u::

The juvenile arrest rate for murder in 2003 was

substantially below any year in the 1 980s or 1 990s

The juvenile violent crime

wave predicted by some in the

mid-i 990s has not occurred

The extraordinary growth in juvenile arrests for murder between

1987 and 1993 caused some to say

and many to believe that America's

youth were out of control. The juvenile arrest rate for murder increased

110% over this period, and speculation was that the rate would continue to grow. However, the juvenile arrest rate for murder then declined,

more quickly than it had increased,

so that by 1998, the rate returned to

its 1987 level. After 1998, the rate

continued to decline; by 2003, the

rate was about half its level in 1987

and 77% below the peak year of

1993. In 2003, juvenile arrests for

murder were at a 30-year low.

Juvenile murder arrest rates

were at generational lows in

2003

During the period from 1980 to

2003, the male juvenile murder arrest rate averaged 12 times the fe--

male rate. The growth in the overall

juvenile murder arrest rate between

1987 and 1993 was attributable to

the large increase (117%) in the

much larger male rate. However,

during this period, the female rate

also increased (36%), although this

change had relatively little effect on

the overall trend. Both the male and

female rates fell substantially between 1993 and 2003 (78% and 62%,

respectively). In 2003, both rates

were at their lowest levels since at

least 1980.

During the period from 1980

through 2003, the black juvenile

murder arrest rate averaged more

than 6 times the white rate, but

their trends over the period were

similar. Between 1987 and 1993,

both the black rate and the white

rate increased substantially (130%

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

15 //laIe \

10

Female

0

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

and 75%, respectively). Both rates

then fell dramatically between 1993

and 2003, so that the 2003 juvenile

murder arrest rate was far below

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

1

Female

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

14

12 Amer. Indian 10

2sIa"A

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

the 1987 rate for both black juveniles (-62%) and white juveniles

(-43%).

Note: The murder arrest rate for American Indians fluctuated annually because of the

small number of arrests, but the average rate over the period was just a little above the

white rate (5.2 vs. 4.2).

Source: Authors' analyses of arrest data from the FBI and population data from the U.S.

Census Bureau. [See arrest rate source note at the end of this chapter for details.]

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-8 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 7 of 35
Between 1991 and 2003, the juvenile arrest rate for forcible rape

fell 46%, with a larger decline in the black rate than the white rate

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

25

20

15

10

1981 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 2003

Chapter 5: Law enforcement and juvenile crime

.

Since 1980. the juvenile arrest rate for rape—and

the black-white disparity in the rate—have declined

The forcible rape arrest rate for

juveniles in 2003 was at a low

for this generation

The FBI's UCR Program defines the

crime of forcible rape as the carnal

knowledge of a female forcibly and

against her will, including rapes by

force and attempts or assaults to

rape, regardless of the age of the

victim. The UCR Program classifies

other types of violent sexual assaults, including those with male

victims and those involving other

types of sexual acts (e.g., forcible

sodomy), in other offense categories. Most persons arrested in

forcible rapes are male. Between

1980 and 2003, more than 98% of all

juveniles arrested for forcible rape

were male. Forcible rape arrest rate trends by race

The juvenile arrest rate for forcible

rape grew substantially (44%) between 1980 and 1991, a peak year.

Unlike other crimes in the Violent

Crime Index, the annual number of

juvenile arrests for forcible rape

began increasing much earlier in

the decade, though it peaked near

the peak years of the other violent

crimes. Like other violent crimes,

the juvenile arrest rate for forcible

rape fell substantially and consistently between 1993 and 2003, so

that in 2003, the rate was 22% of its

1980 level. As with murder, the juvenile arrest rate for forcible rape

in 2003 was at its lowest level since

at least 1980.

White and black arrest rates

converged over the last two

decades

In 1980, the black juvenile arrest

rate for forcible rape was 7.4 times

the white rate; by 2003, the black

rate was 2.5 times the white rate.

This convergence occurred primarily

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

2olteTTiTTNm

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

because of the large decline in the

black rate.

The white juvenile arrest rate for

forcible rape nearly doubled between 1980 and 1991 (up 92%). The

black rate also grew in the early

l980s; however, it peaked in 1987,

several years before the peak in the

white rate—dissimilar to other violent crime patterns. The fall in the

Arrests per 100000 juveniles ages 10-17

25

20 /.Amer. Indian

15 A

7 _ij 10 \..., sj . /

-r White /

sian

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

black rate from 1987 through 2003,

with few exceptions, was consistent

and substantial, falling 68%. The

white rate also fell after its peak in

the early 1990s, but the fall was far

less than the decline in the black

rate. As a result, in 2003, the white

juvenile arrest rate for forcible rape

was 27% above its 1980 level, while

the black rate was 58% below its

1980 level.

Note: The forcible arrest rate for American Indians fluctuated annually because of the

small number of arrests, but the average rate over the period was just a little above the

white rate (12.3 vs. 11.9).

Source: Authors' analyses of arrest data from the FBI and population data from the U.S.

Census Bureau. [See arrest rate source note at the end of this chapter for details.]

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-8 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 8 of 35
Between 1980 and 2003, the annual juvenile arrest rate for robbery

declined substantially, even though a period of growth was

embedded in the trend

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 1 0—I 7

1981 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 2003

Robbery arrest rate trends by gender and race

Chapter 5: Law enforcement and juvenile crime

The substantial growth in the juvenile arrest rate for

robbery between 1988 and 1995 was quickly erased

Recent juvenile robbery arrest

rates are well below the 1980

level

After falling through most of the

1980s, the juvenile arrest rate for

robbery increased sharply in 1989

and continued through its peak

years of 1994 and 1995. Over the 6-

year period from 1988 through

1994, the juvenile arrest rate for

robbery increased 69%, then held

constant in 1995 at its highest level.

In the next 3 years, the rate

dropped precipitously—falling in

1998 to below the 1988 level and

erasing the increase of the prior

decade. In the years between 1998

and 2003, the juvenile arrest rate

for robbery continued to fall, so

that in 2003, the rate was just onethird its level in 1995 and less than

one-half the level in 1980. If the annual juvenile robbery arrest rate reflects juveniles' relative involvement in this crime, then juveniles in

2003 were committing far fewer robberies than in any year in the 1980s

and 1990s.

Male, female, white, and black

arrest trends for robbery were

similar

From 1980 through 2003, trends in

the juvenile arrest rates for robbery

for males, females, and each racial

group were similar, mirroring the

pattern of decline, growth, and then

substantial decline observed in the

overall trend. Over this time period,

however, the male rate for robbery

averaged 11 times the female rate,

with the rates converging slightly

over the period.

The black juvenile arrest rate for

robbery averaged 12 times the

white rate in the 1980s; in the

1990s, the rates converged, resulting in the black rate averaging 7

times the white rate between 2000

and 2003. In the growth period

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

Arrests per 100.000juvenilesages 10-17

400

300

200 Male

100

Female______

0

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

White

0

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

between 1988 and 1995, the white

rate increased substantially more

than the black rate (90% vs. 52%).

The declines in the white rate and

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

40

10

0

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

100

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

black rate between 1995 and 2003

resulted in the 2003 black rate being

62% below its 1980 level and the

white rate 48% below its 1980 level.

Source: Authors' analyses of arrest data from the FBI and population data from the U.S.

Census Bureau. [See arrest rate source note at the end of this chapter for details.l

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-8 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 9 of 35
1981 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 2003

Aggravated assault arrest rate trends by gender and race

• One possible explanation for the differential growth in juvenile female arrest

rates over the period is policy changes that encourage arrests in domestic

violence incidents. This would affect the female arrest rate for assault proportionally more than the male rate since domestic assaults make up a

larger proportion of incidents involving females than of those involving

males.

Source: Authors' analyses of arrest data from the FBI and population data from the U.S.

Census Bureau. [See arrest rate source note at the end of this chapter for details.]

Chapter 5: Law enforcement and juvenile crime

The juvenile arrest rate for aggravated assault

declined consistently between 1994 and 2003

The large growth and subsequent decline in the juvenile arrest rate

for aggravated assault between 1980 and 2003 illustrate the

volatility of juvenile violence levels over a relatively short timeframe

The juvenile aggravated assault

arrest rate in 2003 was at the

level of the late 1 980s

The 38% drop in the juvenile arrest

rate for aggravated assault between

1994 and 2003 erased most, but not

all, of the increase the rate had experienced in the prior 10 years. This

pattern differs from those for other

violent crimes, such as murder,

forcible rape, and robbery; the juvenile arrest rate in 2003 for each of

these crimes was at, or very near, its

lowest level since at least 1980.

A study of the various components

of the juvenile arrest rate trend for

aggravated assault reveals contrasts. The simplest way to see this

pattern is to examine the growth in

the arrest rate between 1980 and

1994 and the decline between 1994

and 2003 for males and females,

whites and blacks.

Percent change in aggravated assault

arrest rates:

1980— 1994— 1980-

1994 2003 2003

All 103% —38% 26%

Male 94 —42 13

Female 150 —22 96

White 84 —32 26

Black 129 —47 21

Large increases in arrest rates be--

tween 1980 and 1994 occurred for

each of the four subgroups, with the

largest for female juveniles and

black juveniles. Declines in arrest

rates between 1994 and 2003 were

also shared by the four subgroups,

with the smallest for females. The

increases and subsequent declines

resulted in the 2003 rates for three

of the four subgroups being moderately above their 1980 levels. The

exception was the female rate. With

the largest increase between 1980

and 1994 and the smallest subsequent

decline, the 2003 female arrest rate

was nearly double the 1980 rate.

250

200

150

100

50

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

500

400

300 / Male

200

100 Fepi!e..I

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

1,000

200 .0

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

120

100

80

20

0

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

250 Amer. Indian

200

150

Asian

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

300

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-8 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 10 of 35
The juvenile arrest rate trend for Property Crime Index offenses

is used as a general barometer of all property crime arrests of

juveniles

1981 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 2003

Property Crime Index arrest rate trends by gender and race

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

Chapter 5: Law enforcement and juvenile crime

•.JI

From 1998 through 2003. the juvenile arrest rate for

property crimes declined sharply

Far fewer juveniles are being

arrested for property crimes

From 1980 through 1997, the juvenile arrest rate for Property Crime

Index offenses (i.e., the combination

of burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson arrests) varied little, always remaining within

10% of the average for the 18-year

period. However, in 1998, the arrest

rate fell below this narrow range

and continued to fall annually

through 2003. As a result, in 2003,

the juvenile arrest rate for Property

Crime Index offenses was 39%

below its 1997 level.

The property crime arrest rate

trend for juvenile females is not

like the overall pattern

Between 1980 and 2003, the juvenile

arrest rate for Property Crime Index

offenses fell substantially for most

subgroups: males (55%), whites

(45%), blacks (52%), American Indians (50%), and Asians (64%). The

only exception was juvenile females:

between 1980 and 2003, their rate

fell only 7%. In 1980, the male arrest

rate was 4 times the female rate; by

2003, the male rate was just double

the female rate. The clear differences in the male and female Property Crime Index arrest rate trends

indicate that factors influencing juvenile law-violating and/or arrest

over this period differentially affected males and females.

The Property Crime Index arrest

trend has limited interpretability

In 2003, 70% of juvenile Property

Crime Index arrests were for larcenytheft, 18% for burglary, 10% for motor

vehicle theft, and 2% for arson.

Thus, Property Crime Index arrest

trends are essentially trends in larceny-theft arrests. Large increases

in arrests for the other offenses

could be easily hidden by small declines in larceny-theft arrests.

Arrests per 100,000 juvenfles ages 10-17

5,000

4,000 .. .

3,000 Male

2,000

1,000

0

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Arrests per 100000 juveniles ages 10-17

White

1,000

0

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

1,400

iooe

600

400

200

0

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

3,000 Amer. Indian

2,500

2,000 'Whte

1,500

1 ,000 Asian

500

0•.

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

• In 2003, the Property Crime Index arrest rates were similar for white juveniles (1,237) and American Indian juveniles (1,366), while the Asian rate

(614) was half the white rate, and the black rate (2,352) was double the

white rate. These comparisons have remained relatively constant since at

least 1980.

Source: Authors' analyses of arrest data from the FBI and population data from the U.S.

Census Bureau. [See arrest rate source note at the end of this chapter for details.]

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-8 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 11 of 35
Juveniles in 2003 were far less likely to be arrested for burglary

than juveniles 25 years earlier (i.e., their parents' generation)

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

-

1981 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 2003

Burglary arrest rate trends by gender and race

Arrests per 100.000 juveniles ages 10-17

1,600

1,200

800

400

Female

0

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

120

Female.

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

1,600

1.200\

White

0

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

800

600

400 Amer. Indian

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

• From 1980 through 2003, the juvenile arrest rate for burglary declined substantially and comparably in all racial groups: white (67%), black (72%),

American Indian (69%), and Asian (79%).

Source: Authors' analyses of arrest data from the FBI and population data from the U.S.

Census Bureau. [See arrest rate source note at the end of this chapter for details.]

Chapter 5: Law enforcement and juvenile crime

N U

The juvenile arrest rate for burglary in 2003 was

just one-third its level in 1980

In 2003, the juvenile arrest rate

for burglary reached its lowest

point in more than 20 years

The juvenile arrest rate for burglary

declined substantially and (with the

exception of a few years in the l980s

and 1990s) consistently between

1980 and 2003. Over the period, the

juvenile burglary arrest rate fell

68%. Given that the growth in the juvenile population between 1980 and

2003 was marginal (9%), this rate decline means that the justice system

processed less than half as many juveniles for burglary in 2003 as it did

in 1980.

This large decline in burglary arrests was not seen in adult arrests.

From 1994 to 2003, while juvenile arrests for burglary fell 40%, adult burglary arrests fell just 14%. In 1980,

45% of all persons arrested for burglary were under age 18; by 2003,

this proportion had fallen to 29%.

Whatever factors contributed to the

decline in burglary arrests had a

greater effect on juveniles than

adults.

Juvenile female arrest rates for

burglary declined less than male

rates

The large decline in the juvenile burglary arrest rate was primarily the

result of the large decline in the

male rate. Between 1980 and 2003,

the juvenile male arrest rate for burglary declined 70% while the female

rate fell just 41%. As a result, fe--

males constituted 6% of all juveniles

arrested for burglary in 1980 and

12% in 2003. A closer look at these

trends reveals that the male rate essentially declined throughout the

entire 1980-2003 period while the female rate held relatively constant

from the mid-1980s to the late-1990s

and then began to falL

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-8 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 12 of 35
The juvenile arrest rate for larceny-theft fell in 2003 to its lowest

level since at least 1980

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

1,800

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

1981 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 2003

Larceny-theft arrest rate trends by gender and race

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

2500

2,000 Male

1,500

0

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

3,500

1:000 White

500 1

0

81 83 85 87 69 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

::

600

400

200

0

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

2,500

2,000 , Amer. Indian

1 500 \- /

-'" White

0

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

• The decline j n the juvenile arrest rate for larceny-theft between 1994 and

2003 was similar in each of the four racial groups: white (42%), black

(47%), American Indian (42%), and Asian (53%).

Source: Authors' analyses of arrest data from the FBI and population data from the U.S.

Census Bureau. [See arrest rate source note at the end of this chapter for details.l

Chapter 5: Law enforcement and juvenile crime

Li I

After years of stability, the juvenile arrest rate for

larceny-theft declined annually from 1995 to 2003

Juvenile larceny-theft arrest rates

fell each year from 1994 to 2003

In 2003, 1 in every 7 juvenile arrests

was for larceny-theft. This highvolume crime category is defined as

the unlawful taking of property from

the possession of another without

the use of force, threat, or fraud. It

includes offenses such as shoplifting, bicycle theft, theft from a vehicle, or theft from a building or

structure where no break-in was involved. The relative stability of the

juvenile larceny-theft arrest rate between 1980 and 1994 stands in contrast to the trends in arrests for

other property crimes.

After changing little for more than a

decade, the juvenile arrest rate for

larceny-theft fell 43% between 1994

and 2003. This large decline in a

high-volume offense category translated into more than 350,000 fewer

juvenile arrests and a much smaller

number of juveniles entering the

justice system charged with property crimes.

The female proportion of larcenytheft arrests has grown

In 1980, 26% of juveniles arrested

for larceny-theft were female; by

2003, this proportion had grown to

39%. This growth was the result of a

47% decline in the juvenile male arrest rate coupled with a juvenile female arrest rate that essentially did

not change (down 4%) between

1980 and 2003. A closer look at

these trends finds that while the

male rate remained relatively constant between 1980 and the mid1990s, the female rate increased.

Both rates fell between the mid1990s and 2003, but the female decline followed a growth in the pre--

ceding years while the male decline

followed a period of stability.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-8 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 13 of 35
1981 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 2003

Motor vehicle theft arrest rate trends by gender and race

Chapter 5: Law enforcement and juvenile crime

The juvenile arrest rate trend for motor vehicle theft

differs from trends for burglary and larceny-theft

The juvenile arrest rate for motor vehicle theft in 2003 was less

than half the level a decade earlier

The juvenile arrest rate for motor

vehicle theft peaked in 1990

Juvenile arrest rates for motor vehicle theft fell to a low point in 1983

for males and females and for

whites, blacks, and American Indians. (The Asian rate bottomed out

in 1984.) After 1983, the juvenile arrest rate for motor vehicle theft increased each year through 1990, resulting in a rate more than double

(138% above) its 1983 level. After

this period of rapid growth, the rate

then fell through 2003, erasing the

increase of the growth period and

resulting in a 2003 rate 62% below

the 1990 peak and 10% below the

1983 low point. Juveniles in 2003

were arrested for motor vehicle

theft at a lower rate than at any

time since at least 1980.

The juvenile arrest rate trends for

motor vehicle theft differed from

those for the other high-volume

theft crimes of burglary and larcenytheft. In the 1980s and 1990s, the

burglary arrest rate declined consistently and the larceny-theft rate re--

mained relatively stable before

dropping in the late 1990s, but the

motor vehicle theft rate soared and

then dropped dramatically. The

motor vehicle theft arrest rate trend

is somewhat similar to that of robbery, but the growth begins 5 years

before that of robbery and peaks 5

years before the robbery peak.

The motor vehicle theft arrest

rate for white juveniles was at a

20-year low in 2003

The motor vehicle theft arrest rate

for black juveniles grew far more than

the rate for whites between 1983 and

1990 (233% vs. 98%). Beginning in

the early 1990s, rates for both races

declined substantially. By 2003, the

white rate had fallen to a level 26%

below its 1983 low, and the black

rate was 22% above its 1983 low.

300

250

200

150

100

50

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

700

400 /'

300

200 Fe male

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

1,000

200

0

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

100

60Female

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

350

300 Amer. lndian\

250 '\

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Arrests per 100000 juveniles ages 10-17

350

• Male and female juvenile arrest rates for motor vehicle theft displayed

somewhat disparate trends. Both began increasing in 1984, but the male

rate peaked in 1990, while the female rate did not peak until 1993. Although

both declined thereafter, the male rate by 2003 had fallen to its lowest level

since at least 1980, while the female rate was still 42% above its 1983 low

point.

Source: Authors' analyses of arrest data from the FBI and population data from the U.S.

Census Bureau. [See arrest rate source note at the end of this chapter for details.]

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-8 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 14 of 35
The juvenile arrest rate for arson in 2003 was back to the levels of

the early 1980s

1981 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 2003

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

35

30

25

20

15

10

Arson arrest rate trends by gender and race

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

60

° \,/Male

Female 10 -

0

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Arrests per 100.000 juveniles ages 10-17

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

10 

.Female ..

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

40

White/

30

20 /"/ \ I \./ f

V Amer. Indian V

Asian .

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

• In 2003, 12% of juveniles arrested for arson were female. Unlike males,

their arrest rate for arson held constant during the 1980s and began to increase only in the early 1990s. Both male and female arrest rates peaked in

1994. By 2003, the male rate had returned to the levels of the early 1 980s,

while the female rate had not.

Source: Authors' analyses of arrest data from the FBI and population data from the U.S.

Census Bureau. [See arrest rate source note at the end of this chapter for details.1

Chapter 5: Law enforcement and juvenile crime

U:!

A high proportion of arrests for arson involve

juveniles—including those ages 12 and younger

Over halt of arrests for arson in

2003 involved juveniles

In 2003, 51% of all arrests for arson

were of persons under age 18.

Arson traditionally has been the

criminal offense with the largest

proportion of juvenile arrestees. It

also has the largest percentage of

young juvenile arrestees (ages 12

and under)-13% in 2003. In comparison, 28% of all larceny-theft arrests in 2003 involved juveniles, and

3% involved juveniles under age 13.

One reason for arson arrests involving a high percentage of juveniles

may be that firesetting is commonly

considered an indicator of serious

problems in youth who could benefit from the services available in the

juvenile justice system.

Trends in juvenile arson arrests

paralleled that of violent crime

The pattern of growth and decline

in the juvenile arrest rate for arson

in the 1980s and thereafter was similar to the trends in juvenile violent

crime arrest rates. Between 1983

and 1994, the juvenile arrest rate for

arson increased 60%. Then it began

to fall and by 2003 had declined to a

point just 8% above its 1983 low.

One major distinction between violent crime and arson arrest rates for

juveniles over this period was that

white and black rates were similar

for arson but not for violent crime.

For example, in 2003, the arson arrest rate for white juveniles was 26

arrests for every 100,000 white

youth ages 10-17 in the U.S. population and the rate for black juveniles

was 25. In contrast, the violent

crime arrest rate for black juveniles

in 2003 was 4 times the white rate.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-8 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 15 of 35
Unlike other crimes against persons, the juvenile arrest rate for

simple assault did not decline substantially after the mid-i 990s

1981 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 2003

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Other (simple) assault arrest rate trends by gender and race

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

• The larger increase in simple assault arrests for juvenile females than for juvenile males between 1980 and 2003 was paralleled in adult arrests. Between 1980 and 2003, the female proportion of juvenile simple assault arrests grew from 21% to 32%, while the female proportion of adult simple

assault arrests grew from 13% to 22%.

Source: Authors' analyses of arrest data from the FBI and population data from the U.S.

Census Bureau. [See arrest rate source note at the end of this chapter for details.]

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

500

400

300

200

100

0

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

2,000

1,600

1,200

800

400

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

700

Amer. Indian - 600 .7-:; •':--

500 White

400

0n

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year Year

0

Chapter 5: Law enforcement and juvenile crime

The juvenile arrest rate for simple assault more than

doubled between 1980 and 2003—up 138°Io

A large proportion of juvenile

arrests for assault are for less

severe assaults

In contrast to aggravated assault, a

simple assault does not involve the

use of a weapon and does not result

in serious bodily harm to the victim.

Because simple assault is less severe, such incidents are less likely

to be reported to law enforcement,

and law enforcement has more discretion in how to handle the incident. Simple assault is the most

common of all crimes against

persons.

In 1980, there were 2 juvenile arrests

for simple assault for every 1 juve--

nile arrest for aggravated assault;

by 2003, this ratio had grown to 4

to 1—with most of this growth occurring after the mid-1990s. This

means that a greater percentage of

assaults handled by law enforce--

ment in recent years has been for

less serious offenses. This trend was

found in arrests of male and female

juveniles and of white, black, and

American Indian juveniles. For example, in 1980, 66% of all juvenile

male arrests for aggravated and simple assault were for simple assault;

by 2003, this percentage had grown

to 78%. Similarly, the female percentage grew from 74% to 84%.

Female arrests for simple assault

grew far more than male arrests

in recent years

As with aggravated assault, the increase in the juvenile female arrest

rate for simple assault from 1980 to

2003 far outpaced the increase in

the male rate (269% vs. 102%). From

1980 to 2003, simple assault arrest

rates increased substantially for

white (134%), black (134%), and

American Indian (111%) youth; the

rates for Asian youth also increased,

but much less (23%).

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-8 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 16 of 35
The juvenile arrest rate trend for weapons law violations generally

paralleled the trends in juvenile violent crime arrests

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

250

200

150

100

50

1981 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 2003

Weapons law violation arrest rate trends by gender and race

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

500

Male7'\\

200

100

Femal_.... -

0

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Arrests per 100000 juveniles ages 10-17

600

100

0

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

40

35

30

25/'

5

0

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

200

160 White/'\.

120 / '-.'- N...

- Amér.Indn.

isla

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

• In 1980, the black juvenile arrest rate for weapons law violations was 2.3

times the white rate. Between 1980 and 1993, the rate increased more for

blacks than whites (214% vs. 116%); however, the larger decline in the

black rate between 1993 and 2003 (59% vs. 42% for whites) returned the

rate ratio back to its 1980 level.

Source: Authors' analyses of arrest data from the FBI and population data from the U.S.

Census Bureau. [See arrest rate source note at the end of this chapter for details.l

Chapter 5: Law enforcement and juvenile crime

I:::

The juvenile arrest rate for weapons law violations in

2003 was half its 1993 peak

Juvenile arrests for weapons

offenses grew throughout the

1980s and into the mid-i 990s

The juvenile arrest rate for weapons

law violations grew 144% between

1980 and 1993; it then dropped 49%

between 1993 and 2003, retreating

to a level close to that of the mid1980s. It must be remembered that

these statistics do not reflect all arrests for weapons offenses. An unknown number of other arrests for

more serious crimes also involved a

weapons offense as a secondary

charge, but the FBI's arrest statistics classifies such arrests by their

most serious charge and not the

weapons offense.

The pattern of large growth and

then decline in juvenile arrest rates

for weapons offenses over the

1980-2003 period occurred in the

rates for males, females, and each

racial group. In general, the decline

almost balanced out the increase.

Overall, the 2003 juvenile arrest rate

for weapons law violations was 18%

above its 1980 level. This pattern of

a moderately higher juvenile arrest

rate in 2003 than in 1980 was true

for male (18%), white (26%), and

black (27%) juveniles; the 2003 arrest rates for American Indian and

Asian youth were actually below

their 1980 levels. The one major exception to this pattern was the arrest rate for juvenile females. Between 1980 and 1993, the juvenile

female arrest rate for weapons law

violations increased almost 248%.

This rate also generally declined between 1993 and 2003, but the decline was far less than that for the

other juvenile subgroups. As a re--

sult, in 2003, the juvenile female arrest rate for weapons law violations

was 147% above its 1980 level.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-8 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 17 of 35
1981 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 2003

Drug abuse violation arrest rate trends by gender and race

Chapter 5: Law enforcement and juvenile crime

The juvenile drug arrest rate climbed 77% between

1993 and 1997 but has declined some since then

The surge in the juvenile arrest rate for drug abuse violations

between 1993 and 1997 occurred during a period when the

juvenile violent crime arrest rate was declining

Racial disparity in drug arrests

increased in the 1980s and early

1990s

The annual juvenile arrest rate for

drug abuse violations (a category

that includes both drug possession

and drug sales) varied within a limited range between 1980 and 1993.

This consistency in drug arrest rates

contrasts with the large decline in

self-reported use of marijuana and

other illicit drugs during the period.

A closer look at juvenile drug arrest

rate trends over the period finds

sharp racial differences. The white

rate fell 28% between 1980 and 1993,

compared with a 231% increase for

blacks. In 1980, the white and black

arrest rates were essentially equal,

with black youth involved in 15% of

all juvenile drug arrests. By 1993,

the black rate was over four times

the white rate, and black youth were

involved in 46% of all juvenile drug

arrests.

Drug arrests soared for all youth

between 1993 and 1997

In contrast to the 1980-1993 period,

the overall juvenile drug arrest rate

increased by 77% in the short period between 1993 and 1997. Large increases were also seen in the rates

of juvenile subgroups: male (72%),

female (119%), white (109%), American Indian (160%), and Asian

(105%). The black juvenile arrest

rate for drug abuse violations,

which had increased dramatically in

the earlier period, increased an additional 25% between 1993 and 1997

Between 1997 and 2003, the juvenile

drug arrest rate fell marginally

(22%), with most of the overall decline attributable to a drop in arrests of blacks (41%) and males

(24%).

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

1,400

1,200

1,000 /

800 Male,

600

400

200 Female -

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

2,000

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

250

200

150

100

50

0

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

400 White/

300 I 7

J /Amer. Indian

Astan

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

800

Source: Authors' analyses of arrest data from the FBI and population data from the U.S.

Census Bureau. (See arrest rate source note at the end of this chapter for details.]

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-8 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 18 of 35
31 17 4

37 25 30

22 56 64

10 2 2

62 43 37

38 57 63

21 9 0

27 20 82

50 69 8

2 2 10

39 36 52

61 64 48

Chapter 5: Law enforcement and juvenile crime

: 0: $

The attributes of juvenile and adult violence differ

when viewed from the perspective of law enforcement

Juvenile violence is less likely

than adult violence to involve

female victims and firearms

Based on an analysis of the FBI's National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) for 2001, the characteristics of violent crimes allegedly

committed by juvenile offenders

and by adult offenders show large

differences in the types of victims,

the location of the crime, and

weapon possession. For example,

violent crimes committed by juvenile offenders were far more likely

to have juvenile victims than were

violent crimes committed by adults:

robberies (42% vs. 6%), aggravated

assaults (53% vs. 9%), and simple

assaults (61% vs. 10%). Robberies

by juvenile offenders were less likely to involve strangers than were

robberies by adults (66% vs. 73%),

while the proportions of strangers

involved did not differ in assaults

committed by juvenile offenders

and by adult offenders.

Violent crimes known to law enforcement and committed by adults

were more likely to have female victims than were violent crimes committed by juveniles: robberies (29%

vs. 22%), aggravated assaults (42%

vs. 35%), and simple assaults (64%

vs. 47%). Firearms were more common in violent crimes committed by

adults: robberies (49% vs. 35%) and

aggravated assaults (19% vs. 14%).

Roughly equal proportions of victims were injured in violent crimes

committed by juveniles and by

adults: robberies (67% vs. 68%), aggravated assaults (42% vs. 38%), and

simple assaults (51% vs. 47%).

Robberies committed by juveniles

were more likely to occur outdoors

than those committed by adults

(46% vs. 28%). The same pattern

held for aggravated assault (41% vs.

21%) and simple assault (22% vs. 10%).

Family members were the victim in a greater proportion of assaults committed by juvenile females

than by juvenile males

Robbery offender Aggravated assault offender Simple assault offender

Juvenile Adult Juvenile Adult Juvenile Adult

Characteristics Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Victim type

Juvenile family

Juvenile acquaintance

Juvenile stranger

Adult family

Adult acquaintance

Adult stranger

Victim gender

Female

Male

Location

Residence

Outdoors

School

Commercial

Weapon

Firearm

Personal

Other

None

Injury?

Injury

No injury

0% 0% 0% 0%

22 29 2 2

20 15 5 3

0 1 1 2

10 19 23 36

47 35 70 57

19 56 28 40

81 44 72 60

16 20 20 23

46 39 28 23

4 5 0 0

34 37 52 54

36 22 51

42 56 27

13 14 15

9 8 8

68 54 69

32 46 31

4% 7% 3% 6%

45 40 4 4

6 2 1 1

12 21 21 25

21 24 54 56

12 6 16 7

26 67 43 40

74 33 57 60

42 54 58 65

33 23 22 17

12 10 1 1

13 12 20 17

5% 5% 4% 7%

54 49 4 5

5 3 1 1

17 23 34 32

16 17 50 50

4 3 7 5

32 78 69 47

68 22 31 53

40 46 72 71

23 20 11 10

26 22 1 1

12 12 17 18

0 0 0

85 84 83

6 5 6

10 11 11

50 46 49

50 54 51

• Of the aggravated assault victims of juvenile females, 28% were family members, compared with 16% of the victims of juvenile males.

Similarly, 28% of the simple assault victims of juvenile females were family members, compared with 22% of the victims of juvenile

males. This female-male disparity is present in aggravated assaults committed by adults, but not in their simple assaults.

• Schools were the location in 4% of robberies, 12% of aggravated assaults, and 26% of simple assaults committed by male juveniles;

for females, schools were the location in 5%, 10%, and 22% of the respective crimes.

Source: Authors' analyses of the FBI's National Incident-Based Reporting System master file for 2001 [machine-readable data file].

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-8 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 19 of 35
1981 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 2003

The juvenile share of property crime has fallen substantially

since 1980

1981 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 2003

Source: Authors' analyses of the FBI's Crime in the United States reports for the years

1980 through 2003.

Chapter 5: Law enforcement and juvenile crime

Clearance figures implicate juveniles in 1 in 12 murders.

1 in 8 forcible rapes. and 1 in 7 robberies in 2003

After increasing in the mid-i 980s to mid-i 990s, the juvenile

proportion of violent crimes cleared by arrest or exceptional

means did not return to its earlier levels

Clearances give insight into the

relative involvement of juveniles

and adults in crime

Clearance statistics measure the

proportion of reported crimes that

are resolved by an arrest or other,

exceptional means (e.g., death of

the offender, unwillingness of the

victim to cooperate). A single arrest

may result in many clearances if the

arrestee committed several crimes.

Or multiple arrests may result in a

single clearance if the crime was

committed by a group of offenders.

The FBI reports information on the

proportion of clearances that involved offenders under age 18. This

statistic is a better indicator of the

proportion of crime committed by

this age group than is the arrest

proportion, although there are some

concerns that even the clearance

statistic overestimates the juvenile

proportion of crimes. Nevertheless,

trends in clearance proportions are

reasonable indicators of changes in

the relative involvement of juveniles

in various crimes.

The juvenile share of violent

crime remains above the levels

of the 1980s

The FBI's Crime in the United States

series shows that the proportion of

violent crimes attributed to juveniles declined somewhat in recent

years—but is still above the levels

of the 1980s. The juvenile proportion of Violent Crime Index offenses

cleared by arrest (or exceptional

means) grew from an average of 9%

in the 1980s to 14% in 1994, then fell

to 12% in 1997, where it remained

through 2003. Based on these data,

it is fair to say a juvenile committed

1 in 8 violent crimes known to law

enforcement in 2003.

Each of the four Violent Crime Index

offenses showed an increase in juvenile clearances between 1980 and

Percent of clearances involving juveniles

16%

14%

12%

10%

8%

6%

4%

2°/h

0%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

the mid-1990s. The juvenile proportion of murder clearances peaked in

1994 at 10% and then fell. Between

2000 and 2003, the proportion was

5%—the lowest since 1987. The juvenile proportion of cleared forcible

rapes peaked in 1995 (15%) and

then fell; however, the 2003 proportion (12%) was still above the levels

of the 1980s (9%). The juvenile proportion of robbery clearances also

peaked in 1995 (20%): it fell substantially by 2003 (to 14%) but was

still above the average level of the

1980s (12%). The trend in the juve--

nile proportion of aggravated assault clearances differed from the

others. In 2003 (at 12%), it was

slightly below its peak in 1994 (13%)

and substantially above the average

level of the 1980s (9%).

Percent of clearances involving juveniles

30%

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-8 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 20 of 35
Chapter 5: Law enforcement and juvenile crime

Clearance statistics imply that juvenile involvement in each of the

violent offenses in 2003 was less than it was 10 years earlier

In 2003, a juvenile committed

roughly 1 in 5 property crimes

known to law enforcement

Percent of clearances involving juveniles

12%

0%

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Percent of clearances involving juveniles

25%

.RTT.

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Percent of clearances involving juveniles

30%

25%

20%

15% Burglary

10%

5%

0%

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Percent of clearances involving juveniles

:::

Motor vehicle theft 15%

10%

5%

0%

51 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Percent of clearances involving juveniles

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Percent ot clearances involving juveniles

Aggravatedassault

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Percent of clearances involving juveniles

30%

25%

20% Larceny-theft

15%

10%

5%

0%

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

Percent of clearances involving juveniles

50%

40%

30% Arson

20%

10%

0%

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03

Year

In the 1980s, the juvenile proportion

of cleared Property Crime Index offenses decreased from 28% to 20%.

This proportion then increased in

the early 1990s, peaking in 1995 at

25%. After 1995, the juvenile proportion of clearances for Property

Crime Index offenses fell, so that by

2003 it was at its lowest level since

at least 1980 (19%).

By 2003, juvenile clearance proportions for the crimes of burglary,

larceny-theft, and motor vehicle

theft were at their lowest levels

since 1980 (17%, 20%, and 17%, respectively). For arson, the juvenile

proportion of clearances in 2003

was equal to its average for the

1980-2003 period.

The juvenile proportion of crimes

cleared varied with community

In 2003, in nonmetropolitan areas

(average population served per law

enforcement agency about 10,000),

9.8% of Violent Crime Index clearances were attributed to juvenile arrest. In comparison, for communities located in metropolitan areas

but outside of cities (average population served 37,000), the proportion was 12.7%. In small cities (average population served 3,000), the

proportion was 14.6%, and in somewhat larger cities (average population served 35,000) it was 14.9%.

Then, as city size increased, the

proportion fell: in cities with populations over 1 million, for example,

9.0% of Violent Crime Index clearances were attributed to juvenile arrest. Property Crime Index clearances had a similar pattern.

In 2003, the juvenile shares of clearances for burglary, larcenytheft, and motor vehicle theft were at their lowest points in more

than 20 years

Arson clearance data were first reported in 1981.

Source: Authors analyses of the FBI's Crime in the United States reports for the years

1980 through 2003.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-8 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 21 of 35
Chapter 5: Law enforcement and juvenile crime

ii

In 2003. about one-fourth of the states had a juvenile

violent crime arrest rate above the national average

Among states with at least minimally adequate reporting, those with high juvenile violent crime arrest

rates in 2003 were Delaware, Florida, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and California

Arrests ot juveniles under age 18

per 100000 juveniles ages 10-17

Reporting Violent

population Crime Aggravated Other

State coverage Index Robbery assault assault Weapons

United States 76% 291 77 198 738 116

Alabama 91 126 43 73 470 31

Alaska 97 243 28 180 557 85

Arizona 96 223 45 171 768 72

Arkansas 66 130 22 102 348 64

California 99 364 111 243 529 181

Colorado 71 231 48 167 756 168

Connecticut 65 290 84 190 946 90

Delaware 99 595 163 403 1579 147

Dist. of Columbia 0 NA NA NA NA NA

Florida 100 524 99 404 993 109

Georgia 54 266 81 169 838 153

Hawaii 100 197 101 82 814 36

Idaho 94 160 11 136 849 122

Illinois 23 944 342 552 2,114 383

Indiana 74 317 36 273 444 28

Iowa 90 251 29 214 816 45

Kansas 48 131 12 107 868 25

Kentucky 26 229 47 175 394 56

Louisiana 73 355 64 267 1,357 61

Maine 100 78 11 53 762 26

Maryland 100 505 184 305 1,444 224

Massachusetts 70 269 40 219 387 28

Michigan 96 166 31 118 321 53

Minnesota 83 176 29 121 648 102

Mississippi 48 136 49 58 711 70

Arrests of juveniles under age 18

per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

Reporting Violent

population Crime Aggravated Other

State coverage Index Robbery assault assault Weapons

Missouri 97% 295 64 214 1,111 87

Montana 60 202 33 161 561 32

Nebraska 86 96 28 59 848 83

Nevada 0 NA NA NA NA NA

New Hampshire 69 71 22 43 717 9

New Jersey 93 386 144 233 654 214

New Mexico 55 220 33 178 673 174

New York 45 264 90 161 449 70

North Carolina 79 310 95 199 1,023 179

North Dakota 85 45 10 20 600 33

Ohio 49 150 46 84 774 70

Oklahoma 100 217 30 171 390 81

Oregon 91 149 34 105 503 53

Pennsylvania 84 402 139 239 734 123

Rhode Island 100 288 62 179 970 160

South Carolina 13 47 10 33 307 73

South Dakota 86 108 I 88 516 82

Tennessee 84 223 51 157 767 100

Texas 94 185 46 123 793 64

Utah 72 216 17 175 804 183

Vermont 77 81 0 62 347 11

Virginia 75 106 33 64 676 88

Washington 74 246 60 152 1,013 113

West Virginia 45 40 2 34 157 7

Wisconsin 76 184 36 121 558 176

Wyoming 95 88 4 79 1,062 80

NA = Arrest counts were not available for this state

in the FBI'S Crime in the United States 2003.

Notes: Arrest rates for jurisdictions with less than

complete reporting may not be representative of

the entire state. In Ihe state map, rates were classified as 'Data not available" when law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction over more than

50% of the state's population did not report. Readers should consult the relaled technical note at the

end of the chapler.

Source: Authors' analysis of arrest data from the

FBI's Crime in the United States 2003 and population data from the National Center for Health Statislics' Estimates of the July 1, 2000-July 1, 2003,

United States resident population from the vintage

2003 postcensal series by year, county, age, sex,

race, and Hispanic origin [machine-readable data

files].

225 to 350(11 states)

• 350 or above (7 states)

Data not avaitable (10 states)

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-8 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 22 of 35
Chapter 5: Law enforcement and juvenile crime

High violent crime arrest rates are found in a

relatively small proportion of counties

In 2002, the national juvenile arrest

rate for offenses included in the

Violent Crime Index was 291 arrests

of persons under age 18 for every

100,000 persons ages 10-17 in the

U.S. population. In 2,544 of the 3,141

counties in the U.S. in 2002, law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction

over at least 50% of their county's

population reported arrest counts;

arrest rates were calculated only for

these counties. Seventeen percent

(17%) of these counties had a juvenile violent crime arrest rate higher

than the U.S. average. Six in 10

(58%) reporting counties had rates

less than half the U.S. average, half

had juvenile violent crime arrest

rates less than 115 (making that the

median rate), and nearly one-fourth

of counties reported no juvenile violent crime arrests at all for the year.

However, the fact that high rates of

juvenile violent crime arrests are

found in counties with small populations as well as in counties with

large populations indicates that

high levels of juvenile violence can

occur in any community.

Juvenile violent crime arrest rates varied considerably among counties within a state in 2002

LII 0 to 75

LII] 75to 150

150 to 275

• 275 or above

Data not available

Note: Rates were classified as 'Data not available" when agencies with jurisdiction over more than 50% of the county's population did not

report.

Source: Authors' analysis of the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research's Uniform Crime Reporting Program data

fUnited States]: County-level detailed arrest and offense data, 2002 [machine-readable data file].

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-8 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 23 of 35
Chapter 5: Law enforcement and juvenile crime

U iI:s

High juvenile property crime arrest rates in 2003 did

not necessarily mean high violent crime arrest rates

The states of Wisconsin, Utah, Alaska, Montana, Idaho, Florida, Washington, and Colorado reported the

highest juvenile Property Crime Index arrest rates in 2003

Arrests ot juveniles under age 18

per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

Reporting Property Motor

population Crime Larceny- vehicle

State I.,,1..,,., D,,,,.I..,,, II,.,f* fkfI

United States 76% 1,442 271 1,012 136 310

Alabama 91 764 123 593 44 104

Alaska 97 2,202 344 1,600 229 359

Arizona 96 1,774 251 1,304 195 440

Arkansas 66 1,282 225 1,025 23 132

California 99 1,180 326 678 153 302

Colorado 71 2,051 218 1,539 247 428

Connecticut 65 1,347 218 1,008 102 293

Delaware 99 1,583 328 1,131 92 290

Dist. of Columbia 0 NA NA NA NA NA

Florida 100 2,128 501 1,405 207 167

Georgia 54 1,411 239 1,017 132 126

Hawaii 100 1,387 178 1,056 149 214

Idaho 94 2,158 246 1,751 111 427

tttinois 23 2,074 349 900 811 454

Indiana 74 1,219 141 966 97 232

Iowa 90 2,099 278 1,697 100 552

Kansas 48 1,055 211 752 71 318

Kentucky 26 1,435 232 1,130 56 185

Louisiana 73 1,842 389 1,362 77 363

Maine 100 1,866 314 1,423 99 406

Maryland 100 1,950 411 1,135 348 391

Massachusetts 70 512 106 355 40 136

Michigan 96 947 144 725 66 145

Minnesota 83 1,860 210 1,513 108 426

Mississippi 48 1,497 296 1,075 69 148

NA = Arrest counts were not available for this state

in the FBI's Crime in the United States 2003.

Notes: Arrest rates for jurisdictions with less than

complete reporting may not be representative of

the entire state. In the state map, rates were classified as "Data not available" when law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction over more than

50% of their state's population did not report.

Readers should consult the related technical note

at the end of the chapter.

Source: Authors' analysis of arrest data from the

FBI's Crime in the United States 2003 and popula- b

tion data from the National Center for Health Statistics' Estimates of the July 1, 2000-July 1, 2003,

United States resident population from the vintage

2003 postcensal series by year, county, age, sex,

race, and Hispanic origin [machine-readable data

filesi.

Arrests of juveniles under age 18

per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17

Reporting Property Motor

population Crime Larceny- vehicle

State coverage Index Burglary theft theft Vandalism

Missouri 97% 1,728 271 1,232 193 502

Montana 60 2,175 164 1,818 156 558

Nebraska 86 1,820 196 1,494 87 605

Nevada 0 NA NA NA NA NA

New Hampshire 69 674 93 57 43 275

New Jersey 93 934 188 66 50 396

New Mexico 55 1,367 168 1,116 69 199

NewYork 45 1,218 268 847 79 417

North Carolina 79 1,582 351 1,115 97 308

North Dakota 85 1,866 185 1,479 177 649

Ohio 49 1,222 231 897 68 296

Oklahoma 100 1,591 269 1,191 100 156

Oregon 91 1,721 259 1,284 115 512

Pennsylvania 84 1,222 233 765 197 452

Rhode Island 100 1,372 233 985 109 583

South Carolina 13 214 67 139 7 59

South Dakota 86 1,743 234 1,434 62 279

Tennessee 84 1,064 178 776 93 219

Texas 94 1,282 227 955 84 206

Utah 72 2,511 174 2,166 126 644

Vermont 77 559 160 338 42 215

Virginia 75 844 161 605 54 177

Washington 74 2,088 354 1,565 127 416

West Virginia 45 382 72 266 44 78

Wisconsin 76 2,813 338 2,247 199 713

Wyoming 95 1,885 175 1,616 82 368

2003 Property Crime

.0 Index arrests per 100,000_

juveniles ages 10-17

D 010 1,200 (9 states)

1,20010 1,600 (12 states)

EJ 1,600102,000 (11 states)

D 2,000 or above (9 states)

El Data not available (10 states)

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-8 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 24 of 35
Chapter 5: Law enforcement and juvenile crime

LI ...0

Property Crime Index arrest rates are a barometer of

the flow of youth into the juvenile justice system

The Property Crime Index is dominated by the high-volume crime category of larceny-theft. For juveniles,

shoplifting is the most common offense in this category and it is generally considered to be far less serious than other crimes in the Index

such as home burglary, auto theft,

and arson. Therefore, to assess the

nature of juvenile property crimes

within a jurisdiction, it is important

to consider the various offense categories individually. Nevertheless,

many still use the juvenile Property

Crime Index arrest rate as a barometer of the flow of juveniles into the

juvenile justice system. In 2002, the

national juvenile property crime arrest rate was 1,442. More than 7 in

10 reporting counties had rates

below the national average. Half of

all reporting counties had rates

below 924 (i.e., the median rate).

In 2002, counties within a state varied considerably in their juvenile Property Crime Index arrest rates

I.-'-. .

0 to 500

ElIl 500 to 1,000

LII 1,000 to 2,000

EIr 2,000 or above

Data not available

Note: Rates were classified as 'Data not available" when agencies with jurisdiction over more than 50% of the county's population did not

report.

Source: Authors' analysis of the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research's Uniform Crime Reporting Program data

[United States]: County-level detailed arrest and offense data, 2002 [machine-readable data fuel.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-8 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 25 of 35
Chapter 5: Law enforcement and juvenile crime

What do police do with the juveniles they arrest?

Many large law enforcement

agencies have specialized units

that concentrate on juvenile

justice issues

The Bureau of Justice Statistics' Law

Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics data collection for 2000 describes more than

800 state and local law enforcement

agencies with 100 or more full-time

sworn personnel. Among these larger law enforcement agencies are 501

municipal police departments, 222

sheriff's offices, 32 county police departments, and the 49 primary state

law enforcement agencies. Together,

these agencies employed approximately 402,000 full-time sworn personnel, including 241,000 uniformed

officers assigned to respond to calls

for service.

The 2000 survey included items

about the types of special units

agencies operated. Local law enforcement agencies operated a variety of full-time special units to address youth and family problems.

For example, most local law enforcement agencies (i.e., county police

departments and municipal police

departments) had a special unit for

drug education in schools (70%).

Units targeting juvenile crime were

also very common among local

agencies (62%). About half of law enforcement agencies had gang units

and units dealing with various types

of child victimization. Among state

agencies, the most common types of

units were those for drug education

in schools (39%) and missing children (31%).

Percent of agencies operating special

units:

Type of agency

Special unit Local State

Drug education

in schools 70% 39%

Juvenile crime 62 10

Gangs 45 18

Child abuse 46 8

Domestic violence 45 10

Missing children 48 31

Youth outreach 33 6

Most arrested juveniles were

referred to court

In 13 states, statutes define some

persons younger than age 18 as

adults for prosecution purposes.

These persons are not under the

original jurisdiction of the juvenile

justice system, but are under the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system. For arrested youth who are

younger than 18 and under the original jurisdiction of their state's juvenile justice system, the FBI's UCR

Program monitors what happens as

a result of the arrest. This is the only

aspect of the UCR data collection

that is sensitive to state variations

in the legal definition of a juvenile.

In 2003, 20% of arrests involving

youth eligible in their state for processing in the juvenile justice system were handled within law enforcement agencies, 71% were

referred to juvenile court, and 7%

were referred directly to criminal

court. The others were referred to a

welfare agency or to another police

agency. The proportion of juvenile

arrests referred to juvenile court increased from 1980 to 2003 (from

58% to 71%).

In 2003, juvenile arrests were less

likely to result in referral to juvenile

court in large cities (population

over 250,000) than in moderate size

cities (population 100,000-250,000)

or small cities (population less than

100,000). In large cities, 67% of juvenile arrests resulted in referral to juvenile court, compared with 74% in

moderate size cities and 71% in

small cities.

-

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-8 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 26 of 35
Chapter 5: Law enforcement and juvenile crime

.

Sources

Cataiano, S. 2004. Criminal Victimization, 2003. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice

Statistics.

Federal Bureau of Investigation.

1999. Arrest data for 1980 through

1997 [unpublished data].

Federal Bureau of Investigation.

2003. National Incident-Based Reporting System master file for the year

2001 [machine-readable data files].

Washington, DC: FBI.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. Various years. Crime in the United States

for the years 1980 through 2003.

Washington, DC: FBI.

Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research, University of Michigan. 2004. Uniform Crime

Reporting Program data [United

States]: County-level detailed arrest

and offense data, 2002 [machinereadable data file]. Washington, DC:

Federal Bureau of Investigation

[producer]. Ann Arbor, MI: ICPSR

[distributor].

National Center for Health Statistics.

Bridged-race intercensal estimates of

the July 1, 1990-July 1, 1999 United

States resident population by county,

single.year of age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin [machine-readable data

files]. Prepared by the U.S. Census

Bureau with support from the National Cancer Institute. Released July

26, 2004. <www.cdc.gov/nchs/

about/major/dvs/popbridge/

popbridge.htm>.

National Center for Health Statistics.

Estimates of the July 1, 2000-July 1,

2003, United States resident population from the vintage 2003 postcensal

series by year, county, age, sex, race,

and Hispanic origin [machine-readable data files]. Prepared under a

collaborative arrangement with the

U.S. Census Bureau. Released September 14, 2004. .zwww.cdc.gov/

nchs/about/major/dvs/popbridge/

popbridge.htm>.

Reaves, B., and Hickman, M. 2004,

Law Enforcement Management and

Administrative Statistics, 2000: Data

for Individual State and Local Agencies with 100 or More Officers.

Washingon, DC: Bureau of Justice

Statistics.

Snyder, H. 1999. The overrepresentation of juvenile crime in robbery

clearance statistics. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 15(2).

U.S. Census Bureau. US. population

estimates by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin: 1980 to 1999 [machinereadable data files]. Released April

11, 2000. <www.census.gov/popest/

archives! 1990s/nat-detail-layout.txt>.

Arrest rate source note

Authors' analysis of arrest data

from unpublished FBI reports for

1980 through 1997 and from the

FBI'S Crime in the United States reports for the years 1998 through

2003, population data for the years

1980 through 1989 from the U.S

Census Bureau's U.S. population

estimates by age sex race and

Hispanic origin 1980 to 1999 (machine-readable data files]; population data for the years 1990

through 1999 from the National

Center for Health Statistics

Bridged race intercensa! estimates

of the July 1 1990-July 1 1999

United States resident population

by county single-year of age sex

race and Hispanic origin [machine

readable data files], and population

data for the years 2000 through

2003 from the National Center for

Health Statistics Estimates of the

July 1, 2000-July 1 2003 United

States resident population from the

vintage 2003 postcensal series by

year, county age sex, race and

Hispanic origin [machine readable

data files]

Technical note

Although juvenile arrest rates may region may have arrest rates that re

largely reflect juvenile behavior, corn flect the behavior of nonresident youth

parisons of juvenile arrest rates more than that of resident youth Other

across jurisdictions should be made factors that influence arrest rates in a

with caution because many other fac gIven area include the attitudes of cititors can affect the magnitude of arrest zens toward cnme the policies of local

rates Arrest rates are calculated by law enfomement agencies and the

dividing the number of youth arrests policies of other components of the

made in the year by the number of justice system Finally in many counyouth living in the jurisdiction In gen ties, not all law enforcement agencies

eral jurisdictions that arrest a relative report their arrest data to the FBI bely large number of nonresident juve- cause a county's rate is based on data

niles would have higher arrest rates from reporting agencies, that rate may

than jurisdictions where resident not accurately reflect the entire counyouth behave similarly For example ty's actual arrest rate (e g , when a

jurisdictions (especially small ones) large urban police department does

that are vacation destinations or that not report)

are centers for economic activity In a

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-8 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 27 of 35
U I U * U U a

Juvenile Offenders

and Victims: 2006

National Report

Chapter 6: Juvenile offenders in court .....................155

Introduction to Juvenile Court Statistics .......................... 156

Delinquencycaseload ........................................ 157

Trendsin delinquency cases ................................... 158

Gender variations in delinquency cases ......................... 160

Offenseprofiles by gender .................................... 162

Racial variations in delinquency cases .......................... 163

Agevariations in delinquency cases ............................ 166

Detention................................................... 168

Detention variations by demographics .......................... 169

Formalvs. informal case processing ............................ 171

Adjudication................................................ 173

Disposition.................................................. 174

Delinquencycase processing .................................. 177

Delinquency case processing by offense and demographics ........ 178

Judicialwaiver .............................................. 186

Monitoring racial disparity in the justice system ................. 188

Statusoffense cases .......................................... 191

Chapter6 sources ............................................ 193

Copyright 2006

National Center for Juvenile Justice

3700 S. Water Street, Suite 200

Pittsburgh, PA 15203-2363

Suggested citation: Snyder, Howard N., and Sickmund, Melissa. 2006. Juvenile

Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-8 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 28 of 35
: • •ii•

Chapter 6

Juvenile offenders

in court

Law enforcement agencies refer approximately two-thirds of all arrested youth to a court with juvenile jurisdiction for further processing. As

with law enforcement, the court

may decide to divert some juveniles

away from the formal justice system

to other agencies for service. Prosecutors may file some juvenile cases

directly to criminal (adult) court.

The net result is that juvenile

courts formally process more than

1 million delinquency and status

offense cases annually. Juvenile

courts adjudicate these cases and

may order probation or residential

placement or they may waive jurisdiction and transfer certain cases

from juvenile court to criminal

court. While their cases are being

processed, juveniles may be held in

secure detention.

This chapter quantifies the flow of

cases through the juvenile court

system. It documents the nature of,

and trends in, cases received and

the court's response, and examines

gender and race differences. (Chapter 4 on juvenile justice system

structure and process describes the

juvenile court process in general,

the history of juvenile courts in the

U.S., and state variations in current

laws. Chapter 2 on victims discusses the handling of child maltreatment matters.) The chapter also

discusses the measurement of racial

disproportionality in the juvenile

justice system—i.e., disproportionate minority contact, or DMC—and

notes declines in certain DMC indicators since 1992.

The information presented in this

chapter is drawn from the National

Juvenile Court Data Archive, which

is funded by OJJDP, and the

Archive's primary publication, Juvenile Court Statistics.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-8 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 29 of 35
Chapter 6: Juvenile offenders in court

a . 1 *1

The Juvenile Court Statistics report series details

the activities of U.S. juvenile courts

Juvenile Court Statistics reports

have provided data on court

activity since the late 1920s

The Juvenile Court Statistics series is

the primary source of information

on the activities of the nation's juvenile courts. The first Juvenile Court

Statistics report, published in 1929

by the Children's Bureau of the U.S.

Department of Labor, described

cases handled in 1927 by 42 courts.

In the 1950s, the U.S. Department of

Health, Education and Welfare took

over the work, and in 1974, the

newly established Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention

(OJJDP) took on the project. Since

1975, the National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) has been responsible for this OJJDP project. The

project, the National Juvenile Court

Data Archive, not only produces the

Juvenile Court Statistics reports, but

conducts research and as an archive

makes the data available to other

researchers.

Throughout its history, the Juvenile

Court Statistics series has depended

on the voluntary support of courts

with juvenile jurisdiction. Courts

contribute data originally compiled

to meet their own information

needs. The data NCJJ receives are

not uniform but reflect the natural

variation that exists across court information systems. To develop national estimates, NCJJ restructures

compatible data into a common format. In 2002, juvenile courts with jurisdiction over virtually 100% of the

U.S. juvenile population contributed

at least some data to the national

reporting program. Because not all

contributed data can support the

national reporting requirements, the

national estimates for 2002 were

based on data from more than 2,100

jurisdictions containing nearly 75%

of the nation's juvenile population

(i.e., youth age 10 through the

upper age of original juvenile court

jurisdiction in each state).

Juvenile Court Statistics

documents the number of cases

courts handled

Just as the FBI's Uniform Crime Re--

porting Program counts arrests

made by law enforcement (i.e., a

workload measure, not a crime

measure), the Juvenile Court Statistics series counts delinquency and

status offense cases handled by

courts with juvenile jurisdiction

during the year. Each case repre--

sents the initial disposition of a new

referral to juvenile court for one or

more offenses. A youth may be involved in more than one case in a

year. Therefore, the Juvenile Court

Statistics series does not provide a

count of individual juveniles

brought before juvenile courts.

Cases involving multiple charges

are categorized by their most

serious offense

In a single case where a juvenile is

charged with robbery, simple assault, and a weapons law violation,

the case is counted as a robbery

case (similar to the FBI Uniform

Crime Reporting Program's hierarchy rule). Thus, the Juvenile Court

Statistics series does not provide a

count of the number of crimes committed by juveniles. In addition,

given that only the most serious offense is used to classify the case,

counts of—and trends for—less serious offenses must be interpreted

cautiously.

Similarly, cases are categorized

by their most severe or restrictive

disposition. For example, a case in

which the judge orders the youth to

a training school and to pay restitution to the victim would be characterized as a case in which the juvenile was placed in a residential

facility.

Juvenile Court Statistics

describes delinquency and

status offense caseloads

The Juvenile Court Statistics series

describes delinquency and status

offense cases handled by juvenile

courts. The reports provide demographic profiles of the youth referred and the reasons for the

referrals (offenses). The series

documents the juvenile courts' differential use of petition, detention,

adjudication, and disposition alternatives by case type. The series

also can identify trends in the volume and characteristics of court

activity. However, care should be exercised when interpreting gender,

age, or racial differences in the

analysis of juvenile delinquency or

status offense cases, because re--

ported statistics do not control for

the seriousness of the behavior

leading to each charge or the extent

of a youth's court history.

The Juvenile Court Statistics series

does not provide national estimates

of the number of youth referred to

court, their prior court histories, or

their future recidivism. Nor does it

provide data on criminal court pro--

cessing of juvenile cases. Criminal

court cases involving youth younger

than age 18 who are defined as

adults in their state are not included. The series was designed to produce national estimates of juvenile

court activity, not to describe the

law-violating careers of juveniles.

-

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-8 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 30 of 35
Youth were charged with a person offense in nearly one-quarter of

the delinquency cases handled by juvenile courts in 2002

Percent change

Number Percent of 1985- 1997-

Most serious offense of cases total cases 2002 2002

Total delinquency 1,615,400 100% 41% -11%

387,500 24 113 -2

75,300 5 13 -29

1,700 0 41 -25

4,700 0 8 -14

21,500 -13 -36

47,400 3 32 -26

270,700 17 174 6

16,400 150 31

25,200 2 144 18

624,900 39 -10 -27

431,000 27 -16 -29

100,000 6 -29 -29

284,400 18 -13 -29

38,500 2 0 -30

8,100 0 18 -10

94,800 6 11 -18

50,800 3 -5 -24

22,100 1 -20 -32

26,200 2 45 -16

193,200 12 159

409,800 25 113 7

182,600 11 180 10

108,500 7 145 18

35,900 2 85 -19

28,200 2 57 96

15,500 16 20

39,000 2 23 -25

• Property crimes accounted for about 4 in 10 delinquency cases in 2002.

• Although juvenile court referrals increased substantially between 1985 and

2002, the recent trend (1997-2002) is one of decline.

Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. Calculations are based on unrounded numbers.

Source: Authors' adaptation of Stahl el al's Juvenile Court Statistics 200 1-2002.

Chapter 6: Juvenile offenders in court

I

Juvenile courts handled 1.6 million delinquency

cases in 2002—up from 1.1 million in 1985

Juvenile court caseloads have

grown and changed

In 2002, U.S. courts with juvenile jurisdiction handled an estimated 1.6

million cases in which the juvenile

was charged with a delinquency

offense—an offense for which an

adult could be prosecuted in criminal court. Thus, U.S. juvenile courts

handled more than 4,400 delinquency cases per day in 2002. In comparison, approximately 1,100 delinquency cases were processed daily

in 1960.

Changes in the juvenile court delinquency caseload over the years

have strained the courts' resources

and programs. The volume of delinquency cases handled by juvenile

courts rose 41% between 1985 and

2002. Courts were asked to respond

not only to more cases but also to a

different type of caseload—one with

more person offense and drug

cases.

Law enforcement refers most

delinquency cases to court

Delinquency and status offense

cases are referred to juvenile courts

by a number of different sources, including law enforcement agencies,

social services agencies, victims,

probation officers, schools, or

parents.

Percent of cases referred by law

enforcement agencies:

Offense 2002

Delinquency 82%

Person 87

Property 91

Drugs 90

Public order 61

Status offense (formal cases)

Runaway 55%

Truancy 14

Ungovernability 30

Liquor 92

Person offense

Violent Crime Index

Criminal homicide

Forcible rape

Robbery

Aggravated assault

Simple assault

Other violent sex offense

Other person offense

Property offense

Property Crime Index

Burglary

Larceny-theft

Motor vehicle theft

Arson

Vandalism

Trespassing

Stolen property offense

Other property offense

Drug law violation

Public order offense

Obstruction of justice

Disorderly conduct

Weapons offense

Liquor law violation

Nonviolent sex offense

Other public order offense

In 2002, 82% of delinquency cases

were referred by law enforcement

agencies. This proportion has

changed little over the past two

decades. Law enforcement agencies

are generally much less likely to be

the source of referral for formally

handled status offense cases (involving offenses that are not crimes

for adults) than delinquency cases.

The exception is status liquor law

violations (underage drinking and

possession of alcohol).

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-8 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 31 of 35
Juvenile courts handled four times as many delinquency cases in

2002 as in 1960

-

60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99 02

Year

Delinquency cases, by offense category

Number of cases

2,000,000

1,600,000

1,200,000

800,000

400,000

Between 1985 and 2002, the volume of delinquency cases handled by juvenile courts nationwide increased 41%. Delinquency cases dropped 11%

from their 1997 peak to 2002.

• Caseloads increased in three of the four general offense categories. Person

offense and public order offense cases each rose 113% and drug cases

rose 159%. Person and public order cases together accounted for 90% of

the growth in the delinquency caseload between 1985 and 2002. In contrast, property cases dropped 10%

Source: Authors' adaptation of Stahl et al's Juvenile Court Statistics 2001-2002.

Chapter 6; Juvenile offenders in court

U •

The long-term growth trend for juvenile court

caseloads has been tempered by recent declines

in most offense categories,

juvenile court cases have

decreased in recent years

Compared with 1997, cases involving offenses in the FBI's Violent

Crime Index were down 29% in 2002.

More specifically, criminal homicide

was down 25%, forcible rape 14%,

robbery 36%, and aggravated assault 26%.

There were also large declines in

cases involving property offenses—

burglary and larceny-theft were

down 29%, and motor vehicle theft

28%. Trespassing and stolen property offenses had declines greater

than 30%. Declines were smaller for

arson (10%) and vandalism (18%).

Drug and public order offenses generally have not declined; however,

they have leveled off since 1997.

Trends in juvenile court cases largely parallel trends in arrests of perSons younger than 18. FBI data

show that arrest rates for persons

younger than 18 charged with Violent Crime Index offenses have

dropped substantially since their

peak in 1994. Similarly, juvenile arrest rates for Property Crime Index

offenses were at their lowest level

in three decades in 2002. Drug offenses are a noticeable exception—

the FBI data show juvenile drug

arrest rates peaking in 1997 and

falling 25% through 2002. The court

data show no such decline in the juvenile court's drug caseload. The

data do not fully explain this pattern, but the pattern underscores

the fact that not all arrests result in

a juvenile court case and that juvenile court cases also come from

sources other than police.

Number ot cases

400000

300,000

200,000

100,000

0

86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02

Year

Number of cases

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

0..1

86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02

Year

Number ot cases

1000,000

800,000

600,000 Property

400,000

200,000

0

86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02

Year

Number ot cases

500,000

400,000

300,000 Public order

200,000 '

100,000

0

86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02

Year

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-8 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 32 of 35
Trend patterns for juvenile court caseloads from 1985 through

2002 varied substantially across offense categories

Number of cases

40,000

30,000 /cRobbery \

20,000

10,000

0

86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02

Year

Number of cases

100,000

80.000

60,000 ,,/'

40,000 /'Aggravated assault -

20,000

0

86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02

Year

Number of cases

300,000

/

200,000

_,..-" Simple assault

100,000

0

66 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02

Year

Number of cases

160,000

120,000 Burglary '\,

80,000

40,000

0

86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02

Year

Number of cases

500,000

400,000

300,000 Larceny-theft '.-._i

200,000

100,000

0

86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02

Year

Number of cases

60,000

40,000

Weapons 20,000 -'--

0

86 88 90 92 94 96 96 00 02

Year

• Robbery cases peaked in 1995, near 40,000, then fell to levels of the late

1980s.

I Aggravated assault cases peaked in 1995, at 84,400, then fell off sharply. In

contrast, simple assault cases climbed steadily through 1997, then leveled

off at around 270,000 in 2001 and 2002.

• Burglary caseloads were relatively flat until 1997—since then, they have

dropped to their lowest level since at least 1985.

• Larceny-theft cases peaked in 1995 at nearly 426,000 and have also

dropped to their lowest level since at least 1985.

• Within the public order category, weapons offense cases peaked in 1994 at

51,100 and have dropped steadily since then.

Source: Authors' analyses of the National Center for Juvenile Justice's National Juvenile

Court Data Archive: Juvenile Court Case Records 1985-2002 [machine-readable data

file].

Chapter 6: Juvenile offenders in court

An offense classification may

encompass situations With a

wide range of seriousness

The four general offense categories—person, propertc drugs,

and public order—are each very

broad in terms of the seriousness

of the offenses they comprise.

Within these general categories Individual offenses (0 g aggravated

assault robbery) may also encom

pass a wide range Of seriousness.

For example:

Aggravatedassault is the unlawful

intentional infliction of serious bodily Injury or unlawful threat or attempt

to Inflict bodily injury or death by

means of a deadly or dangerous

weapon with or without actual in

fliction of injury. Aggravated assault

includes the following situations

I A gang attempts to kill a rival

gang member in a drive by

shooting but he survives the

attack.

• A son fights with his father,

causing injuries that require

treatment at a hospital.

• A student raises a chair and

threatens to throw It at a

teacher but does not

Robbery is the unlawful taking or

attempted taking of property in the

immediate possession of another

person by force or threat of force.

Robbery includes the following

sItuations:

Masked gunmen with automatic

weapons demand cash from a

bank.

A gang of young men beat up a

tourist and steal his wallet and

valuables

I A school bully says to another

student "Give me your lunch

money or Ill punch you"

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-8 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 33 of 35
Females account for a relatively

small share of delinquency cases

In 2002, juvenile courts handled

more than 423,000 delinquency

cases involving female juveniles—

just over one-quarter of all delinquency cases handled in 2002.

Females made up a fairly large

share of cases in some offense

categories—larceny-theft (38%),

disorderly conduct (33%), simple

assault (32%), and liquor law cases

(32%). For other offense categories,

the female share of the caseload

was relatively small—violent sex

offenses other than rape (5%), robbery (9%), burglary (10%), arson

(13%), and weapons offenses (14%).

Female

Most serious offense proportion

Total delinquency 26%

Person offense 28

Violent Crime Index 20

Criminal homicide 13

Forcible rape 3

Robbery 9

Aggravated assault 26

Simple assault 32

Other violent sex offense 5

Other person offense 27

Property offense 26

Property Crime Index 30

Burglary 10

Larceny-theft 38

Motor vehicle theft 23

Arson 13

Vandalism 16

Trespassing 19

Stolen property offense 15

Other property offense 32

Drug law violation 18

Public order offense 28

Obstruction of justice 29

Disorderly conduct 33

Weapons offense 14

Liquor law violation 32

Nonviolent sex offense 19

Other public order offense 25

Chapter 6: Juvenile offenders in court

. :i$

Cases increased for males and females through the

mid- 1 990s; since then cases have declined for males

For most offenses, female caseloads have grown more or

decreased less than male caseloads

Percent change

1985-2002 1997-2002

Most serious offense Male Female Male Female

Total delinquency 29% 92% -15% 0%

Person offense 91 202 -5 7

Violent Crime Index 9 70 -30 -23

Criminal homicide 39 58 -25 -25

Forcible rape 7 63 -14 6

Robbery -16 18 -36 -42

Aggravated assault 20 84 -28 -19

Simple assault 152 238 4 12

Other violent sex offense 147 240 29 62

Other person offense 111 322 11 42

Property offense -19 27 -29 -18

Property Crime Index -26 23 -32 -20

Burglary -31 -5 -30 -25

Larceny-theft -27 25 -35 -19

Motor vehicle theft -7 41 -31 -25

Arson 15 44 -10 -6

Vandalism 5 65 -20 -8

Trespassing -8 12 -25 -16

Stolen property offense -23 6 -33 -23

Other property offense 30 92 -18 -12

Drug law violation 156 171 -3 20

Public order offense 97 171 2 26

Obstruction of justice 169 210 4 26

Disorderlyconduct 117 241 12 35

Weapons offense 73 223 -21 -3

Liquor law violation 38 123 79 143

Nonviolent sex offense 16 18 16 42

Other public order offense 17 45 -27 -21

• Between 1985 and 2002, the overall delinquency caseload for females increased 92%, compared with a 29% increase for males.

• Among females, the number of aggravated assault cases rose substantially

(up 84%) from 1985 to 2002. In comparison, among males, aggravated assault cases were up 20%.

• Between 1997 and 2002, the number of aggravated assault cases dropped

for both males and females, but the decline for males (28%) was greater

than the decline for females (19%).

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of rounding. Calculations are based on unrounded numbers.

Source: Authors' analyses of the National Center for Juvenile Justice's National Juvenile

Court Data Archive: Juvenile Court Case Records 1985-2002 [machine-readable data

filel.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-8 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 34 of 35
Juvenile court caseload trends are different for males and

females, and the differences vary by offense category

Number of cases

1,400,000

1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000

600,000

400,000

200,000

0

90 92 94 96 98 00 2002

Property

order

200,000

Female

150,000

100,000

50,000

,,

Property

Person -

PubUc order

o

.Drugs

1986 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 2002

• Male delinquency caseloads have been on the decline since the mid1990s. Female caseloads have not shown a similar decline, although they

seem to have leveled off in recent years.

• The decline in male caseloads has been driven by a sharp reduction in the

volume of property cases—down 34% from the 1994 peak to 2002.

• For females, the largest 1985-2002 increase was in person offense cases

(202%). Drug and public order cases also rose substantially (each 171%).

Source: Authors' adaptation of Stahl et at's Juvenile Court Statistics 2001-2002.

Chapter 6: Juvenile offenders in court

1986 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 2002

1986 88

Number of cases

700,000 Male

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000 ________

100,000 ___

0

Number of cases

250,000 1

The female share of delinquency

cases increased steadily from

1991 through 2002

The proportion of delinquency

cases that involved females was

19% in 1991; by 2002, it had increased 7 percentage points to 26%.

The female share of person offense

cases rose 8 percentage points over

the same period to 28%. Property

cases also saw an 8-point increase

in the proportion of females, to 26%

in 2002. The female proportion of

drug cases went from 12% in 1991 to

18% in 2002, an increase of 6 points.

Public order cases had the greatest

increase in the proportion of females-9 percentage points from

1991 to 2002, up to 28%.

Female percent of cases

15%

Delinquency

10%

5%

0%

86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02

Year

Female percent ot cases

30%

86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02

Year

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-8 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 35 of 35
Male

Number Percent

of cases of cases

1,192,300 100%

277,900 23

60,600 5

1,500 0

4,500 0

19,500 2

35,100 3

183,400 15

15,600 1

18,300 2

460,400 39

301,600 25

89,900 8

174,300 15

30,300 3

7,000

80,800 7

41,500 3

18,900 2

17,600

158,100 13

296,000 25

130,700 11

73,500 6

30,900 3

19,200 2

12,800

28,900 2

Female

Number Percent

of cases of cases

423,100 100%

109,700 26

14,700 3

200 0

200 0

2,000 0

12,300 3

87,300 21

800 0

6,900 2

164,500 39

129,400 31

10,100 2

110,100 26

8,200 2

1,000 0

14,100 3

9,300 2

3,100 1

8,600 2

35,100 8

113,800 27

51,900 12

35,000 8

5,000 1

9,000 2

2,800 1

10,100 2

Most serious offense

Total delinquency

Person offense

Violent Crime Index

Criminal homicide

Forcible rape

Robbery

Aggravated assault

Simple assault

Other violent sex offense

Other person offense

Property offense

Property Crime Index

Burglary

Larceny-theft

Motor vehicle theft

Arson

Vandalism

Trespassing

Stolen property offense

Other property offense

Drug law violation

Public order offense

Obstruction of justice

Disorderly conduct

Weapons offense

Liquor law violation

Nonviolent sex offense

Other public order offense

• Compared with males, the female juvenile court caseload had a greater

proportion of simple assault and larceny-theft cases and a smaller proportion of robbery, burglary, vandalism, and drug cases.

Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. Calculations are based on unrounded numbers.

Source: Authors' analyses of the National Center for Juvenile Justice's National Juvenile

Court Data Archive: Juvenile Court Case Records 1985-2002 [machine-readable data

file].

Chapter 6: Juvenile offenders in court

p.

In 2002. male and female offense profiles were

similar, but not as similar as they were in 1985

For both males and females,

2002 caseloads had smaller

shares of property crimes and

more person crimes than in 1985

Although males accounted for more than twice as many

delinquency cases as females in 2002, their offense profiles were

similar

Compared with offense profiles in

1985, both male and female delinquency caseloads had greater proportions of person offense cases in

2002.

Offense profile by sex:

Offense Male Female

2002

Delinquency 100% 100%

Person 23 26

Property 39 39

Drugs 13 8

Public order 25 27

1985

Delinquency 100% 100%

Person 16 16

Property 61 59

Drugs 7 6

Public order 16 19

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Both male and female caseloads

saw substantial reductions in the

proportion of cases that involved

property crimes. Despite the reduction in the property crime share of

delinquency cases, property cases

were still the most common type of

case for both males and females in

2002.

Compared with males, females had

a greater proportion of person offense cases and a smaller proportion of drug offense cases in 2002.

In 1985, the offense profiles for

cases involving males and females

differed less than in 2002.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-9 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 32
The delinquency case rate rose from 1985 to 2002 for all races, but

the rate for blacks remained well above the rates for other groups

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10—upper age

140

Delinquency

80

60 White

40

Other races

20

• The delinquency case rate for white juveniles increased 35% from 1985 to

its 1997 peak then dropped 15% by 2002 for an overall increase from 1985

to 2002 of 15%. Among black juveniles, the delinquency case rate increased 67% from 1985 to its 1995 peak then dropped 24% by 2002 for an

overall increase from 1985 to 2002 of 27%. The delinquency case rate for

juveniles of other races increased 40% from 1985 to its 1994 peak then

dropped 28% by 2002 for an overall increase from 1985 to 2002 of 1%.

• In 2002, the delinquency case rate for blacks (94) was more than 2 times

the rate for whites (44) and just over 3 times the rate for youth of other

races (31).

Source: Authors' adaptation of Stahl et al's Juvenile Court Statistics 200 1-2002.

Chapter 6: Juvenile offenders in court

.s U

A disproportionate number of delinquency cases

involved black juveniles

In 2002, blacks constituted 16%

of the juvenile population but

29% of the delinquency caseload

Although a majority of delinquency

cases handled in 2002 involved

white youth (1,086,700 or 67%), a

disproportionate number of cases

involved blacks (473,100 or 29%),

given their proportion of the juvenile population. In 2002, white youth

made up 78% of the juvenile population (youth ages 10 through the

upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction in each state), black youth 16%,

and youth of other races 6%.*

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

Racial profile of delinquency cases:

Other

Offense White Black races Total

2002

Delinquency 67% 29% 3% 100%

Person 60 37 3 100

Property 68 28 4 100

Drugs 76 21 3 100

Public order 68 29 3 100

1985

Delinquency 72 25 3 100

Person 58 39 2 100

Property 74 23 3 100

Drugs 79 19 2 100

Public order 77 21 2 100

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

The racial profile of delinquency

cases overall was essentially the

same in 1985 and 2002, although

some of the general offense cate--

gories had noticeable changes. The

proportion of black juveniles

changed from 23% in 1985 to 28% in

2002 for property cases and from

21% to 29% for public order cases.

* Throughout this chapter, juveniles of

Hispanic ethnicity can be any race; however, most are included in the white

racial category.

Offense profiles for whites and

blacks differed

Delinquency caseloads for black juveniles contained a greater proportion of person offenses than did

caseloads for white juveniles and

those of other races. For all racial

groups, property offenses accounted for the largest proportion of

cases and drug offenses the smallest proportion. Compared with

1985, for all racial groups, person

and public order offenses made up

a larger share and property offenses

a smaller share of delinquency

cases in 2002.

Offense profile of delinquency cases:

Other

Offense White Black races

2002

Delinquency 100% 100% 100%

Person 22 30 22

Property 39 36 45

Drugs 13 9 10

Public order 26 25 23

1985

Delinquency 100% 100% 100%

Person 13 25 15

Property 62 56 63

Drugs 7 5 7

Public order 18 14 16

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-9 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 32
Chapter 6: Juvenile offenders in court

Case rate trends varied across race and offense, but in all offense categories from 1985 through 2002,

the rates for black youth were substantially higher than the rates for other youth

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10-upper age

White

10

5 Other races

0

1986 1990 1994 1998 2002

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10-upper age

Other races

0

1986 1990 1994 1998 2002

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10-upper age

60 1

I Prope

40

White 30

20 Other races

10

0

1986 1990 1994 1998

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10-upper age

:: I Public order -

- White..-.-.

Other races

1986 1990 1994 1998 2002

2002

• Compared with 1985, 2002 person offense case rates were higher for all racial groups—up 93% for whites, 53% for

blacks, and 47% for youth of other races. All racial groups experienced recent declines in person offense case rates—

down 9% from the 1998 peak for whites, down 18% from the 1995 peak for blacks, and down 17% from the 1994 peak

for other races.

• Property case rates dropped for all races between 1985 and 2002—down 28% for whites, 17% for blacks, and 27% for

youth of other races. Property case rates for both white and black youth in 2002 were 39% below their 1991 peaks. The

rate for youth of other races was highest in 1992 and was down 46% by 2002.

• Case rates for drug offenses more than doubled from 1985 to 2002 for both white (118%) and black (128%) youth.

Among youth of other races, the drug case rate rose 52%. For black youth, the drug case rate peaked in 1996 and was

down 37% by 2002. For white youth, the rate peaked in 2001 and then dropped 6% in 2002. For youth of other races,

the drug offense case rate was higher in 2002 than any year since at least 1985.

• For white youth, the public order case rate was higher in 2002 than any year since at least 1985. Their 2002 rate was

66% higher than the 1985 rate. For blacks, the public order case rate was highest in 1997 and dropped 11% by 2002.

Nevertheless, the 2002 rate was 125% above the 1985 rate. Similarly, for youth of other races, the rate in 2002 was 6%

below the 1994 rate but still 52% above the 1985 rate.

Source: Authors' adaptation of Stahl et al's Juvenile Court Statistics 200 1-2002.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-9 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 3 of 32
Chapter 6: Juvenile offenders in court

In 2002, the disparity between

rates for black youth and white

youth was lowest for drug cases

In 2002, case rates for black juveniles were substantially higher than

rates for other juveniles in all offense categories, but the degree of

disparity varied. The person offense

case rate for black juveniles (28.2

per 1,000) was nearly 3 times the

rate for white juveniles (9.5), the

public order case rate for black juveniles (23.4) was more than 2 times

the rate for white juveniles (11.4),

and the property case rate for black

juveniles (34.2) was nearly 2 times

the rate for white juveniles (17.5).

In comparison, in 2002, the drug offense case rate for black juveniles

(82) was less than 1.5 times the rate

for white juveniles (6.0). Although

the disparity between black and

white drug case rates was relatively

small in 2002, that was not always

true. In fact, in 1991, the drug offense case rate for black juveniles

was more than 5.5 times the rate for

white juveniles. No other offense

reached this extent of disparity be--

tween black and white case rates.

The racial profile for delinquency

cases was similar for males and

females in 2002

Among females referred to juvenile

court in 2002 for person offenses,

blacks accounted for 38% of cases—

the greatest overrepresentation

among black juveniles. The black

proportion among males referred

for person offenses was just slightly

smaller at 36%.

Racial profile of delinquency cases

by gender, 2002:

Other

Offense White Black races Total

Male

Delinquency 67% 29% 3% 100%

Person 61 36 3 100

Property 69 28 4 100

Drugs 73 24 3 100

Public order 69 28 3 100

Female

Delinquency 67 30 4 100

Person 59 38 3 100

Property 68 28 4 100

Drugs 87 10 3 100

Public order 66 30 3 100

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Among females referred for drug

offenses, blacks were underrepresented. Although they account for

16% of the population of juvenile

females, blacks made up just 10%

of drug cases involving females in

2002.

Youth of other races make up 6%

of the juvenile population; they accounted for less than 5% of cases

across all gender and offense

groups.

Offense profiles for both males

and females varied somewhat

across racial groups

Among males in 2002, blacks had a

greater proportion of person offense cases than whites or youth of

other races. In addition, black males

had a somewhat smaller proportion

of property cases than white males

or males of other races.

Offense profile of delinquency cases

by race and gender, 2002:

Other

Offense White Black races

Male

Delinquency 100% 100% 100%

Person 21 29 22

Property 39 36 45

Drugs 14 11 11

Public order 25 24 23

Female

Delinquency 100% 100% 100%

Person 23 34 21

Property 40 36 47

Drugs 11 3 8

Public order 27 27 24

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Among females, person offenses accounted for 34% of the cases involving blacks, compared with 23% of

the cases involving whites and 21%

of the cases involving youth of other

races. The drug offense share of

cases involving females was greater

for whites (11%) than for blacks

(3%) or youth of other races (8%).

Compared with whites and blacks,

the property offense share of delinquency cases was greater among

youth of other races. This was true

for both males and females.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-9 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 4 of 32
Delinquency case rates generally increase with age

cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group, 2002

120 . 1091 Delinquency 102.9

100 843

80

632

60

39.2

40

20.4

20 46

0

" 'El,

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Age at reterral

Cases per 1 000 juveniles in age group, 2002

::

Propuor

0 10214i517

Age at relerral

• In 2002, the delinquency case rate for 16-year-olds was 1.6 times the rate

for 14-year-olds and the rate for 14-year-olds was 3.1 times the rate for 12-

year-olds.

• The increase in rates between age 13 and age 17 was sharpest for drug offenses; the rate for drug offenses for 17-year-old juveniles was 8 times the

rate for 13-year-olds.

• The growth in age-specific case rates was less dramatic for person offense

cases. Person offense rates increased steadily through age 16 then

dropped off at age 17, unlike rates for other offenses that increased through

age 17. The person case rate for 1 7-year-olds was 84% higher than the rate

for 13-year-olds.

Source: Authors' adaptation of Stahl et aIs Juvenile Court Statistics 2001-2002.

Chapter 6: Juvenile offenders in court

U'Ri l

Although older teens dominate delinquency

caseloads. trends are similar for all age groups

For all ages, 2002 delinquency

case rates were lower than rates

in the mid- to late 1990s

In 2002, juvenile courts handled 51.5

delinquency cases for every 1,000

juveniles (youth subject to original

juvenile court jurisdiction) in the

U.S. population. The overall delinquency case rate peaked in 1996,

43% above the 1985 rate, and then

declined 17% to the 2002 level. For

all ages, delinquency case rates

showed similar trend patterns, although the peak years varied from

one age to another. Case rates for

older juveniles peaked in 1994 or

1995 and rates for younger juveniles

tended to peak in the later l990s.

Case rate declines were smaller for

juveniles younger than 15 than for

older teens.

Most delinquency cases involve

older teens

High-school-age juveniles (ages 14

and older) made up 80% of the

delinquency caseload in 2002, older

teens (ages 16 and older) accounted

for 42%. In comparison, middleschool-age juveniles (ages 12 and

13) were involved in 16% of delinquency cases, while juveniles

younger than 12 accounted for 5%.

The 2002 age profile of delinquency

cases was similar to the 1985 profile.

Age profile of delinquency cases:

Age 1985 2002

Total 100% 100%

Under 12 6 5

12 5 5

13 10 10

14 17 16

15 22 21

16 23 23

17 16 17

Overl7 2 2

Age profiles varied somewhat

across offenses but have not

changed substantially since 1985.

Age profile of delinquency cases, 2002

Fktic

Ae Fsm Prcpey Dt or

Total 100% 100% 1 00% 100%

Underl2 7 6 1 3

12 7 6 2 4

13 13 11 5 9

14 18 17 12 16

15 20 21 21 23

16 20 22 30 24

17 14 15 26 18

Overl7 1 2 3 4

Why do juvenile courts handle

more 16- than 17-year-olds?

Although comparable numbers of

1 7-year-olds and 16-year-olds were

arrested in 2002, the number of juvenile court cases involving 17-yearolds (271,600) was lower than the

number involving 16-year-olds

(376,900). The explanation lies primarily in the fact that 13 states

exclude 1 7-year-olds from the original jurisdiction of the juvenile court

(see Chapter 4). In these states, all

1 7-year-olds are legally adults and

are referred to criminal court rather

than to juvenile court. Thus, far

fewer 17-year-olds than 16-year-olds

are subject to original juvenile court

jurisdiction. Of the more than 31

million youth under juvenile court

jurisdiction in 2002, youth ages 10

through 15 accounted for 80%, 12%

were age 16, and 8% were age 17.

In 2002, offense profiles of

younger and older youth differed

Compared with caseloads of older

juveniles in 2002, the caseload of juveniles younger than 14 had larger

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-9 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 5 of 32
Cases per 1000 juveniles in age group

Person

Ages 10-li

0 .. .......

86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02

Year

Cases per 1000 juveniles in age group

2 Ages 10-11 (x5)

0

86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02

Year

Chapter 6: Juvenile offenders in court

proportions of person and property

offenses and smaller proportions of

drug and public order offenses. In

1985, the proportions of person offense cases were similar for younger

and older youth.

Compared with 1985 caseloads, person offenses were a substantially

larger proportion of 2002 caseloads

for all age groups. This shift was

greatest for the youngest juveniles:

person offenses increased from 16%

of cases in 1985 to 34% in 2002. Public order offenses also accounted

for a greater share of cases in 2002

than in 1985 across all age groups.

These increases were offset by the

declining share of property offenses.

Offense profile of delinquency cases

by age:

Under Ages Over

Offense age 12 12-13 age 13

2002

Delinquency 100% i00% 100%

Person 34 31 22

Property 48 42 38

Drugs 1 6 14

Public order 16 22 27

1985

Delinquency 100% 100% 100%

Person 16 17 16

Property 75 68 58

Drugs 1 3 8

Public order 8 12 18

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Between 1985 and 2002, trends in case rates were generally

similar across age groups

Cases per 1000 juveniles in age group

30 Ages 12-13

20

10 Ages 10-il

0

86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02

Year

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group

35

30 Public order

Ages 14-1?_---------i

15 _—'Ages12-13(x5)

....

'T . ....

86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02

Year

• The person offense case rate for youth ages 14-17 rose from 1985 through

1995 then dropped off. Youth ages 12-13 had a similar pattern. For youth

ages 10-11, the person offense rate was highest in 2001.

• For all age groups, property case rates peaked in 1991 and declined steadily thereafter.

• Drug offense case rates were relatively flat for all age groups from the mid1980s to the mid-1990s, when they began to rise sharply. Rates flattened

out again after 1996 for all ages.

Note: Because of the low volume of drug and public order cases involving younger juveniles, their case rates are inflated by a factor of 5 to display the trends over time.

Source: Authors' analyses of Stahl et al's Easy Access to Juvenile Court Statistics:

1985-2002 [data analysis application].

The age profile of delinquency

cases did not differ substantially

by gender or race in 2002

At each age, the proportion of cases

was not more than 3 percentage

points different for males compared

to females. Among males, the

largest proportion of delinquency

cases involved 1 6-year-olds; among

females, the largest proportion

involved 15-year-olds. Age profiles

across racial groups were also

similar.

Age profile of delinquency cases

by gender, 2002:

Male Female

Total 100% 100%

Under 12 5 3

12 5 5

13 10 12

14 15 18

15 21 23

16 24 22

17 18 15

Over 17 2 2

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Age profile of delinquency cases

by race, 2002:

Other

White Black races

Total 100% 100% 100%

Underl2 4 6 5

12 5 7 6

13 9 12 11

14 16 17 16

15 21 22 20

16 24 22 21

17 18 13 18

Overl7 3 2 3

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-9 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 6 of 32
The number of cases involving detention was higher in 2002 than

in 1985 for all but property cases

Cases detained

160000 F -..operty

120,000

80.000

40,000

0 .I

86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02

Year

Percent at cases detained

40% V

::::j

Prope

Public order

0%

86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02

Year

• The number of delinquency cases involving detention increased 42% between 1985 and 2002, from 234,600 to 329,800. The largest relative increase was for drug cases (140%), followed by person cases (122%) and

public order cases (72%). In contrast, the number of detained property

cases declined 12% during this period.

• Despite the growth in the volume of delinquency cases involving detention,

the proportion of cases detained was the same in 2002 as in 1985 (20%).

The percent of cases detained was highest in 1990 (23%) and lowest in

1995 and 1996 (17%).

• Property cases were the least likely to involve detention—youth were detained in 17% of property cases in 2002. In comparison, youth were detained in 21% of public order cases, 20% of drug cases, and 25% of person

cases.

• In 1990, youth were detained in 37% of drug cases—the highest proportion

of cases detained for any offense during the 1985-2002 period. In fact, no

other offense category ever had more than 27% of cases detained.

Source: Authors' adaptation of Stahl et al's Juvenile Court Statistics 2001-2002.

Chapter 6: Juvenile offenders in court

• I

In 1 in 5 delinquency cases. the youth is detained

between referral to court and case disposition

When is secure detention used?

A youth may be placed in a secure

juvenile detention facility at various

points during the processing of a

case. Although detention practices

vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, a general model of detention

practices is useful.

When a case is referred to juvenile

court, intake staff may decide to

hold the youth in a detention facility

while the case is being processed.

In general, detention is used if there

is reason to believe the youth is a

threat to the community, will be at

risk if returned to the community,

or may fail to appear at an upcoming hearing. The youth may also be

detained for diagnostic evaluation

purposes. In most delinquency cases,

however, the youth is not detained.

In all states, law requires that a detention hearing be held within a few

days (generally within 24 hours). At

that time, a judge reviews the decision to detain the youth and either

orders the youth released or continues the detention. National juvenile

court statistics count the number of

cases that involve detention during

a calendar year. As a case is processed, the youth may be detained

and released more than once be--

tween referral and disposition. Juvenile court data do not count individual detentions, nor do they count

the number of youth detained. In addition, although in a few states juveniles may be committed to a detention facility as part of a disposition

order, the court data do not include

such placements in the count of

cases involving detention.

The proportion of detained

cases involving property

offenses has declined

Although property offense cases

were the least likely to involve

detention in 2002, they still accounted for the largest volume of cases

involving detention because they

represent the largest share of juvenile court caseloads. Property offense cases represented 32% of all

detained delinquency cases in 2002,

while person offenses accounted

for 29% and public order cases 27%.

Drug offense cases made up the

smallest share of detained cases

at 11%.

Compared with the offense profile of

detained cases in 1985, the 2002

detention caseload had a substantially smaller proportion of property

offense cases, This was offset by a

larger proportion of person offense

cases.

Offense profile of delinquency cases:

All Detained

cases cases

Offense 1985 2002 1985 2002

Delinquency 100% 100% 100% 1 00%

Person 16 24 19 29

Property 61 39 52 32

Drugs 7 12 7 11

Public order 17 25 22 27

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

-

-

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-9 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 7 of 32
Males accounted for most delinquency cases involving detention

and were consistently more likely than females to be detained

Delinquency cases detained Percent of delinquency cases detained

300,000

/ Male

/

:::

Male

200,000 -"-.-

15%

10%

5%

0%

86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02

Year Year

• The number of male cases detained rose 49% from 1985 to 1999 and then

dropped 10% for an overall increase of 34%. Females had an 87% increase

in detained cases between 1985 and 1999. Between 1999 and 2002, the

number of female cases detained changed little—the peak year was 1999

and the overall increase was 87%.

• The likelihood of detention was higher for males than for females, but the

1985-2002 trend lines for the percent of cases detained ran in tandem.

White youth accounted for the largest number of delinquency

cases involving detention, although they were the least likely to

be detained

Delinquency cases detained

250,000

200,000

White,,

:::

50,000 Other races

0

86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02

Year

Percent of delinquency cases detained

30%

Other races '

20/

15% White

10%

5%

0%

86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02

Year

• The number of delinquency cases involving white youth who were detained

rose 44% from 1985 to its peak in 1999 and then dropped 9% for an overall

increase of 32%. For black youth, the number of cases detained rose 77%

from 1985 to its 1999 peak and then dropped 7% for an overall increase of

64%.

• The number of delinquency cases involving youth of other races who were

detained peaked in 1990-79% above the 1985 figure. Between 1990 and

2002, the figure dropped 12% for an overall increase of 57%.

• For all racial groups, trends in the likelihood of detention followed similar

patterns, although the proportion of cases involving detention remained

lower for white youth than for black youth or youth of other races.

• For all racial groups, the likelihood of detention peaked in 1990 and showed

a smaller rise in the late 1990s and subsequent fall into 2000

Source: Authors' analyses of Stahl et al's Easy access to juvenile court statistics:

1985-2002 [online analysis].

Chapter 6: Juvenile offenders in court

•

Use of detention varied not only by offense but also

by gender. race, and age

In 2002, the gender disparity in

the likelihood of detention was

least for drug cases

In 2002, the likelihood of detention

in delinquency cases for males was

1.3 times the likelihood for females

(22% vs. 17%). Males were more likely than females to be detained in

each of the four general offense categories: 1.6 times more likely for

property offenses, 1.3 times for public order offenses, 1.2 for person offenses, and 1,1 for drug offenses.

Percent of cases detained, 2002:

Offense Male Female

Delinquency 22% 17%

Person 26 22

Property 19 12

Drugs 20 18

Public order 23 18

The degree of racial disparity in

the likelihood of detention varied

across offense

In 2002, the likelihood of detention

was greatest for black youth for all

but public order offenses—youth of

other races had a slightly greater

percent of public order cases detained (24%) than black youth

(23%). The overall percent of cases

detained for blacks was 1.4 times

that for whites and 1.2 times that for

other races. The greatest disparity

between blacks and whites or other

races was in the likelihood of detention in drug cases—the proportion

for blacks was more than 2 times

that for whites and nearly 2 times

that for youth of other races.

Percent of cases detained, 2002:

Other

Offense White Black races

Delinquency 18% 25% 21%

Person 23 28 27

Property 15 22 17

Drugs 16 33 17

Public order 21 23 24

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-9 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 8 of 32
Chapter 6: Juvenile offenders in court

The racial profile for detained

delinquency cases was similar

for males and females in 2002

In 2002, the black proportion of detained delinquency cases (36%) was

substantially greater than the black

proportion of the juvenile population (16%) and also greater than the

black proportion of delinquency

cases handled during the year

(29%). The overrepresentation of

black juveniles in the detention

caseload was greater among person

offenses (41%) than other offenses.

The black proportion of detained

person offense cases was similar

among males (40%) and females

(41%). Across offenses, for males

and females, the black proportion of

detained cases was in the 30%-40%

range. The one exception was

among detained females referred for

drug offenses. Blacks accounted for

just 19% of this group—close to

their representation in the juvenile

population (16%).

Racial profile of detained cases

by gender, 2002:

Other

Offense White Black races Total

Total

Delinquency 61% 36% 3% 100%

Person 56 41 3 100

Property 60 36 4 100

Drugs 61 36 2 100

Public oIer 66 31 4 100

Mate

Delinquency 60 36 3 100

Person 56 40 4 100

Property 60 36 4 100

Drugs 58 40 2 100

Public order 66 31 4 100

Female

Delinquency 62 35 4 100

Person 56 41 3 100

Property 61 35 4 100

Drugs 78 19 4 100

Public order 64 32 4 100

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

The offense profile of detained

cases varied by race and by gender in 2002

For males, the person offense share

of delinquency cases was greater

among detained cases involving

black youth (3 1%) than among detained cases involving white youth

(26%) or youth of other races

(28%). For male youth of other

races, drug offense cases accounted

for 8% of detained cases, compared

with 12% for white males and 13%

for black males.

Among females, blacks had a higher

proportion of person offenses in the

detention caseload (41%) than did

either whites (3 1%) or youth of

other races (27%). For white females, drug offense cases accounted for 11% of detained cases, compared with 5% for black females and

9% for females of other races.

Offense profile of detained cases

by race and gender, 2002:

Other

Offense White Black races

Total

Delinquency 100% 100% 100%

Person 27 33 28

Property 32 32 36

Drugs 12 12 8

Public order 29 23 28

Male

Delinquency 100% 100% 100%

Person 26 31 28

Property 34 33 38

Drugs 12 13 8

Public order 29 22 26

Female

Delinquency 100% 100% 100%

Person 31 41 27

Property 27 28 32

Drugs 11 5 9

Public order 30 26 32

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Each year from 1985 through 2002, delinquency cases involving

youth age 16 or older were more likely to be detained than were

cases involving youth age 15 or younger

Percent of cases detained

Age lsoryounger

15%

10%

Delinquency

5%

0%

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

Source: Authors' adaptation of Stahl et al.'s Juvenile Court Statistics 2001-2002.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-9 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 9 of 32
The number of petitioned delinquency cases increased 96%

between 1985 and the peak in 1997, then declined 8% by 2002

Delinquency cases

1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000

600,000

400,000

200,000

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

• The number of delinquency cases petitioned in 2002 (934,900) was 80%

more than the number petitioned in 1985 (520,200), In comparison, the

overall number of delinquency cases referred increased 41% in that time.

• Compared with the trend for the petitioned caseload, the trend for nonpetitioned cases was flatter. The number of nonpetitioned delinquency cases increased 28% between 1985 and the peak in 1997 then declined 15% by

2002 for an overall increase of 9%.

Between 1985 and 2002, the petitioned caseload increased for

each of the four general offense categories

Petitioned cases

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

• Between 1985 and 2002, petitioned person offense cases increased 137%,

property cases 13%, drug offense cases 26%, and public order cases 178%.

• The up-and-down trend in the petitioned caseload for delinquency cases

overall was driven by property cases. The number of petitioned property

cases increased 52% between 1985 and the peak in 1996 then declined

25% by 2002. Among the other offense categories, the number of petitioned

cases increased and then leveled off but did not decline noticeably.

Source: Authors' adaptation of Stahl et al's Juvenile Court Statistics 2001-2002.

Chapter 6: Juvenile offenders in court

Ls:t um

The petitioned caseload increased 80% from 1985 to

2002 as formal case handling became more likely

In a formally processed case,

petitioners ask the court to order

sanctions

Formal case handling involves the

filing of a petition requesting that

the court hold an adjudicatory or

waiver hearing. Decisionmakers

(police, probation, intake, prosecutor, or other screening officer) may

consider informal case handling if

they believe that accountability and

rehabilitation can be achieved

without formal court intervention.

Compared with informally handled

(nonpetitioned) cases, formally

processed (petitioned) delinquency

cases tend to involve more serious

offenses, older juveniles, and juveniles with longer court histories.

If the court decides to handle the

matter informally, the offender

agrees to comply with one or more

sanctions such as community service, victim restitution, or voluntary

probation supervision, Informal

cases are generally held open pending successful completion of the

disposition. lithe court's conditions

are met, the charges are dismissed.

If, however, the offender does not

fulfill the conditions, the case is

likely to be petitioned for formal

processing.

The use of formal handling has

increased

In 1985, juvenile courts formally

processed 45% of delinquency

cases. By 2002, that proportion had

increased to 58%. Cases in each of

the four general offense categories

were more likely to be handled formally in 2002 than in 1985.

In 2002, property offense cases

were the least likely to be petitioned for formal handling, and

drug cases were the most likely. In

fact, from 1985 to 2002, drug offense

cases went from least likely to most

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-9 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 10 of 32
likely to be petitioned. The 61% petitioning rate for drug cases in 2002,

however, was substantially lower

than the peak rate of 68% in 1991.

No other offense category experienced such an upsurge in petitioning between 1985 and 2002.

Percent of delinquency cases

petitioned:

Offense 1985 2002

Delinquency 45% 58%

Person 54 60

Property 44 55

Drugs 43 61

Public order 45 59

The proportion of petitioned

cases increased from 1985 to

2002 for all demographic groups

The likelihood of formal case processing increased from 1985 to 2002

for both males and females and for

all races and ages.

Percent of delinquency cases

petitioned:

Characteristic 1985 2002

Gender

Male 48% 61%

Female 35 50

Race

White 42 55

Black 56 65

Other races 44 58

Age

l5oryounger 42 55

16 or older 50 61

In 2002, as in 1985, courts petitioned a larger share of delinquency

cases involving males than females.

This was true for each of the general offense categories. Courts petitioned a larger share of delinquency

cases involving blacks than whites

or youth of other races.

Chapter 6: Juvenile offenders in court

In 2002, juvenile courts petitioned nearly 6 in 10 delinquency

cases for formal handling and adjudicated youth delinquent in

nearly 7 in 10 of those petitioned cases

Percent of Percent of

Number of delinquency Number of petitioned

petitioned cases adjudicated cases

Most serious offense cases petitioned cases adjudicated

Total delinquency 934,900 58% 624,500 67%

Person offense 233,300 60 145,800 62

Violent Crime Index 56,400 75 37,000 66

Criminal homicide 1,400 82 800 57

Forcible rape 3,700 78 2,500 68

Robbery 18,600 86 11,900 64

Aggravated assault 32,700 69 21,900 67

Simple assault 147,900 55 90,500 61

Other violent sex offense 13,300 81 9,100 68

Other person offense 15,800 63 9,200 58

Property offense 343,500 55 233,600 68

Property Crime Index 237,600 55 166,700 70

Burglary 77,800 78 58,300 75

Larce ny-theft 124,100 44 83,600 67

Motor vehicle theft 30,300 79 21,500 71

Arson 5,400 67 3,400 63

Vandalism 49,100 52 31,800 65

Trespassing 23,900 47 13,600 57

Stolen property offense 16,500 75 10,200 62

Other property offense 16,500 63 11,300 68

Drug law violation 117,100 61 79,100 68

Public order offense 240,900 59 166,000 69

Obstruction of justice 129,500 71 92,800 72

Disorderly conduct 47,900 44 29,900 62

Weapons offense 21,400 60 14,700 69

Liquor law violation 9,800 35 6,000 61

Nonviolent sex offense 8,500 55 6,100 72

Other public order offense 23,800 61 16,500 69

• Generally, more serious offenses were more likely to be petitioned for formal processing than were less serious offenses.

• For criminal homicide, robbery, and violent sex offenses other than rape,

more than 80% of cases were petitioned.The proportion of cases petitioned

was lower than 50% for liquor law violations, disorderly conduct, larcenytheft, and trespassing.

• For most offenses, the youth was adjudicated delinquent in more than 60%

of petitioned cases.

Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. Calculations are based on unrounded numbers.

Source: Authors' adaptation of Stahl et al's Juvenile Court Statistics 200 1-2002.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-9 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 11 of 32
Chapter 6: Juvenile offenders in court

I

From 1985 to 2002. the number of cases in which

the youth was adjudicated delinquent rose 85°Io

Adjudication was more likely for

some types of cases than others

Youth were adjudicated delinquent

in a smaller proportion of person offense cases than in cases involving

other categories of offenses. This

lower rate of adjudication in person

offense cases may reflect, in part,

reluctance to divert these cases

from the formal juvenile justice system without a judge's review.

Adjudication rates also varied by

gender, race, and age of the youth.

The likelihood of adjudication in

2002 was somewhat less for females

than for males. This was true across

offense categories. Black youth were

less likely to be adjudicated than

were white youth or youth of other

races. Cases involving youth age 15

or younger were slightly more likely

to result in adjudication than cases

involving older youth, although

older youth had a greater share of

cases waived to criminal court.

Percent of petitioned delinquency

cases adjudicated:

Offense 1985 2002

Gender

Male 66% 67%

Female 62 64

Race

White 67 71

Black 59 58

Other races 72 75

Age

15 or younger 66 67

16 or older 64 66

Offense profiles for petitioned

and adjudicated cases show a

shift away from property cases

Compared with 1985, both petitioned and adjudicated cases had

increased proportions of person,

drug, and public order offenses in

2002. The 2002 offense profile for

adjudicated cases was very similar

to the profile for petitioned cases.

Offense profile of delinquency cases:

Offense 1985 2002

Petitioned cases 100% 100%

Person 19 25

Property 58 37

Drugs 6 13

Public order 17 26

Adjudicated cases 100% 100%

Person 16 23

Property 59 37

Drugs 7 13

Public order 18 27

Note: Detail may not tolal 100% because of

rounding.

The number of cases in which the youth was adjudicated delinquent rose steadily from 1985 to 2002;

except for property cases, the offense-specific trends followed the same pattern

Cases adjudicated delinquent

700,000

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

0

Cases adjudicated delinquent

300,000

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

0

Property

Public order.

1986 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 2002 1986 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 2002

• The number of cases in which the youth was adjudicated delinquent increased for alt offense categories between

1985 and 2002 (person 162%, property 16%, drugs 257%, and public order 180%). Only property offenses had a decline in adjudicated cases in recent years—down 13% between 1997 and 2002.

Source: Authors' adaptation of Stahl et al's Juvenile Court Statistics 2001-2002.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-9 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 12 of 32
Chapter 6: Juvenile offenders in court

l

Most adjudicated delinquency cases result in

residential placement or formal probation

Residential placement and formal

probation caseloads saw a shift

away from property cases

Compared with 1985, both residential placement and formal probation

cases had increased proportions of

person, drug, and public order offenses in 2002. In 2002, cases ordered to residential placement had

a greater share of person and public

order cases and a smaller share of

drug cases than cases ordered to

formal probation.

Offense profile of delinquency cases:

Offense 1985 2002

Residential placement 100% 100%

Person 18 26

Property 56 37

Drugs 5 10

Public order 22 28

Formal probation 100% 100%

Person 16 24

Property 61 38

Drugs 7 13

Public order 16 25

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Residential placement and

probation caseloads increased

between 1985 and 2002

The number of delinquency cases in

which adjudicated youth were ordered out of the home to some form

of residential placement rose 44%

between 1985 and 2002, from

100,400 to 144,000. In comparison,

the number of delinquency cases receiving formal probation as the most

severe initial disposition following

adjudication more than doubled

from 1985 to 2002, from 189,600 to

385,400. The growth in formal probation cases was greater than the

growth in delinquency cases at referral (41%) and adjudication (85%).

The number of adjudicated cases

receiving other sanctions (e.g.,

In 2002, residential placement or formal probation was ordered in

85% of cases in which the youth was adjudicated delinquent

Adjudicated cases

Number Percent Number Percent

ordered to ordered to ordered to ordered to

Most serious offense placement placement probation probation

Total delinquency 144,000 23% 385,400 62%

Person offense 37,200 25 92,000 63

Violent Crime Index 12,500 34 20,900 56

Criminal homicide 400 50 300 43

Forcible rape 1,000 39 1,100 44

Robbery 5,000 42 6,000 50

Aggravated assault 6,100 28 13,400 62

Simple assault 20,000 22 59,200 65

Other violent sex offense 2,700 30 5,800 64

Other person offense 1,900 21 6,200 68

Property offense 52,700 23 147,300 63

Property Crime Index 39,600 24 106,200 64

Burglary 15,500 27 37,400 64

Larceny-theft 15,900 19 54,100 65

Motor vehicle theft 7,400 35 12,400 58

Arson 700 21 2,200 64

Vandalism 5,400 17 20,800 65

Trespassing 2,300 17 8,600 63

Stolen property offense 3,100 30 5,500 54

Other property offense 2,200 19 6,100 54

Drug law violation 14,400 18 50,900 64

Public order offense 39,800 24 95,200 57

Obstruction of justice 28,400 31 52,500 57

Disorderly conduct 3,900 13 17,600 59

Weapons offense 3,200 22 9,600 65

Liquor law violation 600 10 3,500 59

Nonviolent sex offense 1,700 28 3,800 62

Other public order offense 1,900 12 8,200 50

• Cases involving youth adjudicated for serious person offenses, such as

homicide, rape, or robbery, were the most likely cases to result in residential placement.

• Probation was the most restrictive disposition used in 385,400 cases adjudicated delinquent in 2002-62% of all such cases handled by juvenile

courts.

• Obstruction of justice cases had a relatively high residential placement rate,

stemming from the inclusion in the category of certain offenses (e.g., escapes from confinement and violations of probation or parole) that have a

high likelihood of placement.

Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. Calculations are based on unrounded numbers.

Source: Authors' analyses of the National Center for Juvenile Justice's National Juvenile

Court Data Archive: Juvenile court case records 1985-2002 lmachinereadable data file].

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-9 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 13 of 32
Trends in the number of adjudicated property offense cases

ordered to residential placement or probation were different from

trends for other offenses

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

• The number of adjudicated cases in which the youth was ordered to residential placement increased 44% from 1985 to 2002. Residential placement

cases rose 179% for drug offenses, 109% for person offenses, and 83% for

public order offenses. For property offenses, the number of adjudicated

cases resulting in residential placement decreased 5%.

Cases adjudicated delinquent resulting in residential placement

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

• Between 1985 and 2002, the number of cases in which the youth was adjudicated delinquent and ordered to formal probation increased for all offense

categories (person 198%, property 28%, drugs 267%, and public order

218%). Only property offenses had a substantial decline in recent years in

adjudicated cases ordered to formal probation—down 14% between 1998

and 2002.

Source: Authors' adaptation of Stahl et al's Juvenile Court Statistics 2001-2002.

Chapter 6: Juvenile offenders in court

community service, restitution) as

their most severe disposition rose

140% from 1985 to 2002, from 35,400

to 85,000. However, the majority of

cases resulting in other sanctions

were handled informally.

Probation was more likely than

residential placement

In 23% of adjudicated delinquency

cases, the court ordered the youth

to residential placement such as a

training school, treatment center,

boot camp, drug treatment or private placement facility, or group

home. In 62% of adjudicated delinquency cases, probation was the

most severe sanction ordered.

Percent of adjudicated delinquency

cases, 2002:

Residential Formal

Characteristic placement probation

Total 23% 62%

Gender

Male 25 61

Female 18 65

Race

White 21 62

Black 27 63

Other races 25 54

Age

15 or younger 22 65

16 or older 25 58

Once adjudicated, females were less

likely than males, and white youth

were less likely than black youth or

youth of other races, to be ordered

to residential placement. These demographic patterns in the use of

residential placement and probation, however, do not control for

criminal histories and other risk factors related to dispositional decisions and increased severity of

sanctions.

Cases adjudicated delinquent resulting in probation

180,000

120,000

100,000

Per—bl,c order

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-9 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 14 of 32
Chapter 6: Juvenile offenders in court

Probation conditions are

designed to control and

rehabilitate

Probation is the oldest and most

widely used community-based corrections program. Probation is used

both for first-time, low-risk offenders and as an alternative to institutional confinement for more serious

offenders. During a period of probation supervision, a juvenile offender

remains in the community and can

continue normal activities such as

school and work. However, the

juvenile must comply with certain

conditions.

Compliance with probation conditions may be voluntary: the youth

agrees to conditions in lieu of formal adjudication. Or compliance

may be mandatory following adjudication: the youth is formally ordered to a term of probation and

must comply with the conditions established by the court. Most (62%)

juvenile probation dispositions in

2002 were formal (i.e., enacted under

court order following adjudication).

In addition to being required to

meet regularly with a probation of Iicer, a juvenile assigned to probation

may be ordered to adhere to a curfew, complete a specified period of

community service, or pay restitution. More serious offenders may be

placed on intensive supervision requiring more frequent contact with

their probation officer and stricter

conditions. Typically, probation can

be revoked if the juvenile violates

the conditions. If probation is revoked, the court may reconsider its

disposition and impose stricter

sanctions.

Black youth account for a

disproportionate share of cases

at all stages of case processing

Racial profile, 2002:

Stage/ Other

offense White Black races Total

Referred

Delinquency 67% 29% 3% 100%

Person 60 37 3 100

Property 68 28 4 100

Drugs 76 21 3 100

Public order 68 29 3 100

Detained

Delinquency 61 36 3 100

Person 56 41 3 100

Property 60 36 4 100

Drugs 61 36 2 100

Public order 66 31 4 100

Petitioned

Delinquency 64 33 3 100

Person 57 40 3 100

Property 65 31 4 100

Drugs 70 28 3 100

Public order 66 31 3 100

Waived to criminal court

Delinquency 62 35 3 100

Person 55 41 4 100

Property 71 26 3 100

Drugs 58 39 2 100

Public order 65 32 4 100

Adjudicated

Delinquency 67 29 4 100

Person 61 36 4 100

Property 68 27 4 100

Drugs 74 23 3 100

Public order 69 27 4 100

Ordered to residential placement

Delinquency 63 33 4 100

Person 58 37 4 100

Property 65 30 5 100

Drugs 59 38 3 100

Public order 65 31 4 100

Ordered to formal probation

Delinquency 67 29 3 100

Person 61 36 3 100

Property 68 28 4 100

Drugs 75 22 3 100

Public order 69 28 3 100

Juvenile population

Ages 10 to

upper age 78 16 6 100

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

The overrepresentation of black

youth was greatest for person offense cases. At most stages of case

processing, the share of white youth

was greater for drug offenses than

other offense categories. At all

stages of the system, youth of other

races made up 5% or less of the

caseload.

The proportion of cases that involved black youth was the same

for adjudicated cases as for cases

overall (29%). In fact, the racial profile of cases was similar at referral

and adjudication for all offense categories.

The largest proportion of black

youth was found in detained and

waived person offense cases, where

black youth accounted for 41% of

cases.

-

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-9 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 15 of 32
In 2002, the most severe sanction ordered in 85,000 adjudicated

delinquency cases (14%) was something other than residential

placement or probation, such as restitution or community service

Waived

7,100 1%

Adjudicated

delinquent

624,500 67%

Not adjudicated

delinquent

303,300 32%

Placed

144,000 23%

Probation

62%

Other sanction

85,000 14%

Released

10,000 2%

Probation

22,900 8%

Other sanction

H166400 22%

l Dismissed

1,615,400 estimated

delinquency cases

Petitioned

934.900 58%

Probation

210,300 31%

Not petitioned Other sanction

680,500 42% i206,900 30%

:Dismissed

f263,400 39%

Adjudicated cases receiving sanctions other than residential

placement or probation accounted for 53 out of 1,000 delInquency

cases processed during the year

4 Waived

L.....

89 Placed

239 Probation

Atypical 1,000 .. Adjudicated :.. .....

delinquency cases 387 dehnquent 53 Other sanction

14 Probation

Not adjudicated H --'- ........

:4188

ue 4 41 Other sanction

fll32

130 Probation .

421 Noetitioned4128,,Othersanction

Dismissed

Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not

add to totals because of rounding.

Source: Authors' adaptation of Stahl et al's Juvenile Court Statistics 2001-2002.

Chapter 6: Juvenile offenders in court

ri .

How were delinquency cases processed in juvenile

courts in 2002?

Juvenile courts can impose a

range of sanctions

Although juvenile courts handled

more than 4 of 10 delinquency cases

without the filing of a petition, more

than half of these nonpetitioned

cases received some sort of sanction. Juveniles may have agreed to

informal probation, restitution, or

community service, or the court

may have referred them to another

agency for services. Although probation staff monitor the juvenile's

compliance with the informal agreement, such dispositions generally

involve little or no continuing supervision by probation staff.

In 32% of all petitioned delinquency

cases, the youth was not adjudicated delinquent. The court dismissed

71% of these cases. The courtdismissed cases, together with the

cases that were dismissed at intake,

accounted for 477,400 cases (or 295

of 1,000 cases handled).

In a relatively small number of

cases (10,000), the juvenile was adjudicated delinquent but was re--

leased with no further sanction or

consequence. These cases accounted for about 2% of adjudicated

cases (or 6 of 1,000 cases processed

during the year).

In 66% of all petitioned cases, the

courts imposed a formal sanction or

waived the case to criminal court.

Thus, of every 1,000 delinquency

cases handled formally in 2002, 385

resulted in waiver or a court-ordered

sanction.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-9 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 16 of 32
96 Placed

238 Probation

H35 Other sanction

H 7 Released

18 Probation

44 Other sanction

157 Dismissed

J

Chapter 6: Juvenile offenders in court

Si

Delinquency case processing varied by offense,

gender. and race

In 2002, person offense cases involving males were more likely to result in court-ordered sanctions

than cases involving females

8 Waived

Person offense cases

Adjudicate

Per 1,000 cases 376 dehnquent

602 Petitioned -

Not adjudicated

122 Probation

398 Not petitioned 99 Other sanction

177 Dismissed

10 Waived 109 Placed

244 Probation

Adjudicated

Per 1,000 male cases H

397 delinquent 37 Other sanction

626 Petitioned H 8elsed

18 Probation

Not adjudicated r

21 9 delinquent 45 Other sanction

H 156 Dismissed

113 Probation ::1I:::L..J

374 Not petitioned 91 Other sanction

170 Dismissed

1 Waived 63 Placed

221 Probation

Adjudicated

Per 1,000 female cases 322 deHnquent - 33 Other sanction

540 Petitioned I 6 Reased

- 17 Probation -

ii Not adjudicated --

217 delinquent 41 Other sanction

-------------------------

158 Dismissed

146 Probation

460 Not petitioned 119 Other sanction

195 Dismissed

• Among males, 109 of 1,000 person offense cases handled in

2002 resulted in court-ordered

placement in a residential facility.

In comparison, 63 of 1,000 person offense cases involving females resulted in court-ordered

residential placement.

• The male-female difference in

residential placement rates

among person offense cases reflects the fact that male cases

were more likely to be petitioned

(63% vs. 54%); if petitioned, were

more likely to be adjudicated

(63% vs. 60%); and finally, if adjudicated, were more likely to receive residential placement as a

sanction (27% vs. 1 gOb)

• Of 1,000 person offense cases involving males, 390 resulted in

some sort of court-ordered sanction (residential placement, formal

probation, restitution, community

service, etc.) following adjudication. The comparative figure for females is 317.

• Person offense cases involving

males were more likely to be

waived to criminal court (10 in

1,000) than were cases involving

females (1 in 1,000).

• These gender differences in the

overall handling of person offense

cases do not control for differences in offense seriousness,

criminal histories, and other risk

factors related to dispositional decisions and increased severity of

sanctions.

Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not add to totals because of rounding.

Source: Authors' adaptation of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's Juveniles in court. OJJDP statistical briefing book.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-9 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 17 of 32
Chapter 6: Juvenile offenders in court

For person offense cases in 2002, juvenile courts ordered sanctions after adjudication at similar rates

for white youth (369 of 1,000 cases) and black youth (362 of 1,000 cases)

7 Waived 92 Placed

Person offense cases

239 Probation

1 Adjudicated

Per 1,000 white cases 378 delinquent 38 Other sanction

567 Petitioned 8 Reased

19 Probation

Not adjudicated

182 delinquent L 36 Other sanction

1is

137 Probation

433 Not petitioned 110 Other sanction

iTTi

186 Dismissed

9 Waived 98 Placed

I 234 Probation

Adiudicated

Per 1,000 black cases 368 delinquent 30 Other sanction

661 Feoned - 6Reased

16 Probation

Not adjudicated

210 Dismissed

100 Probation

339 Not petitioned 79 Other sanction

16ODmsed

9 Waived 136 Placed

ii 248 Probation

Adjudicated

Per 1,000 other race cases 450 delinquent 61 Other sanction

F --

595 Petitioned 5 Released

-

17 Probdicn

. Not adjudicated r:L::: - -

23 Other sanction

96 Dismissed

97 Probation --

j 405 Not petitioned 103 Other sanction

- s'

205 Dismissed

• Person offense cases involving

black youth were substantially

more likely to be petitioned to

court for formal processing than

were cases involving white youth

or youth of other races. Among

black youth, 661 of 1,000 person

cases were petitioned, compared

with 567 for white youth and 595

for youth of other races.

• The large disparity between white

and black youth in the petitioning

of person cases disappeared at

adjudication. Of 1,000 person

cases involving white youth, 378

were adjudicated delinquent. The

figure for black youth was 368 of

1,000. Among youth of other

races, however, the youth was adjudicated delinquent in 450 of

1,000 person cases.

I Of 1,000 person offense cases involving white youth, 92 resulted in

court-ordered residential placement. The comparative figures for

black youth and youth of other

races are 98 and 136, respectively.

• Juvenile courts waived to criminal

court 7 in 1,000 person cases involving white youth.The waiver

rate for person cases was 9 in

1,000 for black youth and for

youth of other races.

• These racial differences in the

overall handling of person offense

cases do not control for differences in offense seriousness,

criminal histories, and other risk

factors related to dispositional decisions and increased severity of

sanctions.

Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not add to totals because of rounding.

Source: Authors' adaptation of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevenlion's Juveniles in court. OJJDP statistical briefing book.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-9 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 18 of 32
5 Waived 99 Placed ... T..7:..

1 254 Probation

Adjudicated

408 delinquent ._iL 49 Other sanction

H 6Released

1 15 Probation

Not adjudicated

180 delinquent

125 Dismissed

128 Probation ..

' i407 Not petitioned1?7

152 Dismissed

Per 1,000 male cases

593 Petitioned

Chapter 6: Juvenile offenders in court

Substantial gender differences existed in the handling of property cases in 2002

4 Waived 84 Placed ::i •

236 Probation

Adjudicated

374 dehnquent 49 Other sanction

5 Released

Property offense cases

Per 1,000 cases

550 Petitioned

H Not adjudicated

172 delinquent H 37 Other sanction

119 Dismissed

143 Probaon

450 Not petitioned [149 Other sanction

1 Waived

185 Probation

Adjudicati

Per 1,000 female cases 29n

429 Petitioned 3 Released

14 Probation

Not adjudicated

49 delinquent

104 Dismissed

187 Probation

571 Not petitioned J209 Other sanction

Dismissed

Of 1,000 property offense cases

involving males, 99 resulted in

court-ordered placement in a residential facility and an additional

254 resulted in formal probation.

For females, 43 property offense

cases per 1,000 were ordered to

residential placement and 185

were ordered to formal probation.

• As with person cases, property

cases involving males were petitioned at a higher rate than cases

involving females (59% vs. 43%);

if petitioned, were adjudicated at

a higher rate (69% vs. 65%); and

if adjudicated, were ordered to

residential placement at a higher

rate (24% vs. 16%).

• Males and females were equally

likely to have their property cases

dismissed or otherwise released

without the imposition of formal or

informal sanctions. Of 1,000 property cases involving males, 283

were dismissed or released. Of

1,000 property cases involving

females, 281 were dismissed or

released.

• These gender differences in the

overall handling of property offense cases do not control for differences in offense seriousness,

criminal histories, and other risk

factors related to dispositional decisions and increased severity of

sanctions.

Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not add to totals because of rounding.

Source: Authors adaptation of the Office ol Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's Juveniles in court. OJJDP statistical briefing book

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-9 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 19 of 32
• Of 1,000 property offense cases

involving white youth, the court

ordered 80 to residential placement. The figure was 91 for black

youth and 106 for youth of other

races.

• Court-ordered sanctions other

than residential placement or formal probation were less likely in

property cases involving black

youth (30 in 1,000) than in cases

involving white youth (54) or youth

of other races (81).

..- .YY!

222 Probation

Adjudicated .

Per 1,000 other race cases 412 delinquent 81 Other sanction

541 Petitioned 3 Released

16 Probation

Not adjudicated

j126 delinquent 20 Other sanction

L2. :..

91 Dismissed

101 IDnht,.r -

Not petitioned 148 Other sanction

2r

1 190 Dismissed

Chapter 6: Juvenile offenders in court

In 2002, property cases involving white or black youth were less likely to result in court-ordered

sanctions than those involving youth of other races

4 Waived 80 Placed

Property offense cases • The Court ordered sanctions after

H Adjudicated adjudication for 368 in 1,000

Per 1,000 white cases 374 delinquent 54 Other sanction property cases involving whites,

363 in 1,000 cases involving

Petitioned blacks, and 409 in 1,000 cases in-

-

volving youth of other races.

16 Probation

Not adjudicated ::T .

i46 delinquent P

99 Dismissed

157 Probation

476 Not petitioned 158 Other sanction

161 Dismissed

4 Waived 91 Placed

242 Probation

Adjudicat

Per 1,000 black cases 366 delinquer 30 Other sanction

615 Petitioned 5 Released

Not adjudicated

,1242dehnquent

113 Probation

385 Not petoned 12 Other sanction

L1:

11 Probation

H 174 Dismissed

• Black youth were the most likely

to have their property offense

cases dismissed or otherwise released without the imposition of

formal or informal sanctions. Of

1,000 property cases involving

black youth, 326 were dismissed

or released. Of 1,000 property

cases involving white youth, 265

were dismissed or released. For

youth of other races, the figure

was 284.

• These racial differences in the

overall handling of property offense cases do not control for differences in offense seriousness,

criminal histories, and other risk

factors related to dispositional decisions and increased severity of

sanctions.

Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not add to totals because of rounding.

Source: Authors' adaptation of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's Juveniles in court. OJJDP statistical briefing book.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-9 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 20 of 32
Chapter 6: Juvenile offenders in court

Gender differences in juvenile court handling of drug cases in 2002 diminished as cases proceeded

through the system

5 Waived 75 Placed

Drug offense cases

263 Probation

Adjudicated

Per 1,000 cases 409 delinquent 62 Other sanction

606 Petitioned - -

L

19 Probation

Not adjudicated

1 192 delinquent 35 Other sanction

138 Dismissed

135 Probation

394 Not petffio ned 134 Other sanction

124 Dismissed

6 Waived 80 Placed

4 

267 Probation

Adjudicated

Per 1,000 male cases

H.........

419 delinquent 62 Other sanction

623 Petitioned I 9 Released

19 Probabon

1 ii Not adjudicated ..... 

H

199 delinquent 36 Other sanction

H 143 Dismissed

I Q Prnhtir,n ....

377 it 1? Other sanction

120 Dismissed

3 Waived 52 Placed

.......

........:'j

[246 Probation

Adjudicated

Per 1,000 female cases 366 delinquent Il 62 Other sanction

530 Petitioned H

6d

17 Probation

1 Not adjudicated ,.-:- -

L

Piher sanction

114 Dismissed

163 Probation .- .

........-----i-.,

470 Not petitioned 162 Other sanction

. ..-

145 DI5rTilssed

• Of 1,000 drug cases involving

males, 409 resulted in some sort

of court-ordered sanction (residential placement, formal probation, restitution community service, etc.) after adjudication. The

comparative figure for females is

360.

. This apparent gender difference

in the handling of drug cases

stems from a large difference between males and females in the

proportion of cases petitioned for

formal processing. Among males,

62% of drug cases were petitioned, compared with 53% for females. For both males and females, juvenile courts imposed

formal sanctions in 98% of cases

in which the juvenile was adjudicated delinquent.

Males and females in drug cases

were equally likely to receive

court-ordered sanctions other

than placement or probation, such

as referral to another agency for

treatment. Of 1,000 drug cases

involving males, 62 received such

sanctions. The figure was the

same for females.

• These gender differences in the

overall handling of drug offense

cases do not control for differences in offense seriousness,

criminal histories, and other risk

factors related to dispositional decisions and increased severity of

sanctions.

Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not add to totals because of rounding.

Source: Authors' adaptation of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's Juveniles in courl. OJJDP statistical brie fing book.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-9 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 21 of 32
Chapter 6: Juvenile offenders in court

Substantial racial differences existed in the processing of drug offense cases in 2002

4 Waived 59 Placed

Drug offense cases

263 Probation

Adjudicated

Per 1,000 white cases 10

558 Petitioned L

20 Probation

Not adjudicated

28 Other sanction

106 Dismissed

153 Probation

442 Notpetiff oned 156 Oth sanction

:i33Drnissed

9 Waived 133 Placed

H 267 Probation

Adjudicated

Per 1,000 black cases H 444 delinquent 35 Other sanction

-

H 9 Released

H 15 Probation

H Not adjudicated

1329delinquent16lOthersanchon

77 Probation

218 Not petitioned 57 Other sanction

84 Dismissed

4 Waived 68 Placed

:L:. ::

Adjudicated

Per 1,000 other race cases 405 delinquent - 70 Other sanction

561 Petoned H

- 5Reased

I.. ..............

H U 21 Probation

Not adjudicated -. ..C .CCCC .

1152 dehnquent 25 Other sanction

109 Probation

439 Not petitioned l 147 Other sanction

- :-

1182 Dismissed

-

Drug cases involving black youth

were much more likely than cases

involving white youth or youth of

other races to be petitioned at intake. Among blacks, 782 drug

cases in 1,000 were petitioned.

The figure was 558 among whites

and 561 among youth of other

races.

• Black youth were substantially

more likely than white youth or

youth of other races to have their

drug cases dismissed or otherwise

released without the imposition of

formal or informal sanctions. Of

1,000 drug cases involving black

youth, 346 were dismissed or released. The majority of such cases

(253) were dismissed following an

adjudicatory hearing in which the

youth was not adjudicated delinquent. Of 1,000 drug cases involving white youth, 248 were dismissed or released. For youth of

other races, the figure was 293.

Unlike black youth, both white

youth and youth of other races

were most often dismissed at

intake, without an adjudicatory

hearing.

• The proportion of drug cases

placed on formal probation was

similar across racial groups (263 in

1,000 for whites, 267 for blacks,

and 262 for other races).

• These racial differences in the

overall handling of drug offense

cases do not control for differences in offense seriousness,

criminal histories, and other risk

factors related to dispositional decisions and increased severity of

sanctions.

2 Dismissed

Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not add to totals because of rounding.

Source: Authors' adaptation of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's Juveniles in court. OJJDP statistical briefing book.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-9 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 22 of 32
• Or 1,000 public order cases involving males, 237 resulted in

court-ordered probation. The figure for females was 219. However, in terms of the proportion of

adjudicated public order cases,

females were more likely to receive formal probation as their

most severe disposition (60%)

than were males (56%).

• Residential placement was ordered for 106 of 1,000 public

order cases involving males—

about the same rate as that for

person offense cases involving

males (109). This relatively high

placement rate reflects this category's inclusion of offenses such

as weapons law violations, escape from custody, and probation

or parole violations.

• Among females, 73 of 1,000 public order cases resulted in courtordered residential placement.

• These gender differences in the

overall handling of public order offense cases do not control for differences in offense seriousness,

criminal histories, and other risk

factors related to dispositional decisions and increased severity of

sanctions.

Chapter 6: Juvenile offenders in court

Juvenile courts ordered residential placement for 73 in 1,000 public order cases involving females and

106 in 1,000 involving males

2 Waived 97 Placed

Public order '::j

offense cases 232 Probation

Adjudicated

Per 1,000 cases 405 delinquent 70 Other sanction

588 Petitioned

H J

7 Probation

H Not adjudicated

H 47 Other sancon

H27 Dmissed

11 Pgj_ 1

_.L -J

412 Not petitioned H2l Other sanction

2 Waived

237 Probation

Ad'udicated

Per 1,000 male cases 421 de inquent 72 Other sanction

-

606 Petitioned JJ 16 Released

8 Probation

Not adjudicated

183 delinquent 48 Other sanction

127 Dismissed

112jion I

394 Not petitioned 113 Other sanction

1170 Dismissed

1 Waived 73 Placed

1

Probation

Adjudicated :JJ

Per 1,000 female cases I

j6 Other sanction

................................

541 Pehtioned I[5R&eased

6 Probation

Not adjudicated [......

178 delinquent 46 Other sanctlen

1?7..Pismissed

125 Probation

459 Not petitioned 143 Other sanction i.

190 Dismissed

- .:

Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not add to totals because of rounding.

Source: Authors' adaptation of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's Juveniles in court. OJJDP statistical briefing book.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-9 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 23 of 32
• Black youth and youth of other

races had their public order cases

petitioned at about the same rate

(629 per 1,000 for blacks and 632

per 1,000 for youth of other

races). However, courts adjudicated youth of other races at a higher rate (471) than black youth

(382).

• Youth of other races were more

likely than black youth or white

youth to have their public order

cases result in court-ordered

sanctions other than residential

placement or formal probation.

• These racial differences in the

overall handling of public order offense cases do not control for differences in offense seriousness,

criminal histories, and other risk

factors related to dispositional decisions and increased severity of

sanctions.

Chapter 6: Juvenile offenders in court

Regardless of race, juvenile courts waived relatively few public order cases to criminal court in 2002

1 Waived 93 Placed

Public order .-::--

offense cases 234 Probation

Adjudicated

Per 1,000 white cases 412 dehnquent 78 Other sanction

--------------. ................

568 Pethioned H H 6 Released

8 Probation

Not adjudicated

H -155 dehnquent35Othersanction

H 113 Dismissed

126 Probation - - -

432 Not petitioned i27 Other sancon

H179

2 Waived 105 Placed

226 Probation

Adjudicated

Per 1,000 black cases 382 delinquent 46 Other sanction

629 Petitioned H 5 Released

5 Probation

- Not adjudicated :;i:J

-

161 Dismissed

95 Probation

371 Not petitioned H 110 Other sanction

H 166 Dismissed

-- 2 Waived 111 Placed

240 Probation

H

Adjudicated

Per 1,000 other race cases 471 delinquent - 117 Other sanction

632 Petitioned -- h 4 Released

H Not adjudicated

H 159 delinquent H 21 Othersanction

H 129 Dismissed __

72 Probation - --L

-

----

- 368 Not petitioned -- 103 Other sanction

- - -

194 Dismissed

Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not add to totals because of rounding.

Source: Authors' adaptation of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's Juveniles in court. OJJDP statistical briefing book

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-9 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 24 of 32
Juvenile courts waived 46% fewer delinquency cases to criminal

court in 2002 than in 1994

Cases judicially waived to criminal court

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

• The number of delinquency cases waived to criminal court climbed 83%

from 1985 to 1994, from 7,200 to 13,200. By 2001, waived cases were

down to 6,300—below the 1985 level. The slight upturn in waived cases for

2002 left the number of waivers in 2002 1% below the number in 1985.

• For most of the period from 1993 through 2002, person offenses outnumbered property offenses among waived cases. Prior to 1993, property cases

outnumbered person offense cases among waivers—sometimes by a ratio

of nearly 2 to 1.

• The number of waived person offense cases increased 130% from 1985 to

1994 then declined 47% to 2002 for an overall increase of 23% between

1985 and 2002. Over this period, waived property offense cases were down

33% and waived public order offense cases were down 2%.

• The overall proportion of petitioned delinquency cases that were waived

was 1.4% in 1985, reached 1.5% in 1991 and 1993, and then dropped to

0.8% by 2002.

• For most years between 1985 and 2002, person offense cases were the

most likely type of case to be waived to criminal court. The exception was

1989-1991, when drug offense cases were the most likely to be waived.

Source: Authors' adaptat ion of Stahl et al's Juvenile Court Statistics 2001-2002.

Chapter 6: Juvenile offenders in court

i.

Courts waived fewer cases in 2002 than in 1 985-

2001 had the fewest waivers of any year since 1985

The profile of waived cases has

changed

In the late 1980s, property cases accounted for at least half of all delinquency cases judicially waived from

juvenile court to criminal court. In

the early 1990s, the property offense share of waived cases diminished as the person offense share

grew. By 1993, the waiver caseload

had a greater proportion of person

offense cases than property cases

(41% vs. 39%). Drug and public

order cases made up smaller proportions of waived cases across all

years. For example, in 2002, 14% of

waived cases were drug offenses

and 9% were public order cases.

Percent of judicially waived cases

1E 

'$lii I.I!uL

40%

20% üitiI I VIII. I 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02

Year

• Person • Drugs

J] Property Public order

The demographic characteristics of

judicially waived cases have also

changed since the 1980s.

Demographic profiles of judicially

waived delinquency cases:

Characteristic 1985 1994 2002

Gender

Male 95% 95% 93%

Female 5 5 7

Race

White 58 53 62

Black 41 43 35

Other races 2 4 3

Age

l5oryounger 6 12 13

16 or older 94 88 87

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Cases judicially waived to criminal court

6,000

prope ,/Peon

r.

86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02

Year

Percent of petitioned cases waived to criminal court

0 /

Public order

86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02

Year

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-9 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 25 of 32
• Both whites and blacks experienced sharp increases between 1985 and

1994-and substantial drops between 1994 and 2002-in the number of

person offense cases waived.

• For most of the period from 1985 to 2002, the likelihood of waiver was

greater for black youth than for white youth regardless of offense category.

These data, however, do not control for racial differences in offense seriousness within the general offense categories or differences in the seriousness

of juveniles' offense histories.

Source: Authors' analyses of Stahl et al's Easy access to juvenile court statistics:

1985-2002 [online analysisi.

Chapter 6: Juvenile offenders in court

Racial differences in case waivers stem primarily from differences

in person and drug offense cases

Although the proportions of judidaily waived cases involving females and younger juveniles increased between 1985 and 2002, the

vast majority of waived cases involved males age 16 or older. However, the proportion of males age 16

or older among judicially waived

cases decreased somewhat, from

89% in 1985 to 80% in 2002.

The likelihood of waiver varied

across case characteristics

In 2002, the proportion of cases

waived was greater for males than

for females. This was true in each of

the four general offense categories.

For example, males charged with

person offenses were six times as

likely as females charged with person offenses to have their cases

waived to criminal court. However,

this comparison does not control

for differences in the seriousness of

offenses or a juvenile's offense

history.

Percent of petitioned cases judicially

waived to criminal court, 2002:

Offense Male Female

Delinquency 0.9% 0.3%

Person 1.6 0.3

Property 0.9 0.3

Drugs 0.9 0.5

Public order 0.3 0.1

In 2002, black youth were more likely than other youth to be waived for

drug offenses. White youth were

more likely than other youth to be

waived for property offenses. Youth

of other races were more likely than

white youth or black youth to be

waived for person offenses. Regardless of race, person offenses were

more likely to be waived than cases

involving other offenses.

Cases judicially waived to criminal court

4,000 White

3,000

2,000

Person

1,000

0

rublic rce

86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02

Year

Cases judicially waived to criminal court

3,000

2,500 Black

2,000 Property

1,500

1 ':

•ubI

86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02

Year

Percent of petitioned cases judicially

waived to criminal court, 2002:

Other

Offense White Black races

Delinquency 0.7% 0.8% 0.7%

Person 1.2 1.3 1.5

Property 0.8 0.6 0.6

Drugs 0.7 1.2 0.7

Public order 0.3 0.3 0.3

Cases involving younger juveniles

were less likely to be waived than

were cases involving older juveniles

This was true for each of the four

general offense categories. For

Percent of petitioned cases waived to criminal court

White

86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02

Year

Percent of petitioned cases waived to criminal court

Black 

_/\rus

3% Person

2%

0/ Pubhc order

86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02

Year

example, among person offense

cases, youth age 16 or older were

seven times more likely to be waived

than youth age 15 or younger.

Percent of petitioned cases judicially

waived to criminal court, 2002:

Agel5or Agel6or

Offense younger older

Delinquency 0.2% 1.5%

Person 0.4 2.7

Property 0.1 1 .6

Drugs 0.0 1 .4

Public order 0.1 0.5

-

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-9 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 26 of 32
The terms overrepresentatlon, disparity, and discrimination have

different meanings

Overrepresentation refers to a sltua- a part of justice system decisionmaktion in which a larger proportion of a ing, minority youth can face higher

particular group is present at various probabilities of being arrested referred

stages within the juvenlle justice sys- to court Intake, held In short-term

tern (such as intake, detention, adjudi- detention, petitioned for formal procation and disposition) than would be cessing adjudicated delinquent and

expected based on Its proportion in confined In a secure juvenile facility

the general population.

Disparity and overrepresentatlon, howDisparity means that the probability ever can result from behavioral and

of receiving a particular outcome legal factors rather than discrimination.

(e g being detained vs not being de- For example if minority youth commit

tamed) differs for different groups proportionately more (and more sen

Disparity may In turn lead to ous) crimes than white youth they will

overrepresentation be overrepresented In secure facillties

even when there was no discrimination

DIscrImination occurs when juvenile by system decisionmakers In any

justice system declslonmakers treat given jurisdiction either or both of

one group differently from another these causes of ovorrepresentatlonl

group based wholly or in part on disparity may be operating

their gender, race and/or ethnicity

Research Is necessary to reveal the

Neither ovenrepresentation nor dis decision points at which dispanty ooparity necessarily implies discrimina- curs and to uncover the dynamics that

tion, although It is one possible lead to overrepresentatlon

explanation If racial discrimination is

Chapter 6: Juvenile offenders in court

Monitoring racial disproportionality in the justice

system can reveal potential sources of discrimination

Research finds evidence of

disparity in juvenile case

processing

While research findings are riot

completely consistent, reviews (by

Pope and Feyerherm and by Pope,

Loveil, and Hsia) of existing research literature found that minority (especially black) youth are overrepresented at most stages of the

juvenile justice system. Since that

review, a rather large body of research has accumulated across numerous geographic regions that reinforces these earlier findings.

Based on this research and the fact

that juvenile justice systems are

fragmented and administered at the

local level, it is likely that racial!

ethnic disparities exist in some

jurisdictions but not in others and

that these differences may vary

over time.

The extent to which research links

disparity to demographic characteristics (thereby implying discrimination) may be affected in part by the

research design. For example, the

simple proportion of adjudicated

youth placed in an out-of-home facility may be greater for minority

youth than white youth; however,

when the research study controls

for the nature of the crimes for

which the youth were adjudicated,

the statistical effect of race on justice decisionmaking is generally reduced. One could argue that if researchers considered all the factors

that decisionmakers consider (e.g.,

the number and attributes of past

offenses, gang involvement, victims'

statements, compliance with previous dispositional orders, and family/community support), the statistical effect of race on decisionmaking

could be further reduced and possibly even removed. Given that disparity and overrepresentation may

exist in the absence of discrimination, it is a challenge for research to

determine if there is a unique effect

of discrimination on justice system

decisionmaking.

Racial/ethnic disparities occur at

various decision points within

the juvenile justice system

When racial/ethnic disparities do

occur, they can be found at any

stage of processing within the juvenile justice system. Research suggests that disparity is most pronounced at arrest, the beginning

stage, and that when racial/ethnic

differences exist, their effects accumulate as youth are processed

through the justice system.

One factor to consider in understanding overrepresentation is that

outcomes often depend on the jurisdiction in which the youth is

processed (Feld's concept of "justice by geography"). For example,

juvenile court cases in urban jurisdictions are more likely to receive

severe outcomes (e.g., detention

prior to adjudication, out-of-home

placement following adjudication)

than are cases in nonurban areas.

Because minority populations are

concentrated in urban areas, this

geographical effect may work to

overrepresent minority youth at

each stage of processing when case

statistics are summarized at the

state level—even when there is no

disparity at the local level.

-

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-9 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 27 of 32
The national Relative Rate Index matrix for 2002 finds more racial

disparity at arrest and detention than at other decision points

Relative

Decision White Black Rate Index

Juvenile arrests 1,576,400 625,500

Cases referred to juvenile court 1,086,700 473,100

Cases detained 199,700 118,600

Cases petitioned 596,800 306,000

Cases judicially waived to criminal court 4,400 2,500

Cases adjudicated delinquent 421,400 179,000

Adjudicated cases resulting in placement 90,400 47,500

Rates (per 100)

Juvenile arrests to population*

Cases referred to juvenile arrests

Cases detained to cases referred

Cases petitioned to cases referred

Cases waived to cases petitioned

Cases adjudicated to cases petitioned

Placements to cases adjudicated

6.1 11.5 1.9

68.9 75.6 1.1

18.4 25.1 1.4

54.9 64.7 1.2

0.7 0.8 1.1

70.6 58.5 0.8

21.5 26.5 1.2

• For every 100 white youth ages 10-17 in the U.S. population, there were

6.1 arrests of white youth under age 18. The rate for black youth was 11.5,

yielding an RRI for the arrest decision of 1.9. The black rate was almost

double the white rate.

• Except for the adjudication decision point, the RRI shows a degree of racial

disparity for black youth. This disparity accumulates throughout the process,

so that in the end, while black youth were 16% of the youth population and

were involved in 28% of the arrests of youth in 2002, they accounted for

33% of the juvenile court cases that resulted in an out-of-home placement.

* Population ages 10-17 = 25,994,400 (white) and 5,431,300 (black).

Source: Authors' analysis of Puzzanchera et al's Easy access to juvenile populations

[online analysis], Stahl et al's Easy access to juvenile court statistics 1985-2002 [online

analysisi, and the FBI's Crime in the United States 2002.

Chapter 6: Juvenile offenders in Court

The meaning and measurement

of DMC have changed

Prior to 2002, the Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention Act

required states to assess their level

of disproportionate minority

confinement (DMC) by using a

statistic that divided the proportion

of a given minority group of youth

who were detained or confined in a

state's secure detention facilities,

secure correctional facilities, jails,

and lockups by the proportion that

group represented in the general

population. If this statistic (known

as the DMC Index) was significantly

greater than 1.0 (which was most

often the case), the state was required to develop and implement a

plan to reduce the disproportionality.

Problems interpreting the DMC

Index soon became apparent. First,

comparing one jurisdiction's Index

to another's was difficult. For example, assume one community's youth

population was 3% minority and its

juvenile custody population was

12% minority, resulting in a DMC

Index of 4. Now assume the other

community's youth population was

50% minority and its custody population was 100% minority, resulting

in a DMC Index of 2. Which community's juvenile justice system processing is most racially disparate?

Clearly, the value of the DMC Index

was related in part to the proportion of minority youth in the general

population. Communities with low

minority proportions could have

very high DMC Indexes while communities with high percentages of

minority youth could not.

Another problem with the DMC

Index was that it provided limited

guidance on where to look for the

source(s) of disparity. Was disparity

introduced at all stages of the system and did it accumulate from beginning to end, or was it introduced

only at the earliest stage and then

remained through the end stages?

Recognizing that disparity may exist

at many decision points (not just

detention and corrections), in 2002,

the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act broadened the

concept labeled "DMC" from disproportionate minority confinement to

disproportionate minority contact.

Under this new conceptualization,

as youth pass through the different

stages of the juvenile justice system,

they make contact with a series of

decisionmakers, each of whom

could render a decision that potentially could result in racial disparity.

Measuring the disparity at each decision point gives a better understanding of where disparity is introduced and/or magnified in the

handling of cases by the juvenile

justice system. To address problems with the DMC Index, OJJDP

has developed a tool to measure

the levels of disparity at each decision point. This tool is called the

DMC Relative Rate Index (RRI).

-

-

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-9 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 28 of 32
The degree of racial disparity in the juvenile justice system

declined between 1992 and 2002, especially at two decision

points: arrest and waiver to criminal court

Arrest to population

Referrals to arrests [E 1992

Detained to referrals • 2002

Petitioned to referrals

Waivedto petitioned ______________________

Adjudicated to petitioned L

Placements to adjudicated

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Relative Rate Index

Source: Authors' analysis of Puzzanchera et al's Easy access to juvenile populations [online analysis], Stahl et al's Easyaccess to juvenile court statistics 1985-2002 [online

analysisi, and the FBI's Crime in the United States 1992 and Crime in the United States

2002.

Chapter 6: Juvenile offenders in court

The RRI measures disparity at

each decision point

The RRI tests for disparity at a series of decision points, typically arrest, referral to juvenile court,

detention, petitioning, transfer to

criminal court, adjudication, and

out-of-home placement following adjudication. lJhe actual set of decision points used by states and local

jurisdictions depends on the structure of their juvenile justice systems and the quality of available

data.) The key idea behind the RRI

is to quantify the nature of the decisions at each decision point for

each racial group and then compare

these decisions.

For example, after arrest, law enforcement must decide if the youth

should be referred to juvenile court

intake. The RRI compares the proportions (or rates) of white and

black arrests that are referred to

court intake. If, for example, the

rate of referral to court intake was

60 out of 100 arrests for whites and

80 out of 100 for blacks, then black

arrests were more likely than white

arrests to result in referral to juvenile court. There is disparity at this

decision point. If the rates had been

similar, there would be no evidence

of disparity at this decision point.

To simplify the comparison of these

statistics, the RRI divides the black

rate by the white rate at each decision point, and if this ratio (i.e., the

Relative Rate Index) is near or equal

to 1.0, there is no evidence of disparity; if the ratio is greater than 1.0

(i.e., if the black rate is larger than

the white rate), there is evidence of

disparity, and this decision process

needs further study to understand

why.

Each decision point has a preceding

stage with which it is compared

(e.g., arrests are compared to population, court referrals to arrest, detentions to court referrals, petitions

to court referrals, adult court

transfers to petitions, adjudications

to petitions, and out-of-home placements to adjudications). Together

this set of decision points and their

relative rate indexes form the Relative Rate Index Matrix, a table that

can reveal the nature of decision

disparities—including their magnitude and differences—in a juvenile

justice system that is interdependent though fragmented.

The Relative Rate Index Matrix is a

diagnostic tool that can be used by

juvenile justice professionals to

assess decisionmaking disparity

within a jurisdiction for subgroups

other than those defined solely by

their racial/ethnic classification. For

example, the tool could compare

the processing of white and minority youth charged with a drug offense or the processing decisions

for white and minority youth at

their first referral to juvenile court

intake. Or it could compare the processing of juvenile males and fe--

males, older and younger juveniles,

youth from different neighborhoods

or school districts, youth with different family structures, or youth

with different needs and/or risks.

Disparity can exist for many reasons. Although the Relative Rate

Index does not diagnose the reasons

for disparity, it distills data into statistics that decisionmakers can use

to assess the vital signs of the local

juvenile justice system and, in doing

so, target areas of concern.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-9 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 29 of 32
The volume of petitioned truancy, runaway, and ungovernability

cases peaks at age 15

Percent of cases within offense category, 1985-2002

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Age at referral

• For status liquor law violation cases, the proportion of cases increases

substantially throughout the juvenile years.

Source: Authors' adaptation of Stahl et al's Juvenile Court Statistics 2001-2002.

Chapter 6: Juvenile offenders in court

U

The formal status offense caseload differs

substantially from the delinquency caseload

What are status offenses?

Status offenses are behaviors that

are law violations only if committed

by a person of juvenile status, Such

behaviors include running away

from home, ungovernability (being

beyond the control of parents or

guardians), truancy, and underage

drinking (which also applies to

young adults through age 20). A

number of other behaviors may be

considered status offenses (e.g.,

curfew violations, tobacco offenses), but they are not detailed in

these analyses.

In many jurisdictions, agencies

other than juvenile courts are responsible for handling status offense cases. In some communities,

for example, family crisis units,

county attorneys, and social services agencies have assumed this responsibility. If status offense cases

are referred to juvenile court, the

court may divert some of these

youth away from the formal justice

system to other agencies for service

rather than filing a petition for formal processing. The analyses presented here are based on juvenile

court data and are, thus, limited to

cases petitioned to court for formal

processing between 1985 and 2002.*

Of petitioned status offense cases

handled by juvenile courts between

1985 and 2002 involving charges of

truancy or liquor law violations,

running away from home, or ungovernability, the most common

were truancy violations (34%), followed by liquor law violations

(30%), running away (19%), and ungovernability (17%).

*Available data cannot support national

estimates of the trends and volume of

petitioned status offense cases. Data are

presented as sample-based profiles of

cases disposed during the period

1985-2002.

Females account for most runaway cases

A major difference between delinquency and status offense cases is

the large proportion of status cases

that involve females.

Percent of petitioned status offense

cases involving females, 1985-2002

Female

Offense proportion

Runaway 61%

Truancy 46

Ungovernability 46

Liquor 30

Runaway cases were less likely

to be adjudicated than other

types of status offense cases

Percent of petitioned status offense

cases adjudicated, 1985-2002

Offense Total Male Femate

Runaway 46% 47% 45%

Truancy 63 63 63

Ungovernability 63 63 62

Liquor 63 64 61

The juvenile court ordered probation in most adjudicated status offense cases

From 1985 through 2002, among adjudicated runaway, truancy, ungovernability, and liquor law violation cases, formal probation was the

most likely disposition. Some cases

resulted in out-of-home (residential)

placement, and some (jrimarily

liquor cases) resulted in other sanctions such as fines, community

service, restitution, or referrals to

other agencies for services. The remaining few were released with no

additional sanction.

Percent of adjudicated status offense

cases receiving disposition, 1985-2002

Residential Formal

Offense placement probation

Runaway 27% 61%

Truancy 11 78

Ungovernability 26 66

Liquor 8 57

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-9 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 30 of 32
Not adjudicated 150 Informal sanction

541 a status offender

- 391 Dismissed

68 Placed

488 Probation

61 Other sanction

12 Released

Not adjudicated 74 Informal sanction

371 a status offender. =

298 Dismissed

160 Placed

412 Probation

41 Other sanction

13 Released

Adjudicated a

625 status offender

Not adjudicated 67 Informal sanction

375 astatusoffenderH -

307 Dismissed

49 Placed

362 Probation

Adjudicated a

630 status offender 209 Other sanction

10 Released

Not adjudicated 168 Informal sanction

370 a status

rori 202 Dismissed

Runaway

Per 1,000 petitioned

runaway cases

Truancy

Per 1,000 petitioned

truancy cases

Ungovernability

Per 1,000 petitioned

ungovernability cases

Liquor law violation

Per 1 ,000 petitioned

hquor law violation cases

122 Placed

282 Probation

Other sanction

18 Released

Adjudicated a

629 status offender

Adjudicated a

459 status offender

Chapter 6: Juvenile offenders in court

From 1985 through 2002, juvenile courts were less likely to order probation in runaway cases than in

other status offense cases

• Of 1,000 petitioned runaway

cases, 282 were ordered to formal probation. In comparison, the

figure was 488 for truancy cases,

412 for ungovernability cases,

and 362 for liquor law violation

cases.

• Among petitioned runaway cases,

the youth was not adjudicated in

541 of 1,000 cases. Of these 541

cases, 150 received informal

sanctions or were referred to a

social services agency for handling, and 391 were dismissed.

• Of 1,000 petitioned truancy

cases, 629 were adjudicated, and

617 received some sort of formal

sanction. Use of informal sanclions was relatively uncommon in

formally processed truancy cases

(74 of 1,000).

• Juvenile courts were more likely

to order youth to residential

placement in petitioned ungovernability cases (160 of 1,000) than

in other types of status offense

cases, but formal probation was

the most likely court-ordered disposition for ungovernability cases

(412 of 1,000).

• Among petitioned liquor law violalion cases, the most likely outcome was formal probation (362

of 1,000), although the court

often ordered formal sanctions

other than residential placement

or probation (209 of 1,000).

Note: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not add to totals because of rounding.

Source: Authors' adaptation of Stahl et al's Juvenile Court Statistics 2001-2002.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-9 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 31 of 32
Chapter 6: Juvenile offenders in court

Sources

Federal Bureau of Investigation.

1993. Crime in the United States /992.

Washington, DC: FBI.

Federal Bureau of Investigation.

2003. Crime in the United States 2002.

Washington, DC: FBI.

Feld, B. 1991. Justice by geography:

Urban, suburban and rural variations in juvenile administration. The

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82(1): 156-2 10.

National Center for Juvenile Justice.

2005. National Juvenile Court Data

Archive: Juvenile court case records

1985-2002 [machine-readable data

file]. National Center for Juvenile

Justice. Pittsburgh, PA.

Office ol Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Juveniles in

court. OJJDP statistical briefing book.

Released September 13, 2005.

<www.ojjdp.ncj rs.gov/ojstatbb/

court/JCSCF_Display.asp>.

Pope, E., and Feyerherm, W. 1991.

Minorities and the Juvenile Justice

System. Final Report. Washington,

DC: Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Pope, E., Lovell, R., and Hsia, H.

2002. Disproportionate Minority Confinement: A Review of the Research

Literature From 1989 Through 2001.

Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Puzzanchera, C., Finnegan, T., and

Kang, W. Easy access to juvenile populations [online analysis]. Updated

May 10, 2004. <www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/

ojstatbb/ezapop>.

Stahl, A., Finnegan, 1., and Kang, W.

2005. Easy access to juvenile court

statistics: 1985-2002 [online analysis]. Updated September 13, 2005.

<www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/

ezaj cs>.

Stahl, A., Puzzanchera, C., Finnegan,

T., Tierney, N., and Snyder, H. Forthcoming. Juvenile Court Statistics

2001-2002. Pittsburgh, PA: National

Center for Juvenile Justice.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-9 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 32 of 32
. . . 1*

Juvenile Offenders

and Victims: 2006

National Report

Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities ....... . 195

Introductionto custody data ..................................196

Juvenilecustody population ...................................197

Offense trends in private and public facilities ....................198

Offender trends in juvenile facilities ............................199

Detained and committed populations ...........................200

Statecustody rates ...........................................201

Offense profiles of the custody population by state ...............203

- Offense profiles of detained and committed offenders by state ......204

Gender variations in the custody population .....................206

Racial variations in the custody population ......................211

Racial variations in custody rates by state .......................213

Length of stay for juveniles in custody ..........................215

Typesof facilities ............................................218

Facilitysecurity features ......................................219

Security arrangements for juveniles in custody ...................220

Facilitysize .................................................222

Crowdingin juvenile custody facilities ..........................223

Screening for substance abuse, mental health, and suicide risk .....225

Deathsin custody facilities ....................................229

Sexual violence in custody facilities ............................230

Youthreentry population .....................................232

Recidivism and the youth custody population ...................234

Juvenilesin jails .............................................236

Juvenilesin prisons ..........................................237

Deathpenalty ...............................................239

Chapter7 sources ............................................241

Copyright 2006

National Center for Juvenile Justice

3700 S. Water Street, Suite 200

Pittsburgh, PA 15203-2363

Suggested citation: Snyder, Howard N., and Sickmund, Melissa. 2006. Juvenile

Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-10 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 25
rn •

Chapter 7

Juvenile offenders in

correctional facilities

Juvenile correctional systems have

many different components. Some

juvenile correctional facilities look

very much like adult prisons. Others seem very much like "home."

Private facilities continue to play a

substantial role in the long-term

custody of juveniles, in contrast to

adult correctional systems. In fact,

nationwide there are more than

twice as many privately operated juvenile facilities as publicly operated

facilities, although private facilities

hold less than half as many juve.

-niles as are held in public facilities.

This chapter describes the population of juveniles detained in and

committed to public and private facilities in terms of demographics,

offenses, average time in the facility,

and facility type. The chapter also

includes information on recidivism

and descriptions of juveniles reentering the general population after

confinement, those held in adult

jails and prisons, and those on

death row.

The information is based on several

data collection efforts by the Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention: Census of Juveniles in

Residential Placement; Juvenile Residential Facility Census; Survey of

Youth in Residential Placement; and

Children in Custody Census of Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and

Shelter Facilities. Much of the information on juveniles held in adult

correctional facilities is drawn from

the Bureau of Justice Statistics' Jail

Census, Annual Survey of Jails, and

National Corrections Reporting

Program.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-10 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 25
Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

OJJDP's custody data are the primary source of

information on juveniles in residential placement

Detailed data are available on

juveniles in residential placement

and the facilities that hold them

Since its inception, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has collected information on the juveniles held in

juvenile detention and correctional

facilities. Until 1995, these data

were gathered through the biennial

Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and

Shelter Facilities, better known as

the Children in Custody (CIC) Census. In the late 1990s, OJJDP initiated two new data collection programs to gather comprehensive and

detailed information about juvenile

offenders in custody and about the

facilities that house them:

• Census of Juveniles in Residential

Placement (CJRP)

• Juvenile Residential Facility

Census (JRFC).

CJRP and JRFC are administered in

alternating years and collect information from all secure and nonsecure residential placement facilities

that house juvenile offenders, defined as persons younger than 21

who are held in a residential setting

as a result of some contact with the

justice system (they are charged

with or adjudicated for an offense).

This encompasses both status offenders and delinquent offenders,

including those who are either temporarily detained by the court or

committed after adjudication for an

offense.

These censuses do not include federal facilities or those exclusively

[or drug or mental health treatment

or for abused/neglected youth. Nor

do they capture data from adult

prisons or jails. Therefore, CJRP

does not include all juveniles sentenced to incarceration by criminal

courts.

CJRP asks all juvenile residential facilities in the U.S. to describe each

offender under age 21 assigned a

bed in the facility on the fourth

Wednesday in October. Facilities

report individual-level information

on gender, date of birth, race, placement authority, most serious offense

charged, court adjudication status,

admission date, and security status.

JRFC also uses the fourth Wednesday in October as its census date,

but it also gathers past-month and

past-year information. JRFC collects

information on how facilities operate

and the services they provide, It includes detailed questions on facility

security, crowding, injuries and

deaths in custody, and facility ownership, operation, and services.

The Survey of Youth in Residential

Placement (SYRP) is the third component of OJJDP's multitiered effort

to collect information on the juvenile custody population. SYRP collects a broad range of self-report information (on youth's custody

experience, past offense histories,

education, and other important life

events) from interviews with individual youth in residential placement.

One-day count and admission

data give different views of

residential populations

CJRP provides 1-day population

counts of juveniles in residential

placement facilities. Such counts

give a picture of the standing population in facilities. One-day counts

are substantially different from annual admission and release data,

which provide a measure of facility

population flow.

Juveniles may be committed to a

facility as part of a court-ordered

disposition, or they may be detained

prior to adjudication or after adjudication while awaiting disposition or

placement elsewhere. In addition, a

small proportion of juveniles may

be admitted voluntarily in lieu of adjudication as part of a diversion

agreement. Because detention stays

tend to be short compared with

commitment placements, detained

juveniles represent a much larger

share of population flow data than

of 1-day count data.

State variations in upper age

of juvenile court jurisdiction

influence custody rates

Although state custody rate statistics control for upper age of original

juvenile court jurisdiction, comparisons among states with different

upper ages are problematic. Youth

ages 16 and 17 constitute 25% of the

youth population ages 10-17, but

they account for nearly 50% of arrests of youth under age 18, nearly

40% of delinquency court cases, and

more than 50% of juveniles in residential placement. If all other factors were equal, one would expect

higher juvenile custody rates in

states where older youth are under

juvenile court jurisdiction.

Differences in age limits of extended

jurisdiction also influence custody

rates. Some states may keep a juvenile in custody for several years beyond the upper age of original jurisdiction; others cannot. Laws that

control the transfer of juveniles to

criminal court also have an impact

on juvenile custody rates. If all

other factors were equal, states with

broad transfer provisions would be

expected to have lower juvenile custody rates than other states.

Demographic variations among

jurisdictions should also be considered. The urbanicity and economy

of an area are thought to be related

to crime and custody rates. Available bedspace also influences custody rates, particularly in rural areas.

-

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-10 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 3 of 25
6 in 10 juvenile facilities holding offenders were private; public

facilities held more than 6 in 10 juvenile offenders

Residential placement facilities

Number Percent of total

Type of facility 1997 1999 2001 2003 1997 2003

All 2,842 2,938 2,980 2,861 100% 100%

Public 1,106 1,134 1,197 1,170 39 41

State 508 533 533 501 18 18

Local 596 601 664 669 21 23

Private 1,736 1795 1774 1,682 61 59

Tribal 9 9 9 0 0

Juvenile offenders in residential placement

Number Percent of total

held 1997 1999 2001 2003 1997 2003

All facilities

All residents 116,701 120,996 118,008 109,225 100% 100%

Juvenile offenders 105,055 107,856 104,413 96,655 90 88

Other residents 11,646 13,140 13,595 12,570 10 12

77,798 78,519 75,461 67,917

75,600 76,379 73,328 66,210

9,354 11,082 11,509 10,862

48,185 49,011 45,224 38,470

46,516 47,504 43,669 37,335

2,586 2,293 2,376 1,855

67 62

65 61

8 10

41 35

40 34

2 2

Local facilities

All residents 29,613 29,508 30,237 29,447 25 27

Juvenile offenders 29,084 28,875 29,659 28,875 25 26

Other residents 9,354 10,908 11,315 10,738 8 10

Private facilities

All residents 38,903 42,298 42,353 41,177 33 38

Juvenile offenders 29,455 31,303 30,891 30,321 25 28

Otherresidents 1,669 1,507 1,555 1,135 1 1

Tribal facilities 179 194 131 0 0

Juvenile offenders 174 194 124 0 0

Other residents 5 0 7 0 0

Notes: Other residents include youth age 21 or older and those held in the facility but

not charged with or adjudicated for an offense. Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Source: Authors' analysis of OJJDP's Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement for

1997, 1999, 2001, and 2003 [machine-readable data files].

Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

The basic profile of juvenile custody facility residents

did not change much from 1997 to 2003

Most residents in juvenile

residential placement facilities

were juvenile offenders

The majority of residents in juvenile

residential placement facilities on

October 22, 2003, were accused or

adjudicated juvenile offenders

(88%). Juvenile offenders held for

delinquency offenses accounted for

78% of all residents and 95% of all

juvenile offenders. Delinquency offenses are behaviors that would be

criminal law violations for adults.

The remaining 5% of offenders were

status offenders. Status offenses are

behaviors that are not law violations for adults, such as running

away, truancy, and ungovernability.

Some residents were held in a juvenile residential placement facility

but were not charged with or adjudicated for an offense (e.g., youth

referred for abuse, neglect, emotional disturbance, or mental retardation, or those referred by their parents). Other residents (nonoffenders

and youth age 21 or older) accounted for 12% of all residents.

Private facilities are an important

custody resource

Private facilities are operated by

private nonprofit or for-profit corporations or organizations; staff in

these facilities are employees of the

private corporation or organization.

State or local government agencies

operate public facilities; staff in

these facilities are state or local

government employees. Private facilities tend to be smaller than public facilities. Thus, although private

facilities are more numerous than

public facilities nationwide, public

facilities hold the majority of juvenile offenders on any given day.

Private and public facilities hold

different populations. Compared

with public facilities, private facilities have a greater proportion of

Public facilities

All residents

Juvenile offenders

Other residents

State facilities

All residents

Juvenile offenders

Other residents

court-committed juveniles and a

smaller proportion of detained

juveniles (who are awaiting adjudication, disposition, or placement

elsewhere). Juveniles in placement

voluntarily as part of a diversion

agreement are rare, regardless of facility type.

Custody status profile, 2003:

Custody Facility operation

status Total Public Private Tribal

Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

Committed 74 70 85 53

Detained 25 30 14 45

Diversion 0 0 1 2

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-10 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 4 of 25
In 2003, public facilities held 64,662 delinquents and private

facilities held 27,059 delinquents on the 2003 census date

Most serious offense

Total offenders

Juvenile offenders in

residential placement, 2003

Type of facility

All Public Private

96,655 66,210 30,321

Percent change

1997-2003

Type of facility

All Public Private

-8% -12% 3%

Delinquency

Person

Criminal homicide

Sexual assault

Robbery

Aggravated assault

Simple assault

Other person

Property

Burglary

Theft

Auto theft

Arson

Other property

Drug

Drug trafficking

Other drug

Public order

Weapons

Other public order

Technical violation

Status offense

Ungovernability

Running away

Truancy

Curfew violation

Underage drinking

Other status offense

91,831

33,197

878

7,452

6,230

7,495

8,106

3,036

26,843

10,399

5,650

5,572

735

4,487

8,002

1,810

6,192

9,654

3,013

6,641

14,135

4,824

1,825

997

841

203

405

553

64,662

23,499

803

4,749

5,157

5,745

4,984

2,061

18,740

7,481

3,793

3,756

514

3,196

4,851

1,284

3,567

6,782

2,346

4,436

10,790

1,548

253

417

207

65

210

396

27,059

9,671

73

2,698

1,073

1,741

3,113

973

8,073

2,904

1,848

1,812

220

1,289

3,137

522

2,615

2,866

665

2,201

3,312

3,262

1,570

577

634

138

186

157

-7 -12 11

-6 -13 21

-54 -56 -28

34 20 68

-33 -35 -22

-21 -24 -7

22 21 25

38 22 87

-16 -18 -10

-17 -21 -7

-22 -26 -12

-15 -14 -16

-19 -25 0

-4 -4 -6

-12 -23 15

-37 -41 -24

0 -14 28

0 -5 11

-28 -29 -24

20 16 29

14 5 56

-29 -11 -36

-36 -45 -34

-33 -14 -43

-37 -49 -32

5 _18* 21

27 86 -10

-14 98 -64

For most offenses, fewer juveniles were held in 2003 than in 1997. For

some offenses (e.g., drug offenses other than trafficking), the public facility

population decreased but the private facility population increased. For several offenses (e.g., simple assault), both public and private populations

increased.

* Percent change is based on a denominator less than 100.

Note: Total includes juvenile offenders held in tribal facilities.

Source: Authors' analysis of OJJDP's Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement

for 2003 [machine-readable data files).

Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

U.

Nationally. nearly 92.000 delinquents were held in

residential placement facilities on October 22. 2003

Compared with public facilities,

private facilities hold a smaller

share of delinquents and a larger

share of status offenders

On the census date in 2003, public

facilities held 7 in 10 delinquents in

custody and 3 in 10 status offenders.

However, public facilities housed

more than three-quarters of those

held for homicide, robbery, aggravated assault, weapons, and technical violations of probation or parole.

In contrast, fewer than 6 in 10 juveniles held for drug offenses other

than trafficking were in public facilities. Nevertheless, public and private facilities had fairly similar offense profiles in 2003.

Offense profile by facility type, 2003:

Most serious

offense All Public Private

Total 1 O0% 100% 100%

Delinquency 95 98 89

Person 34 35 32

Homicide 1 1 0

Sexual assault 8 7 9

Robbery 6 8 4

Aggr. assault 8 9 6

Simple assault 8 8 10

Other person 3 3 3

Property 28 28 27

Burglary 11 11 10

Theft 6 6 6

Auto theft 6 6 6

Arson 1 1 1

Other property 5 5 4

Drug 8 7 10

Drug trafficking 2 2 2

Other drug 6 5 9

Public order 10 10 9

Weapons 3 4 2

Other public order 7 7 7

Technical violation 15 16 11

Status offense 5 2 11

Ungovernability 2 0 5

Running away 1 1 2

Truancy 1 0 2

Curfew violation 0 0 0

Underage drinking 0 0 1

Other status offense 1 1 1

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-10 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 5 of 25
In 2003, public and private facilities held 32% more delinquents

and 32% fewer status offenders than in 1991

Offenders in juvenile facilities

120,000 1

Juvenile offenders

100,000

80,000 ____belinquents

60,000

40,000

20,000 Status offenders

0

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

The 1 day count of juvenile offenders in custody rose

from 1991 to 1999 and then dropped through 2003

Public facilities drive the trend

for the delinquency population

The number of delinquents held in

public facilities rose 36% from 1991

to 1999 and then dropped 13% by

2003. The number of delinquents

held in private facilities was relatively small in comparison and rose

sharply (95%) from 1991 to 1999.

The subsequent decline in the private facility delinquent population

between 1999 and 2003 was minimal

(4%).

In comparison, private facilities

drove the trend for the status offender population. The number of

status offenders in private facilities

was relatively flat from 1991 to 1995

(up just 8%) and then dropped 46%

between 1995 and 1999. From 1999

to 2003, the private facility status offender population leveled off again.

The number of status offenders in

public facilities remained relatively

low and flat throughout the period.

Offenders in juvenile facilities

120,000 

Delinquents Total

100,000

::: licfacilitie

40,000

20,000 ,.,.. . -

Private facilities

0

1991 1995 1999 2003

Offenders iii juvenile facilities

10,000

Status offenders

8,000

6,000

4,000 Private facilIties

2,000 ,

Public facilities

0

1991 1995 1999 2003

• The total number of juvenile offenders in residential placement facilities rose

41% from 1991 to 1999 and then declined 10% from 1999 to 2003. The result was an overall increase of 27% between 1991 and 2003.

• The number of delinquents in juvenile facilities peaked in 1999, 48% above

the 1991 figure. Between 1999 and 2003, however, the number dropped

11%.

• The number of status offenders in juvenile facilities was highest in 1995.

Between 1995 and 2003, the number dropped 36%.

Note: Because data were not collected from tribal facilities prior to 1999, tribal facility

data are excluded from this presentation.

Source: Authors' analysis of OJJDP's Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement

for 1997, 1999, 2001, and 2003 [machine-readable data files] and Children in Custody

Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities for

1991, 1993, and 1995 [machine-readable data files].

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-10 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 6 of 25
Between 1991 and 2003, the detained delinquency population in

public and private facilities increased 38%

Offenders in juvenile facilities

30,000 1

Detained delinquents

25,000 1

Public facilities

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000 Privatefaci!ities..

0

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

E*1iLuJ

From 1991 to 2003. the detained population

increased more than the committed population

Offense profiles of detained

offenders and committed

offenders differ

Delinquents accounted for 95% of

both detained and committed offenders in 2003. Compared with the

detained population, the committed

population had a greater proportion

of youth held for sexual assault,

burglary, and theft and fewer youth

held for technical violations of probation or parole. The committed

population also had proportionally

more youth held for being ungovernable and fewer youth held for

running away from home.

Juvenile offenders held, 2003:

Most serious

offense Detained Committed

Delinquency 25,019 65,636

100% 100%

Person 32 38

Homicide 1 1

Sexual assault 4 10

Robbery 6 7

Agg. assault 9 8

Simple assault 8 9

Other person 4 3

Property 25 31

Burglary 9 12

Theft 5 7

Auto theft 5 6

Arson 1 1

Other property 5 5

Drug 8 9

Drug trafficking 2 2

Other drug 6 7

Public order 11 10

Weapons 3 3

Other public order 7 7

Technical violation 24 12

Status offense 1,250 3,371

100% 100%

Ungovernability 27 42

Running away 26 17

Truancy 17 18

Curlew violation 3 5

Underage drinking 6 9

Other status offense 20 9

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Offenders in juvenile facilities

80,000 1

I Committed delinquents

70,000 I

60,000

50,000

Public facilities

40,000

30,000

20,000

Private facilities

10,000

0

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

• Detained youth (those held prior to adjudication or disposition awaiting a

hearing in juvenile or criminal court or after disposition awaiting placement

elsewhere) made up 35% of delinquents in public facilities in 2003. In comparison, detained offenders were just 9% of the offenders held in private facilities that year.

• The number of committed delinquents held in public or private facilities as

part of a court-ordered disposition was 28% greater in 2003 than in 1991.

The public facility committed population was 1 1% greater in 2003 than in

1991; the private facility committed population was 77% greater.

Note: Because data were not collected from tribal facililies prior to 1999, tribal facility data

are excluded from this presentation.

Source: Authors' analysis of OJJDP's Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement

for 1997, 1999, 2001, and 2003 [machine-readable data files] and Children in Custody

Census of Public and Pri vale Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities for

1991, 1993, and 1995 [machine-readable data files].

I,

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-10 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 7 of 25
219

267

208

144

186

263

244

177

230

352

63

222

313

232

255

131

116

106

208

118

200

220

204

98

175

317

224

265

323

317

295

564

226

307

72

289

236

269

606

273

212

387

216

257

246

150

346

318

274

210

272

169

74

63

67

5*

117

38

56

43

110

63

83

97

84

56

136

84

63

59

20

110

73

58

49

48

57

190

259

224

284

444

185

251

30

178

170

185

509

155

151

246

128

191

185

127

236

243

216

161

223

109

- Detention rate - Commitment rate

84 to 120

• 121 to381

220 to 284

• 285 to 509

Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

•:

In 2003, 307 juvenile offenders were in custody for

every 100,000 juveniles in the U.S. population

In 2003, the national commitment rate was 2.6 times the detention rate, but rates varied by state

Juveniles Custody rate per 100,000 Juveniles Custody rate per 100,000

State of offense in custody Total Detained Committed State of offense in custody Total Detained Committed

U.S. total

Upper age 17

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida

Hawaii

Idaho

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Maine

Maryland

Minnesota

Mississippi

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Jersey

New Mexico

North Dakota

Ohio

96,655 307 83

1,794 351 76

336 370 158

1,890 284 124

675 217 30

16,782 392 128

1,776 344 99

333 364 187

285 625 381

8,208 452 94

129 97 34

489 287 65

3,045 415 98

975 299 63

1,071 336 78

837 185 50

222 153 33

1,167 181 75

1,527 259 47

528 152 33

261 245 37

672 331 111

921 362 157

1,941 199 100

606 258 83

246 347 25

4,176 318 93

Upper age 17 (continued)

Oklahoma 1,059

Oregon 1,275

Pennsylvania 4,341

Rhode Island 342

South Dakota 522

Tennessee 1,434

Utah 954

Vermont 51

Virginia 2,376

Washington 1,656

West Virginia 498

Wyoming 357

Upper age 16

Georgia 2,451

Illinois 2,715

Louisiana 1,821

Massachusetts 1,302

Michigan 2,706

Missouri 1,413

New Hampshire 198

South Carolina 1,443

Texas 7,662

Wisconsin 1,524

Upper age 15

Connecticut 627

New York 4,308

North Carolina 1,203

* Rate is based on fewer than 10 juveniles.

Notes: Custody rate is the count of juvenile offenders in custody per 100,000 youth ages 10 through the upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction in each state. U.S. totals include 1,398 youth in private facilities for whom state of offense was not reported and 124 youth in tribal

facilities.

Source: Authors' analysis of Sickmund et al's Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement databook [online analysis].

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-10 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 8 of 25
Detention

'han ge in detention

rate, 1997-2003

Decrease (25 states)

Increase (26 states)

Commitment

7ITT

DC

hangeincommitment'

rate, 1997-2003

L1 Decrease (32 states)

El Increase (19 states)

• Detention rates increased in half of the states and declined in the other

half. More than half of the states had lower commitment rates in 2003 than

in 1997, but in many states the reverse was true.

Note: Custody rate is the count of juvenile offenders in custody per 100,000 youth ages

10 through the upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction in each state.

Source: Authors' analysis of Sickmund et at's Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement databook [online analysis].

Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

Detained youth were In detention

Although national custody rates declined from 1997 to 2003, not centers; committed youth were

all states experienced a decline in many types of facilities

Long-term secure facilities (e.g.,

training schools) held the largest

proportion of committed offenders

(45%), but 13% were committed to

detention centers.

Facility type profiles, 2003:

Detained Committed

Facility type offenders offenders

Total 100% 100%

Detention center 91 13

Shelter 2 11

Reception/diagnostic 14 7

Group home 2 11

Boot camp 0 7

Ranch/

wilderness camp 0 4

Long-term secure 3 45

Other 0 1

Note: Detail may not total 100% because

facilities could select more than one facility

type category.

For all facilities except detention

centers, the majority of offenders

were committed youth

Not all offenders held in detention

centers were held in detained status. In 2003, 27% of offenders in detention centers had been committed

to the facility.

Offender population profiles, 2003:

Detained Committed

Facility type offenders offenders

Detention center 72% 27%

Shelter 6 92

Reception/diagnostic 19 81

Group home 6 92

Boot camp 2 93

Ranch/

wilderness camp 3 91

Long-term secure 3 97

Other 16 84

Note: Detail may total less than 100%

because some facilities held youth other

than detained or committed youth.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-10 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 9 of 25
El 14%to25%

El 26% to 34%

£J 35%to4O%

• 41%to59%

El Not calculated

Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

. uL

In 2003. offense profiles of custody populations

varied substantially across states

In most states in 2003, person offenders accounted for a greater proportion of the custody population

than did property offenders

Offense profile of custody population, 2003 Offense profile of custody population, 2003

State of Public Technical State of Public Technical

offense Person Property Drugs order viol. Status offense Person Property Drugs order viol. Status

U.S. total 34% 28% 8% 15% 5%

Alabama 21 23 8 8 25 15

Alaska 33 23 4 11 29

Arizona 24 26 14 12 16 8

Arkansas 22 33 7 17 16 5

California 36 27 7 12 16 2

Colorado 52 26 5 10 6

Connecticut 30 18 10 10 20 13

Delaware 25 25 14 18 16 2

Dist. of Columbia 38 26 9 13 13 0

Florida 34 36 9 8 14 <1

Georgia 38 29 5 10 14 5

Hawaii 28 21 7 2 37 7

Idaho 29 36 12 13 9 2

Illinois 34 26 7 7 26

Indiana 29 28 10 16 8 9

Iowa 32 38 12 7 4 6

Kansas 42 28 7 6 15 2

Kentucky 33 27 7 13 11 9

Louisiana 30 36 11 10 5 8

Maine 31 39 5 8 15 0

Maryland 27 27 16 7 21 2

Massachusetts 48 26 8 11 7

Michigan 37 25 3 10 14 11

Minnesota 25 26 5 18 16 10

Mississippi 14 33 6 18 23 6

• New Hampshire, Oregon, and Colorado had the

highest proportions of person offenders; Mississippi,

Nebraska, and Wyoming had the lowest.

• The proportion of juvenile offenders held for drug

offenses ranged from 22% in Nevada to 3% in

Michigan, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

Missouri 31% 32% 8% 10% 12% 7%

Montana 28 44 7 10 3 8

Nebraska 18 30 7 13 15 17

Nevada 23 28 22 12 14

New Hampshire 59 21 3 5 6 8

New Jersey 31 15 16 11 28 <1

New Mexico 39 23 8 14 ii 4

New York 34 25 6 6 6 22

North Carolina 41 37 5 5 6 6

North Dakota 22 33 9 12 4 21

Ohio 38 28 6 10 16 2

Oklahoma 42 35 8 9 3 3

Oregon 57 25 4 5 9 <1

Pennsylvania 28 21 15 10 17 9

Rhode Island 47 29 11 9 3

South Carolina 27 28 3 10 27 4

South Dakota 25 26 13 10 11 14

Tennessee 33 26 9 9 19 4

Texas 37 28 8 9 16 2

Utah 29 16 10 14 26 4

Vermont -

Virginia 37 29 8 5 18 3

Washington 36 32 5 8 16 2

West Virginia 36 32 7 6 4 16

Wisconsin 38 30 5 18 2 7

Wyoming 18 16 8 10 30 17

Percent of juvenile offenders held for person offenses

DC

• In Alabama, Alaska, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, South

Carolina, Utah, and Wyoming, at least 25% of juvenile

offenders in custody were held for technical violations

of probation, parole, or valid court orders.

• More than 20% of offenders in New York and North

Dakota were held for a status offense. Several states

had virtually no status offenders in custody.

- Too few juveniles in category to calculate a reliable percentage.

Notes: U.S. totals include 1,398 youth in private facilities for whom state of offense was

not reported and 124 youth in tribal facilities. Detail may not total 100% because of rounding.

Source: Authors' analysis of OJJDP's Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement for 2003 jmachine-readable data filej.

I

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-10 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 10 of 25
24%

18

27

23

22

30

6

28

24

25

26

30

29

22

35

24

18

35

28

27

26

24

24

8%

5

4

14

6

4

6

12

12

8

5

11

10

12

12

7

7

11

16

10

3

3

11

10%

12

8

5

10

14

6

16

12

10

12

14

8

10

10

8

16

10

5

11

8

11

26

23%

28

38

24

25

12

57

21

17

27

21

14

17

18

14

19

14

9

20

8

19

27

21

5%

12

0

10

4

2

8

2

0

6

3

<1

10

3

2

8

2

11

6

5

30%

28

26

12

15

19

33

24

43

28

18

26

22

19

20

14

21

36

25

30

7%

7

16

15

6

6

6

6

10

7

8

5

6

6

8

7

7

5

8

4

6%

9

14

11

9

7

4

12

10

5

9

18

8

12

13

31

9

8

6

15

22%

27

24

31

32

12

10

22

7

25

32

16

28

31

33

26

31

10

6

3

3%

4

6

23

4

2

6

8

3

11

5

2

3

3

3

12

19

Percent of detained juvenile offenders held for person

offenses

Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

0 0*

In some states. the offense profiles of detained and

committed populations were very different

In 1 out of 4 states in 2003, technical violations accounted for a greater share of detained offenders

than did person offenses

Offense of detained offenders, 2003 Offense le of detained offenders, 2003

State of Public Technical State of Public Technical

offense Person Pro Druqs order viol. Status offense Person .y Drugs order viol. Status

U.S. total 31%

Alabama 26

Alaska 23

Arizona 23

Arkansas -

California 34

Colorado 37

Connecticut 16

Delaware 23

Dist. of Columbia 36

Florida 30

Georgia 31

Hawaii -

Idaho 30

Illinois 36

Indiana 30

Iowa 28

Kansas 40

Kentucky 36

Louisiana 34

Maine -

Maryland 31

Massachusetts 44

Michigan 33

Minnesota 28

Mississippi 16

Missouri 31%

Montana -

Nebraska 24

Nevada 20

New Hampshire -

New Jersey 30

New Mexico 32

New York 33

North Carolina 44

North Dakota -

Ohio 34

Oklahoma 24

Oregon 34

Pennsylvania 25

Rhode Island -

South Carolina 33

South Dakota 22

Tennessee 28

Texas 24

Utah 19

Vermont -

Virginia 29

Washington 36

West Virginia 41

Wisconsin 29

Wyoming -

• In Connecticut, offenders detained for a technical

violation of probation, parole, or valid court orders

accounted for more than half of all detained offenders.

• Massachusetts and North Carolina had the highest

proportions of person offenders among detained

juveniles (44% in each state). Connecticut and

Mississippi had the lowest proportions (16% each).

• In all states, the proportion of juvenile offenders

detained for drug offenses was less than 20%.

• In most states, status offenders accounted for less

than 10% of detained offenders.

i i

'- LI 25%to3l%

- Too few juveniles in category to calculate a reliable percentage, ' LJ 32% to 39%

• 40% to 44%

Notes: U.S. totals include 10 detained youth in private facilities El Not calculated

for whom state of offense was not reported and 99 youth in

tribal facilities. Detail may not total 100% because of rounding.

Source: Authors' analysis of OJJDP's Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement for 2003 [machine-readable data file].

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-10 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 11 of 25
Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

In 4 out of 10 states in 2003, person offenders accounted for more than the national average of 36% of

the committed custody population

Offense profile of conimifted offenders, 2003 Offense e of committed offenders, 2003

State of Public Technical State of Public Technical

offense Person Property Drugs order viol. Status offense Person Pro ty Drugs order viol. Status

U.S. Total 36% 30% 8% 10% 11% 5%

Alabama 20 24 9 7 25 15

Alaska 41 21 3 13 22 0

Arizona 25 30 15 16 8 6

Arkansas 22 35 7 19 12 5

California 38 30 8 12 11 1

Colorado 58 24 5 8 3 1

Connecticut 34 21 11 11 8 15

Delaware 28 24 17 20 11 2

Dist. of Columbia 40 31 9 14 9 0

Florida 35 39 9 7 10 0

Georgia 41 32 5 9 9 3

Hawaii -

Idaho 29 37 12 13 8 2

Illinois 34 25 6 5 29 1

Indiana 29 31 10 18 5 8

Iowa 33 40 12 6 2 7

Kansas 43 30 7 5 14

Kentucky 33 30 7 12 10 8

Louisiana 29 37 11 10 2 12

Maine 38 41 4 9 9 0

Maryland 25 27 17 8 21 2

Massachusetts 50 26 6 10 7 0

Michigan 39 25 3 10 12 11

Minnesota 25 26 6 20 14 10

Mississippi 14 36 5 15 23 7

U Oregon and New Hampshire had the highest

proportions of person offenders among committed

juveniles (62% and 61%, respectively). Mississippi

(14%), Nebraska (15%), and Wyoming (16%) had the

lowest proportions.

• The proportion of juvenile offenders committed for

technical violations of probation, parole, or valid

court orders ranged from 34% in Wyoming to 0%

in Montana.

• In half of all states, status offenders accounted for

less than 5% of committed offenders.

- Too few juveniles in category to calculate a reliable percentage.

Notes: U.S. totals include 1,386 committed youth in private facilities

for whom state of offense was not reported and 25 youth in tribal

facilities. Detail may not total 100% because of rounding.

Missouri 31% 32% 8% 11% 9% 9%

Montana 25 49 6 13 0 7

Nebraska 15 30 7 14 9 23

Nevada 25 29 27 10 7 2

New Hampshire 61 21 4 4 4 7

New Jersey 32 17 17 10 23 0

New Mexico 42 27 10 16 3

New York 34 26 6 6 5 22

North Carolina 40 41 5 6 4 5

North Dakota 23 35 9 11 21

Ohio 39 29 7 9 14 2

Oklahoma 50 31 7 9 2 2

Oregon 62 25 3 5 5 0

Pennsylvania 31 22 17 10 11 10

Rhode Island 48 28 11 9 2

South Carolina 24 29 3 7 33 5

South Dakota 26 27 15 11 7 15

Tennessee 35 27 9 8 17 4

Texas 42 30 8 8 11

Utah 31 17 11 10 27 4

Vermont -

Virginia 42 34 8 3 11 2

Washington 37 31 5 8 18

West Virginia 32 35 7 6 3 17

Wisconsin 40 30 5 18 2 4

Wyoming 16 15 9 10 34 16

— L17o 10

U Not calculated

Source: Authors' analysis of OJJDP's Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement for 2003 [machine-readable data fuel.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-10 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 12 of 25
The number of female offenders in custody increased 52% from

1991 to 2003—the number of delinquents rose 96% and the

number of status offenders dropped 38%

Offenders in juvenile facilities

100,000

80000

Total

Male offenders

60,000

40,000

20,000

Delinquents

Offenders in juvenile facilities

16,000 1

12,000

8,000

Status offenders

4,000

0'

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

• Among males in juvenile facilities, the number of delinquents increased 26%

and the number of status offenders decreased 26% from 1991 to 2003, for

an overall increase in male offenders of 23%.

• Status offenders accounted for a greater share of female offenders in custody than of male offenders. However, the status offender proportion of female offenders in custody dropped from 33% in 1991 to 13% in 2003. For

males, the status offender proportion held steady between 3% and 6%.

Nole: Because data were not collected from tribal facilities prior to 1999, tribal facility data

are excluded from this presentation.

Source: Authors' analysis of OJJDP's Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement for

1997, 1999, 2001, and 2003 [machine readable data filesi and Children in Custody Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities for 1991,

1993, and 1995 [machine readable data files].

Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

SI S

Females account for a small proportion of the custody

population. but their numbers have increased recently

The 14,590 female offenders held

in 2003 accounted for 15% of

offenders in custody

Male offenders dominate the juvenile system. This is especially true

of the custody population. Males

represent half of the juvenile population and are involved in approximately three-quarters of juvenile arrests and delinquency cases

handled in juvenile court each year,

but they represented 85% of juvenile offenders in residential placement in 2003.

ot

1991 1993 1995

The proportion of females has increased over the years from 13% in

1991 to 15% in 2003. The female proportion was greater among status

offenders held (40%) than among

delinquents (14%), and greater for

detained (18%) than for committed

(12%) delinquents.

Female proportion of offenders in

custody:

Year Total Delinquent Status

1991 13% 9% 45%

1993 12 9 44

1995 12 10 40

1997 14 11 47

1999 13 12 39

2001 14 13 41

2003 15 14 40

Female proportion of delinquent

offenders in custody:

Year Total Detained Committed

1991 9% 12% S%

1993 9 12 8

1995 10 13 8

1997 11 15 10

1999 12 17 11

2001 13 18 11

2003 14 18 12

- Status offenders

1997 1999 2001 2003

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-10 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 13 of 25
Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

In nearly all states, females represented a relatively small proportion of juvenile offenders in residential

placement in 2003; their proportion was generally larger in private facilities than in public facilities

State of offense

U.S. total

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

State of offense

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Female proportion, 2003

Committed

Overall Public Private Detained

15% 12% 16% 19%

20 16 21 22

11 7 - 17

18 14 20 23

17 23 12 -

13 9 17 17

10 5 9 16

21 0 24 35

11 - - 14

11 - - 10

19 9 19 18

15 12 8 20

26 - - -

17 16 - 22

11 10 11 14

23 19 29 27

21 10 25 25

15 10 20 19

15 10 44 14

16 12 27 14

11 10 - -

8 10 5 9

12 0 11 17

19 23 16 23

15 9 18 16

19 16 - 29

Female proportion, 2003

Committed

Overall Public Private Detained

14% 14% 19% 12%

18 16 - -

32 30 49 20

21 18 - 23

18 - - -

8 6 - 10

12 10 - 18

21 16 25 24

18 8 18 28

26 - 26 -

13 10 8 19

17 10 26 21

12 10 11 20

11 2 9 18

7 7 8 -

17 20 6 24

25 21 24 36

11 9 12 14

13 11 7 20

20 23 15 22

14 9 - 23

13 10 - 20

17 5 26 22

14 14 13 18

39 53 21 -

• Nationally, females accounted for 15% of juvenile

offenders in residential placement on October 22, 2003.

• The female proportion of committed offenders was higher

in private facilities (16%) than in public facilities (12%).

• The female proportion was higher for detained offenders

(19%) than for committed offenders (13% for public and

private facilities combined).

• In Colorado, Maryland, New Jersey, and Rhode Island,

females represented no more than 10% of offenders in custody.

EJ 16%to2O%

• 21%to39%

- Too few juveniles in category to calculate a reliable percentage. Not calculated

Note: U.S. totals include 1,398 youth in private facilities for whom state of offense was not reported and 124 youth in tribal facilities.

Source: Authors' analysis of OJJDP's Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement for 2003 [machine-readable data files].

• In Hawaii, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota,

and Wyoming, females represented at least 25% of

offenders in custody.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-10 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 14 of 25
Detained youth account for a greater share of the female

population of delinquents in custody than the male population

Offenders in juvenile facilities

100,000 1

I Male delinquents

80,000 Total

60,000

40,000

20,000

0

1991

Committed

Detained -

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Offenders in juvenile facilities

14,0001

Female delinquents

.Detained

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

mitted

0

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

• Between 1991 and 2003, detained youth constituted about one-quarter of

all male delinquents in residential placement, compared with more than

one-third of female delinquents in residential placement.

• For both males and females, the detained population increased more from

1991 to 2003 than the committed population. Among males, the increase

was 23% for committed delinquents and 29% for detained delinquents. For

females, the increase was 88% for committed delinquents and 98% for detained delinquents.

Note: Because data were not collected from tribal facilities prior to 1999, tribal facility data

are excluded from this presentation.

Source: Authors' analysis of OJJDP's Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement for

1997, 1999, 2001, and 2003 [machine-readable data files] and Children in Custody Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities for 1991,

1993, and 1995 [machine-readable data files].

Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

Females are not distributed

evenly across facility types

Detention centers held the largest

proportion of female offenders in

2003 (45%). Long-term secure facilities (e.g., training schools) held

about one-quarter of female offenders and group homes (and halfway

houses) held about one-tenth. Longterm secure facilities held the

largest proportion of male offenders

(37%), closely followed by detention

centers (35%).

Facility type profile, 2003:

Facility type Male Female

Total 100% 100%

Detention center 35 45

Shelter 2 5

Reception/diagnostic 6 7

Group home 9 12

Boot camp 4 1

Ranch/wilderness camp 5 4

Long-term secure 37 24

Other 1 <1

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Females made up more than a quarter of offenders in shelter facilities.

For detention centers and group

homes, about 1 in 5 offenders were

female; for long-term secure facilities, 1 in 10 offenders were female.

Percentage of female offenders:

Facility type 2003

Detention center 19%

Shelter 27

Reception/diagnostic 17

Group home 19

Boot camp 6

Ranch/wilderness camp 12

Long-term secure 10

Other 6

In 2003, 59% of female offenders

were in facilities that also held

males. Females were housed in 47%

of facilities: 33% held both males

and females and 14% held only

females.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-10 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 15 of 25
Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

Private facilities housed nearly

4 in 10 female offenders in

residential placement in 2003

Private facilities held 36% of all female offenders in residential placement in 2003. In comparison, private facilities held 31% of male

offenders that year. The proportion

of female offenders held in private

facilities varied by offense: these facilities housed 84% of females held

for ungovernability, 37% of those

held for simple assault, and 19% of

those held for robbery.

Percent of offenders held in private

facilities, 2003:

Most

serious offense Male Female

Total offenders 31% 36%

Delinquency 29 31

Person 26 34

Homicide 8 10

Sexual assault 36 52

Robbery 17 19

Aggravated assault 22 30

Simple assault 39 37

Other person 30 42

Property 30 31

Burglary 28 28

Theft 32 34

Auto theft 32 35

Arson 30 32

Other property 29 24

Drug 39 43

Drug trafficking 29 30

Other drug 42 45

Public order 30 26

Weapons 22 28

Other public order 35 25

Technical violation 23 24

Status offense 66 70

Ungovernability 87 84

Running away 53 61

Truancy 74 77

Curfew violation 63 -

Underage drinking 43 52

Other status offense 28 28

- Too few juveniles in category to calculate

a reliable percentage.

Females in custody tended to be

younger than their male

counterparts

Juveniles ages 15 and younger accounted for 46% of females and 33%

of males held in 2003. In contrast,

the proportion of older offenders

(ages 18-21) was greater among

males (16%) than among females

(7%). The peak age for female offenders in residential placement

was 16; for male offenders, it was 17

Age profile of offenders in

custody, 2003:

Age Total Male Female

Total 100% 1 00% 100%

12 and younger 2 2 2

13 4 4 6

14 10 10 14

15 19 18 24

16 26 25 27

17 25 26 20

l8andolder 14 16 7

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

The female proportion of the

custody population was greatest

for offenders in their early teens

Overall, females accounted for 15%

of offenders in residential place--

ment. Through age 13, the female

proportion of offenders in custody

increased steadily with age. After

age 13, the female proportion of offenders in custody diminished with

age.

Female percent of juvenile offenders

in residential placement:

Age 2003 Age 2003

10 7% 16 16%

11 14 17 13

12 17 18 8

13 21 19 6

14 21 20 5

15 19

Minorities made up a smaller

share of female than male

offenders in custody

In 2003, minority youth made up the

majority of both males and females

in residential placement. Non-Hispanic whites accounted for 45% of

female and 38% of male juvenile offenders in custody.

Race/ethnicity profile of offenders, 2003:

Race/ethnicity Total Male Female

Total 100% 100% 100%

White 39 38 45

Minority 61 62 55

Black 38 39 35

Hispanic 19 20 15

Amer. Indian 2 2 3

Asian 2 2 1

Other 1 1 1

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

From 1997 to 2003, the minority

proportion of juvenile offenders in

custody increased for females and

decreased for males. In 1997, minorities accounted for 51% of female offenders in residential placement and 64% of males. In 2003,

minorities constituted 55% of fe--

males in custody and 62% of males.

Females made up a smaller share of

minority offenders in custody than

of white offenders (14% vs. 18% in

2003). However, the female proportion varied across minority groups

(e.g., 21% among American Indians,

12% among Hispanics).

Gender profile of offenders, 2003:

Race/ethnicity Total Male Female

Total 100% 85% 15%

White 100 82 18

Minority 100 86 14

Black 100 86 14

Hispanic 100 88 12

Amer. Indian 100 79 21

Asian 100 86 14

Other 100 79 21

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-10 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 16 of 25
Most serious offense

Total

Delinquency

Person

Homicide

Sexual assault

Robbery

Aggravated assault

Simple assault

Other person

Property

Burglary

Theft

Auto theft

Arson

Other property

Drug

Drug trafficking

Other drug

Public order

Weapons

Other public order

Technical violation

Status offense

Ungovernability

Running away

Truancy

Curfew violation

Underage drinking

Other status offense

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of rounding.

Source: Authors' analysis of OJJDP's Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement for

2003 imachine-readable data files].

Offense profile for juvenile offenders in

residential placement on October 22, 2003

Total Detained Committed

Male Female Male Female Male Female

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

96

35

1

9

7

8

7

3

29

12

6

6

5

8

2

6

10

3

7

14

4

0

0

0

87

30

2

8

14

4

21

5

7

5

1

4

7

6

8

7

20

13

5

4

2

0

96

32

4

6

9

7

3

25

10

4

5

1

5

8

2

6

10

4

6

21

4

0

0

90

27

2

9

11

3

18

4

5

5

0

3

6

5

10

9

29

10

3

4

2

0

0

97

36

10

7

7

8

3

31

13

6

6

5

9

2

7

10

3

7

11

3

2

0

0

0

0

86

32

2

3

8

15

4

23

5

8

6

4

8

7

7

6

15

14

6

4

2

Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

In a few oftense categories,

females accounted for more

than 20% of offenders held

Females were more likely than males to be held for simple

assault, technical violations, and status offenses in 2003

In 2003, females accounted for 15%

of offenders in custody, but that

proportion varied by offense. Females represented a much larger

proportion of status offenders than

delinquent offenders in custody

(40% vs. 14%).

Female proportion of offenders:

Most serious offense 2003

Total 15%

Delinquency 14

Person 13

Homicide 12

Sexual assault 2

Robbery 6

Aggravated assault 16

Simple assault 25

Other person 18

Property 12

Burglary 7

Theft 18

Auto theft 14

Arson 10

Other property 12

Drug 13

Drug trafficking 7

Other drug 15

Public order 12

Weapons 6

Other public order 16

Technical violation 21

Status offense 40

Ungovernability 59

Running away 38

Truancy 38

Curfew violation 35

Underage drinking 30

Other status offense 25

The female share of offenders held

[or simple assault, technical violations, and all status offense categories exceeded 20%. This was true

for both detained and committed

offenders. For theft and public

order offenses other than weapons

violations, females made up about

one-quarter of detained offenders,

but their share of committed offenders was substantially smaller. For

most status offenses, females accounted for 30% or more of youth

in custody.

In several offense categories, females accounted for less than 10%

of juvenile offenders in custody:

burglary and drug trafficking (7%),

robbery and weapons (6%), and sexual assaults (2%). For all other offenses, the female share ranged between 10% and 20%.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-10 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 17 of 25
In 2003, white youth's share of juveniles held in custody was

greatest for the offenses of sexual assault and arson, black

youth's share was greatest for robbery and drug trafficking

Race/ethnic profile of juvenile

offenders in custody, 2003

Minority

Total American

Most serious offense Total White minority Black Hispanic Indian Asian

Total 100% 39% 61% 38% 19% 2% 2%

Delinquency 100 38 62 38 19 2 2

Homicide 100 27 73 40 26 2 4

Sexual assault 100 57 43 26 13 2 1

Robbery 100 15 85 60 22 1 2

Aggravated assault 100 28 72 41 26 2 3

Simple assault 100 40 60 40 15 2 1

Burglary 100 44 56 33 19 2 1

Theft 100 43 57 40 13 2 2

Auto theft 100 33 67 39 23 2 3

Arson 100 57 43 27 11 3 1

Drug trafficking 100 21 79 60 16 1 2

Other drug 100 38 62 36 22 2 1

Weapons 100 21 79 45 30 1 2

Technical violations 100 39 61 36 21 2 1

Status offenses 100 48 52 34 12 3 1

Notes: Totals include a small number of youth for whom race/ethnicity was not reported

or was reported as "other" or "mixed." Detail may not total 100% because of rounding.

Source: Authors' analysis of OJJDP's Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement for

2003 [machine-readable data filesj.

Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

LI . ..I •i

The decline in black juveniles in custody led the

overall 1997-2003 custody population decline

Black youth accounted for the

majority of nonwhite youth held

In 2003, more than 59,000 minority

offenders were in residential placement in juvenile facilities across the

country-61% of the custody population nationwide. Black youth accounted for 38% of all offenders in

custody.

Juvenile offenders in custody, 2003:

Percent

change

Race/ 1997—

ethnicity Number Percent 2003

Total 96,655 100% —8%

White 37,347 39 —5

Minority 59,308 61 —10

Black 36,740 38 —12

Hispanic 18,422 19 —5

Amer. Indian 1,771 2 10

Asian 1,462 2 —34

Other/mixed 913 1 62

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Between 1997 and 2003, the population of offenders in custody dropped

8%. The decline for white youth

(5%) was half the decline for minority youth (10%). Among minority

youth, Asians had the largest relative drop (34%). However, black offenders accounted for the majority

of the overall reduction in the custody population. More than 5,000

fewer black youth were held in juvenile facilities on the census date in

2003 than in 1997. This was 2.5

times the decrease in the white custody population.

Despite the decline in the number

of minority offenders in custody,

the minority proportion of the custody population decreased only

slightly between 1997 and 2003

(from 62% to 61%). Among delinquent offenders held in juvenile

facilities, minorities accounted for

62% in 2003, down from 64% in

1997. However, among status

offenders held, minorities accounted for 52% in 2003, up from 41% in

1997.

Minority proportion of offenders:

Year Total Delinquent Status

1997 62% 64% 41%

1999 62 63 46

2001 60 61 50

2003 61 62 52

The minority proportion of committed delinquents decreased from 64%

in 1997 to 60% in 2003, but the minority proportion of detained delinquents did not decline. Thus, the

minority proportion was greater

among detained offenders than

committed offenders in 2003.

Minority proportion of delinquents:

Year Total Detained Committed

1997 64% 64% 64%

1999 63 63 63

2001 61 63 60

2003 62 65 60

The minority proportion of

offenders varied by offense and

also by placement status

For some offenses, the minority proportion of detained juveniles was

substantially greater than the minority proportion of committed juveniles. For example, blacks represented 44% of detained person

offenders, but 39% of committed

person offenders. This difference

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-10 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 18 of 25
Offense profiles did not vary substantially by race/ethnicity

Offense profile of juvenile offenders in custody, 2003

Minority

Total American

Most serious offense Total White minority Black Hispanic Indian Asian

• Homicide accounted for a very small proportion of juveniles in custody, regardless of race/ethnicity.

• In 2003, 11% of whites were held for sexual assault, compared with 5% of

Hispanics and blacks.

• Robbery accounted for a smaller proportion of white (2%) and American Indian (3%) youth held than of other groups.

• For all racial/ethnic groups, the proportion of youth held for drug trafficking

was less than half the proportion held for drug offenses other than trafficking.

• Regardless of race/ethnicity, a substantial proportion of youth were held for

technical violations of probation, parole, or valid court orders.

Notes: Totals include a small number of youth for whom race/ethnicity was not reported

or was reported as other' or "mixed." Detail may not total 100% because of rounding or

because not all offenses are presented.

Source: Authors' analysis of Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement for 2003

[machine-readable data files.

Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

stemmed primarily from differences

for sexual assault and robbery offense categories. A similar pattern

existed for youth held for public

order offenses (primarily weapons

offenses). In other offense categories, the minority proportions of

detained and committed juveniles

were comparable. For example,

blacks accounted for 41% of detained drug offenders and 42% of

committed drug offenders. Similarly,

Hispanics constituted 21% of detained drug offenders and 20% of

committed drug offenders.

Minority youth are not distributed

evenly across facility types

Detention centers and long-term secure facilities (e.g., training schools)

held the largest proportions of minority offenders in 2003—each holding more than one-third of minorities in custody. Shelters, reception

centers, group homes, boot camps,

and ranch/wilderness camps each

held less than one-tenth of the minority population. Other facilities,

such as those identifying themselves as residential treatment ceoteis, accounted for more than onequarter of minorities.

Facility type profile, 2003:

Offender

Facility type White Minority

Detention center 32% 36%

Shelter 3 2

Reception/diagnostic 6 6

Group home 11 7

Boot camp 3 4

Ranch/

wilderness camp 3 7

Long-term secure 32 34

Other 33 27

Note: Percents total more than 100%

because facilities could select multiple type

categories. Most facilities that selected

"other" also selected one of the other listed

facility types.

Total 100% 100%

Delinquency 95 94

Homicide

Sexual assault 8 11

Robbery 6 2

Aggravated assault 8 6

Simple assault 8 9

Burglary 11 12

Theft 6 6

Auto theft 6 5

Arson

Drug trafficking 2

Other drug 6 6

Weapons 3 2

Technical violations 15 15

Status offenses 5 6

Minority youth accounted for nearly

half of the custody population in

shelters and more than half of the

population across all other facility

types.

100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

96 96 97 92 95

2

5 5 5 9 3

9 10 7 3 8

9 8 10 7 14

8 9 7 9 7

10 9 11 10 9

5 6 4 6 6

6 6 7 6 10

0 0

2 3 2 2

6 6 7 7 4

4 4 5 2 4

15 14 16 13 15

4 4 3 8 5

Minority proportion:

Facility type

Detention center

Shelter

Reception/diagnostic

Group home

Boot camp

Ranch/wilderness camp

Long-term secure

Other

2003

64%

48

60

53

69

76

63

56

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-10 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 19 of 25
190

235

177

223

142

217

268

105

128

347

355

142

62

250

120

316

242

213

133

202

149

98

111

169

156

75

754

586

339

579

468

1,246

1,150

669

1,029

683

973

500

199

725

589

1,188

1,337

1,320

653

663

182

319

811

602

1,149

246

348

368

0

363

200

448

396

316

413

698

186

237

44

463

144

381

520

364

113

151

188

326

522

231

400

60

496

0

896

199

0

425

646

672

0

0

195

127

0

747

113

417

1,025

318

0

269

492

450

172

287

1,712

155

113

73

206

72

108

140

112

36

0

0

81

59

111

328

14

0

117

187

76

90

0

22

160

27

280

0

690

418

1,529

958

579

795

823

712

332

1,384

916

673

1,075

1,207

1,425

567

3,199

507

771

951

0

715

770

953

1,389

3,035

287

482

447

332

197

203

105

261

77

747

296

239

314

639

188

453

1449

251

327

564

341

273

207

567

226

947

93

588

1,682

405

0

153

212

205

195

1,240

87

343

870

246

735

193

1,575

0

139

558

0

0

607

775

580

1,285

87

0

194

152

0

15

0

45

45

0

71

48

181

329

409

143

873

79

18

324

0

71

155

0

282

0

a In every state except Vermont, the custody rate for black

juvenile offenders exceeded the rate for whites.

• Wyoming had the highest custody rate for white

offenders (507), followed by Florida (355), the District of

Columbia (347), Indiana (316), and South Dakota (310).

• Nationally, the ratio of the custody rate for minorities

to that for whites was 2.6 to 1.

"c IJ 

3.0 to 4.0

• 4.0 or more

Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

aI

Nationally, custody rates were highest for black

youth and lowest for Asian youth

For every 100,000 black juveniles living in the U.S., 754 were in custody in a juvenile facility on

October 22, 2003—the custody rate was 348 for Hispanics and 190 for whites

Custody rate (per 100,000) Custody rate (per 100,000)

State of American State of American

offense White Black Hispanic Indian Asian offense White Black Hispanic Indian Asian

U.S. total

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Dist. of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri 159

Montana 188

Nebraska 214

Nevada 289

New Hampshire 144

New Jersey 51

New Mexico 153

New York 138

North Carolina 106

North Dakota 235

Ohio 207

Oklahoma 196

Oregon 291

Pennsylvania 139

Rhode Island 192

South Carolina 201

South Dakota 310

Tennessee 143

Texas 194

Utah 258

Vermont 71

Virginia 143

Washington 200

West Virginia 229

Wisconsin 143

Wyoming 507

Ratio of minority custody rate to white rate

Note: The custody rate is the number of juvenile offenders in

residential placement on October 22, 2003, per 100,000 juveniles

age 10 through the upper age of jurisdiction in each state.

U.S. totals include 1398 youth in private facilities for whom

state of offense was not reported and 124 youth in tribal facilities.

Source: Authors' analysis of Sickmund et al's Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement databook [online analysis].

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-10 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 20 of 25
\._S E: Less than 2.0

' EJ 2.OtoB.o

LI 3.Oto4.0

• 4.0 or

LI Not calculated

DC

L_J .UIOd.0

D 3.Oto4.0

• 4.0 or more

LI Not calculated

Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

In nearly half the states, the ratio of minority to white custody rates was greater for detained youth

than for youth committed to public or private facilities in 2003

State of

offense

u.S. total

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Ratio of minority rate

to white rate

Committed

Detained Public Private

3.1 2.9 2.0

3.1 2.7 1.9

5.2 3.1 3.4

1.3 2.0 1.0

2.5 2.8 3.1

2.2 2.7 1.3

2.5 2.6 1.3

6.9 3.5 4.1

7.4 5.7 5.6

8.7 0.5

1.6 1.2 1.7

2.8 4.4 1.5

0.6 6.6

2.1 2.4 0.8

4.3 2.7 1.8

3.3 3.6 1.5

3.8 4.6 2.9

4.0 4.0 3.1

5.0 4.0 3.0

2.4 4.5 2.4

1.6 2.0 0.0

3.2 3.2 2.7

5.6 5.1 4.7

4.4 1.3 3.7

6.9 4,6 4.9

3.0 3.2

State of

offense

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Ratio of minority rate

to white rate

Committed

Detained Public Private

6.4 2.9 5.5

3.7 2.8 3.5

5.5 4.9 2.5

1.7 1.5 1.2

2.3 3.5 0.6

8.0 8.8 6.6

1.6 2.3 2.6

3.7 6.6 1.8

3.6 4.6 1.0

5.5 7.4 3.8

3.9 3.8 2.9

2.2 2.7 1.3

2.0 1.5 1.2

5.9 6.6 7.4

3.6 2.6

2.5 3.4 2.3

7.9 4.2 6.0

4.0 2.8 3.6

2.3 2.0 2.4

3.9 2.4 1.3

2.7 0.0 0.0

4.4 3.7 5.7

1.6 1.7 2.0

4.5 2.8 4.6

10.3 6.3 3.6

2.9 2.6 2.0

Ratio of minority rate to white rate Ratio of minority rate to white rate for committed

for detained offenders offenders in public facilities

- Too few juveniles in category to calculate a reliable percentage.

Notes: The custody rate is the number of juvenile offenders in residential placement on October 22, 2003, per 100,000 juveniles age 10

through the upper age of jurisdiction in each state. U.S. totals include 1,398 youth in private facilities for whom state of offense was not reported and 124 youth in tribal facilities.

Source: Authors' analysis of Sickmund et al's Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement databook [online analysis].

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-10 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 21 of 25
CJRP provides individual-level

data on time spent in placement

Information on length of stay is key

to understanding the justice system's handling of juveniles in residential placement. Ideally, length of

stay would be calculated for individual juveniles by combining their

days of stay in placement from their

initial admission to their final release relating to a particular case.

These individual lengths of placement could then be averaged for different release cohorts of juveniles

(cohorts could be identified by year

of release, offense, adjudication status, or demographic characteristics).

CJRP captures information on the

number of days since admission for

each juvenile in residential placement. These data represent the

number of days the juvenile had

been in the facility up to the census

date. Because CJRP data reflect only

a juvenile's placement at one facility, the complete length of stay—

from initial admission to the justice

system to final release—cannot be

determined. Nevertheless, CJRP

provides an overall profile of the

time juveniles had been in the facility at the time of the census—a 1-

day snapshot of time in the facility.

Because CJRP data are individual

level rather than facility level, more

averages can be calculated for different subgroups of the population.

In addition, analysts can use the

data to get a picture of the proportion of residents remaining after a

certain number of days (e.g., what

percentage of youth have been held

longer than a year). This sort of

analysis provides juvenile justice

policymakers with a useful means

of comparing the time spent in

placement for different categories

of juveniles.

Percent of residents remaining in placement

100%

90%

80%

70°/

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

• . Wi

On the 2003 census day, person offenders had been

committed or detained longer than other offenders

In 2003, 34% of committed offenders but just 3% of detained

offenders remained in placement 6 months after admission

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

Days since admission

• Among detained offenders (those awaiting adjudication, disposition, or

placement elsewhere), 68% had been in the facility for at least a week, 49%

for at least 15 days, and 28% at least 30 days.

• Among committed juveniles (those held as part of a court-ordered disposition), 80% had been in the facility for at least 30 days, 68% for at least 60

days, and 57% at least 90 days. After a full year, 13% of committed offenders remained in placement.

Source: Authors' analysis of OJJDP's Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement for

2003 [machine-readable data file].

Offenders' average time in the facility varied by adjudication

status, offense, and facility type

Median days in Dlacement

Detained Committed

Most serious offense (all facilities) Public Private

Total 15 105 121

Delinquent 15 106 124

Person 19 160 145

Property 14 97 113

Drugs 15 89 114

Public order 14 111 142

Technical violation 13 50 89

Status offense 10 65 117

• Half of offenders committed to public facilities remained in placement after

105 days (121 days for those committed to private facilities). In contrast,

half of detained offenders remained in placement after just 15 days.

• With the exception of person offenses, offenders committed to private facilities had longer stays than those committed to public facilities.

Source: Authors' analysis of OJJDP's Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement for

2003 [machine-readable data filel.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-10 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 22 of 25
Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

Males tended to stay in facilities longer than females in 2003

90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

Days since admission

Percent of residents remaining in placement

1 00%

90%

80"/

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

0 30 60

Percent of residents remaining in placement

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

1 0%

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

Days since admission

• Among detained females, 25% remained after 28 days; among detained males, 25% remained after 36 days.

• After 45 days, 20% of detained males and 14% of detained females remained in custody.

• After 180 days, 35% of committed males and 29% of committed females remained in custody.

• Among committed females, 25% remained after 204 days; among committed males, 25% remained after 244 days.

Half of detained white offenders remained in custody after 14 days; half of detained minority offenders

remained in custody after 15 days

Percent of residents remaining in placemenl

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

Days since admission

Percent of residents remaining in placement

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

Days since admission

• One-quarter of detained minority youth remained in custody after 36 days; one-quarter of detained white youth remained in custody after 30 days.

• Among committed offenders, time in placement was virtually the same for whites and minorities until about the 50-day

mark—after 50 days, the proportion of white youth remaining in custody was somewhat greater than the proportion of

minority youth remaining.

• After 6 months, 35% of committed white youth and 33% of committed minority youth remained in custody.

Source: Authors' analysis of OJJDP's Census of Juveniles in Residential Placementfor 2003 [machine-readable data file].

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-10 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 23 of 25
Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

Residents' average time in

placement varied by offender

characteristics

The overall median time in placement for juvenile offenders held in

juvenile facilities was 68 days. In

other words, after 68 days half of all

youth held remained in placement.

The median time in placement was

greater for males (71 days) than for

females (48 days) and greater for

white youth (72 days) than for minority youth (64 days).

Time in placement does not

always coincide with offense

seriousness

Among committed offenders, those

held for criminal homicide had the

longest time in placement. For

committed homicide offenders, the

median number of days in placement was 345 days. Sexual assault

offenders had the second longest

average time in placement at 271

days.

The median time in placement for

committed aggravated assault offenders was just 2 weeks more than

the figure for committed simple assault offenders. Simple assault offenders had the same average days

in placement as offenders committed for drug trafficking.

The average time in placement for

committed status offenders was

virtually the same as the average

time for weapons, auto theft, burglary, and theft offenders.

Committed offenders, 2003:

Most Median days

serious offense in placement

Homicide 345

Sexual assault 271

Robbery 154

Arson 141

Public order (not weapons) 128

Aggravated assault 126

Simple assault 112

Drug trafficking 112

Weapons 107

Auto theft 105

Status offense 105

Burglary 104

Theft 103

Drugs (not trafficking) 97

Technical violation 62

In 2003, committed person offenders were in placement longer than other types of offenders

Percent of residents remaining in placement

100% _________________

90% Detained - Person

Pubkc order

eton

20%

10%

0% .

0 30 60 90 120 150 180

Days since admission

Percent of residents remaining in placement

100% Committed - Person

80% ::

70% Public order

20%

10%

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

Days since admission

• Time-in-placement patterns largely overlapped for detained youth held for property, drug, public order, and status

offenses.

• Time-in-placement patterns also largely overlapped for committed youth held for property, drug, and status offenses.

• After 60 days, 21% of detained person offenders remained in custody.

• After 6 months, 45% of committed person offenders remained in custody.

Source: Authors' analysis 01 OJJDP's Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement for 2003 [machine-readable data I ilel.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-10 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 24 of 25
Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

Facility type is related to the kind of agency that

operates and staffs the facility

More public facilities are local

than state, but state facilities

hold more youth

Local facilities (those staffed by

county, city, or municipal employees) make up more than half of all

public facilities but held fewer than

half of all juvenile offenders in public facilities on the census date in

2002.

Juvenile residential facilities, 2002:

Juvenile

Facilities offenders

Number Pct. Number Pct.

Total 2,964 100% 102,388 100%

Public 1,182 40 70,243 69

State 513 17 41,138 40

Local 669 23 29,105 28

Private 1,773 60 31,992 31

Note: Total includes 9 tribal facilities holding

153 juvenile offenders.

During the course of a year, many

more juveniles pass through local

facilities than state facilities. This is

because the majority of local facilities are detention centers, where

youth stay for relatively short periods of time. In state facilities, such

as training schools, stays are generally longer.

Group homes outnumber all

other types of facilities

Detention centers tend to be local facilities, long-term secure

facilities tend to be state facilities, and group homes tend to be

private facilities

Receptioril Ranch! LongFacility Detention diagnostic Group Boot wilderness term

operation Total center Shelter center home carop ca,p secure

Total 2,964 769 289 104 1,136 56 157 389

Facility type by operation

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Public 40 80 28 52 18 68 39 67

State 17 18 5 42 10 25 16 56

Local 23 62 22 10 7 43 23 12

Private 60 19 72 48 82 32 61 33

Operation by facility type

Total 100% 26% 10% 4% 38% 2% 5% 13%

Public 100 52 7 5 17 3 5 22

State 100 27 3 9 23 3 5 42

Local 100 71 10 1 12 4 5 7

Private 100 8 12 3 53 1 5 7

• Reception/diagnostic centers are nearly as likely to be private facilities as

they are to be public facilities. Boot camps are more likely to be public facilities than private facilities; however, a substantial proportion of boot camps

are private.

• The majority of shelters and ranch/wilderness camps are private facilities.

• Detention centers made up 71% of all local facilities and 52% of all public

facilities.

• Long-term secure facilities accounted for 42% of all state facilities.

• Group homes account for 53% of all private facilities.

Note: The total number of facilities includes facilities that did not identify themselves as

one of the described facility types. Row percents may sum to more than the total because facilities could select more than one facility type category. Detail may not total

100% because of rounding.

Source: Author's analysis of OJJDP's Juvenile Residential Facility Census for 2002

[machine .readable data file].

JRFC asks respondents to identify

the type of facility (detention center, shelter, reception/diagnostic

center, group home/halfway house,

boot camp, ranch/forestry/wilderness camp/marine program, or

training school/long-term secure facility). Although respondents were

allowed to select more than one facility type category, the vast majority (88%) selected only one category.

More than 1,100 facilities that identified themselves as group homes/

halfway houses were holding juvenile offenders on the census date in

2002. Group homes made up 38% of

all facilities and held 12% of juvenile

offenders. Facilities identifying

themselves as detention centers

were the second most common

type of facility (26%). Detention centers held 40% of juvenile offenders.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-10 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 25 of 25
Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

uLa

Security features vary across types of facilities

Public and private facilities differ

in their degree of security

Overall in 2002, 32% of facilities that

reported security information in

JRFC said that at least some of the

time they lock youth in their sleeping rooms to confine them. Very few

private facilities locked youth in

sleeping rooms (7%). Among public

facilities, 73% of local facilities and

58% of state facilities reported locking youth in sleeping rooms.

Percent of facilities, 2002:

Locked

Facility sleeping rooms

Total 32%

Public 66

State 58

Local 73

Private 7

Among facilities that reported they

locked youth in sleeping rooms,

three-quarters said they did this

when the youth were out of control.

One-quarter did so when youth

were suicidal. Locking youth in their

rooms during shift changes was fairly common (43%). More than half

(54%) said they locked sleeping

rooms whenever youth were in

them. Locking sleeping rooms at

night was more common (87%). Just

over one-quarter said youth were

locked in their sleeping rooms part

of each day. A few facilities said

they locked youth in their rooms

most of each day (1%) or all of each

day (1%). Six percent said they

rarely locked youth in sleeping

rooms (they had no set schedule).

Facilities indicated whether they

had various types of locked doors

or gates intended to confine youth

within the facility or to keep intruders out (see boxes on this page and

the next). Nearly half of all facilities

that reported security information

said they had one or more confinement features (other than locked

sleeping rooms). Among public facilities, the proportion was 78%. In

contrast, among private facilities, it

was 24%.

Percent of facilities, 2002:

Confinement features

Facility None One or more

Total 53% 47%

Public 22 78

State 20 80

Local 23 77

Private 76 24

Among detention centers and training schools that reported security

information, about 9 in 10 said they

had one or more confinement features (other than locked sleeping

rooms).

Facilities reporting one or more confinement features other than locked

sleeping rooms, 2002:

Facility Number Percent

Total 1,320 47%

Detention center 689 91

Shelter 71 25

Reception/diagnostic 71 70

Group home 171 16

Boot camp 42 75

Ranch!

wilderness camp 29 19

Long-term secure 336 87

Other 166 35

Among group homes and ranch/

wilderness camp facilities, fewer

than 2 in 10 said they had locked

doors or gates to confine youth. A

facility's staff, of course, also provides security. In some facilities, remote location is a security feature

that keeps youth from leaving.

Overall, 16% of facilities reported

fences (or walls) with razor wire.

This arrangement was most common in detention centers (39%),

training schools (37%), and boot

camps (32%).

JRFC asks facilities about

their security features

Are any young persons in this facility locked into their sleeping rooms

by staff at any time to confine

them?

Does this facility have any of the

following features intended to confine young persons withIn specific

areas?

• Doors for secure day rooms

that are locked by staff to confine young persons within specific areas?

I Wing, floor, corridor, or other internal security doors that are:

locked by staff to confine young

persons within specific areas?

• Outside doors that are locked

by staff to confine young persons within specIfic buildings?

• External gates in fences or

walls WIThOUT razor wire that

are locked by staff tt) confine

young persons?

• External gates in fences or

walls WITH razor wire that are

locked by staff to confine young

persons?

Are outsIde doors to any buildings

with llving/sleeptng units in this facility ever locked? If yes, why?

a To keep intruders out?

• To keep young persons inside

this facility?

JRFC did not ask about security

features such as roll call (resident

counts), cameras, or guard towers.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-11 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 24
Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

I Ii

Eight in ten juvenile offenders in custody in 2003

were held in locked rather than staff-secure facilities

Security arrangements varied by

facility characteristics

Juvenile residential placement facilities vary in their degree of security.

The use of fences, walls, and surveillance equipment is increasingly

common in juvenile facilities, although security hardware is generally not as elaborate as that found

in adult jails and prisons. National

accreditation standards for juvenile

facilities express a preference for relying on staff, rather than on hardware, to provide security. The guiding principle is to house juvenile

offenders in the "least restrictive

placement alternative." Staff security measures include periodically

taking counts of the youth held,

using classification and separation

procedures, and maintaining an

adequate ratio of security staff to

juveniles.

Locked outside doors were to

keep intruders out more than

to keep residents ln&de the

facility

Among the 80% of facilities that reported to the 2002 JRFC that they

locked outside doors to buildings

with sleeping units, 87% saId those

outside doors were locked to keep

intruders out and 50% said doors

were locked to keep residents Inside the facility (37% saId doors

were locked for both reasons). Public facilities were more likely than

private facilities to lock doors to

keep residents inside (79% vs.

25%), although many public facilities (60%) saId they also locked

doors to keep Intruders out. Private

facilities were more likely than pub--

lic facilities to lock doors to keep

intruders out (92% vs. 81%). Few

private facilities (17%) said they

also locked doors to keep residents

inside.

CJRP asks facilities a series of questions about their use of locked

doors or gates during daytime operating hours and nighttime sleeping

hours. In 2003, facilities reported

that daytime locks confined 8 in 10

juvenile offenders at least some of

the time. This represents an increase over 1997, when 7 in 10 offenders were housed in facilities

with locked arrangements. The vast

majority of juveniles in public facilities were confined in facilities with

locked security arrangements.

Daytime security profile of offenders,

2003:

StaffFacility type Total Locked secure

Total 100% 81% 19%

Public 100 94 6

Private 100 53 47

Tribal 100 45 55

Most youth in facilities with daytime locks were in facilities that

held all youth under the same security arrangements. More than 7 in

10 youth in locked facilities were in

facilities that locked a perimeter

fence or wall, the main entrance, or

living units during the day for all

youth. Smaller proportions of youth

were in facilities where all youth

were confined during the day by

locked sleeping rooms, day rooms,

classrooms, or infirmaries.

Percent of youth in daytime locked

facilities, 2003:

Area within Locked Locked

locked facilities for some for all

Perimeter 1% 73%

Main entrance 1 72

Living units 5 75

Sleeping rooms 9 59

Day rooms 2 52

Classrooms 4 35

Cafeteria 3 47

Infirmary 3 61

Security arrangements also

varied by placement status and

offense category

Overall, a larger proportion of committed juveniles than detained juveniles were held in facilities relying

on staff security. This difference

stemmed from variation in security

arrangements within private facilities. Security arrangements in public facilities varied little—more than

90% of both committed and detained offenders were in locked

facilities.

Daytime security profile of offenders,

2003:

Placement Stafftype Total Locked secure

Total 100% 81% 19%

Detained 100 91 9

Committed 100 77 23

Public 100 94

Detained 100 93

Committed 100 94

Private 100 53 47

Detained 100 70 30

Committed 100 50 50

Juveniles in residential placement

for homicide, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, arson, and

technical violations were the most

likely to be held behind locked

doors or gates. Compared with juveniles held for delinquency offenses,

those in residential placement for

status offenses were more likely to

be confined under staff-secure

arrangements (19% vs. 32%). However, substantial variation existed

within the status offense categories.

Juveniles held for underage drinking

or possession of alcohol were nearly as likely to be held in facilities

with locked arrangements as those

held for delinquency offenses.

-

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-11 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 24
Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

Daytime security profile of offenders,

2003:

Most serious Staffoffense Total Locked secure

Delinquency 100% 81% 19%

Person 100 83 17

Homicide 100 92 8

Sexualassault 100 85 15

Robbery 100 85 15

Aggr. assault 100 84 16

Simple assault 100 77 23

Other person 100 82 18

Property 100 80 20

Burglary 100 81 19

Theft 100 79 21

Auto theft 100 78 22

Arson 100 84 16

Other property 100 80 20

Drug 100 73 27

Drug trafficking 100 76 24

Other drug 100 73 27

Public order 100 82 18

Weapons 100 81 19

Other public

order 100 82 18

Technical

violation 100 84 16

Status 100 68 32

Ungovernability 100 58 42

Running away 100 75 25

Truancy 100 64 36

Curfew 100 77 23

Underage

drinking 100 78 22

Other status

offenses 100 88 12

Demographic variation in security

arrangements reflected offense

variations

Minority juveniles were more likely

than white juveniles to be in facilities with locked doors or gates.

Among minorities, Hispanic youth

were more likely to be held under

locked arrangements than were

other minorities.

Daytime security profile of offenders,

2003:

Race! Staffethnicity Total Locked secure

White 100% 79% 21%

Minority 100 82 18

Black 100 81 19

Hispanic 100 84 16

Amer. Indian 100 81 19

Asian 100 78 22

Other 100 72 28

However, within offense categories,

the difference between the proportions of white and minority youth

held under locked arrangements diminished. This was especially true

for those held for serious offenses.

For example, among those held for

homicide, locked doors or gates

confined 92% of white youth and

92% of minority youth.

The proportion of juveniles held in

facilities with locked arrangements

was somewhat greater for youth

ages 18 and older (82%) than for

youth 12 and younger (78%) but

didn't really vary much by age.

Across all ages, about 8 in 10 youth

were in locked facilities. Females

were more likely than males to be

held under locked arrangements.

Daytime security profile of offenders,

2003:

Offense type/ Staffgender Total Locked secure

Total

Male 100% 80% 20%

Female 100 84 16

Delinquency

Male 100 81 19

Female 100 86 14

Person

Male 100 83 17

Female 100 85 15

Property

Male 100 79 21

Female 100 85 15

Drug

Male 100 73 27

Female 100 78 22

Public order

Male 100 81 19

Female 100 88 12

Technical violation

Male 100 83 17

Female 100 88 12

Status

Male 100 66% 34

Female 100 72 28

Overall, the race/ethnicity, age, and

gender differences in the proportion

of juveniles held under locked

rather than staff-secure arrangements were largely related to offense variations among the demographic groups. Differences may

also reflect facilities' use of locks to

protect the residents from outside

intruders.

The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act prohibits

placement of status offenders In secure facilities

The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002 states that luvefiles charged with or who have committed offenses that would not be criminal

if committed by an adult or offenses which do not constitute violations of vand

court orders or alien juveniles In custody or such nonoffenders as dependent

or neglected children shall not be placed In secure detention facilities or se

cure correctional facilities Federal regulations have interpreted the Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act to permit youth charged with status offenses to be held In secure juvenile facilities for up to 24 hours following the mltial contact with law enforcement or the court

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-11 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 3 of 24
Large tacilities were most likely

to be state operated

Very few state-operated facilities

held 10 or fewer residents in 2002.

In contrast, 46% of private facilities

(807 of 1,773) were that small. In

fact, these small facilities made

up the largest share of private

facilities.

Although state-operated facilities

made up just 17% of all facilities,

they accounted for 66% of facilities

holding more than 200 residents. In

contrast, private facilities made up

60% of all facilities, but they accounted for 80% of facilities holding

10 or fewer residents.

Security increases as facility

size increases

Among the largest facilities (those

with more than 200 residents) that

reported security information, 86%

said they lock youth in their sleeping rooms to confine them at least

some of the time. The vast majority

of these large facilities (90%) said

they had one or more features

(locked doors or gates) intended to

confine youth. Although the use of

razor wire is a far less common se--

curity measure, more than 6 in 10 of

these large facilities said they had

locked gates in fences or walls with

razor wire.

Percent of facilities reporting confinement features, 2002:

Facility Sleeping One or

size rooms more Razor

(residents) locked features wire

Total 32% 47% 16%

1-10 10 19 3

11-20 24 41 10

21-50 45 64 24

51-100 47 70 29

101-200 69 85 34

201-972 86 90 64

Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

i:u i

Most facilities were small (fewer than 50 residents)

but most offenders were in large facilities

In 2002, more than half of facilities were small (20 or fewer

residents) but nearly half of juvenile offenders were held in large

facilities (more than 100 residents)

Facilities Juvenile offenders

Facility size Number Percent Number Percent

Total facilities 2,964 100% 102,388 100%

1-10 residents 1,003 34 4,845 5

11-20 residents 648 22 7,806 8

21-50 residents 704 24 19,819 19

51 –1 00 residents 350 12 20,630 20

101-200 residents 171 6 21,664 21

201-972 residents 88 3 27,624 27

• Although the largest facilities—those holding more than 200 residents—

accounted for only 3% of all facilities, they held 27% of juvenile offenders in

custody nationwide.

• Inversely, although the smallest facilities—those holding 10 or fewer

residents—accounted for 34% of all facilities, they held only 5% of juvenile

offenders in custody.

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of rounding.

Source: Authors' analysis of OJJDP's Juvenile Residential Facility Census for 2002

{machine-readable data file].

Small group homes holding 20 or fewer residents were the most

common type of facility—accounting for 1 in 3 facilities overall

Facility type

Facility size Reception! Ranch/ Long-

(number of Detention diagnostic Group Boot wilderness term

residents) center Shelter center home camp camp secure

Totalfacilities 769 289 104 1,136 56 157 389

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

1-10 18 46 13 59 0 4 2

11-20 20 31 15 26 9 10 10

21-50 34 15 18 10 36 50 29

51-100 15 6 24 4 34 25 21

101-200 9 2 18 0 20 10 23

201-972 5 0 12 0 2 2 16

• Facilities that held 10 or fewer residents accounted for 59% of group homes,

46% of shelters, and less than 20% for each of the other facility types.

• Facilities that held more than 200 residents accounted for 16% of long-term

facilities and 12% of reception!diagnostic centers. For other facility types,

the proportion was 5% or less.

Notes: Facilities could select more than one facility type category. Detail may not total

100% because of rounding.

Source: Authors' analysis of OJJDP's Juvenile Residential Facility Census for 2002

[machine-readable data file].

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-11 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 4 of 24
Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

...i i.

Facility crowding affects a substantial proportion of

youth in custody

Many juvenile offenders are in

facilities that have more

residents than standard beds

Facilities reported both the number

of standard beds and the number of

occupied makeshift beds on the

census date. A facility's occupancy

rate is a broad indicator of the adequacy of its living space. Although

national standards have not been

established in this area, a facility's

operational functioning may become impaired as its occupancy

rate approaches 100%.

Crowding occurs when the number

of residents occupying all or part of

a facility exceeds some predetermined limit based on square footage,

utility use, or even fire codes. Although not a perfect measure of

crowding, comparing the number of

residents to the number of standard

beds gives a sense of the crowding

problem in a facility. However, even

if it is not relying on makeshift beds

(e.g., cots, roll-out beds, mattresses,

sofas), a facility may be crowded.

For example, using standard beds in

an infirmary for youth who are not

sick or beds in seclusion for youth

who have not committed infractions

may indicate crowding problems.

In 2002, 36% of facilities responding

to JRFC said that the number of residents they held on the census date

put them at or over the capacity of

their standard beds or that they relied on some makeshift beds. These

facilities held more than 39,300 residents, the vast majority of whom

were offenders younger than 21:

34% of all residents held on the

2002 census date and 34% of offenders younger than 21 were held in facilities operating at or above their

standard bed capacity. In comparison, in 2000, such facilities repre--

sented 39% of all facilities and held

40% of all residents. In 2002, facilities

Compared with other types of facilities, public detention centers

and reception/diagnostic centers were more likely to be at or over

the limit of their standard bed capacity in 2002

Percent of facilities at Percent of facilities over

standard bed capacity standard bed capacity

Type of facility Total Public Private Total Public Private

Total 30% 16% 39% 6% 15% 1%

Detention center 14 10 34 18 21 2

Shelter 17 15 18 2 5 0

Reception/diagnostic center 26 19 34 10 17 2

Group home 43 29 46 1 3 1

Boot camp 16 13 22 5 5 6

Ranch/wilderness camp 25 26 24 2 2 2

Training school 23 19 31 9 13 1

Notes: A single bed is counted as one standard bed and a bunk bed is counted as two

standard beds. Makeshift beds (e.g., cots, roll-out beds, matiresses, sofas) are not counted as standard beds. Facilities are counted as over capacity if they reported more residents than standard beds or if they reported any occupied makeshift beds. Facilities

could select more than one facility type category. Totals include data from nine tribal

facilities.

Source: Authors' analysis of OJJDP's Juvenile Residential Facility Census for 2002

[machine-readable data tile].

Larger facilities were more likely than smaller facilities to be

crowded

Facility size Percent of facilities under/at'

(number of Number of over standard bed capacity Mean number of

residents) facilities Under At Over makeshift beds

Total 2964 64% 30% 6% 10

1-10 1,003 61 38 1 2

11-20 648 63 34 3 3

21-50 704 66 24 10 7

51-100 350 69 17 14 11

101-200 171 63 20 16 21

201-972 88 66 17 17 18

Notes: A single bed is counted as one standard bed and a bunk bed is counted as two

standard beds. Makeshift beds (e.g., cots, roll-out beds, matiresses, sofas) are not counted as standard beds. Facilities are counted as over capacity if they reported more residents than standard beds or if they reported any occupied makeshift beds.

Source: Authors' analysis of OJJDP's Juvenile Residential Facility Census for 2002

[machine-readable data file].

that reported being over capacity but held 14% of juvenile offenders.

(having fewer standard beds than In comparison, in 2000, over-capacity

residents or relying on makeshift facilities accounted for 7% of facilibeds) accounted for 6% of facilities ties and held 16% of offenders.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-11 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 5 of 24
187

2

4

2

20

4

5

3

5

4

94

12

5

23

32

13

48

9

5

8

16

27

16

2

13

2

6

12

15

8

1

3

0

10

15

1

2

0

2

0

3

0

2

4

3

0

48

19

16

11

5

36

20

113

52

5

58

24

29

125

4

29

13

39

86

3

49

33

13

69

20

1,894

39

14

40

25

135

41

17

3

9

88

27

4

17

38

75

46

38

39

40

10

22

20

67

79

14

2,964

48

23

SI

35

286

65

26

6

13

181

53

5

22

45

95

65

56

50

62

14

43

68

94

100

17

882

7

5

9

10

136

16

8

0

4

83

11

0

4

6

18

19

16

11

19

4

19

44

24

21

2

14%

9

59

16

0

10

36

7

83

0

11

30

65

5

2

8

0

5

0

5

0

13

9

4

0

72

24

19

18

8

49

27

221

66

11

97

56

45

179

14

38

22

58

129

47

5

71

40

23

81

21

20%

7

12

7

22

19

25

26

0

14

40

8

0

6

4

19

36

47

13

13

42

41

59

14

16

2

7%

6

33

31

0

31

15

19

4

3

21

0

8

5

64

27

13

28

4

0

18

18

24

0

0

7%

5

0

39

70

9

9

25

7

28

12

42

25

33

23

7

31

15

11

26

28

16

10

29

2

4

2

2

0

8

3

14

2

16

0

3

6

4

3

16

2

0

9

5

4

0

0

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

U.S. total

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Dist. of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

Nationwide in 2002, 1,069 facilities (36%) were at or over standard bed capacity or relied on some

makeshift beds

Percent of Percent of

juvenile offenders juvenile offenders

Number of facilities in facilities at or Number of facilities in facilities at or

under, at, or over capacity over capaciy under, at, or over capacity over capacity

State Total Under At Over At Over State Total Under At Over At Over

Notes: A single bed is counted as one standard bed and a bunk bed is counted as two standard beds. Makeshift beds (e.g., cots, roll-out

beds, mattresses, sofas) are not counted as standard beds. Facilities are counted as over capacity if they reported more residents than

standard beds or if they reported any occupied makeshift beds. State is the state where the facility is located. Offenders sent to out-ofstate facilities are counted in the state where the facility is located, not the state where their offense occurred.

•US total includes nine tribal facilities. These tribal facilities were located in Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Oklahoma, and South Dakota.

One of the nine tribal facilities had more residents than standard beds.

Source: Authors' analysis of OJJDP's Juvenile Residential Facility Census for 2002 [machine-readable data file].

On the 2002 census date, public

facilities were more likely than

private facilities to be crowded

Among publicly operated facilities,

15% were over their standard bed

capacity or had residents occupying makeshift beds in 2002. For private facilities, the figure was 1%. A

large proportion of private facilities

(39%), however, said they were

operating at 100% capacity. Stateoperated public facilities had a

somewhat greater proportion of

facilities that were over capacity

(17%) than did locally run public facilities (13%).

Percent of facilities under, at, or over

their standard bed capacity:

Under At Over

Total 64% 300/c 6%

Public 69 16 15

State 63 20 17

Local 74 13 13

Private 60 39 1

Note: Totals include data from nine tribal

facilities.

Use of makeshift beds varied

More than 250 facilities had occupied makeshift beds (averaging 10

per facility). Many facilities rely on

makeshift beds, yet many others operate below standard capacity (averaging 7 unoccupied beds). These

averages mask a wide range: one facility with 162 residents had 72 standard beds and 90 residents without

standard beds; one facility with

1,272 standard beds had 972 residents, leaving 300 unoccupied beds.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-11 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 6 of 24
Reception/diagnostic centers, boot camps, and long-term secure

facilities were more likely than other types of facilities to screen

all youth for substance abuse problems in 2002

Substance Facility type

abuse Reception! Ranch! Longevaluation Detention diagnostic Group Boot wilderness term

practice center Shelter center home camp camp secure

Total facilities 769 289 104 1,136 56 157 389

Facilities reporting 753 280 101 1,074 56 153 386

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

All youth evaluated 63 48 74 56 71 69 72

Some youth

evaluated 18 30 20 23 14 12 16

No youth evaluated 19 22 6 21 14 20 13

Notes: Facilities could select more than one facility type category. Detail may not total

100% because of rounding.

Source: Authors' analysis of OJJDP's Juvenile Residential Facility Census for 2002

[machine-readable data file].

Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

... .:.u..

Most youth are in facilities that screen for substance

abuse. mental health needs, and suicide risk

Facilities screening all youth for

substance abuse problems held

67% of offenders in custody

As part of the information collected

on substance abuse services, the

JRFC questionnaire asks facilities

about their procedures regarding

screening youth for substance

abuse problems.

In 2002, 61% of facilities that reported substance abuse screening information said they evaluated all youth

to determine whether they had substance abuse problems (problems

with drugs and/or alcohol). An additional 20% said they evaluated some

youth. Some facilities (19%) said

they did not screen any youth.

In facilities that reported substance

abuse screening information, facilities that screened all youth held

67% of juvenile offenders. Facilities

that screened some youth held an

additional 16% of offenders.

Of the facilities that said they

screened some but not all youth,

most screened youth identified as

having substance abuse problems84% said they screened youth identified by the court or probation officer, 80% said they screened those

identified by facility staff. Some facilities (69%) also targeted youth for

substance abuse evaluation if they

had a drug or alcohol-related offense. A small proportion of facilities listed other triggers for substance abuse screening, including a

parent or youth request, any youth

adjudicated for a delinquency offense, and youth without previous

screening information. A few facilities said they screened a certain

proportion of youth (e.g., every

third youth admitted).

The most common approach to substance abuse evaluations in 2002

was to screen all youth on the day

they arrived at the facility. One in

three facilities that screened for

substance abuse problems screened

all youth on their first day. These facilities held 34% of offenders in

screening facilities. The second

most common approach was to

screen all youth between the first

day and the end of the first week

(27% of facilities holding 30% of

offenders).

Most substance abuse screening

involved staff-administered

questions or observations

The most commonly reported

method of determining whether

offenders had substance abuse

problems was a series of staffadministered questions (reported

by 73% of facilities that said they

conducted evaluations). Visual observations were also common

(66%). Just over half of facilities

(55%) used self-report methods

(standardized instruments or checklist inventories).

73% of facilities holding 77% of

offenders conduct urinalysis for

drug use

Many facilities said they require

urine samples from all youth upon

initial admission, each time they

reenter the facility, or at randomly

scheduled times (37% of reporting

facilities). These facilities held 37%

of offenders in reporting facilities.

An additional 35% of facilities holding 40% of offenders urine-tested a

subset of youth or tested only when

it was requested by the court or

probation officer or when drug use

was suspected.

Most offenders were held in

facilities providing onsite

substance abuse services

Of the facilities reporting information on substance abuse services,

66% provided onsite services. These

facilities held 83% of offenders in reporting facilities.

The most commonly reported onsite service was substance abuse

education (97% of facilities),

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-11 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 7 of 24
Reception/diagnostic centers and long-term secure facilities were

more likely than other types of facilities to have in-house mental

health professionals evaluate all youth for mental health needs

Mental health

evaluation Facility type

practice Reception! Ranch! Long-

(by in-house Detention diagnostic Group Boot wilderness term

professional) center Shelter center home camp camp secure

Total facilities 769 289 104 1,136 56 157 389

Facilities reporting 591 179 96 825 52 157 389

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

All youth evaluated 30 33 66 57 46 45 64

Some youth

evaluated 62 46 34 22 40 35 32

No youth evaluated 8 21 0 21 13 20 4

Notes: Facilities could select more than one facility type category. Detail may not total

100% because of rounding.

Source: Authors' analysis of OJJDP's Juvenile Residential Facility Census for 2002

[machine-readable data lilel.

Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

followed by the development of

treatment plans (69%) and therapy

provided by a substance abuse

treatment professional (individual

therapy, 69%, or group therapy,

67%). Individual or group counseling

provided by someone other than a

substance abuse treatment professional was also quite common (60%

each).

Two in ten facilities said that all

youth in the facility received ongoing, onsite specialized therapy or

counseling for substance abuse

problems. Seven in ten facilities said

they provided onsite therapy or

counseling for substance abuse

problems on a case-by-case basis.

The remaining 1 in 10 reported

other sorts of policies or did not

provide onsite therapy or counseling as part of their substance abuse

services.

Relatively few offenders were

in facilities relying on oftsite

substance abuse services

Of the facilities reporting information on substance abuse services,

20% relied on offsite substance

abuse services. These facilities

held 6% of offenders in reporting

facilities.

Substance abuse education was the

most commonly reported offsite

substance abuse service (81% of facilities). The next most commonly

reported offsite substance abuse

services were professional therapy

(individual, 75%, or group, 69%), Alcoholics Anonymous (70%), Narcotics Anonymous (64%), and treatment plan development (65%).

In 5 of 10 facilities, in-house

mental health professionals

evaluate all youth held

In JRFC, facilities provided information about their procedures for

evaluating youth's mental health

needs. Among the 2,287 facilities

that reported mental health evaluation information in 2002, 53% said

that in-house mental health professionals evaluate all youth to determine mental health needs. An additional 34% said in-house mental

health professionals evaluate some,

but not all, youth.

Profile of in-house mental health

evaluations:

Youth evaluated 2000 2002

Facilities reporting 2,201 2,287

Total 100% 100%

All youth 50 53

Some youth 36 34

No youth 14 13

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

In 2002, a greater proportion of privately operated than publicly operated facilities said that in-house

mental health professionals evaluated all youth (62% vs. 4 1%). However, public facilities reported a

greater proportion of facilities that

had at least some youth evaluated

by an in-house mental health professional (91% vs. 84%).

Profile of in-house mental health

evaluations, 2002:

Youth evaluated Public Private

Facilities reporting 950 1,332

Total 100% 100%

All youth 41 62

Some youth 50 22

No youth 10 16

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Facilities also identified the type of

treatment they provided (if any). Facilities that said they provided mental health treatment inside the facility (onsite) were more likely than

other facilities to have a mental

health professional evaluate all

youth (64% vs. 32%). However, not

all facilities that said they provided

onsite mental health treatment said

they had an in-house mental health

professional evaluate youth for mental health needs, It may be that

youth were evaluated before arriving at these facilities or that outside

professionals were contracted to

conduct the evaluations.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-11 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 8 of 24
The most common approach to mental health evaluation in 2002

was to screen all youth by the end of their first week at the facility

Timeframe Percent of juvenile offenders

for in-house Percent of reporting facilities in reporting facilities

mental health Al youth Some youth Al youth Some youth

evaluation Total evaluated evaluated Total evaluated evaluated

Total

By end of day 1

Day 2 through

end of week 1

After week 1

Other

100% 61%

18 15

40 30

19 12

23 5

39% 100% 57% 43%

3 20 17 3

10 39 25 14

7 17 10 7

18 24 5 18

• In 45% of facilities that reported information on their mental health evaluation procedures, all youth were evaluated for mental health needs by an inhouse mental health professional by the end of their first week in custody.

Notes: Data are based on facilities reporting mental health evaluations by in-house professionals. Detail may nol total 100% because of rounding.

Source: Authors' analysis of OJJDP's Juvenile Residential Facility Census for 2002

[machine-readable data file].

Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

Profile of in-house mental health

evaluations, 2002:

Onsite mental

health treatment

Youth evaluated Yes No

Facilities reporting 1,500 787

Total 100% 100%

All youth 64 32

Some youth 27 47

No youth 9 21

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Evaluation of all youth by an inhouse mental health professional

was more likely in large facilities

than small facilities

Among facilities that reported mental health information, 57% of those

with 5 1-100 residents said that all

youth were evaluated for mental

health needs by a mental health

professional. For the largest facilities (with 200 or more residents),

the proportion was 60%. In comparison, proportions were smaller for

facilities housing fewer residents

(e.g., 50% for facilities with 11-20

residents). Large facilities were also

less likely to say that no youth were

evaluated for mental health needs

by an in-house mental health professional. For example, 5% of facilities

with more than 50 residents said no

youth were evaluated by an in-house

mental health professional, compared with 21% of the smallest facilities (10 or fewer residents).

Facilities that screen all youth

for suicide risk hold 81% of the

juvenile offenders in custody

As part of the information collected

on mental health services, the JRFC

questionnaire asks facilities about

their procedures regarding screening youth for suicide risk. In 2002,

68% of the 2,837 facilities that reported information on suicide

screening said they evaluated all

youth for suicide risk. An additional

17% said they evaluated some

youth. The proportion of facilities

reporting that all youth are evaluated for suicide risk increased 6

JRFC defines mental health

professionals by educational

specialties and degrees

Mental health professionals are defined in JRFC as: psychiatrists,

psychologists with at least a master's degree in psychology, or social workers with at least a master's

degree in social work. Counselors

are defined as persons with a master's degree in a field other than

psychology or social work or perSons whose highest degree is a

bachelor's In any field.

percentage points from 2000 to

2002. In both years, some facilities

said they evaluated no youth for

suicide risk.

Profile of suicide risk evaluations:

Youth evaluated 2000 2002

Facilities reporting 2,754 2,837

Total 100% 100%

All youth 62 68

Some youth 24 17

Noyouth 15 15

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

In 2002, a greater proportion of public than private facilities said they

evaluated all youth for suicide risk

(79% vs. 60%). Among facilities that

reported suicide screening information, those that screened all youth

held 81% oF juvenile offenders who

were in residential placement—up

from 78% in 2000.

Profile of suicide risk evaluations:

Youth evaluated 2000 2002

Offenders in facilities

reporting 104,956 100,110

Total 100% 100%

All youth 78 81

Some youth 16 12

No youth 6 7

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-11 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 9 of 24
Most facilities had no suicides or

serious suicide attempts

Eight facilities reported having a

resident die of suicide during the

year; 114 reported a suicide attempt

during the month prior to the census that was serious enough to require hospitalization. These 122 facilities represented less than 4% of

all facilities.

Facilities reporting a suicide or a

past-month attempt requiring

hospitalization, 2002:

Single- Multipurpose purpose*

Facility type facility facility

Total 97 25

Detention 37 6

Shelter 4 10

Reception/diagnostic 1 7

Group home 22 10

Boot camp 1 1

Ranch!

wilderness camp 5 1

Long-term secure 8 15

Other type 19 9

*Counts sum to more than the total number

of facilities because facilities could select

more than one facility type category.

Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

Professional mental health staff

conduct most suicide screening

More than half (56%) of facilities

that screened some or all youth for

suicide risk reported that screenings were conducted by mental

health professionals with at least a

master's degree in psychology or

social work. Some facilities also

used counselors to conduct screenings. Fewer than 1 facility in 5 used

untrained staff to screen for suicide.

Large facilities were more likely

than smaller facilities to screen

all youth for suicide risk

Among the largest facilities (200 or

more residents), 90% of those reporting information on suicide

screening said all youth were

screened for suicide risk. In comparison, proportions were smaller

for facilities housing fewer residents

(e.g., 70% for facilities with 11-20

residents). Large facilities were less

likely to say that no youth were

screened for suicide risk. For example, among facilities with 200 or

more residents, 1% said no youth

were screened for suicide risk, compared with 15% of the smallest facilities (10 or fewer residents).

Reception/diagnostic centers and long-term secure facilities were

more likely than other types of facilities to screen all youth for

suicide risk in 2002

Suicide Facility type

risk Reception! Ranch! Longevaluation Detention diagnostic Group Boot wilderness term

practice center Shelter center home camp camp secure

Total facilities 769 289 104 1,136 56 157 389

Facilities reporting 754 280 101 1,074 56 153 386

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

All youth evaluated 84 57 85 55 68 62 82

Some youth

evaluated 10 24 12 20 16 13 12

No youth evaluated 6 19 3 24 16 25 6

The most common approach to suicide risk evaluation in 2002

was to screen all youth on the day they arrive at the facility

Percent of

Percent of juvenile offenders

Timeframe for reporting facilities in reporting facilities

suicide risk ,Jl youth Some youth AJl youth Some youth

evaluation Total evaluated evaluated Total evaluated evaluated

Total 100% 80% 20% 100% 88% 12%

By end of day 1 66 61 5 74 70 4

Day 2 through

end of week 1 15 11 4 12 10

After week 1 4 3 1 4 3

Other 15 6 9 10 5

• Facilities that screened all youth and did so on the youth's first day accounted for 61% of facilities that screened for suicide risk; they held 70% of the

juvenile offenders in facilities that reported suicide screening.

Notes: Facilities could select more than one facility type category. Data are based on facilities reporting suicide risk evaluations. Detail may not total 100% because of rounding.

Source:Authors' analysis of OJJDP's Juvenile Residential Facility Census for 2002

Emachine-readable data file].

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-11 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 10 of 24
Deaths of juveniles in custody

are relatively rare

According to the 2002 JRFC, 26

youth died while in the legal custody of juvenile facilities, down from

30 in 2000 and 45 in 1994. The 2002

deaths occurred in 24 facilities: 22

facilities each reported a single

death; 2 facilities each reported 2

deaths.

More than half of the deaths reported in 2002 occurred inside the facility (14 of 26). Public facilities accounted for most of the deaths that

occurred inside the facility. Private

facilities accounted for most of the

deaths that occurred outside the facility.

Overall, public facilities reported 16

deaths; private facilities reported 10

deaths. Deaths inside the facility accounted for most deaths reported

by public facilities. Deaths outside

the facility accounted for most

deaths reported by private facilities.

Suicide was the most common

cause of death. All facilities reporting suicides said they evaluate all

residents for suicide risk, and all

but two said they evaluate residents

within 24 hours of arrival. One facility said it evaluates by the end of

the first week, and one said youth

are screened for suicide risk at detention intake and if referred for

screening by a counselor.

A total of 122 facilities holding juvenile offenders reported transporting

at least one juvenile to a hospital

emergency room because of a suicide attempt. None of these facilities also reported a suicide death.

Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

I

The death rate was lower for youth in custody than

for youth in the general population

Suicide was the leading cause of death for juveniles in custody

during the 12 months prior to the census, followed by accidents

Number of deaths

Inside the facility Outside the facility

Cause of death Total All Public Private All Public Private

Total 26 14 11 3 12

Suicide 10 8 7 1 2

Accident 6 1 1 5

Illness/natural 6 4 2 2 2

Homicide 2 0 0 0 2

Other 2 1 1 0 1

• For youth ages 13-17 in the general population, accidents were the leading

cause of death, followed by homicide and suicide.

Note: Data are reported deaths of youth in custody from October 1, 2001, through September 30, 2002. Reported homicides were attributed to nonresidents,

Source: Authors' analysis of OJJDP's Juvenile Residential Facility Census for 2002

[machine-readable data file].

Are youth In custody at greater risk of death than youth In

general?

There has been concern about the risk of death to youth In custody and

whether that risk is greater than the risk faced by youth in the general population. Death rates for the general population (detailed by age, sex, race, ethnicity, and cause of death) can be applied to data for the population held In juvenile residential facilities to calculate the number of deaths that would be

expected if the custody population had the same rate of death as the general

population. Overall, the actual deaths reported to JRFC were substantially

lower than the expected deaths. The expected number of deaths was more

than 2.5 times the actual number of deaths reported.

Number of deaths in

juvenile facIlities, 2002

Cause of death Expected Actual

All deaths (Includes causes not detailed) 62 26

SuicIde 8 10

Homicide (and legal interventIon) 20 2

Unintentional (illness, accident, etc.) 34 12

The expected number of homicides was 10 times the actual number. The expected number of unintentional deaths was nearly 3 times the actual number.

The expected number of suicides was nearly the same as the reported

number.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-11 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 11 of 24
Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

. i.: -

Officials reported 2,821 sexual violence allegations in

juvenile facilities in 2004-3 in 10 were substantiated

Congress requested statistics on

sexual violence in facilities

The Prison Rape Elimination Act of

2003 (PREA) requires the Bureau of

Justice Statistics (BJS) to report the

incidence and prevalence of sexual

violence in adult and juvenile detention and correctional facilities. For

this work, sexual violence is divided

into (1) youth-on-youth nonconsensual sexual acts, (2) youth-on-youth

abusive sexual contacts, (3) staff-onyouth sexual misconduct, and (4)

staff-on-youth sexual harassment

that includes verbal harassment.

(See box on next page for formal

definitions.) In the first wave of data

collection, BJS gathered information

on incidents reported to correctional authorities during 2004. In upcoming years, BJS will move beyond

officially reported incidents by conducting confidential interviews with

youth.

Local and private juvenile

facilities reported more incidents

than state-operated facilities

Of the estimated 2,821 allegations of

sexual violence reported by authorities in juvenile facilities in 2004, 59%

were youth-on-youth incidents and

41% were staff-on-youth incidents.

Within the youth-on-youth incidents, 2 of every 3 were nonconsensual sexual acts. Within the staf f-onyouth incidents, 3 of every 4 were

staff sexual misconducts.

One-third (33%) of all reported incidents of sexual violence against juveniles occurred in state-operated

facilities and two-thirds (67%) occurred in local or privately operated

facilities. Staff-on-youth violence accounted for a greater proportion of

the incidents in state-operated facilities than in local or privately operated facilities (56% vs. 33%).

Allegations of sexual violence

reported by authorities averaged

1 per 50 beds in 2004

To calculate the relative incidence

of sexual violence in state-operated

facilities and in local or privately

operated facilities, BJS had to control for the different population capacities of the two groups of facilities. In theory, the rate could be

calculated using either the number

of youth admitted in a defined time

period (e.g., a year) or the number

of youth in the facilities on an average day (i.e., the average daily population—or ADP).

In reality, it is difficult to obtain a

comparable count from facility to facility of the number of youth admitted in a year. Individual youth may

move in and out of the facility for

various reasons during what some

would consider a single admission

while others would count each inand-out incident as a separate admission. ADP is a far more reliable

measure of a facility's population

and was used by BJS to calculate

the sexual violence incident rate.

For its report, BJS calculated the

rate of sexual violence by dividing

reported incidents in a facility during 2004 by the number of beds in

use in the facility on December 31,

2004. Using this measure, the estimated rate of reported sexual violence in 2004 was 22.6 sexual violence incidents per 1,000 beds in

state-operated juvenile facilities and

16.5 sexual violence incidents per

1,000 beds in locally operated or

private juvenile facilities—or 18.1

sexual violence incidents per 1,000

juvenile beds nationwide. In other

words, a juvenile facility with 50

beds would have been expected to

have about one report of sexual violence in 2004.

In 2004, the allegation rate for

youth-on-youth sexual violence was

similar in state-operated and local

or privately operated juvenile facilities, while the allegation rate for

staff-on-youth sexual violence was

greater in state-operated facilities.

Rates* of sexual violence allegations

reported to authorities in facilities:

Local!

Sexual violence State private

Total 22.6 16.5

Youth-on-youth 9.9 11.1

Nonconsensual 6.7 7.3

Abusive contacts 3.2 3.8

Staff-on-youth 12.7 5.4

Sexual misconduct 11.3 3.2

Sexual harassment 1.3 2.2

Rates are allegations per 1,000 beds

About 30% of reports of sexual

violence in juvenile facilities

were substantiated

BJS also asked facilities how they

handled reports of sexual violence.

BJS found that allegations of sexual

violence inside state, local, and private juvenile correctional facilities

are normally investigated by an authority external to the facility and

the juvenile correctional system

(e.g., child protective services, state

or local law enforcement).

Most local or private juvenile facilities (79%) and state juvenile correctional systems (64%) reported that

external authorities had sole or

shared responsibility for investigating allegations of youth-on-youth

sexual violence. External authorities

had sole or shared responsibility for

investigating allegations of staff sexual misconduct in 72% of state juvenile correctional systems and 74%

of local or private juvenile facilities.

The findings of these investigations

can fall into three categories:

substantiated (i.e., the event was

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-11 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 12 of 24
Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correclional facilities

determined to have occurred); unsubstantiated (i.e., there was insufficient evidence to determine if the

event had occurred); and unfounded (i.e., it was determined that the

event had not occurred). After investigation, 25% of sexual violence

reports in state-operated facilities

and 32% in local or privately operated facilities were substantiated. Reports of youth-on-youth violence

were substantiated more often than

were staff-on-youth reports.

Percent of reported sexual violence

allegations that were substantiated:

Local/

Sexual violence State private

Total 25% 32%

Youth-on-youth 35 40

Nonconsensual 33 33

Abusive contacts 40 51

Staff-on-youth 17 15

Sexual misconduct 15 17

Sexual harassment 31 13

The somewhat higher rate of sexual

violence allegations in state-operated

juvenile facilities and their somewhat lower substantiation percentage resulted in similar rates of substantiated incidents of sexual

violence in state-operated and local

or private juvenile facilities—a rate

of 5 substantiated allegations per

1,000 beds per year. This means that

the official records of a 200-bed juvenile facility are likely to contain 1

substantiated allegation of sexual violence per year.

Girls were more likely than boys

to be sexually victimized

BJS reported that 34% of the victims

in the substantiated incidents of

sexual violence in state-operated f acilities were female, although females accounted for just 11% of the

custody population. Similarly, although females represented 17% of

the population in local or private facilities, 37% of the victims in substantiated incidents of sexual violence in these facilities were female.

Although overall, females were more

likely than males to be sexually victimized, males constituted a greater

proportion of the victims of substantiated nonconsensual sexual

acts between youth (78%). Males

and females were equally likely to

be the victims of abusive youth-onyouth sexual contact. In substantiated

incidents of staff sexual misconduct,

females accounted for 32% of the

victims. In substantiated incidents

of sexual violence, a female (youth

or staff) was the perpetrator in 24%

of incidents in local or private facilities and 36% of incidents overall.

Comparing reported sexual

violence rates in juvenile and

adult facilities is problematic

BJS found that the allegation rate of

youth-on-youth nonconsensual sexual acts reported by authorities in

juvenile facilities in 2004 was more

than 6 times the rate of inmate-oninmate nonconsensual sexual acts

reported by authorities in state prisons and more than 7 times the rate

in local jails. Similarly, the rate of

staff sexual misconduct was 10

times greater in state-operated juvenile facilities than in state prisons

and 5 times greater in local or private juvenile facilities than in local

jails.

BJS pointed out that these differences may not reflect actual differences in the levels of sexual violence. For example, all sexual acts

between youth in juvenile facilities

were legally classified as nonconsensual, but consensual acts between inmates were not counted in

adult facilities. In addition, professionals in many states are required

by law to report any suspicion of

child abuse, including sexual contacts among juveniles. Allegations in

juvenile facilities were more likely to

be investigated by external authorities than those in adult facilities,

which might encourage more re--

porting to juvenile facility authorities. Finally, BJS found that the

records systems in juvenile facilities

made responding to the survey easier. In all, BJS concluded sexual violence may be more readily reported

to authorities in juvenile facilities

than in adult facilities.

How the BJS admInIstrative survey measured sexual violence

The PREA study disaggregated sexual violence into two categories of youth

on youth sexual acts and two categories of staff on-youth acts The youth on

youth categories were nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts

Nonconsensual acts included forcible rape sodomy and statutory rape (because the youth were not of consenting age) Abusive sexual contacts were the

intentional touching (either directly or through the clothing) of the genitalia

anus groin breast inner thigh or buttocks

The staff on youth categories were sexual misconduct and sexual harassment

Staffwas defined as an employee, volunteer, official visitor, or agency fepresóntative. Sexual mIsconduct was defined as any consensual or nonconsensual

behavior or act of a sexual nature directed toward a youth by staff and sexual

harassment was defined as repeated verbal statements or comments of a sexual nature to a youth by staff including demeaning references to gender or

derogatory comments about body or clothing or profane or obscene language

or gestures

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-11 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 13 of 24
Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

$ i.

The youth reentry population is characterized by

multiple risk factors

Custody data can give insight

into the reentry population

Based on data from the 1999 Census

of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), it was estimated that

nearly 100,000 juvenile offenders

were released from custody facilities following conviction. Analyses

of the 2003 CJRP data show that the

1-day count of juveniles committed

to facilities following conviction has

declined substantially since 1999.

From 1999 to 2003, the committed

population in custody on the census

day dropped 10%. Thus, the size of

the reentry population is presumably smaller today than it was in

1999. Data from the 2003 CJRP and

2003 Survey of Youth in Residential

Placement (SYRP) provide a current

understanding of the characteristics

of candidates for reentry programs.

The reentry population was

mostly male, minority, 15 or

older, person offenders released

from locked public facilities

With the 2003 CJRP, a demographic

profile of youth who will become

reentry program candidates can be

developed. So as not to overrepresent the characteristics of youth

with very long lengths of stay, the

analysis focuses on committed

youth who had been in a facility

4-6 months—neither a very short

time nor an extremely long time.

These data suggest the following

characteristics of the juvenile reentry population:

• 57% of reentry youth come

from publicly operated facilities,

45% from state-operated public

facilities.

• 43% of reentry youth come from

privately operated facilities.

• 86% are male.

• 40% are white, 38% are black, and

18% are Hispanic.

• 12% are age 14 or younger, 44%

are age 15 or 16, 44% are age 17

or older.

• 34% were committed for a person

offense (most likely simple

assault), 32% for a property

offense (most likely burglary),

10% for a drug offense, 10% for a

public order offense, 10% for a

technical violation of probation

or parole, and 5% for a status

offense.

More than half of these youth were

held in public facilities with doors

or gates that are locked day and

night. More than a third come from

facilities that have living quarters,

wings, floors, or units that are

locked for all youth day and night.

The majority of facilities holding

these youth said they provide onsite treatment (85%), most often

mental health (63%) or substance

abuse (67%) treatment. Fewer than

4 in 10 violent offenders were in facilities providing treatment specifically for violent offenders.

Many reentry candidates had

been in custody before—some

several times

Analyses of the 2003 SYRP data

show that most youth reentry candidates said they had at least one

prior commitment (62%). When

asked about prior convictions and

prior custody experiences, about a

quarter (23%) said they had been

convicted of an offense but had not

been in custody before their current

placement. Some had been in custody before, but had not been convicted before (6%) and some said

that they had not been convicted or

in custody before (8%). Among

those who had been in custody before, 2 in 10 said they had been in

custody only once before, 4 in 10

said they had been held 2-4 times,

and 4 in 10 said they had been held

5 or more times before.

The prior histories of potential

reentry candidates varied somewhat by gender, age, and current offense. Similar proportions of girls

and boys said they had been committed to custody following conviction at least once before. Of those in

custody before, 43% of girls and

39% of boys said they had been

held five or more times. Among

youth age 15 or older, 64% had been

committed before. Surprisingly, for

younger youth the proportion was

58%. Among reentry candidates

whose most serious current offense

was a person offense, 61% said they

had been committed at least once

before, 22% said they had at least

one prior conviction but no prior

custody experiences, 6% said they

had been in custody at least once

before but hadn't been convicted,

and 10% reported no prior convictions or custody experiences.

Among those held for a property offense, 66% said they had been committed at least once before and 6%

reported no prior convictions or

custody experiences. The proportions of property offenders with

prior custody but no prior convictions, or prior convictions but no

prior custody, did not differ from

those of person offenders. Further,

the number of prior custody experiences did not vary much by offense.

Among youth who were previously

in custody and released and subsequently reoffended, 18% committed

offenses that were more serious

than their previous offense, 40%

committed offenses at the same

severity level, and 24% committed

offenses that were less serious than

their prior offense. Girls and older

youth were somewhat more apt

than their counterparts to report a

-

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-11 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 14 of 24
Compared with youth in the general population, at all ages, higher

proportions of youth who are reentry candidates are themselves

parents

General Reentry girls General Reentry boys

population girls population boys

- Youngerthanl5 Age 17 Age 19

Li Age 15 Age 18 • Age 20

Age 16

• Overall, 1 in 11 reentry candidates said they had children of their own.

• Among girls, 6% said they had at least one child and art additional 4% said

they were expecting.

• Older youth were more likely than younger youth to say they had or were

expecting a child.

Source: Authors' adaptation of Sedlak and Bruce's unpublished analysis of National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 2003 data: Children with children and Sedlak and Bruce's unpublished analysis of 2003 Survey of Youth in Residential Placement data: Profile of the

committed population.

Percent with children

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

decrease in offense severity. Youth

whose current offense was a person

offense tended to have maintained

the same offense severity or increased their offense seriousness.

Few reentry youth came from

two-parent families and many

reported emotional problems

When they entered custody, 56% of

committed youth had been living

with one parent, 19% were living

with two parents, and 26% were not

living with any parent. Girls and

older youth were somewhat more

apt than their counterparts to report not living with parents when

they entered custody.

As part of the SYRP interviews,

youth were asked a series of questions designed to detect several

types of emotional problems. Although 10% of youth reported no

problems, many reported more than

one type of problem (7 1%). The

large majority of committed youth

indicated some degree of anger

management problem (81%); most

also expressed anxiety (61%) or

depression (59%). Hallucinations

were reported by 1 in 6 youth

(17%), 1 in 4 said they had suicidal

feelings or ideas (27%), and 1 in 5

said they had attempted suicide at

least once in their life (2 1%). About

4 in 10 female candidates for reentry reported suicide attempts, as

did 2 in 10 males. In comparison, in

the general population, fewer than

1 in 10 males and females in the

same age group reported suicide

attempts.

Reentry youth need support

for successful reintegration

into the community

These data indicate that substantial

proportions of the juvenile reentry

population are likely to need extensive supervision and support services when they return to the community. Few of these youth could

be classified as "first-timers" in the

juvenile justice system. Although

most did not return to the system

with more serious charges, 2 in 10

of those with a previous custody

experience had increased the seriousness of their offending. Most

youth will return to live with single

parents who may benefit from programs to help them supervise their

children. Nearly three-quarters of

these youth (7 1%) expressed multiple types of emotional problems

and could benefit from mental

health services upon their return

home. In addition, many of these

youth are or will be parents themselves and could benefit from programs that teach parenting skills

(e.g., home nurse visitation). Reentry programs need to address these

and other factors that affect youth's

ability to succeed and become productive citizens.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-11 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 15 of 24
Reoffending data from studies of juveniles released from state

incarceration show that rearrest rates are substantially higher

than rates based on other measures of recidivism

Average rates

Recidivism measured for across studies

12-month followup period States Recidivism Success

Rearrest

Delinquent/criminal offenses in

the juvenile and adult systems FL, NY, VA 55% 45%

CO,MD 45 55

AK, FL, GA, KY,

MD, ND, OK, VA 33 67

FL, MD, VA 24 76

AZ, OH, TX 25 75

AR, MO, NM 12 88

Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

:U I U

Recidivism is a commonly used. often confusing

measure of the success of justice system outcomes

What is recidivism?

Recidivism is the repetition of criminal behavior. A recidivism rate may

reflect any number of possible

measures of repeated offending—

arrest, court referral, conviction,

correctional commitment, and correctional status changes within a

given period of time. Typically, the

only available statistical indicators

of criminal behavior are official

records of these system events. For

this reason, virtually all measures of

recidivism underestimate reoffending since they only include offending that comes to the attention of

the system.

The most useful recidivism analyses

include the widest possible range of

system events that correspond with

actual reoffencling and include sufficient detail to differentiate offenders by offense severity in addition

to other characteristics, Including

rearrest, reconviction (or readjudication), and reincarceration (or reconfinement) rates allows flexibility

in making comparisons to other

studies. Including information on

severity of subsequent offenses,

time to reoffend, and frequency of

reoffending maximizes possibilities

for making comparisons. Calculating

recidivism rates for more than one

timeframe (6 months, 1 year, 2

years, etc.) also increases comparison flexibility. Recidivism findings

should include clearly identified

units of count and detail regarding

the length of time the subject population was in the community.

What is known about juvenile

recidivism?

There is no national recidivism rate

for juveniles. Such a rate would not

have much meaning since juvenile

justice systems vary so much across

states. The Virginia Department of

Juvenile Justice (VDJJ) contacted

other states to collect information

on juvenile recidivism studies

across the country. Twenty-seven

(27) states provided verified data on

recidivism of juveniles released from

state incarceration (with various

dates of studies ranging from 1991

through 2003). VDJJ identified studies according to factors that would

enable appropriate comparisons to

be made: the state's upper age of juvenile jurisdiction; whether a cohort was followed prospectively;

the length of followup and year of

the cohort or group; the offenses included (delinquent/criminal or all

offenses, including technical violations, traffic, status, etc.); whether

the cohort was tracked into the

adult system; and the measure of

recidivism used (rearrest, rereferral

to court, reconviction/readjudication,

or reincarceration/reconfinement).

VDJJ found that most states were

able to provide a recidivism rate for

a 12-month followup period. Several

states calculated rates for other

timeframes ranging from 3 months

to 5 years. Most states followed a

cohort of juveniles released from

state incarceration, but some states

Questions that users of

recidivism rates need to ask

"What is counted as recidivism?

What is the recidivism timeframe?

What comparisons are being

made?

The discussion of these three concepts indicates that the definition

of recidivism is far from consistent.

• -. The healthy skeptic should ask

questions and hold the purveyor of

recldMsm data responsible for providing a clear definition of recidivism:' (Beck, 2001)

Rereferral to court

Delinquent/criminal offenses in

the juvenile and adult systems

Reconviction/readjudication

Delinquent/criminal offenses in

the juvenile and adult systems

Reincarceration/reconfinement

Delinquent/criminal offenses in

the juvenile and adult systems

All offenses in the juvenile and

adult systems

Delinquent offenses in the

juvenile system only

Source: Authors' adaptation of Virginia Departmenl of Juvenile Justice's Juvenile Recidivism in Virginia.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-11 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 16 of 24
The rate of rereferral to juvenile court varies with offender age

and number of prior referrals—overall, nearly 6 in 10 juveniles

returned to juvenile court by the time they turned 18

Percent of juveniles who returned to

juvenile Court after each referral

Age at Number of prior juvenile court referrals At any

referral 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 referral

All ages 41% 59% 67% 71% 74% 77% 77% 79% 56%

10 61 84 96 97 - - - - 71

11 60 85 91 92 98 - - - 72

12 59 83 89 97 98 95 98 96 72

13 57 82 90 93 95 97 96 98 73

14 53 77 86 91 92 94 96 95 70

15 45 69 80 84 89 89 91 93 66

16 33 55 68 73 77 81 82 83 54

17 16 27 36 41 45 48 50 53 30

• Among juveniles with no prior referrals, 4 in 10 returned to juvenile court

but 6 in 10 did not. Among juveniles 14 or younger with at least 1 prior referral, more than three-quarters returned to juvenile court.

- Too few cases to obtain a reliable percentage.

Source: Author's adaptation of Snyder's Court Careers of Juvenile Offenders.

Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

followed a subset of releasees (e.g.,

those from certain programs or facilities). Several states used a retrospective cohort approach, studying

a cohort's history rather than following it prospectively. Other

states' recidivism rates were based

on reoffending rates at a particular

stage of the system, such as intake.

Most states included only delinquent!

criminal offenses, but several included all law violations. Many

states were able to track reoffenses

in both the juvenile and the adult

systems, although some only included juvenile system data. Nine states

measured rearrest, 2 measured

rereferral to court, 13 measured

reconviction/readjudication, and

15 measured reincarceration/

reconfinement. Four states (Florida,

Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Virginia) provided rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration rates.

Maryland used rereferral, reconviction, and reincarceration. Some

states tracked recidivism annually,

others launched studies periodically or as needed.

What difference does the

measure of recidivism make?

A closer look at the data from states

that used multiple measures of recidivism in studies of juveniles released from state custody showed

that the average difference between

rearrest recidivism rates and reconviction recidivism rates was 21 percentage points. The average difference between rearrest recidivism

and reincarceration recidivism rates

was 31 percentage points. The impact of the offenses included was

less dramatic. The average difference between recidivism based on

only delinquency/criminal offenses

versus all offenses was 3 percentage

points.

These comparisons all involved

studies of juveniles released from

state custody. Recidivism rates for

other types of cohorts yield very

different rates. For example, several

jurisdictions around the country

focus on juvenile probationers and

calculate rates of reoffending while

under supervision. On average, 15%

of juvenile probationers were readjudicated for offenses committed

while they were under supervision.

This recidivism rate is much lower

than the 12-month reconviction/

readjudication rates for juveniles

released from state custody, primarily because probationers are less

serious offenders than juveniles

who have been incarcerated, and

probationers may have been under

supervision less than 12 months.

Many jurisdictions focus on

success rather than failure rates

In an effort to demonstrate that the

juvenile justice system works, many

jurisdictions around the country

report success rates rather than

recidivism rates. For example, the

Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (FDJJ) developed a Program

Accountability Measure that grades

programs by combining program

success rates (nonrecidivism) and

monetary costs. FDJJ reports this

information along with traditional

outcome measures to the state

legislature.

Numerous counties around the

country have been involved in efforts to report juvenile justice performance data. Some efforts have

taken the form of a juvenile justice

"report card" that provides information on how the system performs in

terms of major juvenile justice

goals. The focus is on success rates

and other measures of accomplishment such as restitution collected,

community service hours logged,

and successful program completions.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-11 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 17 of 24
In 2004, youth younger than 18

accounted for 1% of jail inmates

According to the Bureau of Justice

Statistics, an estimated 7,083 youth

younger than 18 were held in adult

jails on June 30, 2004. These under18 inmates accounted for 1.0% of

the total jail population, the same

as 2003 and less than 2000 (1.2%)

and 1994 (1.4%). In 2004, most jail

inmates younger than 18 (87%) were

held as adults; this proportion was

greater than in 2000 (80%) and 1994

(76%). Under-18 inmates are held as

adults if they are convicted or

awaiting trial as adult criminal offenders, either because they were

transferred to criminal court or because they are in a state that considers all 17-year-olds (or all 16- and

17-year-olds) as adults for purposes

of criminal prosecution.

Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

U:

The number of youth under age 18 held in adult jails

quadrupled between 1990 and 1999. then dropped

On a typical day in 2004, about 7,000 persons younger than 18

were inmates in jails in the U.S.

Inmates in adult tails Percent of iail inmates younger than 18

10,000 100%

8,000 80%

6,000 er than 18 60% KeId as adults

4,000 40%

2,000 20%

0 0% -,--,-.....

90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 94 96 98 00 02 04

Year Year

• Between 1990 and 1999, while the adult jail inmate population increased

48%, the jail inmate population under age 18 increased more than 300%.

• Between 1999 and 2004, the adult jail inmate population increased 19%,

while the jail inmate population under age 18 decreased 25%.

• The number of jail inmates younger than 18 held as adults was 6,159 in

2004—up 21% from 1994.

• The number of jail inmates younger than 18 held as juveniles in 2004 was

924—down 42% from 1994.

Source: Authors' adaptation of Beck's Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 1999, Beck and

Karberg's Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2000, Harrison and Karberg's Prison and

Jail Inmates at Midyear 2002, and Harrison and Beck's Prison and Jail Inmates at

Midyear 2004.

The Juvenile JustIce and Delinquency Prevention Act limits the placement of juvenIles in adult facilities

The Act states that juveniles al requirement Regulations exempt juve- secure custody until other arrangeleged to be or found to be delin nibs being tried as crImInals for ments can be made (Including 6

quent as well as status offenders felonies or who have been convicted hours before and after court appear

and nonoffenders "will not be de- as cnmtnal felons from the jail and ances) and a 48 hour exception ex

tamed or confined in any institution lockup removal requirement In institu clusive of weekends and holidays for

in which they have contact with adult tions other than aduit jails or lockups rural facilities that meet statutory

inmates ...." This provision of the Act or in jails and lockups under temporary conditions.

is commonly referred to as the "sight hold exceptions, confinement of juveand sound separation requirement." nile offenders is permitted if juveniles Some jurisdictions have established

Subsequent regulations Implement- and adult inmates cannot see each juvenile detention centers that are

ing the Act clarify this requirement other and no conversation between collocated with adult jails or lockups.

and provide that brief and inadver- them is possible. This reflects the sight A collocated juvenile facility must

tent contact in nonresidential areas and sound separation requirement. meet specific criteria to establish that

is not a violation. The Act alsO states it is a separate and distinct facility

that" no juvenile shall be detained Some temporary hold exceptions to jail The regulations allow time-phased

or confined in any jail or lockup for and lockup removal include: a 6-hour use of program areas in collocated

adults ..."This provision is known grace period that allows adult jails and facilities.

as the jail and lockup removal lOCkUpS to hold alleged delinquents in

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-11 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 18 of 24
• New admissions to state prisons of youth younger than 18 rose steadily

each year between 1986 and 1995. In comparison, the total number of inmates newly admitted to state prisons rose steadily from 1985 through 1990

and then essentially leveled off through 1995.

• The large decline in new admissions of youth younger than 18 to state prisons between 1996 and 2002 was in stark contrast to the general stability of

adult admissions over this period.

• The decline in new admissions to state prisons of youth younger than 18

between 1996 and 2002 paralleled the decline in juvenile violent crime arrests over the same period.

Source: Authors' analyses of Strom's Profile of State Prisoners Under Age 18, 1985-97,

Beck and Karberg's Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2000, Harrison and Karberg's

Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2002, and Harrison and Beck's Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2004; and authors' analyses of data from the National Corrections Reporting Program.

New admissions of youth under age 18 Is not a count of

"Juveniles In prison"

Many youth younger than 18 committed to state prisons are in states where

original Juvenile court jurisdiction ends when the youth turns age 16 or 17 so

these committed youth were never candidates for processing in the juvenile

Justice system It Is also the case that some youth whose crimes placed them

under the original Jurisdiction of a juvenile court and who were subsequently

transferred to an adult court and sentenced to pnson entered prison after their

18th birthdays So anew court commItments that Involved youth younger than

18 at the time of admission" includes many youth whose criminal activity was

always within the jurisdIction of the adult criminal Justice system while it mtsses prisoners whose law violating behavior placed them initially within the juvenile justice system but who did not enter pnson until after their 18th birthday

Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

: Between 1997 and 2004, while prison populations

grew, the number of prisoners under age 18 fell 54°Io

Youth under age 18 accounted

for 1% of new court commitments Between 1996 and 2002, the number of new admissions of youth

to state adult prisons in 2002 younger than 18 to state prisons fell 45%

Based on data from the Bureau of

Justice Statistics' National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP), an

estimated 4,100 new court commitments to state adult prison systems

in 2002 involved youth younger than

age 18 at the time of admission.

These youth accounted for 1.1% of

all new court commitments in

2002—down from a peak of 2.3% in

1996 and two-thirds the level in the

mid-1980s. This decline in the youth

proportion was primarily the result

of the large increase in the overall

prison population during this period. Between 1985 and 2002, the annual number of new court commitments to state prisons that involved

youth younger than 18 increased

22%, while overall new commitments increased 114%.

Among youth newly admitted to

state prisons in 2002, 6 in 10 had

committed a person offense

Youth younger than 18 accounted

for 4.3% of all new court commitments to state prisons for robbery

in 2002. Their proportions in other

offense categories were smaller:

homicide (2.5%), assault (1.6%),

weapons offenses (1.0%), property

offenses (0.9%), and drug offenses

(0.3%).

Compared with young adult inmates

ages 18-24 at admission, new commitments involving youth younger

than 18 had a greater proportion of

violent offenses (primarily robbery

and assault) and a smaller proportion of drug offenses (notably drug

trafficking).

New admissions to state prisons

400,000

300.000 -

200,000 All ages

100,000

0

86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02

Year

New admissions to state prisons

8,000

6,000

er than 18 4,000

2.000

0

86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02

Year

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-11 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 19 of 24
Between 1985 and 1997, the percentage increase in the population

of inmates in state prisons was similar for those younger than 18

and those ages 18 and above

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

• From 1985 to 1997, the 1-day count of state prisoners younger than 18

grew 135% and the population of older inmates grew 138%.

• The trends of older and younger inmates diverged after 1997. The population of older inmates grew 16% between 1997 and 2004, while the population of inmates younger than age 18 fell 54%.

• The resulting increase between 1985 and 2004 was 8% for inmates

younger than 18 and 175% for inmates age 18 and older.

Source: Authors' analyses of Strom's Profile of State Prisoners UnderAge 18, 1985-97,

Beck and Karberg's Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2000, Harrison and Karberg's

Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2002, and Harrison and Beck's Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2004.

One-day count of persons held in state prisons

1,400,000

1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000

600,000

400,000

200,000

0

One-day count of persons held in state prisons

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

Offense profile of new admissions to

state prisons, 2002:

Age at admission

Most Younger

serious offense than 18 18-24

All offenses 100% 100%

Person offenses 61 33

Homicide 7 4

Sexual assault 6 5

Robbery 32 13

Assault 14 10

Property offenses 23 29

Burglary 14 14

Larceny-theft 4 5

Motor vehicle theft 3 3

Arson 1 1

Drug offenses 9 28

Trafficking 5 14

Possession 3 8

Public order offenses 5 9

Weapons 3 4

Note: General offense categories include

offenses not detailed.

Nearly all (96%) youth younger than

18 newly admitted to prison in 2002

were male and most (79%) were age

17. Blacks accounted for 59% of new

admissions under age 18, whites

28%, Hispanics 11%, and youth of

other race/ethnicity 2%.

Prfsons differ from Jails

Jails are generally local correctional facilities used to incarcerate both

persons detained pending adjudication and adjudicated/convIcted

offenders. Convicted Inmates are

usually misdemoanants sentenced

to a year or less. Under certain circumstances, jails may hold juveniles awaiting juvenile court hearings. Prisons are state or foderál

facilities used to incarcerate offenders convicted In criminal court.

Convicted inmates are usually

felons sentenced to more than a

year.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-11 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 20 of 24
Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

U I

Supreme Court decision in Roper v. Simmons (2005)

prohibits the death penalty for youth younger than 18

A series of challenges to the

juvenile death penalty preceded

the Roper decision

The U.S. Supreme Court decision in

Furman v. Georgia (1972) struck

down all existing death penalty

statutes. Sentencing under post-Furman statutes began in 1973. The

constitutionality of these modernera statutes was not determined

until the 1976 decision in Greggv.

Georgia. Since the Gregg decision,

the U.S. Supreme Court has been repeatedly asked to rule on the practice of executing offenders for

crimes committed as juveniles. In

Eddings v. Oklahoma (1982), the

Court reversed the death sentence

of a 16-year-old tried as an adult in

criminal court. The Court held that

a defendant's young age and mental

and emotional development should

be considered mitigating factors of

great weight in deciding whether to

apply the death penalty. The Court

noted that adolescents are less selfdisciplined, mature, and responsible than adults and are less able to

consider the long-range implications of their actions. The Court,

however, did not address the question of whether the imposition of

the death sentence was prohibited

because the offender was only 16

years old at the time of the murder.

In Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988),

the issue before the Court was

whether imposing the death penalty

on an offender who was 15 years

old at the time of the murder violated constitutional protections

against cruel and unusual punishment. The Court concluded that the

Eighth Amendment prohibited application of the death penalty to a

person who was younger than 16 at

the time of the crime. In Stanford v.

Kentucky (1989), the Court stated:

"We discern neither a historical

nor a modern societal consensus

forbidding the imposition of capital

Since 1973, 22 offenders have been executed in the U.S. for

crimes they committed when they were younger than age 18

Executions of under-i 8 offenders:

January 1, 1973—December 31, 2004

Year of Age at Race!

Name execution State Offense Execution ethnicity

Charles Rumbaugh 1985 TX 17 28 white

James Terry Roach 1986 SC 17 25 white

Jay Kelly Pinkerton 1986 TX 17 24 white

Dalton Prejean 1990 LA 17 30 black

Johnny Frank Garrett 1992 TX 17 28 white

Curtis Paul Harris 1993 TX 17 31 black

Frederick Lashley 1993 MO 17 29 black

Ruben Montoya Cantu 1993 TX 17 26 Hispanic

Christopher Burger 1993 GA 17 33 white

Joseph John Cannon 1998 TX 17 38 white

Robert Anthony Carter 1998 TX 17 34 black

Dwayne A. Wright 1998 VA 17 26 black

Sean R. Sellers 1999 OK 16 29 white

Douglas Christopher Thomas 2000 VA 17 26 black

Steve E. Roach 2000 VA 17 23 white

Glen Charles McGinnis 2000 TX 17 27 black

Gary Graham (Shaka Sankofa) 2000 TX 17 36 black

Gerald L. Mitchell 2001 TX 17 33 black

Napoleon Beazley 2002 TX 17 25 black

T.J. Jones 2002 TX 17 25 black

Toronto Patterson 2002 TX 17 27 black

Scott A. Ham 2003 OK 17 32 white

• Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, and Texas limit juvenile court

jurisdiction to youth 16 and younger; thus, 18 of the 22 executed offenders

who were younger than 18 when they committed their crimes were adults

at the time, at least for purposes of assessing criminal responsibility.

• Some juvenile death penalty milestones: 1985 saw the first execution in the

modern era of an under-18 offender; 1998 saw the first execution since

1973 of an offender who, under state statute, was a juvenile at the time of

his crime (Virginia); 1999 saw the first execution of an offender who was 16

at the time of his crime (Oklahoma); 2003 saw the last execution of an offender who was younger than 18 at the time of his crime (Oklahoma). In

2004, no offenders were executed for crimes they committed before age

18.

Source: Authors' adaptation of Death Penalty Information Center's Juveniles and the

death penalty [onlinel.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-11 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 21 of 24
Although 20 states had death penalty provisions for offenders age

17 or younger when Roper v. Simmons was decided in 2005, few

applied those provisions

Application of death penalty for crimes committed at age 17 or younger

No death penalty for any age

No death penalty for juveniles

fl No executions since 1976, no current death row inmates

El No executions since 1976, some current death row inmates

• Execution(s) since 1976, no current death row inmates

• Execution(s) since 1976, some current death row inmates

• At the time Roper v. Simmons was being decided, 30 states and the District

of Columbia did not have death penalty provisions that applied to offenders

age 17 or younger.

• Only 4 states had executed one or more offenders for crimes committed at

age 17 or younger since 1976 and had such "juvenile" offenders on death

row at the time Roperv. Simmons was being decided (Georgia, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia).

Source: Authors' adaptation of the Death Penalty Information Center's Emerging national

consensus on the juvenile death penalty [online].

Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

punishment on any person who

murders at 16 or 17 years of age.

Accordingly, we conclude that

such punishment does not offend

the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual

punishment."

The Supreme Court cites a

national consensus against

the execution of juveniles in

deciding Roper v. Simmons

In Roper v. Simmons (2005), for

the second time in 16 years, the

Supreme Court addressed whether

under the Constitution it is permissible to execute an offender who

was older than 15 but younger than

18 at the time of his crime. The

Court was asked to reconsider its

1989 conclusion in Stanford v. Kentucky. Christopher Simmons had exhausted his appeals when the

Supreme Court decided in Atkins v.

Virginia (2002) that the Eighth and

Fourteenth Amendments prohibit

the execution of a mentally retarded

person. Simmons filed a new petition for state postconviction relief,

arguing that the Atkins reasoning

should also mean that the Constitution prohibits the execution of a juvenile. The Missouri Supreme Court

set aside Simmons' death sentence

(State ex rel. Simmons v. Roper,

2003), concluding that since Stanford, "a national consensus has developed against the execution of juvenile offenders..."

In Roper v. Simmons, the U.S.

Supreme Court noted that several

states had abolished their juvenile

death penalty since Stanford and

none had established or reinstated

it. The objective evidence of "consensus in this case—the rejection

of the juvenile death penalty in the

majority of states; the infrequency

of its use even where it remains on

the books; and the consistency in

the trend toward abolition of the

practice—provide sufficient evidence that today our society views

juveniles, in the words Atkins used

respecting the mentally retarded,

as 'categorically less culpable

than the average criminal'." Thus,

the Court affirmed the Missouri

Supreme Court judgment that set

aside the death sentence imposed

on Christopher Simmons, concluding that the "Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments forbid imposition of

the death penalty on offenders who

were under the age of 18 when their

crimes were committed."

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-11 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 22 of 24
Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

_u

Sources

Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304

(2002).

Beck, A. 2000. Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 1999. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of

Justice Statistics.

Beck, A. 2001. Recidivism: A Fruit

Salad Concept in the Criminal Justice

World. Kansas City, MO: Justice Concepts Incorporated.

Beck, A., and Hughes, T. 2005. Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional

Authorities, 2004. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice

Statistics.

Beck, A., and Karberg, J. 2001. Prison

and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2000.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Bureau of Justice Statistics and the

SEARCH Group. 1981. Dictionary of

Criminal Justice Data Terminology:

Second Edition. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, BJS.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S.

Department of Labor. 2002. National

Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997

cohort, 199 7-2001 (rounds 1-5)

[machine-readable data file]. Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research

Center, University of Chicago [producer]. Columbus, OH: Center for

Human Resource Research, Ohio

State University [distributor].

Death Penalty Information Center.

Emerging national consensus

on the juvenile death penalty.

Downloaded May 16, 2005.

<www.deathpenaltyinfo.org>.

Death Penalty Information Center.

Juveniles and the death penalty.

Downloaded May 16, 2005,

<www.deathpenaltyinfo.org >.

Deschutes County Juvenile Community Justice. 2005, Deschutes County

Juvenile Community Justice Report

Card. Bend, OR: Deschutes County

Juvenile Community Justice.

Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104

(1982).

Feld, B. 1991. Justice by geography:

urban, suburban and rural variations in juvenile administration. The

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminoloy, 82(1):156-210.

Florida Department of Juvenile Justice. 2004. Program Accountability

Measures—The 2005 PAM Report: A

Two-Year Analysis. Tallahassee, FL:

FDJJ.

Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238

(1972).

Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976).

Harrison, P., and Beck, A. 2005.

Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear

2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Bureau of Justice

Statistics.

Harrison, P., and Karberg, J. 2003.

Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear

2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Bureau of Justice

Statistics.

Kuhn, J. 1989. A Digest of Cases of

the United States Supreme Court as to

Juvenile and Family Law, 1962-July

1988. Reno, NV: National Council of

Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

Kuhn, J. 1990. Supplement to a Digest

of Cases of the United States Supreme

Court as to Juvenile and Family Law,

Addressing the 1988-1990 Terms.

Reno, NV: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

Memory, J. 1989. Juvenile suicides in

secure detention facilities: Correction of published rates. Death Studies, 13:455-463.

National Center for Health Statistics.

Bridged-race intercensal estimates of

the July 1, 1990-July 1, 1999 United

States resident population by county,

single-year of age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin [machine-readable data

files]. Prepared by the U.S. Census

Bureau with support from the National Cancer Institute. Released

July 26, 2004. <www.cdc.gov/nchs/

about/major/dvs/popbridge/

popbridge.htm>.

National Center for Health Statistics

Estimates of the July 1, 2000-July 1,

2003, United States resident population from the vintage 2003 postcensal

series by year, county, age, sex, race,

and Hispanic origin [machinereadable data files]. Prepared under

a collaborative arrangement with

the U.S. Census Bureau. Released

September 14, 2004. <www.cdc.gov/

nchs/about/major/dvs/popbridge/

popbridge.htm>.

National Center for Health Statistics,

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. WISQARS (Webbased Injury Statistics Query and

Reporting System) [interactive database system]. Accessed September 16,

2004. <www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars >.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement for the

years 1997, 1999, 2001, and 2003

[machine-readable data files]. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census [producer].

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-11 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 23 of 24
Chapter 7: Juvenile offenders in correctional facilities

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Children in Custody Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and

Shelter Facilities for the years

1990/91, 1992/93, and 1994/95.

[machine-readable data files]. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census [producer].

Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges

Commission. 2005. Juvenile Justice

System Outcome Measures. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Juvenile

Court Judges Commission.

Puzzanchera, C., Finnegan, T., and

Kang, W. Easy access to juvenile populations [online analysis]. Updated

May 10, 2004. .zwww.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/

ojstatbb/ezapop>.

Roberts, R., Attkisson, C., and

Rosenblatt, A. 1998. Prevalence of

psychopathology among children

and adolescents. American Journal

of Psychiatry, 155(6).

Roperv. Simmons, 125 S.Ct. 1183

(2005).

Sedlak, A., and Bruce, C. 2004.

Unpublished analysis of National

Longitudinal Survey of Youth 2003

data: Children with children.

Rockville, MD: Westat.

Sedlak, A., and Bruce, C. 2004.

Unpublished analysis of 2003 Survey of Youth in Residential Placement data: Profile of the committed

population. Rockville, MD: Westat.

Sickmund, M. Forthcoming. Juvenile

Residential Facility Census, 2002: Selected findings. Juvenile Offenders

and Victims: National Report Series

Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention.

Sickmund, M., Sladky, 1., and Kang,

W. 2004. Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement Databook [online

analysis]. Updated November 30,

2005. <www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/

ojstatbb/cjrp>.

Snyder, H. 1988. Court Careers of Juvenile Offenders. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Snyder, H., and Sickmund, M. 1995.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A National Report. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice. 2005. Report Card to Our

Citizens for 2004. Columbia, SC:

SCDJJ.

Stahl, A., Finnegan, T., and Kang, W.

2005. Easy access to juvenile court

statistics: 1985-2002 [online analysis]. Updated September 13, 2005.

<www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/

ezajcs>.

Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361

(1989).

State ex ret Simmons v. Roper, 112

S.W3d 397 (2003).

Strom, K. 2000. Profile of State

Prisoners Under Age 18, 1985-9 7.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Teplin, L., Abram, K., McClelland, G.,

and Dulcan, M. 2002. Psychiatric

disorders in youth in juvenile detention. Archives of General Psychiatry,

59:1133-1143.

Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815

(1988).

Virginia Department of Juvenile

Justice. 2005. Juvenile recidivism

in Virginia. DJJ Research Quarterly.

Richmond, VA: VDJJ.

Wasserman, G., MacReynolds, L.,

Lucas, C., Fisher, P., and Santos, L.

2002. The Voice DISC-IV with incarcerated male youths: Prevalence of

disorder. Journal of the American

Academy of Child and Adolescent

Psychiatry, 41(3):314-32 I.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-11 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 24 of 24
potentially

Totals OffCategory Offense violent?

25 CHINS (Status) Offenses NONSPECIFIED CHINS OFFENSE n

25 CHINS (Status) Offenses RUNNING AWAY n

43 CHINS (Status) Offenses TRUANCY n

57 CHINS (Status) Offenses UNGOVERNABLE BEHAVIOR n

241 Drug Offenses DRUG OFFENSES - POSSESSION n

22 Drug Offenses DRUG OFFENSES - SELLING n

1 Offenses against person ENTICING A CHILD n

3 Offenses against person RAPE - 2nd DEGREE n

5 Offenses against property AUTO THEFT n

34 Offenses against property BREAKING AND ENTERING n

49 Offenses against property BUYING, RECEIVING OR CONCEALING STOLEN PRO n

66 Offenses against property CRIMINAL MISCHIEF fl

26 Offenses against property CRIMINAL TRESPASSING n

11 Offenses against property FORGERY n

5 Offenses against property FRAUD n

216 Offenses against property THEFT OF PROPERTY n

34 Offenses against property UNAUTHORIZED USE OF A MOTOR VEHICLE n

10 Public order offenses Contempt of Court n

119 Public order offenses DISORDERLY CONDUCT n

5 Public order offenses DRUNKENNESS n

19 Public order offenses DUI fl

17 Public order offenses ESCAPE n

13 Public order offenses FALSE INFORMATION n

110 Public order offenses HARASSMENT n

1 Public order offenses HINDERING PROSECUTION n

18 Public order offenses LIQUOR LAWS n

5 Public order offenses NON-AMENABLE TO TREATMENT n

3 Public order offenses TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS n

168 Public order offenses VIOLATION OF AFTERCARE n

1037 Public order offenses VIOLATION OF PROBATION n

126 Unknown Unknown n

2 Offenses against person SEXUAL ABUSE - 2nd DEGREE n

4 Offenses against person SODOMY - 2nd DEGREE n

12 Offenses against person SEXUAL MISCONDUCT y

23 Offenses against person MENACING y

133 Offenses against person ASSAULT y

131 Offenses against person DOMESTIC VIOLENCE y

2 Offenses against person INCEST y

2 Offenses against person MURDER y

5 Offenses against person RAPE - 1st DEGREE y

20 Offenses against person RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT y

76 Offenses against person ROBBERY y

181 Offenses against property BURGLARY y

24 Offenses against person SEXUAL ABUSE - 1st DEGREE y

24 Offenses against person SODOMY - 1st DEGREE y

10 Offenses against property ARSON y

15 Public order offenses RESISTING ARREST y

84 Public order offenses WEAPONS VIOLATIONS y

EXHIBIT

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-12 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 2
potentially

Totals OffCategory Offense violent?

3262 total

742 total violent

100% % non-violent

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-12 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 2
FOR EXHIBIT 4,

PLEASE SEE

EXHIBIT 3

-

i-1_

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-13 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 1
.uvrresis ijyz,

(Serious) Admissions Rate

1994 1,448 1,747 1.2

1995 1,232 1,385 1.1

1996 1,020 2,532 2.5

1997 1,010 2,933 2.9

1998 938 3,373 3.6

1999 738 3,196 4.3

2000 739 3,183 4.3

2001 630 2,899 4.6

2002 696 3,126 4.5

2003 676 3,314 4.9

2004 644 3088 4.8

2005 681 3,157 4.6

EXHI IT

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-14 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 2
is)

Serious Juvenile Arrests and DYS Admissions

3,500 -

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000 -

500 ----------

0

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

DYS Admissions

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-14 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 2
Conditions of Confinement at the

Arkansas Juvenile Assessment and Treatment Center

Submitted to the

National Center for Youth Law and the Disability Rights Center

August 13, 2007

Tim Roche

TRocheConsu Iting

413 Halsey Valley Road

Spencer, NY 14883

(607) 589-7557

TRocheConsulting@aol.com

Kelly Dedel, Ph.D.

One in 37 Research, Inc.

1608 NW Riverscape

Portland, OR 97209

www.onein37.com

EH!1

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-15 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 28
About the Authors

Tim Roche has devoted the bulk of his 25-year career to researching and designing safe

and effective community-based alternatives to institutional care for juvenile and adult

correctional populations, and to monitoring the conditions of confinement in

correctional settings. Mr. Roche, formerly Executive Director of the Justice Policy

Institute in Washington, D.C., and past President of the New York State Youth Advocates

Program, has served as a monitor for the Federal Court in Washington, D.C. monitoring

conditions at the D.C. jail and prisons; and as the Federal Court's expert in Intermediate

Sanctions for the adult prison system in Puerto Rico. Mr. Roche currently serves as

a juvenile justice expert for the U.S. Department of Justice in the area of

protection from harm in juvenile correctional facilities, and as a lead consultant the

Annie E. Casey Foundation's Strategic Consulting Group in its efforts to help reform the

Alabama Department of Youth Services. Mr. Roche is also an expert consultant with

the Annie E. Casey Foundation's Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative and has been

retained as a juvenile justice expert by the Southern Poverty Law Center in Mississippi.

His varied practical experience also includes serving as Deputy Receiver for the

Washington, D.C. Child Welfare system; as Deputy Special Master for the U.S. District

Court in Baltimore, MD regarding the delivery of Special Education services in the

Baltimore City Public Schools System and as Deputy Director of the Center on Juvenile

and Criminal Justice.

Kelly Dedel, Ph.D. is a nationally-recognized expert on the conditions of confinement in

juvenile correctional facilities. She is regularly retained by the U.S. Department of Justice

as a consultant in the areas of protection from harm and education in juvenile

correctional facilities. Further, as the lead monitor of the Memorandum of Agreement

between the United States and the State of Maryland, Dr. Dedel is responsible for

monitoring and facilitating reforms related to protection from harm, suicide prevention,

and quality assurance in three state-operated detention facilities. After beginning her

career with the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, where she pioneered the

Council's work in education in juvenile correctional facilities, Dr. Dedel founded the

Institute on Crime, Justice and Corrections at George Washington University with

several of her colleagues. From there, she began her own consulting firm, One in 37

Research, Inc., based in Portland, Oregon. In addition to her work surrounding the

conditions of confinement in juvenile facilities, Dr. Dedel also studies situational crime

prevention and crime prevention through environmental design and has worked with

several agencies to develop and validate objective risk assessment instruments.

2

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-15 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 28
Table of Contents

Executive Summary . 4

Introduction........................................................................................................................7

Measures to Protect Youth from Harm Due to Unnecessary Exposure to Secure

CorrectionalConfinement ................................................................................................10

Measures to Protect Youth from Harm While in Secure Custody....................................18

Measures Designed to Protect Youth From Harm By Other Youth..............................18

Staffingand Supervision...........................................................................................18

StaffTraining.............................................................................................................21

Programming............................................................................................................25

IncidentReporting....................................................................................................26

MedicalAttention.....................................................................................................30

BehaviorManagement.............................................................................................31

MeasuresDesigned to Protect Youth from Self-Harm .................................................39

MeasuresDesigned to Protect Youth From Harm by Staff ..........................................42

Avenuesfor Youth to Report Mistreatment.............................................................44

ReportingAllegations of Abuse to the Proper Authority.........................................46

Placing Accused Staff in Non-Contact Positions Pending the Outcome of

Investigation..............................................................................................................47

ChildAbuse Investigations and Staff Discipline........................................................48

Conclusion 51

Appendix A 54

AppendixB ........................................................................................................................56

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-15 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 3 of 28
Executive Summary

The following report was prepared in the wake of considerable turbulence at the

Arkansas Juvenile Assessment and Treatment Center (Alexander). A long and troubling

history of poor practice and mistreating youth in custody resulted in terminating the

contract with the previous private provider that operated Alexander. In January 2007,

G4S Youth Services, LLC (G45) assumed operational control of Alexander. Since that

time, a number of substantiated incidents of mistreating youth in custody at Alexander

have surfaced, prompting the National Center for Youth Law and the Disability Rights

Center to request the assistance of experts to evaluate the adequacy of measures taken

at Alexander to protect youth from harm.

It was also against this backdrop, in March 2007, that the Arkansas State Legislature

took action, in the form of Senate Resolution 31, "to evaluate needed reforms to the

state's luvenile lustice system to more effectivel y and efficiently serve youth committed

to the Division of Youth Services of the De partment of Health and Human Services and

to identify best practices that will reduce unnecessary reliance on large juvenile

correctional facilities and promote the development of an a ppro priate continuum of

community based treatment alternatives in the least restrictive setting possible

consistent with nublic cafetv" (emnhsis dded. The authors of this renort hone that

its contents, observations and recommendations can form a useful foundation from

which to pursue the work contemplated by SR 31.

This report details a series of issues that compromise the safety of youth at Alexander.

Based upon numerous interviews with facility administrators, line staff and more than

two dozen youth, as well as a review of individual case files, operational policies and

procedures, and other documentary evidence, we offer a comprehensive series of

observations and recommendations intended to directly address the most common

sources of harm to youth in secure correctional confinement: the risk of harm from

themselves, from other youth, and from staff.

In the authors' view, however, the over-reliance on secure correctional confinement of

young people who do not require this most expensive and restrictive level of custody to

protect public safety and promote law-abiding behavior is the most pressing and

pervasive issue compromising the safety of youth at Alexander. A growing body of

evidence indicates that exposing youth to secure correctional confinement is

detrimental and increases rather than decreases their likelihood of further penetrating

the justice system. Of the 647 youth committed to secure Division of Youth Services

facilities during FY 2006, only 212 (33%) were committed for "person" offenses. Only 29

of the 647 youth (4%) were committed for the most serious "Y" felonies, while more

than twice that number, 72 youth (11%), were committed for "public order"

misdemeanors such as Disorderly Conduct. In FY 2006, a full 45% (293 of 647) of all DYS

4

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-15 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 4 of 28
commitments to Youth Service Centers were for misdemeanor offenses. In the first

civarter of 2007, only 16% of DYS commitments were for felon y offenses against

persons.

These and other similar data contained in the body of this report confirm that a large

percentage of the Alexander population are confined as a result of Violations of

Probation (typically technical violations involving no new criminal charges),

Misdemeanor law violations, disruptive behavior at school including fights, treatment

program violations, as well as for offenses involving public order, property and or drug

use, rather than for any "violent" behavior. Such youth are misplaced in a high-security

facility such as Alexander and would benefit from thoughtful, individualized

programming and supervision in their home communities.

In addition, many of the youth incarcerated at Alexander experience serious mental

illnesses, emotional disturbances and/or developmental disabilities and struggle to

comply with facility regulations while suffering near-constant torment by other youth,

as well as by some staff. According to G45 administrators, approximately 30 percent of

the Alexander population is inappropriate for placement at the facility and for their

program by virtue of the youths' intellectual, emotional, and/or developmental

disabilities. These youth fill beds at Alexander in part because no other more

appropriate alternative exists.

While there is no doubt that a segment of the Alexander population poses an

unacceptable risk to public safety and requires safe and therapeutic forms of secure

care, these youth are in a distinct minority. It is the consensus of those DYS officials, G45

staff and administrators, and others with whom we spoke that many, if not most, of the

youth confined at Alexander could be safely managed and well monitored using various

community-based programming techniques. By drawing upon well-established

community-based supervision and support models to build a full continuum of care,

Arkansas officials could redirect scarce funding from maintaining expensive institutions

to building local programming in the home communities of Arkansas' most needy youth

and families. Such an approach would not only prove far more beneficial to the youth

currently confined at Alexander, but could also help drive an economic development

engine targeting the most impoverished communities in the state.

It is our opinion and our primary recommendation that the most effective way to ensure

the safety of the greatest number of youth is for the Arkansas Division of Youth Services

to undertake an aggressive, transformative initiative to reduce the population at

Alexander by approximately two-thirds through the design of safe and effective,

individualized supervision plans that emphasize home and other community

placements, and by reconfiguring secure care in Arkansas to reflect current best

practices in the field by permanently closing Alexander and replacing it with one or

possibly two secure, therapeutic facilities each with no more than 40 beds.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-15 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 5 of 28
Included among our other recommendations for immediately improving the safety of

youth at Alexander while broader systemic reforms occur are the following:

• Reduce the exposure of low-risk youth to confinement at Alexander by

applying a validated external risk assessment instrument to help identify

youth who can be safely managed in their home communities.

Accelerate the thoughtful and well-planned discharge and subsequent

supervision of youth currently in secure confinement by systematically

targeting misdemeanants, probation violators and other non-violent

offenders for the development of individualized, community-based plans into

which youth can be discharged with an assurance that supervision and

support will be available to guide their success.

Develop a willing cadre of non-residential, neighborhood-based service

providers who operate diverse and culturally competent programming in or

near the home communities of DYS youth, and who are committed to

working with challenging youth and willing to enter into "no eject - no

reject" policies as part of their service contracts.

Examine models of "fiscal realignment" developed in several other states

that encourage local jurisdictions to treat low-risk youth locally rather than

committing them to DYS for assignment to Alexander.

• Ensure that staff ratios at Alexander are met consistently and that they

represent the number of staff actually deployed to supervise youth at any

given time. Ensure that all staff provide vigilant, pro-active supervision

designed around positive interaction with youth and efforts to identify and

de-escalate tensions before they develop into violent confrontations.

6

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-15 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 6 of 28
Introduction

A series of recent events involving the safety of youth confined at the Arkansas Juvenile

Assessment and Treatment Center (Alexander) prompted a request from the National

Center for Youth Law (NCYL) and the Disability Rights Center (DRC) for an assessment of

the conditions of confinement and the adequacy of measures to protect youth from

harm. Alexander became the focus of much unwanted attention and concern by media,

youth advocates and state officials in late 2006 with the revelation that the contracted

operator of the facility at that time had forcibly medicated youth in its care. The

subsequent termination of that contract and the transfer of operational control of the

facility to G4S Youth Services, LLC (G45) in January 2007 appeared to address the

immediate concern caused by the previous contractor, but several more recent

substantiated incidents of violence against youth by members of the G45/Alexander

staff fostered lingering worries for the safety of youth confined in that facility.

We toured the Alexander, from June 5 through 8, 2007, during which time we saw all

housing units, dining areas, the gym, medical unit, most school areas and recreation

yards as well as administrative areas. We also interviewed 30 youth in secure

confinement at Alexander, as well as the newly appointed Directors of the Department

of Human Resources (DHS) and the Division of Youth Services (DYS), and large numbers

of DYS and G45 staff. We also reviewed a range of documents relating to facility

operations. (See appendix A for a complete listing of staff interviewed and documents

reviewed.) Despite limited access to some key documents 1 , we have assembled in this

report several observations and recommendations that we hope will prove helpful to

G45, DYS and youth advocates around the state as together they struggle to ensure the

safety of those Arkansas youth confined in secure correctional facilities. While the

majority of our commentary focuses on the operational practices of G45, to be clear,

DYS is ultimately accountable for the performance of its private contractors and thus is

responsible for enacting the various remedies required to protect youth from harm. In

addition to implementing required reforms, DYS must also ensure that information is

freely exchanged between the various agencies involved (e.g., DYS, G45, State Police,

etc.) so that reforms may be implemented without unnecessary duplicity.

'Once on site, we were informed that we could not access many key documents based on confidentiality

concerns. In some cases, DYS agreed to provide access to certain documents pertaining only to DRC

clients (institutional/medical/mental heafth/education files; documents pertaining to suicide precautions)

and in other cases, G4S staff examined the relevant document and reported the findings to us (e.g., log

book with information pertaining to a single instance of room confinement). In stifi other cases, we

received copies of documents with the names of youth redacted. In most cases, however, we were denied

access to many critical documents. As a result, some of our observations are based on information

gleaned from youth and staff interviews and observations of facility operations.

7

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-15 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 7 of 28
What emerged during the course of our review was an image of a facility, indeed an

entire juvenile justice system, struggling to keep pace with the relentless influx of

predominantly non-violent youth committed to DYS custody. On June 7, 2007 there

were 70 youth (28 of whom were Misdemeanants) committed to DYS custody who were

waiting, sometimes for months, in local detention centers until space was created for

their absorption into DYS facilities. Alexander's intake staff, case managers, trackers and

youth care workers struggle to stay ahead of the constant stream of relatively low-risk

youth being added to the system weekly. We witnessed the well-intended but

somewhat ad hoc efforts of DYS clinical staff at Alexander to manage the flow by

attempting to target misdemeanants for swift release. We heard frustrated theories and

countless anecdotes that lithe judges send too many misdemeanants", uprivate

providers won't take difficult kids or kick kids out of their programs too quickly" or

11 technical probation violations and aftercare failures are the biggest problem" to

explain the rate at which low-risk youth are committed to costly secure correctional

confinement.

Perhaps most striking was the consensus among virtually everyone with whom we

spoke that large numbers of youth at Alexander are inappropriately placed in that highsecurity correctional setting. High-security correctional environments are appropriate

only for that small segment of youth that is particularly violent or that presents an

appreciable escape risk. In contrast, many of the youth at Alexander are seriously

rnelllaiiy iii, ernotioriaiiy disiurbed arid/or deveioprneniaiiy disabied youth who siruggie

to comply with facility regulations while suffering near-constant torment by other

youth, as well as by some staff. (One boy who had been at Alexander for nearly a year

has a full-scale IQ of 47.) According to G4S administrators, approximately 30 percent of

the Alexander popuJaton is inappropriate for placement at the facility and for their

program by virtue of the youths' intellectual, emotional, and/or developmental

disabilities. These youth, say G4S administrators, are unable to benefit from their

confinement at Alexander. They are commonly the most difficult to protect from other

youth and they stretch the patience of staff to dangerous breaking points.

Of equal concern is the large number of youth whose crimes and history suggest that

they pose little or no physical threat to public safety. These youth, identified during our

interviews with both staff and youth, confirmed that a large percentage of the

Alexander population is confined as a result of Violations of Probation (typically

technical violations involving no new charges), Misdemeanor law violations, disruptive

behavior at school including fights, treatment program violations, as well as for offenses

involving public order, property and or drug use, rather than for any uviolent behavior.

Although these behaviors by adolescents are difficult, challenging, even maddening to

deal with, they are seldom truly dangerous and should not be managed by reliance on

our most expensive and extreme correctional option.

While there is no doubt that a segment of the Alexander population poses an

unacceptable risk to public safety and reciuires safe and thera peutic forms of secure

8

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-15 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 8 of 28
care, these youth are in a distinct minority. It was the consensus among those DYS

officials, G4S staff and administrators, and others with whom we spoke that many, if not

most, of the youth housed at Alexander could be safely managed and well monitored

using various community-based programming techniques. In fact, it is our estimate,

based on interviews and available data regarding committing offenses and histories of

youth at Alexander, that approximately 100 of the facility's 140 youth should be

transitioned home or into other community-based settings with the support of a range

of local services designed to ensure public safety and guide the youth on a constructive

path to adulthood.

This over-reliance on secure correctional custody for youth who could be safely

managed in less restrictive settings is not only wasteful from a fiscal standpoint, it is also

inconsistent with the stated goals and mission of DYS to, "Provide safe, secure, effective

individualized treatment for juveniles to enhance integration back to society with the

life-skills that promote a crime-free life style." Treatment that is characterized largely by

placement in a setting that was not designed to and is not capable of meeting the

youth's specific needs can hardly be called effective or individualized. Relying on secure

custody for the many low-risk youth at Alexander is also at odds with the role of

Alexander as defined in the DHHS/DYS 2007-2009 Budget Request: "Alexander Juvenile

Correctional Facility provides centralized intake for juveniles committed to [the] Division.

The target population ofjuveniles assigned to Alexander is the most serious violent

offenders, difficult to place sexual offenders, and juveniles who disrupted a placement

due to behavior management issues."

DYS possesses the statutory authority to manage most committed youth in the setting it

believes is best suited to protect public safety and to rehabilitate the youth. Alexander,

therefore, does not have to be the default placement for so many non-dangerous youth,

and every effort should be made to alter this long-standing practice of relying on

Alexander and other forms of secure correctional confinement to manage challenging

youth. To be clear, DYS has the statutory authority to manage these youth in other

settings that are better suited to safely address their many needs than is possible at

Alexander.

In spite of all this, and perhaps because if it, DYS is presented with a clear choice - either

continue to pour money into the sprawling Alexander, or transform itself into a system

worthy of the children and families of Arkansas. New executive leadership,

unencumbered by decades of practice within failed juvenile correctional models, brings

with it new hope that secure correctional confinement will be reserved only for those

Arkansas youth who pose a legitimate threat to public safety, and the rest can be

managed with the aid of willing local service providers committed to ensuring public

safety and the safety of youth through the thoughtful and creative use of communitybased services in the home communities of DYS youth.

9

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-15 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 9 of 28
It is our opinion, an opinion shared by many individuals with whom we spoke that the

most effective way to ensure the safet y of the greatest number of youth is to undertake

an aggressive, transformative initiative to reduce the pop ulation at Alexander by

approximately two-thirds through the desi gn of safe and effective, individualized

supervision p lans that emphasize home and other community placements, and by

reconfiguring secure care in Arkansas to reflect current best rractices in the field by

permanentl y closing the Alexander and replacing it with one or possibly two secure,

therapeutic facilities each with no more than 40 beds.

It is our opinion that the conditions of confinement described below are in part a

product of the muddled role Alexander is forced to fill. As home to all of the state's

confined juvenile sex offenders, most of the state's violent offenders, girls committed

for a wide variety of offenses, and a vast assortment of other far less serious but

nonetheless needy youth, Alexander is a patchwork of correctional fabric that has

evolved based on the needs of the system, rather than on the needs of youth.

Unfortunately, it has not met the needs of either with any great success. By stepping

back and refocusing its mission more squarely on public safety and meeting the needs of

Arkansas' most challenging youth and families, DYS can safely reduce its reliance on

secure custody and redirect savings to fund meaningful services in the home

communities of DYS youth and their families.

Arkansas Senate Resolution 31 could supply the vehicle for a thoughtful, in-depth

examination of Alexander's role within DYS, and for a detailed analysis as to the risks

and needs presented by youth currently confined in DYS secure facilities. By harnessing

the potential within 5R31 to align the needs of youth (and their families) with a rich and

fully funded continuum of services in the neighborhoods where DYS youth live, and

restricting its use of secure correctional confinement to those youth who pose a

legitimate threat to public safety, Arkansas' DYS could emerge from its current state of

turmoil to assume the stature of a model state juvenile justice system.

Measures to Protect Youth from Harm Due to Unnecessary

Exposure to Secure Correctional Confinement

Youth in correctional facilities are at risk of harm from several sources. The three most

commonly recognized sources of harm include: 1) other youth; 2) themselves; and 3)

staff. A forth and more expansive source of harm, however, stems from reliance on

secure correctional confinement for youth who do not require this level of custody to

protect public safety and promote law-abiding behavior. There is in fact a growing body

of evidence that exposure of youth to secure correctional confinement is detrimental

and increases rather than decreases their likelihood of further penetrating the justice

system.

10

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-15 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 10 of 28
Secure correctional confinement of youth is not only the most expensive dispositional

option available in most jurisdictions, it is also widely recognized as possessing the

greatest number of potentially damaging consequences for young people. It is for these

reasons that national standards for compulsory placement of youth in out-of-home

settings call for reliance on the least restrictive option consistent with public safety.

Secure correctional confinement of youth is increasingly viewed as a disposition of last

resort, for use only when all other less secure options have been exhausted. Research

conducted over the past 20 years has established that youth exposed to secure custody

exhibit higher rates of recidivism than those in less restrictive settings; they are more

likely to experience deterioration in their mental health and an increased propensity

toward suicidal behavior; they are less likely to further or complete their education, and

their prospects for gainful employment are significantly reduced.

Observations: Despite evidence that secure custody is a strong predictor for recidivism,

Arkansas continues to incarcerate a highly disproportionate number of first-time

commitments and non-violent offenders to DYS secure facilities. According to the DYS

Statistical Report for SFY 2006, a total of 647 youth were committed to DYS youth

service centers in 2006. Of those youth, 517 (80%) were first time commitments. An

additional 87 had only one prior DYS commitment to a youth service center.

Compounding the human and fiscal costs of relying too heavily on secure correctional

custody for youth in Arkansas is the fact that a great many of these youth have been

committed to secure facilities as a result of non-violent behavior that poses only a very

limited risk to public safety, a risk that in most instances could be safely managed

through the use of high-quality, non-residential, community-based programs. Of the 647

youth committed to secure DYS facilities during SFY 2006, only 212 (33%) were

committed for "person" offenses. Only 29 of the 647 youth (4%) were committed for

the most serious "Y" felonies, while more than twice that number, 72 youth (11%), were

committed for "public order" misdemeanors such as Disorderly Conduct. In FY 2006. a

full 45% (293 of 647) of all DYS commitments to Youth Service Centers were for

misdemeanor offenses. In the first q uarter of 2007. only 16% of DYS commitments were

for felony offenses against persons.

During the course of our review, we encountered many youth committed to secure DYS

institutions for the first time as a result of non-violent and/or relatively non-serious

behavior. Below are brief descriptions of some of these youth:

A 17 year old female diagnosed with bi-polar disorder who spent the previous

five years in foster care after being raped by a neighbor at age 12. After multiple

foster home placements the girl was moved to a residential facility at age 16

after hitting a foster parent. She was successfully discharged from the residential

program but was placed in an emergency shelter while a more suitable

placement was sought. Although emergency shelters are intended for brief stays

of approximately 72 hours, this girl remained in the shelter for 10 weeks until

11

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-15 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 11 of 28
she finally left and resumed an earlier pattern of serious drug use. She was

eventually arrested and sent to Alexander on Violation of Probation and

Domestic Battery charges stemming from the incident with the foster parent.

• A 16 year old boy reported having been at Alexander for five months on his first

DYS commitment stemming from a school fight. He was arrested by school police

and because he was on probation for driving without a license, his probation was

revoked and he was placed in secure correctional confinement at Alexander. This

boy reported being in 10th grade and living with his mother and two siblings. He

was scheduled to be released a few weeks after our interview. He reported to

know little about the specifics of his aftercare plan but would be returning to live

at home and attend school.

• Another youth interviewed was a 15 year old boy on his first commitment to

DYS. He had been in secure confinement for two months. He reported originally

being placed on probation almost two years before for a curfew violation. Most

recently, he reported being kicked out of school due to disruptive behavior and

was placed on electronic monitoring (EM) for 30 days. While on EM he reported

receiving a call informing him that his brother was in trouble a few blocks away.

He left his house to aid his brother and was subsequently charged with violating

the terms of his probation.

• One 17 year old youth who was soon to be released had been at Alexander for

six months after running away from a treatment program. The youth was

originally arrested for stealing three car stereos and a golf cart from a local

garage. He reported having no violent offense history. Although all the stolen

items were returned, he did not appear for his dispositional hearing because he

feared the outcome. He was subsequently taken into custody and sent to a

treatment program that he believed required him to obtain his GED prior to

being released. Having failed his GED test on more than one occasion in the past,

he was convinced he could not earn his release before turning 18. Consequently

he ran away from the program and was later taken into custody and sent to

Alexander.

• Another 17 year old we interviewed reported being charged with two counts of

Theft of Property after breaking into a local motorcycle shop. He was

immediately caught and all the merchandise was returned. Due to an underlying

substance abuse problem, he was sent to a drug program where he received his

GED and successfully completed the program. Upon his return to court,

however, he learned that the family who held legal custody had relinquished

custody. Absent another placement, the youth was sent to Alexander.

The youth described above are only a small fraction of the many youth currently

incarcerated at Alexander whose risk to public safety appears sufficiently low to make

12

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-15 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 12 of 28
them excellent candidates for individualized community-based supervision and

monitoring. Given the cost of secure confinement and evidence that exposure to secure

correctional environments will contribute to their likelihood of recidivism, these youth

and others like them should be spared this experience in favor of safe and effective

community-based programming.

As noted, there are also a significant number of youth who experience seriously

disabling conditions that, when combined with their offense history, present a risk to

public safety sufficient to warrant their placement in a safe, secure and therapeutic

environment. While it is true that these youth may need a secure environment, their

placement at Alexander is neither appropriate nor therapeutic and serves to exacerbate

their problem behaviors. Below are brief descriptions of some of these youth:

PT is a very slight, 16 year old boy with a full scale 10 of 47. He was committed

to DYS after engaging in inappropriate sexual activity with his disabled 7 year old

brother. PT's ability to focus and follow simple directions is limited, creating

unique supervision and management needs for staff. He has a poor sense of

social boundaries and frequently invades the personal space of others,

provoking the ire of some youth. He is also a frequent bed-wetter. He was

expelled from a previous placement for inappropriate sexual acting out

knli ns,;nr ss,krk ryis,nn kn ketnr, nnri Iirnitn+innr ekn. •Iri knt,n knnn nstnnrtnri IJCI IOVI'.JI, VV I III I 5IVCI I I uia I II3L'.JI 7 DI IJ liii II!.OLI'.JI Ia, 31 I'.JUflJ I IOVC JCCI I CflCLJ.

His management needs far exceed the ability of Alexander staff to meet.

• DA is a 16 year old boy with a history of Schizophrenia, Bipolar Disorder, PTSD

and who is prescribed several psychotropic medications. He has a history of

serious suicide attempts and experiences visual and auditory command

hallucinations. He has engaged in head banging that has resulted in a loss of

consciousness and self-biting that has drawn blood. He has trouble controlling

his bowels and is tormented and ridiculed by other youth and staff after soiling

himself. He was moved to Alexander from a hospital setting where he assaulted

a staff member who physically abused him. He is frequently the target of abuse

by other youth and staff, which presents serious safety/management problems

at Alexander and requires that he be assigned a one-on-one staff person for

much of the week.

HC is 15 years old and experiences auditory hallucinations, depression with

multiple suicide attempts, and has a full scale 10 of 75. HC also has a history of a

congenital gastro-intestinal abnormality resulting in an inability to control his

bowel and occasional soiling. He was committed to DYS on a sexual assault

charge in which the victim was another child. He is a common target of torment

by other youth and is deeply fearful for his safety.

These and many other youth like them fill beds at Alexander in part because no other

more appropriate alternative exists. For these youth, exposure to the Alexander

13

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-15 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 13 of 28
correctional environment is a hostile experience that heightens their fears and anxieties,

often provoking negative behavior from them, other youth and from staff. These are

youth who carry the deep scars of physical and emotional abuse inflicted long before

their commitment to DYS, and whose developmental disabilities cry out for a small, safe

and therapeutic setting rather than 140-bed secure correctional environment that is

Alexander.

14

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-15 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 14 of 28
Recommendations for Reducing

Unnecessary Exposure to Secure Correctional Confinement

DYS officials need not wait for the results contemplated by SR31, but can begin

immediately to take steps that will safely reduce the costly burden of low-risk/highneeds youth in secure correctional confinement. Below are a series of steps that could

be formalized to begin the process of realigning DYS resources with the actual public

safety needs of the community and the rehabilitative needs of those youth committed

to its care.

1. Limit Admissions and Reduce Length of Stay. The primary means by which

unnecessary exposure to secure correctional settings can be prevented is by limiting the

number of youth who enter such facilities and reducin g the length of stay for those who

do enter. This can be accomplished through a series of administrative and programmatic

policies designed to reserve secure correctional confinement exclusively for those youth

who pose a legitimate threat to public safety that cannot be satisfactorily mitigated

through less restrictive options. For the many other youth committed to DYS who can be

safely and successfully managed in a non-residential, community-based setting, a rich

continuum of programs and services drawing upon proven models of care must be

developed in communities and neighborhoods across the state. By establishing fiscal

i nrnn+h ,n C fI .- I I I r, r4l inn r +n ci inn nn rn nn .1 + rn nt ,n, •tIn I n,' n I I, , nel .1; tin rn nth ,nc ft. +1, n

commitment of low-risk youth to DYS, the foundation can be laid for transforming

juvenile justice in Arkansas into a coherent system that builds and relies more upon the

strengths of communities to care for their youth, and less upon expensive and

ineffective correctional confinement for youth who do not require that level of custody.

The three general target populations at Alexander ripe for community-based

programming are Probation Violators (including those youth who have been discharged

from alternative programs due to rule violations), Misdemeanants, and all variety of

Non-violent Offenders. By aggressively and systematically targeting these categories for

youth to fill non-custodial programming, the population at Alexander could be reduced

as a first step toward closing and replacing this youth prison with small, therapeuticallyoriented secure facilities.

Probation Violators —Although we were unable to obtain an accurate count of

youth committed to Alexander for violating the terms of their probation or

aftercare plan, many officials with whom we spoke believed that such violations

constituted a relatively large percentage of Alexander youth. We were also told

by supervisors within the intake and clinical teams that probation violations

were typically unaccompanied by a new charge but rather constituted

"technical" or rule violations. Given that these youth were viewed as presenting

a sufficiently limited risk to public safety that they were initially placed on

probation, ever-v effort should be made to impose sanctions for misbehavior

15

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-15 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 15 of 28
short of incarceration. Many jurisdictions are turning to the use of a structured

"sanctions grids" to ratchet-up sanctions on youth for technical violations of

probation as an alternative to secure correctional confinement. Other

jurisdictions limit the amount of time for which a youth can be returned to

custody for a technical violation. Many probation violations stem from failures

by youth to comply with all the rules of a community-based program. It is

certainly true that some service providers are quicker than others to eject a

youth who presents challenges for program staff. Challenging youth, however,

are the nature of the beast in juvenile justice. Truly committed service providers

understand this and are commonly willing to abide by contractual agreements

not to "eject or reject" youth who are in or referred to their programs.

• Misdemeanants - On June 7, 2007 a total of 70 youth committed to DYS were

backed up in local detention facilities, often for months, awaiting space in a

secure DYS facility, typically Alexander. Of these 70 youth, 28 were

misdemeanants. As noted earlier, the proportion of misdemeanants already in

DYS secure facilities is already considerable. According to the Arkansas DHHS

statistical report for SFY 2006, 293 of the 647 (45%) youth committed to DYS

secure facilities were misdemeanants. By definition a misdemeanor is a low-level

offense that rarely involves any serious violence. These are offenses that often

fall within the range of behaviors in which youth commonly engage. While the

behavior is clearly illegal and not to be excused, the response b y authorities to

such behavior should be rroortionaI and measured to eq ual the severity of the

act. Again, youth who engage in the wide range of misdemeanor offense

behaviors are typically neither violent nor predatory offenders, but rather youth

whose behavior can and should be addressed through an array of communitybased sanctions instead of secure correctional confinement.

• Non-Violent Offenders - In FY 2006, only 128 of 647 youth (20%) committed to

secure DYS Youth Service Centers were committed as a result of felony offenses

against a person. The remaining 519 were committed as a result of

misdemeanor, property, public order, drug and "other" offenses. These are the

very types of offenses for which communit y-based sanctions and programming is

best suited. Halting the flow of these offenders into the DYS custodial system by

creating alternative plans prior to absorption into the system and further

reducing their numbers by expediting discharge plan development for those

already in confinement, would form another step toward safely reducing the

population at Alexander in preparation for its closure.

2. Develop an External Classification System. Along with the concerted effort to

reduce secure correctional confinement of low-risk/high-needs youth, a structured

external classification instrument should also be developed, empirically validated, and

used to guide placement decisions for youth committed to DYS. Given the

preponderance of evidence that higher rates of recidivism, substance abuse,

16

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-15 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 16 of 28
delinquency, violence and poorer school performance are found among youth who

experience confinement in congregate facilities -- a phenomenon that researchers term,

"peer deviancy training" - efforts must be made to identif y those many youth who do

not reciuire. and will not benefit from secure confinement. Developing and relying upon

a sound and empirically validated classification system that is capable of identifying

those youth who should be managed in the community should be a priority of DYS.

Although DYS uses an external "risk assessment guideline form", this instrument is

seldom used to inform decision making. The form does not appear to be consistently

completed nor does it have any bearing on placement decisions for youth. Several G45

administrators and members of the DYS intake team noted that many of the youth in

custody at Alexander score very low on the risk assessment guideline form - well below

the threshold for secure correctional confinement. The risk assessment form identifies

those with scores of six or below as being low risk and not eligible for secure placement.

Nonetheless, according to those Alexander officials familiar with the instrument and its

use, youth are regularly placed at Alexander who score in the lowest risk range. We

were not able to obtain a census of youth at Alexander arranged by risk scores. Such a

census, however, could be a useful tool for identifying segments of the population at

Alexander who should be immediately considered for less secure placement.

3. Replace Alexander with Small, Secure and Therapeutic Environments.

Simultaneously, while safely reducing Alexander's population through individualized

community-based service planning, one or possibly two small, secure and

therapeutically-oriented facilities could be established to house those youth for whom

there is a legitimate p ublic safety risk. The State of Missouri has successfully pioneered

this small, therapeutic approach to safely manage high-risk youthful offenders,

becoming what many juvenile justice professionals regard as the best juvenile

rehabilitation system in the country. By relying on an expansive array of communitybased alternatives, Missouri juvenile justice officials are able to devote expensive secure

bed-space exclusively to those youth who pose a public safety risk. Missouri's model of

secure care is unique in that it relies on a number of small (fewer than 40 beds) secure

but home-like settings typically located within 50 miles of the home communities of

each youth. These secure facilities place an emphasis on rehabilitative programming and

have become a national model for secure care of youth, boasting a recidivism rate of

just 8%. Arkansas could benefit enormously from this approach to safely manage its

most high-risk youth.

17

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-15 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 17 of 28
Measures to Protect Youth from Harm While in Secure Custody

The next section of this report is organized according the risk of harm presented to

youth by other youth, by themselves and by staff. Under each major section, various

issues pertaining to the facility's ability to protect youth from these forms of harm are

discussed, along with observations regarding the adequacy of the measures currently in

place. Each section also includes recommendations for improving the quality of

protection from harm in each area.

While many of the ways in which youth are harmed in the correctional setting can be

mitigated by improving facility operations, clearly the best way to protect youth from

these harms is to limit their exposure to the correctional setting in the first place.

Although this report provides a comprehensive review of the various risks of harm faced

by youth at Alexander, we want to be clear that our professional opinion is that for

many youth, their unnecessary placement at Alexander in the first place is a threshold

matter that must be addressed for DYS to overcome the challenges that have plagued

its operations for many years.

Measures Designed to Protect Youth From Harm By Other Youth

Staffing and Supervision.

Adequate numbers of staff must be deployed to supervise youth during waking and

sleeping hours in order to protect youth from harm. The number of staff available to

supervise youth is directly relevant to nearly all of the measures designed to protect

youth from harm. Without adequate numbers of staff, it is difficult to engage youth in

structured programming or to closely supervise and monitor tensions brewing among

youth. Staff are also unable to de-escalate these tensions effectively because they must

attend to the needs of so many other youth. Some staff may not intervene in fights

immediately, choosing instead to await the arrival of backup staff, which creates the

potential for youth to inflict more serious injuries during physical altercations. These

ratios are not meant to be calculated based on the number of staff in the building, but

rather those who are directly supervising youth at any given time. Generally,

supervisors, floaters/relief staff, and those assigned to control rooms and intake areas

are not counted toward these ratios.

Observations. Facility administrators reported that the G45 contract provides for a

continuous staff-youth ratio of 1 staff for every 8 youth (1:8). In contrast to the

previous provider, Cornell Companies, Inc., G45 includes only Youth Care Workers

(YCW) and Assistant Unit Managers in the ratio, and specifically excludes case

managers and Unit Managers from these calculations. This reportedly provides

18

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-15 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 18 of 28
richer staff coverage than had been provided previously at Alexander. Interviews

with G4S staff, facility administrators, and line staff and a review of a single day's

staffing roster (June 8, 2007) suggested that, on paper, the housing units were

staffed according to the targeted 1:8 ratio most of the time. Staff reported that, at

times, the staffing level may fall out of ratio for short periods when a staff person

was required to transport youth to another part of the campus but that Unit

Managers and roving Security staff would provide additional coverage as needed.

However, there were numerous times throughout our visit when the 1:8 ratio was

not maintained for longer periods of time. At approximately 1:30pm on a weekday,

we toured the New Dorm and made several counts of youth and staff in order to

pinpoint the ratio. Among the four pods, the following ratios were observed: 1:12,

1:10, and two pods with 1:9. A YCW was posted in each pod, and an additional YCW

was reportedly taking a break, although relief coverage had not been provided. The

Unit Manger was on the unit, but is not counted in the staff-youth ratio, per facility

administrators.

At other times, the number of staff was sufficient to meet the 1:8 ratio, but staff did

not aear to be p ro perly de p loyed to maximize their ability to suiervise the youth

and to intervene at the first sign of tension. During outdoor recreation one

afternoon. aooroximatelv 35 youth were observed Diavin g basketball, loading into a

van, or sitting in groups in tne same generai area. itnougn tnere were suiiicient

numbers of staff in the area, they were not well deployed. Several staff members

were huddled together in a group leaving large numbers of youth relatively

unsupervised. During this recreation period a fight between two youth erupted in

the van parked near the basketball court. Staff responded to intervene but better

deployment of staff in the first place could have prevented the fight from occurring.

Similarl y, while the 1:8 ratio may be achieved much of the time, a lack of civalit y or

p roactive supervision b y assigned staff provides o pportunities for youth to harm

each other. For example, nighttime staffing in the Girls' Dorm frequently consists of

three staff and 19 girls. Although this would fall within the 1:8 ratio, the quality of

supervision by staff was questionable. Several girls reported that numerous

incidents had occurred in their unit during the previous few weeks. One such

incident occurring only days before our tour allegedly involved a fight among two

girls that started in the gym and continued later in the unit. One or more girls began

"popping [i.e. opening]" the doors of other girls' cells as they passed while being

escorted to the bathroom. This resulted in many girls being out of their cells at once,

escalating the fight into a multi-youth disturbance. According to youth, security was

called and several girls were restrained before order was restored in the unit. This

incident, and others like it, could be prevented by better de-escalation techniques

and other efforts to reduce non-compliant behaviors among the youth.

19

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-15 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 19 of 28
Many youth stated that they feared for their safety and worried about being

"jum ped" by other youth. These concerns were clearly evident in a review of the

Grievances from March, April and May 2007. In just one two-week period in May

2007, the following issues were brought separately to the attention of the grievance

officer:

o "[Yo uth] hit me..."

o "[Youth ] threatened me..."

o "[Youth] punched me in the stomach..."

o "[Youth] hit me in the jaw...staff didn't see it."

o "[Youth] hit me..."

o "Keep [youth] away from me..."

o "Please change my unit. I'm scared..."

In the interviews, youth were particularly concerned for their safety in the school

building (although outdoor recreation areas and the gymnasium were also

mentioned) given that classroom supervision often consists of one teacher and one

YCW. 2 In the minds of some youth this staffing pattern creates opportunities for

more aggressive youth to strike out at others without detection. Further, youth

reported that some staff turned a blind eye to activity that places them at risk of

harm. This practice by staff can take several forms including responding in a lessthan-immediate fashion to a physical altercation between youth. One girl reported

that certain staff are known for their slow response to altercations. She stated that

she had heard girls recently say they would wait until a particular member of the

staff was working to retaliate against another girl because it was known that this

member of the staff would respond slowly, allowing for the greatest amount of

harm to be inflicted.

Meeting the 1:8 ratio during both waking and sleeping hours may be difficult at

times because of the number of vacant YCW positions. When G45 assumed

operational control of the facility, there were approximately 50 vacancies. The

number of current vacant YCW positions is approximately 27, which requires a

significant number of staff to work overtime. G4S staff reported the facility pays

approximately 2,000 to 3,000 hours of overtime (per month) to staff in order to

meet the 1:8 ratio. Staff report that working overtime can be tiresome, but provides

needed supplementary income.

Meeting the targeted 1:8 ratio is particularly difficult when individual staff are

assigned to protect the safety of individual youth, such as those on extreme suicide

precautions or those with s pecial needs. For example, one youth who has been at

Alexander nearly one year has a full scale IQ of 47 and requires close supervision and

specific instructions. Several other youth experience incontinence or enuresis. One

2 We did not observe the school in operation as we arrived and toured the facility during the school's

summer break.

20

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-15 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 20 of 28
such youth reported being constantly taunted, teased, spit on and hit by youth,

largely as a result of his occasional "accidents." To help manage this situation, this

youth was assigned a one-on-one staff person throughout much of the day. While

this may have helped to protect that individual youth, it appeared that the staff

person assigned as the one-on-one was drawn from the existing staff compliment on

the unit rather than being specifically assigned to augment the unit staff. The

deployment of regularly scheduled staff to one-on-one supervision duties clearly

reduces the staffing ratio and makes it difficult to properly supervise the other youth

on the housing unit.

Recommendation. The precise number of staff needed to conform to generally

accepted practice will vary depending on the facility's population and the physical

plant of each housing unit.

1. Conduct a post analysis to identify the precise number of staff needed. Calculate

a relief factor that compensates for staff illness, training, vacation, temporary

"non-contact" assignments, lxi suicide precaution or other safety plan duties,

etc.

2. Allocate sufficient numbers of Youth Care Worker positions so all housing units

can conform to the accepted 1:8 ratio at all times. When youth movement or

staff breaks require altering the staff ratio, provide continuous support from Unit

Managers or security staff until the regularly assigned staff person returns to his

or her post.

Staff Training

Staff in juvenile correctional settings need to be trained in behavior management, deescalation and the use of force to develop their skills in diffusing tensions among youth

and in intervening safely in situations that escalate to physical violence. The generally

accepted practice is for these topics to be a central feature of pre-service training,

generally lasting between 80 and 120 hours, and to comprise a large portion of a

standard 40-hour annual training curriculum. On-going training is essential for staff to

refresh their skills and knowledge in de-escalating tensions among youth and to develop

confidence in using a variety of physical restraint techniques when needed.

Observations. When G45 assumed operational control of Alexander, all existing

Cornell employees were reportedly screened to assess their qualifications for hire by

G45. Each staff person reportedly underwent a criminal background check and a

drug test. Each personnel file was reviewed, and each needed to be recommended

for hire by both Cornell and DYS. Facility administrators reported that those who

passed this initial screening were required to complete a Transition Training, which

was planned as a 40-hour curriculum. This training reportedly reviewed several

"emergency issues," and required all employees to sign a form indicating that they

21

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-15 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 21 of 28
would abide by the following rules: a) not taking aggressive or combative youth into

offices or other areas that are out of view of surveillance cameras; b) immediately

notifying Master Control when a potentially hostile situation is developing; c)

committing to using the least restrictive means necessary to de-escalate and control

potentially volatile situations; d) reporting all incidents of physical intervention on an

incident report. Finally, the transition training reportedly included information on a

variety of G4S policies and procedures, including wearing uniforms, clocking in/out,

ensuring perimeter security, and serving food. It is worth noting that during the

course of our tour, we became aware of several situations in which staff had

violated one of the "emergency issues" that were reportedly covered during G4S'

early tenure. For example, DRC recently investigated a case in which a youth was

deliberately pulled into a staff office—where there is no security camera coverage—

during the course of a restraint. As will be discussed in more detail, the analysis of

incident reports did not reveal a commitment among some staff to use the least

amount of force necessary to de-escalate a situation—instead, many youth are

taken to a prone position for behavior describe as "disobedient" or "refusing to

comply with directives." This appears to underscore the challenge faced by both DYS

and Alexander administrators as they attempt to change a culture of force that has

existed for many years and is common in large, secure correctional settings.

A roster of current employees was provided by the State. This roster included 79

full-time Youth Care Workers. Training records were supplied for a sample of these

employees (those with employee numbers ending in 3, 6, or 9). Of the 79 YCW5,

training records were received for 69 YCWs. A total of 27 of these staff had worked

under the Cornell administration and had been re-hired by G45. Approximately 30%

received the entire employee orientation program shortly after G45 assumed

control of the facility and 7% received re-certification training in Safe Crisis

Management (SCM) and First Aid. However, 63% of former Cornell staff did not

receive any additional training be yond a few hours of staff meetings or camøus-wide

meetings. This is particularly troubling given the volume of mistreatment and abuse

allegations that emerged during Cornell's tenure.

These data paint quite a different picture than what was presented by the Facility

Administrators, and suggest that the majority of former Cornell employees did not

receive training on the new philosophies, procedures, and practices put forward by

G45. This is particularly unfortunate given the obvious staff training deficiencies of

Cornell. Ensuring that ALL staff have the opportunity to develop new skills, become

familiar with new procedures, and to put these into practice is the only way to

ensure that the quality of care at the facility improves.

The roster of 79 full-time Youth Care Workers also included 42 staff who were hired

since G45 assumed control of Alexander. Approximately 90% of these staff received

new employee Orientation training on or before their hire date. The remaining 10

22

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-15 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 22 of 28
percent (n=5 staff) either received the training at some point after their hire date, or

did not receive the full complement of training.

The training materials assembled by G4S reinforce the concepts that force is to be

used as a last resort, residents are to be treated with dignity and respect, and

grounds a variety of behavior management skills in theoretical perceptions of

adolescent development. While the topics appear to be comprehensive, the training

curriculum totals only 40-hours, which is well short of contemporary standards of 80

to 120 hours of new employee training.

Facility administrators indicated their intent to switch from SCM to Handle With

Care (HWC; another widely used use of force training curriculum) in mid-June 2007.

Neither SCM nor HWC trainin g currently includes a competency-based assessment

of staff skill and knowledge in usin g the airoved techniques. Finally, the suicide

prevention com ponent of the training does not currentl y include instruction on how

to intervene in a situation where a youth is hanging by the neck (e.g., relieving

pressure on the neck, using a cutdown tool, etc.). In fact, the suicide component of

the training appears to only require 30 minutes to administer (based on the training

records provided), suggesting that it lacks depth and detail.

All staff will reportedly receive additional training in the HWC curriculum over the

coming months. Administrators report that a total of 12 HWC instructors have been

certified at the facility. Training on an array of special topics has also been

developed, among them, incident report writing, working with sex offenders, and

gender-specific training for working with girls. Although not yet developed, G45

reports its intention to train staff in Motivational Interviewing. G45 plans to

implement a 24-hour annual refresher training course, but has yet to do so.

Contemporary standards suggest that at least 40 hours of refresher training should

be provided on an annual basis. None of the aforementioned trainings had been

scheduled at the time of our tour. It is important to note that the many wellintended plans described by G45 administrators to train staff, develop operational

policies and provide generally improved oversight of operations at Alexander would

be ambitious under the very best of circumstances. Achieving the stated objectives

with a staff consisting largely of hold-overs from a terminated contractor will make

attaining these goals all the more challenging. Further complicating the task for G45

is the constant pressure caused by a steady influx of low-risk/high-needs youth.

All staff interviewed reported that they had received training either when they

transitioned from Cornell to G45 employees, or as new G45 employees. All staff

commented on the "culture change" at the facility since G45 assumed control. Most

characterized this shift as the administration "looking out more for the kids,"

whether by providing them with additional incentives for good behavior, attending

more closely to the needs of the girls, or the administrators' willingness to talk

directly with the youth. Most also commented that G45 was committed to reducing

23

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-15 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 23 of 28
the frequency with which staff used physical restraints, reserving them as a

response of "last resort." all staff commented that using force was "much less

acceptable" under the G4S administration than it had been under Cornell. G4S staff

reported that the frequency of youth being "taken to the floor" had decreased

significantly since they assumed control of the facility. In May 2006, there were 131

instances of take downs recorded in incident reports, compared to only 18 take

downs recorded in May, 2007 (these data were not independently verified). Many

staff felt this was a positive development, believing that proactive supervision and

de-escalation skills could effectively control the vast majority of situations that arise

at Alexander. However, the extent to which staff have been trained in alternative

means of responding to incidents is questionable given the small proportion of staff

that has been fully retrained since G4S assumed control.

Staff descriptions of G45' training suggested that it focused on techniques for deescalating conflicts among youth and ways to prevent the need for physical force to

be used. Several staff commented that they were hesitant to intervene in fights, not

because of a lack of confidence in their own skills, but because they perceived that

the staff were "never believed" if a youth made a child abuse allegation and they

feared the loss of their jobs. While the fact that staff are cognizant of the

consequences of alleged abuse and their perceptions that G45 takes these

allegations very seriously are both very positive indicators of G45' commitment to

protect youth from harm. It is also true, however, that staff must have confidence to

intervene when needed and must not be timid when an altercation occurs.

Recommendations.

1. Align Orientation Training with contemporary standards of care (e.g., require 80

to 120 hours; include intensive training on Suicide Prevention, Child Abuse

Reporting, and the Use of Force, among other topics).

2. Use real-world scenarios in physical restraint training so that staff develop

confidence in their ability to intervene effectively and their knowledge of what is

permissible. Rather than requiring staff to restrain a willing co-worker, some

jurisdictions invite youth to assist with training and direct them to resist.

3. Incorporate a measure of skill-based assessment to certify that staff can execute

techniques properly.

4. Continue to require at least 40 hours of On the Job Training in which new staff

are paired with veteran staff, shadowing them throughout the day until they are

ready to supervise youth independently.

5. Require all staff to participate in 40 hours of training annually so they can refresh

their skills.

24

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-15 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 24 of 28
Programming.

The frequency of misbehavior and violence is reduced when youth are engaged in

structured activities throughout the day. Not only can such activities help to prevent

tensions from brewing and youth from colluding with each other, but they can also

contribute to the process of discharge planning by connecting relevant programming to

real world experiences in the communities to which youth will return. During the

weekdays, youth should be engaged in a full day of academic instruction, and should

have the opportunity to participate in a variety of programs after school. Like those thai

could be held on weekend days, these can be facilitated by volunteers or direct care

staff and should be focused on helping youth to accomplish developmental tasks and to

address their criminogenic needs. Generally accepted practices also dictate that youth

should be engaged in large muscle activity for one hour on weekdays and two hours

each weekend day.

Observations, With the exceptions of school and recreation, programming is limited

for most youth at Alexander. Alexander is intended to serve as a intake/assessment

center for many youth, and thus the original planning for the facility was to defer

access to treatment programming to the subsequent placement. Regrettably,

however, youth frequently become stuck in the intake status, often because service

providers are not willing to work with the youth. These youth are often left to

complete their commitments at Alexander with minimal programming. Fifty-seven

of the youth at Alexander on the first day of our tour were designated as Intake

status, seven of whom had been in Intake status since March 2007 or before.

Although required by a Consent Agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice to

operate a vocational program, none was in place at the time of our tour. We were

informed by school officials at Alexander that the fledgling vocational program came

to an abrupt halt when the instructor died in January 2007. We are also aware of

serious and long-standing inadequacies in the special education program at

Alexander and reviewed findings by the Arkansas Department of Education

stemming from its April 3 and 4, 2007 monitoring visit to Alexander.

One programmatic bright spot at Alexander is the Boys and Girls Clubs program that

provides physical education for all Alexander youth during the school day and an

after school program consisting of art, music, independent living skills and job

readiness components. Youth from housing units at Alexander have daily access

for one hour to the after school program on a staggered schedule. The Boys and

Girls Club is also in the final year of a multi-year Intensive Aftercare Program grant

which provides targeted reentry services to youth from Pulaski and Saline Counties.

These reentry services have shown promise in reducing recidivism in part by working

closely with youth and their families to reenroll youth in schools, and by assisting

25

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-15 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 25 of 28
with employment and other needed services. Youth are seen face-to-face at least

three times weekly during their first 90 days post discharge.

Recommendations. Investments in structured programming will likely result in

reduced tensions and fewer fights among youth, and therefore will provide greater

protection from harm.

1. Combine a discharge planning component into all programming designed to

make sure the skills being taught have applicability in the home communities of

youth. This would include establishing connections in home communities of

youth that can both hasten and provide programmatic continuity upon

discharge.

2. Ensure that all youth, including those in disciplinary isolation, attend school for a

full day each weekday.

3. Expand high-interest, developmentally-appropriate programming to be delivered

in the evenings and on weekends.

4. Provide all youth, including those in disciplinary isolation, with at least one hour

of large muscle activity on weekdays and two hours on weekend days.

Incident Reporting.

Juvenile correctional facilities need a process for reporting all fights between youth,

youth assaults on staff, attempted escapes, suicide gestures, and other situations in

which the youth's safety or the facility's security is at risk. The generally accepted

practice is for these reports to include a detailed narrative account of the incident,

statements from the youth involved and from others who witnessed the incident,

statements from all staff involved, and a meaningful supervisory review that assesses

the extent to which standard policies and procedures were followed. The reports should

be reviewed in a meaningful way—that is, there is little point in requiring staff to

document incidents if the information is not used for any purpose. At the very least,

they should be reviewed for patterns across youth (to identify on-going tensions,

programmatic gaps, youth who may need additional attention from mental health staff,

youth who may need additional protection or a different housing assignment) as well as

training opportunities for staff (in de-escalation, staying on post, proper use of force

techniques, etc.). A more sophisticated use for these reports is to identify hotspots

within the facility—times, places and situations that seem to provide opportunities for

fights, escape, contraband—so that the environment can be manipulated strategically.

Observations.

Facility administrators described the process for completing and reviewing incident

reports. While some identifying information on the youth, staff, time and place is

required at the top of the incident report form, the bulk of the form provides for an

26

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-15 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 26 of 28
unstructured narrative account of the incident. Certain critical incidents are required

to be reported within an hour, but most are to be reported by the end of the shift.

The Shift Supervisor is responsible for assembling the incident report packet, but

facility administrators said the supervisor is not expected to critique the staff's

handling of the incident. This contradicts what is stated on the form itself, which

asks s pecifically for shift supervisors to comment on how the incident could have

been prevented or antici pated by staff. While G4S intends to require that all staff

present complete a witness statement, this was not Cornell's policy, has not yet

been required by G4S and it was not made clear when this requirement might take

effect. All incident reports reportedly include a "Marks Sheet" that is completed by

trained medical staff. 3 By the end of each shift, all incident reports should be faxed

to staff in DYS's Internal Affairs Unit. The facility's Management Team reportedly

reviews each incident from the prior day at their morning meeting. References to

specific incidents and to the practice of daily incident report review were made by

most of the Assistant Facility Administrators and Unit Managers, suggesting that this

review does in fact occur on a routine basis. When questions arise about how a

particular incident was handled, the facility-based investigator (discussed in more

depth later in this report), cues up the video footage and reviews the incident. We

were also told that if indicated, constructive discussions are held with staff about

how they could have prevented the incident, or formal investigations of misconduct,

policy violations, or abuse are initiated at that point.

All YCWs interviewed were aware of their responsibility to complete an incident

report following a youth-on-youth assault, attempted escape, assault on staff or

other serious incident. However, this practice appears to extend on'y to incidents

that are actually observed by staff. When asked how the y would document a youth's

report that he or she had been assaulted outside the view of staff, most responded

that they would only make a notation in the unit log book, but would not complete

an incident re port (others responded that they would only question the youth

involved, but would not document the allegation in writing at all). A sound incident

reporting process would require documenting ALL instances, whether observed or

reported, of youth-on-youth assault. The failure to recognize the im portance of

reporting an incident like the one iresented is of concern and su ggests that facility

administrators may onl y receive documentation on a relativel y small subset of

incidents occurring in the facility.

We reviewed redacted copies of approximately 450 incident reports from January

21, 2007 through April 28, 2007. This review was not intended as an exhaustive

review of the volume of incidents occurring at the facility, but rather as an

assessment of the quality of the incident reporting process and its ability to identify

A "Marks Sheet" is a standardized form that is used to identify and describe injuries. It includes an

outline of a body on which staff are to identify the specific location of injuries, along with space for a

narrative description of the injury.

27

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-15 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 27 of 28
and respond to issues that compromise youth's safety. A sub-sample of 80 reports

(approximately 18%) was randomly chosen for more in-depth analysis. This analysis

revealed several troubling inadequacies:

• In many situations, the amount of force used appeared excessive as youth

were taken to the floor in response to rather minor rule violations (e.g.,

cussing or failing to comply with staff directives). These incidents suggest

that staff are not working their way through the continuum, beginning with

verbal commands, increasing staff presence, and attempting to encourage

compliance using less restrictive means (e.g., escort, upper torso) before

taking the youth to the floor. While some youth will continue to be noncompliant, in the absence of aggression or a clear threat of harm, nonphysical means should be exhausted first, and then less restrictive physical

means should be employed. Staff should recognize the fact that laying their

hands on an agitated youth can escalate the situation, causing a more

extreme use of force, in a situation where less invasive means could have

ended the incident without physical restraint being needed.

None of the incident re ports irovided youth witness statements from the

youth involved in the incident or those who observed it. This is particularly

problematic in a facility with a history of unprofessional and abusive

treatment by staff as these statements are one of the first indicators that the

incident needs to be flagged for additional review. Youth should be provided

with the opportunity to give their own accounts of the incident. The

information provided is often useful to staff to identify ongoing conflicts

among youth and also gives important clues for better handling of future

incidents with that youth.

Not all of the incident reports included witness statements from all staff who

were present. Among those that were included, many suffered from a lack of

detail that p revents a clear understandin g of how the incident occurred and

the staff's response to it. Staff should be asked to describe the youths'

behavior, their own role in the incident, and what they observed other staff

doing during the incident. Each staff person should also clearly state where

they were posted and how many youth they were supervising, so that staff

deployment can be evaluated.

While nearly all staff identified a specific SCM physica' restraint technique

(e.g., hook and carry, upper torso, etc.), they did not provide sufficiently

detailed descri ptions of how the techni q ue was executed (e.g. which arm

they were holding, where other staff were positioned, whether the youth

struggled against the restraint or complied). In addition, many staff placed

the youth in a prone position on the floor, and it is not clear from the

narrative whether they properly balanced their own weight so as to ensure

28

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-15 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 28 of 28
that they were not placing pressure on the youth's torso. These details are

essential in situations where injuries occur or youth allege abuse.

• A significant number of incident re ports did not include Marks Sheets for all

youth who were involved in the incident, suggesting that they did not receive

medical attention after their involvement in an altercation or a restraint.

Further, some of the Marks Sheets revealed significant delays (e.g., several

hours) in the delivery of medical attention. Except during nighttime hours,

medical treatment should be provided within an hour or less. In a few cases,

the Marks Sheet was completed by staff, not by licensed medical

practitioners.

• None of the incident reports evidenced a thoughtful review by a supervisor.

Most of the incident reports were signed by a supervisor, but very few

provided any comment. The few supervisory reviews that were completed

did not discuss how the incident could have been prevented or anticipated

(as required by the form and as required by contemporary standards of care),

nor did they make any mention of the inadequacies present in the incident

report packages themselves. For example, some of the staff witness

statements were contradictory, yet the supervisor did not make any attempt

to gain clarity.

These deficits limit the usefulness of the incident reporting process as a tool for

protecting youth from harm. They do not provide the necessary details to critique the

staff's execution of various physical restraint techniques or to account for the

positioning and deployment of all staff in the area. They suggest that additional work is

needed to ensure a commitment to using the least amount of force necessary to ensure

that youth do not hurt themselves, staff or other youth. Using force is not about

controlling the situation (i.e. making the youth do what the staff wants them to do)—it

should be solely about protecting the youth and staff from harm. The G45 training

materials subscribe to this idea, but the incident reports suggest that not all staff have

adopted it as their own. Making the incident reporting process more useful toward this

end will require more training and better oversight from shift supervisors who must

learn to think critically about the incidents and to guide staff in the moment toward

avenues that can at least anticipate, but hopefully prevent, subsequent incidents.

Recommendations.

1. Require staff to complete an incident report on ALL incidents of youth-on-youth

violence, whether or not the incident was observed by staff or simply reported

by youth involved.

2. Develop key questions for staff response to ensure that all key information is

included in the narrative, e.g., what precipitated the incident? How many staff

were present and where were they posted? How many youth were present and

what were they doing? What efforts were made to de-escalate the incident non29

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-16 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 29
verbally and verbally, prior to using physical force? If physical force was used,

specifically, what did each staff do? How did the youth respond? What happened

after staff gained control of the situation?

3. Require all staff to submit written witness statements. These should account for

their own actions, as well as those of the youth and other staff.

4. Develop procedures for youth involved in or witnessing incidents to provide

written statements.

5. Require shift supervisors or unit managers to critique each incident as to how

staff might have been able to prevent its occurrence, how staff responded to

youth's behavior, whether the situation was controlled using the least restrictive

means possible, etc.

6. Utilize videotaped footage to verify that the incident occurred as described. This

footage will also be useful in crafting prescriptions for how similar incidents

could be prevented in the future.

7. Ensure that all youth involved in the incident receive prompt treatment by

medical professionals and that the provision of treatment is documented in each

report using a Marks Sheet.

8. In addition to reviewing individual reports, analyze the volume of incident

reports to identify patterns among youth, staff, location, time of day, and

circumstance that could be used in efforts to decrease the likelihood of similar

incidents in the future. An analysis structure with this capability is reportedly

used at other G45 facilities.

Medica' Attention.

Generally accepted standards dictate that ALL youth involved in incidents with the

potential for harm (e.g., fights, suicide gestures or attempts, accidental injuries) should

receive medical attention in a timely manner, usually interpreted to be within 2 hours of

the incident. Even if youth report that they are not injured, they should be assessed by a

nurse or other licensed medical professional. The receipt of medical attention should be

documented in two ways—on the incident report itself (or via an attachment) and in a

progress note in the youth's medical chart. The nurse should inquire about what

happened, assess and treat any injuries sustained. Most jurisdictions also require the

nurse to photograph any injuries sustained, particularly in situations in which the youth

alleges mistreatment by staff.

Observations. Facility administrators and nursing staff reported that all youth are

required to be assessed by medical staff following their involvement in an incident

that involves an altercation or restraint. These assessments are documented on a

"Mark Sheet" which is attached to each incident report (by giving it to the

accompanying direct care staff before the youth leaves the clinic), with a copy

placed in the youth's medical file. One of the first operational changes made once

30

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-16 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 29
Alexander came under G4S control was to require the "Mark Sheet" to be completed

by licensed medical staff (under Cornell, direct care staff were permitted to make

assessments and decisions pertaining to the medical condition of youth). All YCWs

interviewed referenced the completion of the "Mark Sheet" as one of the steps

involved in the incident reporting process.

The Marks Sheets attached to the incident reports provided by DYS revealed that

medical treatment was p rovided p romitly to some, but not all, youth involved in

altercations or restraints. Among the 80 incident reports analyzed, some did not

include a Marks Sheet for all youth involved, some evidenced a significant delay in

the provision of medical treatment, and some of the Marks Sheets were completed

by non-medical staff. None of the incident reports indicated that photograDhs of

injuries were taken, which is contrary to contem porary standards of care. Prompt

medical treatment following an incident or restraint is essential to limiting the harm

sustained by youth involved in these situations. In situations were abuse or

mistreatment is alleged, an assessment of injury by medical personnel is essential.

Thus, it is essential that treatment is provided to ALL youth who are involved.

Recommendations.

1. Ensure that all youth receive prompt medical attention following their

involvement in a critical incident, whether or not they report being injured.

2. Photograph all injuries sustained. In situations where mistreatment by staff is

alleged, photograph the areas in which the youth reports injury, even if no injury

is visible.

3. Document the delivery of medical treatment on the incident report itself.

4. Document the delivery of medical treatment in the youth's medical file, to

ensure that medical staff's subsequent contacts with youth are fully informed of

the youth's history.

Behavior Management.

Adolescents exhibit a range of nuisance behaviors that, while annoying to staff, do not

pose an immediate threat to the safety and security of the facility, staff or other youth.

In addition, youth sometimes engage in more serious behaviors (e.g., assault, attempted

escape, etc.) that require a firm and predictable response. Disciplinary isolation,

considered by some an appropriate response to certain serious behaviors, is never an

appropriate response to nuisance behavior. A behavior management system (BMS) that

rewards youth for positive behavior and penalizes youth for non-compliance or negative

behavior can be a key tool to protect youth from harm, if it is properly designed and

implemented. The range of incentives should be meaningful to youth; should affect a

large proportion, if not all, of the youth; and should be frequently available. The range

of consequences should be proportional to the severity of the behavior, should be

clearly articulated, and should be consistently and fairly applied by staff. The BMS

31

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-16 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 3 of 29
should be used in all sectors of the facility—in the housing units, in school, in the dining

hall, and during programming and should be effective on both weekdays and weekends.

Observations. The basic behavior management program at Alexander is

conceptualized as a levels system where youth accumulate points and advance to

different levels with progressively more privileges.

The housing units use different labels for the levels (Learner, Practicing, Role Model;

Pride, Gold Star, Show; Pearls, Dolls, Princess) and award differing numbers of points

per day, but the concept remains the same. Youth begin the day with a maximum

number of points, and points are deducted by teachers, YCW5 and others in

response to negative behavior and rule violations. Points are used only to advance

from one level to the next, and cannot be used to purchase rewards. Privileges

associated with the level var y across housing units, but are very limited in sco pe in

all instances. Staff described the higher levels receiving progressively more TV time,

recreation time, or later bedtimes, but that the behavior management program was

otherwise limited in what it could provide to youth to encourage positive behavior.

Recently, Saturday Activities were reportedly implemented for those who had

achieved Role Model status, but the details of this program are not known.

Administrators at Alexander acknowledged that the behavior management system

varies in its application from unit to unit, and lacks consistency among staff. Youth

do not have any way to "earn" points based on performance, but can only "lose"

points based on misbehavior. Such a design obviously lacks an incentive for youth to

perform well. If, for instance, a youth looses a significant number of points early in

the day, there is no incentive for them to improve their behavior in the remainder of

the day in the hope of earning back lost points. All staff commented that the scone

of both sanctions and rewards available through the current program were not

sufficient to encourage positive behavior and to discourage negative behavior. Youth

were aware of the behavior management system and could, in virtually all cases,

identify their level. According to most youth, however, the system lacks meaningful

rewards to be a factor in motivating good behavior. Many youth were unable to

describe the difference between the first two levels, believing that the two levels

share identical privileges.

Several staff were concerned that the level system unintentionall y reinforced

negative behavior by p roviding one-to-one attention to youth who misbehave and

by excusing them from school if they acted out during the school da y. For many

youth who struggle in the classroom, their objective in acting out in the classroom is

exactly this—to leave the environment that challenges them and to receive

individual attention from staff. Staff noted that youth who were meeting

expectations were rarely given individual staff attention as a reward, even though

most staff felt this would be a compelling incentive for youth to behave. Two staff

indicated that when they tried to restrict non-compliant youths' access to

recreational programming (e.g., movies or special events), they did not have

32

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-16 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 4 of 29
sufficient staff to hold the youth in their rooms and ended up simply allowing the

youth to participate with the others.

The variety of sanctions available is extremel y limited, as the youth's level is

dropped in response to nearly every instance of misbehavior. Youth reported that in

response to most misbehavior, a "long form" is completed by the case manager that

in the extreme could result in added custody time, but often does not result in a

tangible sanction. More serious behaviors also include a period of room restriction

(discussed in the next section). None of the youth or staff reported the use of any

other type of sanctions—writing an essay, writing a letter of apology, tutoring a

peer, campus beautification project, etc.—relying only on the loss of privileges

associated with one's level. The problem with this practice is that for some youth,

the rewards and sanctions available through the levels system are not particularly

meaningful and do not serve as effective incentives for positive behavior. In

response to major rule violations, youth are placed on MCV (major community

violation status), which has relatively few privileges associated with it.

Facility administrators reported their intention to move away from the point/level

system and to one that responds to misbehavior in a more interactive fashion. In

other words, when a youth commits a rule violation, the youth and staff will engage

in a conversation to determine the appropriate sanction. This process should result

in a far more individualized system that could account for the broad range of

cognitive abilities among Alexander youth. Further, it can be tied more clearly to

programming, treatment and discharge planning goals and thus could become a

coherent part of G4S' rehabilitative mission. However, this shift was only in the very

early planning phase and has yet to be fully designed. There is currently no projected

date by which implementation is anticipated at Alexander.

Recommendations. Fortifying the behavior management system may lead to a

reduction in the number of youth-on-youth assaults and the number of youth who

fear for their safety. Program enhancements should include efforts to:

1. Redesign the program to provide a richer and more meaningful array of rewards

and sanctions to encourage positive behavior. Every effort should be made to

integrate individual youth's treatment and discharge goals in the behavior

management program, thereby creating meaningful incentives for achievement.

2. Train staff to apply the system properly and consistently. Not only should

training include real-world scenarios for staff decision-making, but also should

help staff to utilize the system in a strength-based manner (e.g., encouraging

good behavior rather than constantly threatening sanctions for negative

behavior).

3. Develop a range of incentives that can be purchased as part of a token economy

with earned points. Engage youth in designing the list of items and their cost, to

ensure the array is seen as both valuable and worthwhile.

33

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-16 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 5 of 29
Isolation.

Considerable debate exists within the juvenile justice community as to the appropriate

use of isolation. Generally accepted practice is to view isolation within a juvenile

correctional facility as a tool to be used sparingly to de-escalate youth who are violent,

out of control, and who represent an immediate threat to the safety of youth and staff

and the security of the facility. If the purpose of de-escalation is to be served, youth

must be placed in a separate environment so that they can regain control, calm down

and work through some of the issues that sparked the violent behavior. This type of

isolation is used only when youth are agitated—after a fight or after an intense verbal

altercation with staff—and should be short-term. Most youth will calm down within a

couple of hours, and some even sooner. The length of stay depends entirely on the

youth—how quickly they regain control, and whether they are willing to commit to

letting the issue pass. However, ensuring the length of stay is commensurate with the

youth's demeanor also depends on the frequency and intensity of staff interaction with

the youth. Staff should visit the youth frequently and should attempt to engage them in

conversation and to counsel them to prepare for return to the general population.

Increasing numbers of jurisdictions have ceased to use isolation as a punitive sanction.

Effective sanctions used in other jurisdictions include point reductions, community

service, writing assignments, apology letters, losing the privilege of attending a social

event, among others. Time in isolation does little to change the underlying causes of the

troublesome behavior. If youth are put in isolation for swearing or being generally

annoying to staff, they are not being taught to express themselves appropriately and

will likely emerge from isolation even more frustrated. Fewer and fewer jurisdictions

look to isolation as punishment but rely instead on sanctions that more directly address

the underlying causes of the behavior. It is certainly more in line with best practice to

limit the use of isolation to those situations in which the youth presents an immediate

risk of harm to himself, staff, or other youth, and thus must be held in isolation until he

is calm and this risk has subsided.

• Observations. Although G45 and facility administrators indicated their desire to alter

the Alexander's isolation practices no clear date exists by which intended

modifications are to be implemented. Current practices suggest that isolation is used

at Alexander in a manner that is inconsistent with contemporary standards of care.

YCW5 reported that isolation (also called room restriction, social separation or social

isolation) was commonplace under Cornell but has become less pervasive since G45

assumed operational control. Although possibly used less fre q uently, there was a

striking lack of consistenc y across staff in res ponse to Questions about when the use

of isolation is authorized, procedures for placing a youth in isolation, and the

documentation that must accompany its use. These varied and inconsistent

responses from staff suggest that isolation is imposed arbitraril y and without the

34

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-16 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 6 of 29
procedures normally reciuired to p rotect youth's due process rights and to ensure

their safety during the period in which they are confined to their rooms.

Administrators stated that they are in the process of modifying their use of isolation,

moving to a "Controlled Observation" approach to room confinement intended not

to exceed 24 hours and to involve frequent interviews by staff with youth confined

to their rooms to gauge their mood and ability to return safely to the general

population. Administrators stated that visual checks of youth on room confinement

are to be conducted every 15 minutes and documented in the unit log. They noted,

however, that 15 minute checks and documentation is the "expectation" and they

are aware that this practice is not being adhered to uniformly by all staff. They also

noted that youth are to be released from room confinement as soon a youth has

calmed down and can safely function on the unit; and that room confinement is not

to be used as a form of punishment. This too, however, was noted by administrators

to be an area where they know deviation occurs. Administrators at Alexander

acknowledge the importance of proper and sufficient training for staff in this area.

At the time of our tour, however, no dates had been fixed by which the needed

training would be initiated or completed.

In practice, we saw examples where isolation was used as punishment without any

of the necessary procedures to ensure the youths' safety and welfare, or to protect

their due process rights. One of DRC's clients who reported that she had been on

"social separation" for two weeks was used as a case study to obtain a snapshot of

the facility's practices surrounding the use of isolation. From February 21, 2007

through approximately March 4, 2007, frequent entries were noted in the Girls Unit

Log indicating that the youth in question had been confined to her room for

extended periods of time. Documentation was not sufficient to ascertain the reason

for this confinement, who authorized it, or whether it was implemented throughout

the entire period above or whether the youth was released to the general

population at certain periods. Facility administrators searched the incident report

files for this information, but to no avail. Whatever caused the youth's lock-down

status had not been reported through the required channels. Further, contrary to

facility policy (as reported by facility administrators) which requires safety/welfare

checks of all youth confined to their rooms at 15-minute intervals, documentation of

these checks in the log book were sporadic, at best. Many times, an entry was made

indicating that the youth was on the unit (e.g., "lYouth, lStaff on unit") but

additional entries were not made to verify the youth's well-being.

In addition to placing youth in room confinement for extended periods without the

standard precautions to ensure fairness, safety and the protection of their due

process rights, Alexander staff also reportedly utilize group punishment, which is

incompatible with contemporary standards of care. The majority of youth

interviewed reported that they are frequently punished in mass for the behavior of

one or two youth on the unit. Youth from all housing units provided many examples

35

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-16 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 7 of 29
of this practice. Several girls mentioned one girl in particular whose misbehavior is

frequently the cause of group punishment. Boys from various units also mentioned

the names of one or two youth whose misbehavior resulted in blanket forms of

punishment for all. These challenging and often deeply troubled youth commonly

become the targets of retaliation for their actions by others on their units, placing

them at high risk of harm by other youth.

Recommendations.

1. Develop procedures strictly limiting the use of isolation as a method for deescalating youth behavior and helping them to regain control.

• Identify the circumstances under which isolation is permitted (but not

required), such as immediately after a fight with another youth, after

attempting to assault or assaulting a staff member, after attempting to

escape, etc.

• Identify the frequency with which Youth Care Workers or Supervisors

must meet with the youth (e.g., every 2 hours) and the types of questions

to be asked to assess the youth's readiness to return to the general

population. Require supervisors to document the reason for continuing

isolation (e.g., making threats, history of continued aggression upon

release, etc.).

• Require staff to make frequent welfare checks of the youth while

confined (e.g. at random intervals, no less than 6 per hour) and to

document these observations on an Observation Form. Maintain these

documents in an organized fashion so they may be audited to verify that

policies have been properly implemented.

2. Develop written policies delineating minor and mjor rule violations and the

authorized sanctions for each type of infraction.

Develop a range of creative sanctions for violations that do not warrant

confinement.

• Ensure that sanctions are proportional and germane to the nature of the

offense itself; and

• Grant youth the right to appeal the sanction to the Facility Administrator

or designee.

Classification.

One of the key challenges in safely managing a large juvenile correctional facility such as

Alexander is the diversity of offenders in the general population. Given the large

number of very low-risk offenders that fill Alexander, limiting their exposure to more

sophisticated delinquent youth is extremely difficult. Youth at Alexander charged with

status offenses and probation violations are housed along with those accused of very

serious violent crimes. Youth of all different ages, sizes, and levels of sophistication and

36

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-16 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 8 of 29
maturity are housed in close proximity, creating a risk of harm to those who are more

vulnerable. There are few places where deviant youth are more tightly concentrated

than in a correctional facility, and Alexander is certainly no exception. As discussed in

the first section of this report, "external" classification systems use a set of empirically

derived factors to identify the specific level of supervision that is needed by a particular

youth, based on his or her risk of recidivism. Within correctional facilities, a different

type of classification system is needed. "Internal" classification instruments distinguish

potentially predatory youth from those who could be easily victimized, leading to

housing assignments that prevent contact between these two groups and suggests

supervision strategies to diminish the risks involved. An internal classification

instrument is composed of a variety of factors such as the youth's committing offense,

age, size, maturity, and prior involvement in institutional misconduct to determine the

appropriate classification level and housing strategy. High quality instruments are used

throughout the country, but all should be locally validated to ensure they will lead to

accurate decisions within a new setting, before being adopted. Without a local

validation, a jurisdiction risks implementing a system that could actually create harm (by

housing inappropriate types of offenders together) rather than mitigate it.

Observations. Alexander does not use any t ype of objective internal classification

instrument. The housing units were characterized as follows:

o Dorm 1: sex offender unit; 18 single cells

o New Dorm: older boys, general population; 48 beds in open dormitory

setting (four 12-bed pods)

o Boys Intake: intake unit, younger boys; 18 single cells

o Girls Intake: sole housing unit for girls; 12 rooms that can be

double/triple/quadruple bunked

o House of Hope: sanction unit; 15 single cells

o JLIMP: sanction unit; 24 single cells (3 6-bed pods)

Most of the DYS and G4S administrators commented that Alexander was not

being used as originally intended. The facility is designed as an Intake and

Assessment center, intended to admit boys and girls once committed to DYS

custody, complete a 30- to 45- day assessment process, and transfer the youth

to an appropriate placement. While this quick turn-around reportedly does occur

for a small segment of youth, the population includes many youth for whom

suitable placements cannot be located (e.g., those who are developmentally

disabled; those with significant cognitive deficits; those who have failed at prior

non-secure placements). These youth often languish at Alexander for months,

sometimes years, even though Alexander was not intended as a long-term

placement. Further, the sex offender programs are located at Alexander which

suggests at least some intention to provide ongoing programming. This

heterogeneous youth population presents a significant challenge for housing

decisions. While the Alexander is large and has multiple housing units, most are

37

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-16 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 9 of 29
somewhat specialized, leaving very little flexibility in terms of bed assignments.

For example, one girl reported a scenario that perfectly illustrates this point: she

was concerned for her safety because one of the girls in her four-person room

had made unwanted sexual advances toward her. She wanted to be moved to a

different room, but could not because the combination of offenses (sex

offenders must be housed in a single room), medical needs (girls with injuries,

weight problems, and other chronic conditions that required their assignment to

a lower bunk), and alliances/tension among the other girls left very few choices

within the single housing unit for females.

The threat of unwanted sexual advances or of having to witness consensual

sexual activity among roommates was a common comDlaint among the youth

interviewed. When questioned about the issue, staff appeared to be at a loss for

effective strategies to combat the behavior, stating that it occurs at night when

youth are in their rooms/on their bunks (and not as well supervised as during the

day), and that they are very limited in their ability to re-assign beds in response

to these complaints. A more structured and strategic housing assignment

process could provide staff with additional tools to manage this behavior more

effectively.

The dormitory setting of New Dorm also presents a security challenge. While

particularly vulnerable or predatory youth could be shuffled among the four

pods, there are few options for boys to be housed separately, unless they are sex

offenders or have some sort of disciplinary issue taking them to House of Hope

or JUMP. Particularly in the dormitory setting, youth of all different sizes, levels

of maturity, and histories are all housed together, with no formal distinction

between those who are potentially vulnerable and those who are potentially

predatory. Bed assignments may be posted on individual doors or individual

rooms, but no historical record of these assignments is kept, which limits the

ability to adequately investigate allegations of inappropriate sexual contact or

other forms of assault. The failure to use an objective process to assess each

youth's potential for violence within Alexander and to house them accordingly

creates a serious risk of youth-on-youth violence.

Recommendations.

1. Develop/adopt and validate objective internal classification instruments to guide

housing decisions. The validation should be conducted by qualified researchers

who examine the statistical relationship between the items on the instrument

and the youth's involvement in institutional misconduct.

2. Classify all youth upon admission, and re-classify them after they have been

housed at the facility for a specified period of time (e.g., 30 days) or after they

have been involved in a major rule violation.

3. Develop a housing plan that identifies the type of youth that may be placed in

each room in each unit. For example, dormitory beds closest to the control

38

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-16 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 10 of 29
center should house those who are potentially aggressive and those who may

need more intensive supervision (e.g., those on suicide precautions).

4. Maintain and audit housing assignment sheets to verify that classification

procedures have been implemented as designed.

Measures Designed to Protect Youth from Self-Harm

Adequate policies and procedures need to be established and implemented in all

juvenile correctional settings to identify, supervise, and protect youth who indicate a

risk of self-harm. Youth in correctional settings are known to be at higher risk of suicide

than their counterparts in the community. In fact, young people with behavioral health

problems who are confined in secure correctional settings tend to get worse, not better.

Youth in secure confinement express the risk of self harm in various ways and staff must

be trained to identify and to respond to them in developmentally-appropriate ways.

Their responses will vary somewhat with the individual needs of youth, but in general,

will include a combination of enhanced supervision and mental health treatment to

address the underlying issues. Adolescents who experience suicidal feelings typically do

better when fully-integrated into normal program activities and when their positive

relationships with others are sustained. The risk for suicide may be present upon

admission and must be identified using a validated and developmentally-appropriate

suicide risk assessment instrument. Because the risk for suicide may develop during the

period of incarceration, staff must be trained to identify warning signs and to refer

youth for assessment by qualified mental health professionals.

In general, all ideation, gestures, and attempts should trigger suicide precautions. Once

the risk is identified, the generally accepted practice utilizes multiple levels of

precautions with increasingly intensive levels of supervision. The welfare of those at

lower risk is commonly assessed approximately every 15 minutes (and documented

accordingly), while those at higher risk are assessed approximately every 5 or 10

minutes. Some youth may be placed under constant visual observation and/or one-toone supervision if suicide is thought to be imminent. Observations should be made in a

random and unpredictable fashion, not at predetermined intervals, commonly

articulated as "check at random intervals, no less than 6 per hour." In addition to

differences in the intensity of supervision, the levels of precautions also typically differ

in terms of the required proximity of staff to youth (e.g., those at great risk must be

within arm's length) and whether enhanced supervision is required during both waking

and sleeping hours.

Typically, any staff person should be able to place a youth on suicide precautions, with

the default being the most intensive level of supervision. Only a qualified mental health

professional should reduce the level of precautions, and only in response to a clinical

39

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-16 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 11 of 29
risk assessment. Youth originally maintained on the highest levels of precautions should

be gradually stepped down to lower levels of supervision before being taken off suicide

precautions altogether. Finally, mental health professionals should provide direct care

staff with specific instructions about any restrictions on activities or possessions that are

needed to ensure the youth's safety. The youth's person and environment should be

searched regularly to ensure the youth has not obtained any implements that could be

used to harm himself.

Observations. Clerical staff in charge of maintaining the suicide precaution

documentation described a process that, by design, is compatible with

contemporary standards of care. All ideation, gestures or attempts should be

documented on an incident report, which is forwarded to the Unit Manager. The

youth is automatically placed on lxi supervision and clothed in a blue uniform to

enhance visibility, and the psychologist and unit therapist are immediately notified.

The youth is assessed by a qualified mental health professional (QMHP; masterslevel, licensed) within 24 hours. If the youth remains on precautions for longer than

24 hours, the youth is assessed by the psychiatrist. Two levels of precautions are

available: Close Observation which features 15 minute safety checks by unit staff;

and Continuous Observation which features lxi supervision within arm's-length,

with behavioral ratings documented at 5 minute intervals. These observations are

documented on a Precaution Tracking Form. A hst of youth on suicide precautions is

updated each morning and is circulated to a variety of facility staff (Facility

Administrator, medical staff, psychologist, psychiatrist, and unit staff). These youth

are also discussed each morning at the Management Team meeting. The list of

youth on suicide precautions includes the youth's name, housing unit, date/time

placed on precautions, date/time taken off precautions and includes warnings about

any items that are prohibited to ensure the youth's safety. Again, our ability to verify

adherence to the procedures described was limited to a relatively small number of

DRC clients and therefore lacks what we consider to be a thorough audit of actual

practice.

As described by G4S officials, the policy includes most of the components of a sound

suicide precaution strategy. However, confusion exists among staff about the

supervision reciuirements of the two levels—most explained them somewhat

differently and were uncertain about the differences between them. Staff also

reported (and administrators confirmed) that emergency cut-down" tools are not

available at the facility and staff have not been trained to rroperly release a youth

who is found hanging by the neck. For obvious reasons, this is a critical omission in

training and one that could have dire consequences.

The translation of policy into practice was assessed by reviewing a collection of

suicide precaution forms for six DRC clients. Observation forms could not be located

for three of the six youth. suggesting that they were either never completed or that

document storage procedures need to be enhanced. Those that were located were

40

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-16 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 12 of 29
in large part complete, meaning that observations were documented throughout the

period of time that precautions were indicated on the Suicide Precautions

observation form.

However, in both policy and practice, the concept of conducting welfare checks at

random intervals is absent. Staff record observations at exact 5- and 15- minute

intervals, and are not required to record the actual time at which checks are

conducted. Further, the observation forms that were provided were in complete

disarray, suggesting that no formal auditing process occurs to ascertain the extent to

which staff are fulfilling their supervision responsibilities.

Given the history of successful suicides by hanging at Alexander and the deeply

troubled youth who make up part of the facility's population, consistent adherence

to suicide prevention protocols is essential. The widely inconsistent patterns of

practice among staff that emerged from our review are troubling, especially in light

of the approximate 30 minutes devoted to administering suicide prevention training

as determined by our review of training records.

Recommendations. Adequate policies and procedures must be designed to

identify, respond to, and ultimately prevent attempts by youth to harm

themselves. The following recommendations focus on the role of direct care

staff, although mental health staff will play an essential role in the assessment

and treatment of suicidality. Their role should be fully articulated and relevant

training should be required as well.

1. Continue to assess suicide risk upon admission. Ensure that youth who score

in the warning range are placed on precautions and are promptly referred to

and seen by a qualified mental health professional (QMHP).

2. Develop and implement policies and procedures and secure the tools needed

to intervene appropriately when a youth has hung him or herself. Ensure that

all staff have quick and easy access to cut-down tools, yet control access to

them so they cannot be used as a weapon by other youth.

3. Incorporate the concept of observation at random intervals into policy and

practice.

4. Include the issues listed above in the curriculum for mandatory pre-service

and annual staff training.

5. Maintain all risk assessments and observation forms in a manner that will

permit a regular audit of these documents to verify that policies and

procedures are being followed. Streamline the document maintenance

procedures to ensure that the majority of documents are stored in a central

location so they can be audited most easily.

41

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-16 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 13 of 29
Measures Designed to Protect Youth From Harm by Staff

Youth can be harmed by staff both intentionally and accidentally. If staffing levels are

not sufficient to safely manage out-of-control behavior by youth, and/or if staff are not

trained to use physical and mechanical restraints properly, the risk of accidental injury

increases. In addition to physical harm, youth also have a right to be protected from

offensive and degrading language by adults in whose care they are placed. Regrettably,

limits on our access prevented us from rendering firm conclusions as to actual practice

in this key area. Given the many alleged incidents of abuse of youth by staff at

Alexander in the recent past, however, reaching supportable conclusions as to the

potential for youth to be harmed by staff is particularly important.

Observations. Well over half the youth interviewed reported experiencing various

forms of physical and/or verbal abuse by staff. This was viewed by most youth as a

relatively common occurrence, although it was noted by several youth that in their

opinions abuse by staff is less common now than when the previous contractor

operated Alexander. Youth reported that many of the staff known for their harsh

treatment of youth have either quit or been terminated by G4S administrators.

Nonetheless, several youth reported either witnessing or being subject to physical

restraints by G4S staff that involved inflicting intentional pain above and beyond

what is necessary to safely accomplish the restraint. Youth described recent

incidents where staff would drive the points of their elbows and knees into the

backs and necks of youth during the execution of physical restraints. Others

reported having seen staff punch or slap youth. Other youth described a practice

permitted by some staff where youth are allowed to take "body-shots" at one

another. This practice, which is said to occur less since G4S has assumed control of

the facility, involves youth striking each other with closed fists in the torso outside

the view of security cameras. One youth described being paid by staff with Popeye's

Chicken to beat up other youth.

During our tour of the facility, we spoke with many youth, some of whom were

DRC's clients and some who were not. Most youth interviewed reported that staff

frequently use profane language and sometimes racial slurs when addressing youth.

A youth in the JUMP unit described a member of the staff telling youth that their

sisters and/or mothers are "whores." This, he said, was done to humiliate and

provoke youth into a physical confrontation. Facility administrators admit that

profanity is an issue on the campus and report they have recently terminated at

least three staff for using profanity. The facility's many security cameras have an

audio feature that has been very useful in identifying the offending staff and holding

them accountable.

As previously noted, Alexander is home, largely by default, to many youth who

experience a wide range of very serious physical, mental and emotional impairments

42

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-16 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 14 of 29
that cause them to become targets of abuse by other youth as well as by staff.

Interviews were conducted with at least three boys who experience incontinence

and/or enuresis. These conditions have caused these boys to be singled out among

both their peers and staff for humiliation as well as alleged physical and verbal

abuse. One boy with a history of a congenital gastro-intestinal disorder described a

recent occasion where he had an "accident" in which he soiled his pants. Staff loudly

and publicly made fun of the youth's situation, "That boy stinks. You shouldn't do

that in your pants," which resulted in incessant taunting, teasing and various forms

of physical abuse by other youth on the unit. This was corroborated by other youth.

Another boy with a long history of schizophrenia with visual and auditory command

hallucinations, multiple serious suicide attempts and a history of sexual abuse, also

recently soiled himself. He reported that two staff became angry with him and

attempted to rub his face in the excrement. Once aware of the incident, Alexander

administrators attempted to intervene by assigning a one-on-one staff member to

this youth during part of the day and by instructing the staff alleged to be involved

to stay away from the youth. Unfortunately, according to this youth, the one-on-one

staff member is not available to him while he is in school or on weekends, limiting

the effectiveness of this precaution. Furthermore, one of the staff members

allegedly involved in this incident sat next to the boy at a basketball game earlier on

the day of our interview. According to the youth, his one-on-one staff was seated

elsewhere watching the game. The boy reported being scared when the identified

staff member sat next to him. He reportedly told the staff member that he was not

supposed to be near him. The staff member just laughed and said, "Now what are

you going to do?" The boy moved to a different location away from the staff

member.

This same youth described an earlier incident where another youth on his unit

placed something over the window of his cell, thereby blocking the light and

darkening the cell. The youth in his room became very frightened and began to bang

and cry for help from staff. Staff were reportedly slow to respond to his cries and

banging. As his fear escalated, the boy began to experience command hallucinations

instructing him to bite himself. He ultimately bit deep into his arm in several places

drawing blood. It was reported by this youth that one member of the staff was

"written-up" as a result of this incident.

Finally, several of the dorms on the Alexander campus are configured with "dry"

cells, requiring youth to be allowed out of their rooms by staff at night to use the

bathroom. Youth complained that some members of the staff are slow to respond to

requests to use the bathroom. Some youth viewed this as a form of intentional

punishment; others saw it as a reflection of disinterested and uncaring staff. In

either case this slow response has on occasion contributed to youth urinating on the

floor of their cells, which only serves to increase tensions between youth who share

rooms, as well as between youth and staff who have to ensure the floor is cleaned.

43

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-16 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 15 of 29
Avenues for Youth to Report Mistreatment.

Youth should have free access to a confidential process for reporting mistreatment,

abuse or neglect. Whether this process takes the form of written grievances or a

telephone hotline, staff should be required to provide access upon request. Although

access does not necessarily have to be granted immediately, it should certainly be

provided as soon as possible. A very limited number of facility staff should have access

to the grievances so that youth can be assured of their privacy. Once received, all

grievances should be logged so that an auditor may track compliance with protocol and

timelines. Staff assigned to handle grievances should rnvestigate matters by speaking

directly with the youth; talking to staff involved, including those from medical, food

services, or whichever service area was implicated in the grievance; providing youth

with a written resolution; and disciplining staff as appropriate or referring the matter for

further investigation. All of these steps should be accomplished in a reasonable time

frame—generally, youth should be contacted within 48 hours and the matter should be

resolved within 72 hours thereafter in most cases. Obviously, more complicated issues,

those requiring staff discipline or further investigation, may take longer to resolve.

Youth should also be provided with the opportunity to express concerns about their

treatment during the incident reporting process. The generally accepted practice is for

all youth involved in incidents to provide a written statement shortly thereafter. If the

youth initially refuse to write a statement, they should be provided with the opportunity

again after they have calmed down. Youth who have difficulty writing or who have

limited English proficiency should be offered assistance from an impartial staff person or

counselor. Youth should write their statements independently, to limit the opportunities

for collusion among the youth involved. If any of these statements alleges excessive

force, mistreatment, or outright abuse, the incident should be reported to Child

Protective Services and investigated accordingly.

Many jurisdictions provide an additional avenue for youth to voice their concerns by

requiring medical staff to conduct a confidential interview with youth when they are

brought to the clinic following an incident. Medical staff should record the youth's

statement verbatim, and the supervisor reviewing the incident report package should be

alert to claims of mistreatment and abuse and should react accordingly.

Observations. The grievance system is well-used by youth: in February, 114

grievances were submitted, 72 in March and 105 in April. Approximately 50 percent

of the grievances submitted in March, April and May, 2007 were reviewed (the

names of youth and staff were redacted to protect their privacy). A significant

number of grievances related to issues of safety—youth reported feeling threatened

by particular youth or having been assaulted by a youth undetected by staff. Most of

these were addressed within a reasonable period of times (48 hours or less) by the

44

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-16 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 16 of 29
Assistant Facility Administrator speaking directly with the two youth involved. A

significant number also alleged mistreatment, verbal abuse, or physical abuse by

staff. In all cases, the youth was contacted to gather information, but whether or not

the complaint was taken further (e.g., reported to the Child Abuse Hotline,

investigated by any of the agencies responsible for doing so) could not be discerned.

It is essential that all allegations of mistreatment, verbal and physical abuse are

reported, investigated and resolved with appropriate disciplinary measures when

warranted.

While the assigned Grievance Officer clearly takes the responsibility seriously, and

contacts the youth quickly to learn more about the issue, the grievance process

suffers from a paucity of information about how the issue was ultimately resolved.

Many of the responses to the complaints indicate what the Grievance Office (or Unit

Manager if so designated) "will" do or "plans" to do, without ever verifying what if

anything was actually done and how the issue was addressed.

Most youth interviewed were aware of the existence of a grievance system and

many had confidence in the system as an avenue to report concerns ranging from

alleged abuse or unfair treatment, to complaints about the food. Not only could

most youth describe the process, where to obtain grievance forms and where to

deposit them, but they could also name the member of the staff charged with

responding to grievances. While not all youth interviewed had filed a grievance,

many had and most saw it as a legitimate means of voicing concerns. The grievance

system is one that was seen by most youth as having improved considerably since

G4S assumed operational control of the facility.

In addition to the grievance system, many youth interviewed knew or had fairly

good relations with one or more members of the Alexander administration and felt

they could raise issues of concern directly with them. Youth tended to know

members of the Alexander administration by name, including the Facility

Administrator and Assistant Facility Administrators, all of whom were observed

circulating through the facility at irregular hours throughout our tour. There

appeared to be a fairly high degree of trust between youth and the facility

administrators. Interestingly, the level of trust did not seem to extend as broadly to

the YCWs and other line staff. Although there were certainly exceptions, many youth

had trouble identifying members of the staff as individuals they trusted. Case

workers, trackers and teachers also received a very mixed review from youth. Some

were seen as helpful individuals who had the youths' interest at heart, others,

however, were seen as in it for the pay check with little regard for the youth.

Recommendations.

1. Take steps to prevent the occurrence of abuse in the first p'ace by propeily

training and deploying staff. Utilize Alexander's videotape and audiotape

resources to conduct random observations of staff interactions with youth to

45

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-16 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 17 of 29
ensure that staff conform to expected standards of professionalism, in both their

words and actions. Given that DYS administrators have desktop access to audio

and video footage, periodic monitoring of G4S operations is an important quality

assurance mechanism.

2. Enhance the current Grievance system by requiring staff to indicate the specific

actions taken, and the results of these actions on each grievance form, rather

than stating only what the staff anticipates doing to resolve the issue.

3. Ensure that all allegations of staff mistreatment and abuse are reported to the

proper authority, are investigated, and are resolved with appropriate disciplinary

measures.

4. Ensure the incident reporting policy and practice require youth involved in the

incident to submit their own statements in writing. Provide a second opportunity

to submit a statement to those youth who initially refuse. Afternative means

should be available to those who do not read or write or those with limited

English proficiency.

5. Develop a process for confidential interviews of youth by medical staff following

their involvement in an incident in which force is used. Upon transport to the

clinic, nurses should hold a confidential interview with youth to gather

information about the incident. The nurses should copy the youth's statement,

verbatim, into the progress notes and should also clearly indicate whether the

youth has alleged mistreatment by staff, affirm that the allegation was reported

to Child Protective Services and make an assessment of whether the youth's

statement conflicts with or is corroborated by the type of injury sustained.

Formalize this process in local policy and train staff accordingly.

6. Attend to the quality of interactions between youth and staff and the overall

culture at Alexander so that youth might become more comfortable expressing

their concerns directly to staff.

Reporting Allegations of Abuse to the Proper Authority.

When an allegation of abuse is made, it must be reported to the proper authorities to

investigate the veracity of the allegation. All staff working at a correctional facility are

mandated child abuse reporters by state law. As such, they must report all instances of

alleged abuse, no matter how credible, to the state Child Protective Services agency, law

enforcement, or both. In most states, direct care staff are not required to actually call

the agency themselves, but rather to report the allegation immediately to the facility

director or designee who makes the call to the agency. However, they must do so

without filtering information or making subjective decisions about which are serious

enough or credible enough to be reported.

Observations. Facility administrators reported that Arkansas child abuse reporting

mandates identify local law enforcement as the agency to handle abuse allegations

46

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-16 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 18 of 29
of youth in state custody. The State Police operate a Hotline for this purpose that is

staffed 24-hours per day. Once reported, the hotline indicates its intention to accept

or screen out the allegation for investigation. In the Qi of FY 2007, the Hotline

received a total of 45 calls from all DYS facilities, and accepted only 25 of them for

investigation. Facility administrators reported that State Police contacts have made

them feel as if the police believe Alexander should report only a subset of the

allegations they receive, that there are some (e.g., those without injury) that will not

be accepted for investigation and therefore A'exander staff should not "overuse"

the Hotline. Facility administrators have properly decided to continue to report ALL

allegations of abuse to the Hotline, as required by law.

All staff interviewed were aware of their responsibility to report allegations of

mistreatment and abuse on an Incident Report and to notify their shift supervisor or

other facility administrators. However, the extent to which all allegations of abuse

were reported and investigated could not be discerned from the data available for

review.

Recommendations. All youth deserve to have their concerns handled appropriately.

When these issues rise to the level of mistreatment, definitive action must be taken

to initiate the investigation process.

1. Report ALL allegations of misconduct or abuse to the State Police Hotline.

Misconduct and abuse include verbal mistreatment, threats and actual physical

violence, and sexual misconduct. Hold all staff to these standards and disciplined

them appropriately.

2. Document the date/time Hotline calls were made and develop a tracking system

to provide quick information on the status of all cases.

Placing Accused Staff in Non-Contact Positions Pending the Outcome of

Investigation

The generally accepted practice requires staff to be placed on non-contact status

pending the outcome of a child abuse investigation. By immediately moving accused

staff to a position in which they do not have direct contact with youth, the facility

protects youth from harm and protects itself from liability if the staff person were to

commit additional misconduct pending the outcome of the initial investigation.

Obviously, since many allegations are unfounded, it is vital that child abuse

investigations be completed in a timely manner so that wrongly accused staff can be

relieved of the stress involved and can return to their normal posts.

Observations. Facility administrators reported that when an allegation is made, the

first action taken is to review the videotape for the date/time/location of the event

in question. If audio or video evidence suggests that staff may be culpable or may

47

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-16 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 19 of 29
not have followed required procedures, administrators assert that he or she is

removed from duty immediately or called at home and told not to report for their

next shift. Because we did not have access to the volume of incident reports and

hotline calls, we could not assess the extent to which the practice follows the

prescribed policy. Those staff who were interviewed believed that they would be

placed on non-contact status if they were named in a child abuse allegation.

Recommendations.

1. Continue the practice of immediately reviewing videotape footage of the

date/time/location in question to gain an immediate sense of the severity of the

allegation.

2. Place all staff accused of misconduct or abuse on non-contact status, either

moving them into positions in which they do not have direct contact with youth

or placing them on administrative leave.

Child Abuse Investigations and Staff Discipline.

All allegations of abuse should be investigated at some level. State Police may choose to

screen out those in which no injury was sustained, but these should still be investigated

at the agency and facility level to determine whether any staff misconduct occurred.

These investigations should be timely; should involve interviews with all parties

involved; should utilize supplementary sources of information from log books,

videotapes, etc.; and should form conclusions that are reasonable given the evidence. If

substantiated, staff should be disciplined accordingly.

Observations. A'though the State Police have accepted a few allegations for

investigation they have not shared the full-text of these investigations with facility

staff. They provide only a short statement of whether sufficient information existed

for criminal charges to be brought. Obviously, the failure to share such vital

information places youth at risk of harm from staff. While the evidence may be

insufficient to file charges, the evidence flowing from an investigation can highlight

issues related to policy, practice, training, etc. that have a tangible impact on the

ability to protect youth from harm.

Each allegation of mistreatment or abuse is also investigated by the Internal Affairs

Unit of DYS, according to facility administrators. It is not known whether IAU accepts

all allegations for investigation, who completes the investigations, the quality of the

investigatory protocol or whether this protocol leads to reasonable conclusionsDYS refused to allow access to these investigations. Without this information, we

can make no conclusions about the adequacy of these measures to protect youth

from harm by staff. At any rate, the potential for duplicity and miscommunication

between DYS and G45 highlights the critical need for coordination and a free

exchange of information about youth housed at Alexander.

48

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-16 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 20 of 29
To supplement the State Police's investigations and those completed by DYS/IAU,

the facility recently hired a retired state police officer to serve as a facilityinvestigator. At the time of our tour, he had been on staff for only a few weeks, and

thus had yet to formalize the procedures, protocols and practices that should come

to define his role. However, we were provided access to one of his investigations

and had the opportunity to review several videotapes showing staff response to

various types of incidents. These videotapes reportedly serve as an important source

of information about the culture of the facility, areas in which staff need additional

training, and for identifying staff who violate the codes of professional conduct so

that appropriate discipline can be imposed.

Since G45 assumed operational control of Alexander, a total of 11 staff were

terminated in response to employee misconduct:

o Verbal abuse/use of profanity (most of these were in the month prior to our

tour, and were based on evidence gathered via the audiotaping function of

the surveillance cameras);

o Excessive use of force (in January, 2007; staff "threw a youth into a wall");

o Violating youth confidentiality;

o Inappropriate use of force (using physical force when there was no threat to

safety or security);

o Falsifying company records (duplicating treatment plans); and

o Sleeping while on duty.

Recommendations.

1. Develop a clear division of labor among the facility-based investigatory process,

DYS/IAU investigations, and those completed by the State Police. While the lines

of responsibility should not overlap, full and complete information must be

freely shared among the three agencies to ensure that developing patterns

(across staff, youth, times, places, etc.) are identified and prevention strategies

are developed.

2. Use the facility-based investigatory process to review incidents, supplement

investigations by State Police and IAU, and to determine whether staff violated

policy or employee rules of conduct. Discipline or exonerate staff, as

appropriate.

3. Ensure the facility-based process meets generally accepted investigatory

standards in terms of the quality of the written product, the individuals

interviewed and the sequence of those interviews, the collection and

preservation of evidence, and the adequacy of the factual basis for all

conclusions.

4. Develop the necessary interagency linkages with State Police to ensure that

allegations from the facility will be taken seriously and investigated properly.

49

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-16 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 21 of 29
When possible, ask State Police to expedite their investigation processes so staff

can either be returned to post, disciplined, or terminated, as appropriate.

5. Obtain copies of all State Police and IAU investigations and review for any

violations of policy or employee codes of conduct. These issues are typically not

addressed by criminal investigations and thus must be examined by a facilitybased process. Discipline staff as appropriate.

50

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-16 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 22 of 29
Conclusion

The issues raised in this report as to the risks faced by youth confined at Alexander are

intended to help guide DHS and DYS in their efforts to ensure the safety of all youth in

committed status. As noted in the Introduction, although the majority of our comments

address G4S operations, DYS is ultimately responsible for the performance of its private

providers. As detailed herein, Alexander poses a series of especially complex and costly

problems that must be corrected for the safety of youth in its care to be ensured. But

Alexander should not be seen as a separate problem that exists in isolation of the much

needed systemic overhaul of juvenile justice statewide. Viewing this report and its

recommendations against the backdrop of SR31 may help to spark new and more

creative thinking by stakeholders in pursuing the mandates of the Senate Resolution.

Arkansas is not alone in re-examining its juvenile justice system. Many states

throughout the South and across the country are struggling with the very same issues

that confront Arkansas relative to the operation of large, costly and ineffective secure

institutions, over-reliance on institutional confinement of low-risk youth, and

establishing a flexible continuum of non-residential community-based services that

more effectively address the needs of public safety and the rehabilitation of youth who

do not require secure correctional confinement. We urge Arkansas' Governor, juvenile

justice officials, legislators, policy makers, youth advocates, service providers and other

stakeholders in communities throughout the state to unite in their embrace of the

opportunities presented by new and willing DHS/DYS leadership and by SR31 to

fundamentally remake juvenile justice in the state. 5R31, passed in March, 2007 by the

Arkansas Legislature, created an interim legislative committee to identify needed

reforms of the state's juvenile justice system. The resolution requires the committee

to develop ways to reduce unnecessary reliance on large correctional facilities and to

promote a continuum of community care so that youth committed to DYS may be

served in the least restrictive setting possible, consistent with public safety. 4 As

described throughout this report, there are many safer, more effective and less costly

alternatives to the largely failed models that depend on institutions to improve the

behavior of youth. Abandoning the troubled Alexander facility in favor of small, secure

and therapeutic facilities, complimented by a vibrant network of neighborhood-based

services for youth and families is an approach that would benefit the youth and

communities of Arkansas, both in terms of public safety and improved outcomes.

As immediate steps that can be taken to ensure the safety of youth in Alexander while

broader, systemic reform plans are developed, we recommend that DYS and G4S

develop immediate plans to rectify the following conditions so that youth committed to

Alexander are no longer at risk of harm:

full text of SR31 is included in the Appendix of this report.

51

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-16 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 23 of 29
1. Reduce the exposure of low-risk youth to confinement at Alexander by applying

a validated external risk assessment instrument to help identify youth who can

be safely managed in their home communities

2. Accelerate the thoughtful and well-planned discharge and subsequent

supervision of youth currently in secure confinement by systematically targeting

misdemeanants, probation violators and other non-violent offenders for the

development of individualized, community-based plans into which you can be

discharged with an assurance that supervision and support will be available to

guide their success.

3. Develop a willing cadre of non-residential, neighborhood-based service providers

who operate diverse and culturally competent programming in or near the home

communities of DYS youth, and who are committed to working with challenging

youth and willing to enter into "no eject - no reject" policies as part of their

service contracts.

4. Examine models of "fiscal realignment" developed in several other states that

encourage local jurisdictions to treat low-risk youth locally rather than

commftting them to DYS for assignment to Alexander.

5. Ensure that staff ratios at Alexander are met consistently and that they

represent the number of staff actually deployed to supervise youth at any given

time. Ensure that all staff provide vigilant, pro-active supervision designed

around positive interaction with youth and efforts to identify and de-escalate

tensions before they develop into violent confrontations.

6. Ensure all staff have dependable access to the full G4S training curriculum. New

employees should receive at least 80 hours of training on all topics, along with

40 hours of on-the-job training before they are assigned to supervise youth

independently. Existing employees should receive a 40-hour refresher course

annually, focusing heavily on behavior management and de-escalation, the use

of force, suicide prevention, and child abuse reporting.

7. Develop a process for supervisory review and critique of all incidents. Not only

should supervisors certify the incident report is complete, but should also

provide guidance on how the incident could have been prevented or anticipated

and whether staff followed the use of force policy or could have responded with

less restrictive interventions.

8. Develop additional incentives, rewards and programs to encourage positive

behavior among youth. Tie these rewards to developmentally-appropriate skills,

problem-solving strategies and behaviors that youth should be expected to

master.

52

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-16 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 24 of 29
9. Develop procedures to protect the safety of youth placed in isolation, including

room check procedures, supervisory oversight, contact with mental health staff

and documentation.

10. Continue to hold staff accountable for upholding G4S core tenets and for

treating all youth with dignity and respect.

11. Develop a series of timelines by which staff training, new policy implementation

and other planned initiatives and improvements at Alexander are to be

satisfactorily completed. As noted throughout our report, G4S has verbally

committed to a great many training, policy and operational enhancements that

will improve the safety of youth in confinement at Alexander. Ensuring

accountability as to the timely completion of these enhancements is in the

interest of all.

53

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-16 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 25 of 29
Appendix A

The Division of Youth Services (DYS) contracts with G4S Youth Services, LLC (G45) for the

operation of the Alexander. We reviewed many documents including:

• Arkansas Division of Youth Services Juvenile Operational and Facilities Master Plan,

produced by KMD Justice/Chinn Planning Design Team, August 2006;

• Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Youth Services,

Statistical Report FY 2006;

• Arkansas Division of Youth Services, Task Force Meeting February, 2007, PowerPoint

presentation;

• Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services, Organizational Chart

• Survey of Arkansas Community-Based Resources, produced by Stacy Moak, January,

2007;

• Settlement Agreement between the United States Department of Justice and the

State of Arkansas, Division of Youth Services and the Arkansas Department of

Human Services;

• Monitoring Report on Special Education Services at Alexander prepared by the

Arkansas Department of Education, June 8, 2007;

• It's Not Punishment, It's Rehabilitation, report produced by the Disability Rights

Center, November 2006;

• Study of Intake and Assessment Process at Alexander Juvenile Correctional Facility

(Alexander), report produced by Gail Browne, G45 Youth Services, LLC, April 2007;

- Examination of Risk Assessment and Classification Systems: A Technical Assistance

Report, report by Robert DeComo, National Council on Crime and Delinquency,

February 2006;

• Materials pertaining to two investigations of alleged abuse initiated by the Disability

Rights Center in 2006-2007;

• Youth Grievances from March, April, and May, 2007;

- Training curricula for direct care staff;

• Rosters of direct care staff, along with dates of hire, and training completed to date

for a sample of staff;

• Copy of the complete training curriculum for direct care staff;

- Incident reports generated from the date G45 assumed operational control in

January through April, 2007 (with youth names redacted); and

• List of all youth placed on suicide precautions from January through April, 2007.

We also interviewed a large number of staff and youth including:

• Director of the Department of Human Services

Director of the Division of Youth Services

• G45 Headquarters staff

54

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-16 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 26 of 29
• DYS Clinical Director and staff

• DYS Intake staff and trackers

• Facility administrator, and 3 Assistant Facility Administrators (AFA5)

• Facility-based Investigator

• Case Managers

• Chief of Security and Physical Plant

• Facility-based Training Officer

• Clerk responsible for maintaining documentation on suicide precautions

• Direct care staff, one from each of six housing units

• Nurse

• 22 boys from each of the five boys' housing units

8 girls from the single girls' housing unit

55

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-16 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 27 of 29
Appendix B

State of Arkansas

General Assembly

Regular Session, 2007

By: Senator Broadway

SENATE RESOLUTION

REQUESTING THE SENATE INTERIM COMMITTEE ON

CHILDREN AND YOUTH AND THE HOUSE INTERIM

COMMITTEE ON AGING, CHILDREN AND YOUTH,

LEGISLATIVE AND MILITARY AFFAIRS TO STLPDY WAYS TO

IMPROVE THE STATE'S JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR

YOUTH COMMITTED TO THE DIVISION OF YOUTH SERVICES

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES.

Subtitle

REQUESTING A STUDY FOR WAYS TO IMPROVE

THE STATE'S JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR

YOUTH.

WHEREAS, there is cause to evaluate needed reforms of the state's juvenile

justice system to more effectively and efficiently serve youth committed to the Division

of Youth Services of the Department of Health and Human Services and to identify best

practices that will reduce unnecessary re'iance on large juvenile correctional facilities

and promote the development of an appropriate continuum of community-based

treatment alternatives in the least restrictive settings possible consistent with public

safety; and

WHEREAS, an interim study proposal is required for the retention of

independent expert consultants to assist the Division of Youth Services of the

Department of Health and Human Services to conduct comprehensive needs and risk

assessments of juveniles incarcerated at the Alexander Juvenile Correctional Facility and

other facilities of the Division of Youth Services of the Department of Health and Human

Services to identify gaps in existing community-based alternative placements and

services necessary to more effectively and efficiently serve juveniles committed to the

Division of Youth Services of the Department of Health and Human Services in the least

restrictive settings possible consistent with public safety; and

56

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-16 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 28 of 29
WHEREAS, there is a pressing need to develop a juvenile justice reform plan by

no later than twelve (12) months from the effective date of this interim study proposal

that incorporates the evaluations, assessments, and recommendations of the

independent experts provided for by this interim study proposal and other stakeholders,

including the Juvenile Justice Center of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, the

Department of Education, the Division of Behavioral Health of the Department of Health

and Human Services, the Division of Developmental Disabilities Services of the

Department of Health and Human Services, Arkansas Advocated for Children and

Families, the Arkansas Disability Rights Center, the Juvenile Ombudsman Division of the

Public Defender Commission, the Division of Children and Family Services of the

Department of Health and Human Services, the Administrative Offices of the Courts, and

families and youth; and

WHEREAS, there exists an urgent need for construction, renovation, acquisition,

purchase of equipment, maintenance, and other operating expenses to implement the

reform plan provided for in this interim study proposal and to replace the facilities

where conditions of confinement support ceasing operation with facilities that meet

contemporary juvenile justice national best practices. These treatment services,

programs, and centers shall incorporate best practices for the provision of rehabilitative

and other services for juveniles and be consistent with applicable standards of

accreditation from the American Correctional Association.

NOW THEREFORE,

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE OF THE EIGHTY-SIXTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE

STATE OF ARKANSAS:

THAT the Senate requests that the Senate Interim Committee on Children and

Youth and the House Interim Committee on Aging, Children and Youth, Legislative and

Military Affairs study ways to improve the state's juvenile justice system for youth

committed to the Division of Youth Services of the Department of Health and Human

Services.

57

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-16 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 29 of 29
Justice Policy

I N S T T U T E

• jii 1

!'.

LJannPrs ft I

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-17 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 22
The Dangers of Detention;

The Impact of Incarcerating Youth in Detention and Other Secure Facilities

A Justice Policy Institute Report

by Barry Holman and Jason Ziedenberg

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-17 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 22
"[Fla irly viewed,

pretrial detention of a

juvenile give.s rise to

injuries comparable to

those associated with

the imprisonment of

an adult."

-Justice Marshall for

the minority in Schall v

Martin, 1984.

The Dangers of Detention'

Introduction:The Growing Impact of Youth Detention

Despite the lowest youth crime rates in 20 years, hundreds of thousands of young

people are locked away every year in the nation's 591 secure detention centers.

Detention centers are intended to temporarily house youth who pose a high risk of

re-offending before their trial, or who are deemed likely to not appear for their trial.

But the nation's use of detention is steadily rising, and facilities are packed with young

people who do not meet those high-risk criteria—about 70 percent are detained for

nonviolent offenses.2

"Detention: A form of locked custody of youth pre-trial who are arrested—

juvenile detention centers are the juvenile justice system's version of

"jail," in which most young people are being held before the court has

judged them delinquent. Some youth in detention are there because they

fail the conditions of their probation or parole, or they may be waiting

in detention before their final disposition (Le. sentence to a community

program, or juvenile correctional facility) ."

The increased and unnecessary use of secure detention exposes troubled young

people to an environment that more closely resembles adult prisons and jai's than

the kinds of community and family-based interventions proven to be most effective.

Detention centers, said a former Deputy Mayor of New York of that city's infamous

Spofford facility, are 'indistinguishable from a prison.' 4 Commenting on New York's

detention centers, one Supreme Court Justice said that, 'fairly viewed, pretrial

detention of a juvenile gives rise to injuries comparable to those associated with the

imprisonment of an adult."5

Detained youth, who are frequently pre-adjudication and awaiting their court date,

or sometimes waiting for their placement in another facility or community-based

program, can spend anywhere from a few days to a few months in locked custody. At

best, detained youth are physically and emotionally separated from the families and

communities who are the most invested in their recovery and success. Often, detained

youth are housed in overcrowded, understaffed facilities—an envftonment that conspires

to breed neglect and violence.

A recent literature review' of youth corrections shows that detention has a profoundly

negative impact on young people's mental and physical well-being, their education,

and their employment. One psychologist found that for one-third of incarcerated youth

diagnosed with depression, the onset of the depression occurred after they began their

incarceration, 6 and another suggests that poor mental health, and the conditions of

confinement together conspire to make it more likely that incarcerated teens will engage

in suicide and self-harm. 7 Economists have shown that the process of incarcerating youth

will reduce their future earnings and their ability to remain in the workforce, and could

change formerly detained youth into less stable employees. Educational researchers

have found that upwards of 40 percent of incarcerated youth have a learning disability,

and they will face significant challenges returning to school after they leave detention.

Most importantly, for a variety of reasons to be explored, there is credible and significant

research that suggests that the experience of detention may make it more likely that

2

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-17 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 3 of 22
youth will continue to engage in delinquent behavior, and that the detention experience

may increase the odds that youth will recidivate, further compromising public safety.

Detention centers do serve a role by temporarily supervising the most at-risk youth.

Each year it/s However, with 70 percent being held for nonviolent offenses, it is not clear whether

estimated that the mass detention of youth is necessary—or being borne equally. While youth of

color represent about a third of the youth population. the latest figures show that they

approximately 500,000 represent 61 percent of detained youth. 9 Youth of color are disproportionately detained at

higher rates than whites, even when they engage in delinquent behavior at similar rates youth are brought as white youth.

to juvenile detention

This policy brief looks at the consequences of detention on young people, their families, centers. On any given and communities. This policy brief shows that, given the new findings that detaining

day more than 26,000 youth may not make communities safer, the costs of needlessly detaining young people

8 who do not need to be there are simply too high. Policymakers, instead, should look to youth are detained. detention reform as a means to reduce the number of young people needlessly detained,

and reinvest the savings in juveni'e interventions proven to reduce recdivism and crime,

and that can heip build healthy and safe communities.

This policy brief brings together the best existing literature on the efficacy arid impact of detention, arid also examnes the reported outcomes of incarceralnig juveni'es ri

secure, congregate detention facilities in order to provide practitioners and policymakers with a deeper understanding of the dangers of overusing detention. Some of the

findngs reported here are the result of research conducted on youth and young adults in facilities or programs outside of juvenile detention facilities. The implications and

conclusion drawn from research outside of detention centers proper is worthy of consideration detention is usually the first form of congregate institutional confinement

that youth falling under the authority of juvenile Justice agencies will experience, and like residential or adult correctional or pretrial Institutions, It is reasonable to infer

that the impact of other kinds of incarceration and secure, conyregate facilities do apply to the detent!on expenences. Every attempt has been made to accurately portray

the population that the cited authors were studying, and the environment in which the study was conducted—generally, we referred to "detention" when the youth were

detained, and 'incarceration when they were somewhere else.

3

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-17 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 4 of 22
14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

The Impact of Detention

on Crime, Rehabilitation, and Public Safety

Detention can increase recidivism

Instead of reducing crime, the act of incarcerating high numbers of youth may in fact

facilitate increased crime by aggravating the recidivism of youth who are detained.

A recent evaluation of secure detention in Wisconsin, conducted by the state's Joint

Legislative Audit Commthee reported that, in the four counties studied, 70 percent of

youth held in secure detention were arrested or returned to secure detention within one

year of release. 10 The researchers found that "placement in secure detention may deter

a small proportion of juveniles from future criminal activity although they do not deter

most juver?iles."

Prior Incarceration was a Greater Predictor of Recidivism than

Carrying a Weapon, Gang Membership, or Poor Parental Relationship

Poor Parental Membership Carrying a Prior

Relationship in Gang Weapon Commitment

Predictors of Recidivism

Source Benda. B.6. and Toilet, CL, (1999). A Study of Recidivism of Serious

and Persistent Offenders Among Ado'escents." Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 27, No.2 111-126.

Studies on Arkansas' incarcerated youth 1 found not only a high recidivism rate for

incarcerated young people, but that the experience of incarceration is the most

significant factor in increasing the odds of recidivism. Sixty percent of the youth

studied were returned to the Department of Youth Services (DYS) within three years.

The most significant predictor of recidivism was prior commitment; the odds of

returning to DYS increased 13.5 times for youth with a prior commitment. Among

the youth incarcerated n Arkansas, two-thirds were confined for nonviolent offenses.

Similarly, the crimes that landed the serious offenders under the supervision of adult

corrections were overwhelmingly nonviolent—less than 20 percent were crimes

against persons.

4

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-17 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 5 of 22
—San Jose Police Chief

Bill Landsdowne13

Congregating delinquent youth together negatively affects their behavior

and increases their chance of re-offending

Behavioral scientists are finding that bringing youth together for treatment or services

may make it more likely that they will become engaged in delinquent behavior. Nowhere

are deviant youth brought together in greater numbers and density than in detention

centers, training schools, and other confined congregate "care" institutions.

Researchers at the Oregon Social Learning Center found that congregating youth

together for treatment in a group setting causes them to have a higher recidivism

rate and poorer outcomes than youth who are not grouped together for treatment.

The researchers call this process "peer deviancy training:' and reported statistically

significant higher levels of substance abuse, school difficulties, delinquency, violence,

and adjustment difficulties in adulthood for those youth treated in a peer group setting.

The researchers found that "unintended consequences of grouping children at-risk

for externalizing disorders may include negative changes in attitudes toward antisocial

behavior, affiliation with antisocial peers, and identification with deviancy." 12

Detention pulls youth deeper into the juvenile and criminal justice system

"Locking up kids is the Similar to the comment by the San Jose police chief, studies have shown that once

young people are detained, even when controlling for their prior offenses, they are more easiest way. But once likely than non-detained youth to end up going "deeper" into the system; these studies

they get in the juvenile show that detained youth are more likely to be referred to court, see their case progress

through the system to adjudication and disposition, have a formal disposition filed against justice system, it very them, and receive a more serious disposition.

hard to get them out."

Detained Youth Are More Likely to:

Have a petition Have a petition Receive format

filed at intake flied by the Judicial

state's attorney intervention

Source: Frazier, CE. arid Cochran, J.K. (1966) Detention of Juveniles its Effects on Subsequent Juvenile coun Processing and Decisions. Youth

and Society, Vol. 17, No.3, March 1986, p.286-305 (N=9,317, p=.05)

A study done in Florida in the late 1980s found that, when controlling for other key

variables such as age, race, gender, and offense severity, detained youth faced a greater

probability of having a petition filed at intake 16.2 percent), a greater probability for having

a petition filed by the State Attorney (9 percent), and a greater probability of receiving

formal judicial interventions (8.5 percent) than youth not detained. Another study in

Florida by the Office of State Court Administrators found that when controlling for other

factors—including severity of offense—youth who are detained are three times more

likely to end up being committed to a juvenile facility than similar youth who are not

detained.'4

5

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-17 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 6 of 22
Research from Florida

shows that when

controlling for other

factors, youth who

are detained are

three times more

likely to end up being

committed to a juvenile

facility than similar

youth who are not

detained.

Overall Two or More Returned to Court Two or More

Recidivism Subsequent for Violent Crime Subsequent

• DOAP Referrals Petitions

Comparison Youth in DDAP or Comparison Group

Alternatives to detention can curb crime and recidivism better than detention

Several studies have shown that youth who are incarcerated are more likely to recidivate

than youth who are supervised in a community-based setting, or not detained at all.

Young people in San Francisco's Detention Diversion Advocacy Program, for example,

have about ha/f the recidivism rate of young people who remained in detention or in the

juvenile justice system.'5

Various Measures of Recidivism between Detention and Diversion

at

a)

C

at

U

at

a.

E

U

at

Source: Sheldon, R.G. (1 999), Detention Diversion Advocacy An Evaluation.' Juvenile Justice Eultetin

Washington, DC Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

)DDAP n271; Comparison n271)

Research from Texas suggests that young people in community-based placements are 14

percent less likely to commit future crimes than youth that have been incarcerated)6

Detention can slow or interrupt

the natural process of "aging out of delinquency"

Many young people in fact engage in "delinquent" behavior, but despite high

incarceration rates, not all youth are detained for delinquency. Dr. Delbert Elliott,

former President of the American Society of Criminology and head of the Center for

the Study of the Prevention of Violence has shown that as many as a third of young

people will engage in delinquent behavior' 7 before they grow up but will naturally "age

out" of the delinquent behavior of their younger years. While this rate of delinquency

among young males may seem high, the rate at which they end their criminal behavior,

(called the "desistance rate") is equally high.' 8 Most youth will desist from delinquency

on their own. For those who have more trouble, Elliott has shown that establishing

a relationship with a significant other (a partner or mentor) as well as employment

correlates with youthful offenders of all races "aging out" of delinquent behavior as

they reach young adulthood.

6

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-17 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 7 of 22
Most Young People Age Out of Crime on Their Own

Crime Rates by Age

6000

5000

0

0

0

4000

a

0.

3000

2000

a

1000

01 I I I

<12 13-14 16 18 20 22 24 25-29 30.34

Age (years)

Source, FBI Crime in the United States (1993).

Whether a youth is detained or not for minor delinquency has lasting ramifications for

that youth's future behavior and opportunities. Carnegie Mellon researchers have shown

There is little observed that incarcerating juveniles may actually interrupt and delay the normal pattern of "aging

relationship between out" since detention disrupts their natural engagement with families, school, and work.19

the increased use of

detention and crime There is little relationship between

detention and overall crime in the community

While there may be an individual need to incarcerate some high-risk youth, the mass

detention of a half-million youth each year is not necessarily reducing crime.

During the first part of the 1990s, as juvenile arrests rose, the use of detention rose

far faster (See table, "Different Directions"). By the middle of the 1990s, as juvenile

arrests began to plummet (and the number of youth aged 10-17 leveled off), the use of

detention continued to rise. In other words, while there may be some youth who need

to be detained to protect themselves, or the public, there is little observed relationship

between the increased use of detention, and crime.

Different Directions:

Detention Populations vs. Arrest Rates for U.S. Juveniles in the 1990s

DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS; Detention Populations vs. Arrest Rates for U.S. Juveniles in the 1990's

30,000 148.9 150

'3

m

z

m

130 -

>(

C,

110

C',

25,000

>-

'3

I20,000

139.5

Sources: Detention data adapted

from Sickmund, M. (forthcoming).

Juveniles in Corrections.

Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention:

arrest data from FBI Uniform Crime Reports.

15,000 90

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

• U.S. Juveniles Confined in Public and Private Detention C

Juvenile index Cnme Arrests in the U.S. (in thousands)

7

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-17 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 8 of 22
Researchers believe

that the combination of

mental health disorders

youth bring into

detention coupled with

the negative effects

of institutionalization

places incarcerated

ago would have been

in an inpatient mental

health facility. . . !W]e

have had a number of

juveniles who should

no more be in our

institution than I should

be able to fly"

To the contrary, severa' communities ranging from the Western United States (Santa

Cruz, California and Portland, Oregon) to one of the nation's biggest urban centers

(Chicago, Illinois) have found ways to both reduce detention and reduce crime, better

serving the interests of youth development and public safety. Between 1996 and

2002, violent juvenile arrests in the country fell by 37 percent; Santa Cruz matched that

decline (38 percent), and Portland and Chicago exceeded it (45 percent and 54 percent,

respectively). 20 And during roughly the same time, juvenile detention populations fell

between 27 and 65 percent in those jurisdictions.

The Impact of Detention on Young People's

Mental Health, and Propensity to Self-Harm.

youth at a higher risk Of all the various health needs that detention administrators identify among the youth

• they see, unmet mental and behavioral health needs rise to the top. While researchers of suicide than other estimate that upwards of two-thirds of young people in detention centers could meet

youth. 21 the cnteria for having a mental disorder, a little more than a third need ongoing clinical

care—a figure twice the rate of the general adolescent population.22

Why is the prevalence of mental illness among detained youth so high? First, detention has

become a new "dumping ground' for young people with mental health issues. One Harvard

academic theorizes that the trauma associated with the rising violence in the late 1980s and

early 1990s in some urban centers had a deep and sustained impact on young people. At the

same time, new laws were enacted that reduced udiciaI discretion to decide if youth would

be detained, decreasing the system's ability to screen out and divert youth with disorders. All

the while, public community youth mental health systems deteriorated during this decade,

leaving detention as the 'dumping ground" for mentally ill youth.

Detention makes mentally ill youth worse

Another reason for the rise in the prevalence of mental illness in detention is that the

A Washington state kind of environment generated in the nation's detention centers, and the conditions of

that confinement, conspire to create an unhealthy environment. Researchers have found detention administrator that at least a third of detention centers are overcrowded, 23 breeding an environment

interviewed by of violence and chaos for young people. Far from receiving effective treatment, young

s

people with behavioral health problems simply get worse in detention, not better.

' ouse Oi Research published in Psychiatry Resources showed that for one-third of incarcerated

Representatives said, youth diagnosed with depression, the onset of the depression occurred after they began

their incarceration. 24 "The transition into incarceration itself" wrote one researcher in the I've are receiving medical journal, Pediatrics, "may be responsible for some of the observed [increased

juveniles that five years mental illness in detention] effect."25

An analysis published in the Journal of Juvenile Justice and Detention Services suggests

that poor mental health and the conditions of detention conspire together to generate

higher rates of depression and suicide idealization: 26 24 percent of detained Oregon

youth were found to have had suicidal ideations over a seven-day period, with 34 percent

of the youth suffering from "a current significant clinical level of depression."

An indicator of the shift was spelled out by a 2004 Special Investigations Division Report

of the US. House of Representatives, which found that two-thirds of juvenile detention

facWtIes were holding youth who were waiting for community mental health treatment,

and that on any given night, 7 percent of all the youth held in detention were waiting for

community mental health services. As one detention administrator told Congress, "we

are receiving juveniles that 5 years ago would have been in an inpatient mental health

facility. . [WJe have had a number of juveniles who should no more be in our institution

than / should be able to fly"27

8

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-17 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 9 of 22
Source LeBlanc, (1991). Unlocking Learning" in Correctional Facilities. Washington, DC. Department of Education.

Incarcerated youth who received

education while incarcerated

re-enrolled In school, but dropped

out 5 months later 16%

Incarcerated youth who received

education wiIe incarcerated

but did not re-enroll in school 43%

Detention puts youth at greater risk of self-harm

While some researchers have found that the rate of suicide in uverile insututions is

about the same as the community at large 28 others have found that incarcerated youth

experience from double to four times the suicide rate of youth in community. 29 The

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention reports that 11000 youth engage

in more than 17,000 acts of suicidal behavior in the juvenile justice system annually.3°

Another monograph published by OJJDP found that juvenile correctional facilities often

incorporate responses to suicidal threats and behavior in ways that endanger the youth

further, such as placing the youth in isolation.31

The Impact of Detention on the Education of Detained Youth

Detained youth with special needs fail to return to school

Juvenile detention interrupts young people's education, and once incarcerated, some

youth have a hard time returning to school. A Department of Education study showed

that 43 percent of incarcerated youth receiving remedal education services in detention

did not return to school after release, and another 16 percent enrolled in school but

dropped out after only five months. 32 Another researcher found that most incarcerated

9th graders return to school after incarceration but within a year of re-enrolling two-thirds

to three-fourths withdraw or drop out of school: After four years, less than 15 percent of

these incarcerated 9th graders had completed their secondary education33

Detention May Affect Youth's Ability

to Re-enroll in School

In one study, 43

percent of incarcerated

youth receiving

remedial education

services did not return

to school after release.

Another 16 percent

enrolled in school but Young people who leave detention and who do not reattach to schools face collateral

risks: High school dropouts face higher unemployment, poorer health (and a shorter

dropped out after only life), and earn substantially less than youth who do successfully return and complete

5 months. school.34 The failure of detained youth to return to school also affects public safety. The

U.S. Department of Education reports that dropouts are 3.5 times more likely than high

school graduates to be arrested.3s The National Longitudinal Transition Study reveals that

approximately 20 percent of all adolescents with disabilities had been arrested after

being out of school for two years.36

The Impact of Detention on Employment

Formerly detained youth have reduced success in the labor market

If detention disrupts educational attainment, it logically follows that detention will also impact

the employment opportunities for youth as they spiral down a different direction from their

9

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-17 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 10 of 22
"Having been in jail

is the single most

important deterrent

to employment.., the

effect of incarceration

on employment years

later [isj substantial and

significant," according

to the National Bureau

of Economic Research

U)

0,

w

non-detained peers. A growing number of studies show that incarcerating young people has

significant immedate and ong-term negative employment and economic outcomes.

A study done by academics with the National Bureau of Economic Research found that

jailing youth (age 16-25) reduced work time over the next decade by 25-30 percent.37

Looking at youth age 4 to 24, Pnnceton University researchers found that youth who

spent some time incarcerated in a youth facility experienced three weeks less work a

year (for African-American youth, five weeks less work a year) as compared to youth who

had no history of incarceration.38

Annual Estimated Loss or Work Weeks Due to

Youth Incarceration

Incarcerated All Incarcerated African

Youth American Youth

Source Western, Bruce and Beckett, Katherine (1999), How Unregulated Is the U.S. Labor Miicet?. The Penal System as a Labor Mailcet

Institution," The American Journal of Sociology, 104: 1030-1060.

Due to the disruptions in their education, and the natural life processes that allow young

people to "age-out' of crime, one researcher posits, "the process of incarceration could

actually change an individual into a less stable employee."39

A monograph published by the National Bureau of Economic Research has shown that

incarcerating large numbers of young people seems to have a negative effect on the

economic well-being of their communities. Places that rely most heavily on incarceration

reduce the employment opportunities in their communities compared to places that deal

with crime by means other than incarceration. 'Areas with the most rapidly rising rates

of incarceration are areas in which youths, particularly African-American youths, have had

the worst earnings and employment experience."40

The loss of potentially stable employees and workers—and of course, county, state,

and federal taxpayers—is one of numerous invisible costs that the overuse of detention

imposes on the country and on individual communities.

The Larger Economic Impact of Detention on Communities

Detention is expensive—

more expensive than alternatives to detention

The fiscal costs of incarcerating youth are a cause for concern in these budget-strained

times. According to Earl Dunlap, head of the National Juvenile Detention Association,

the annual average cost per year of a detention bed—depending on geography and cost

of living—could range from $32,000 ($87 per day) to as high as $65,000 a year ($178

per day), with some big cities paying far more. Dunlap says that the cost of building,

financing, and operating a single detention bed costs the public between $1.25 and $1.5

million over a twenty-year period of time.41

10

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-17 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 11 of 22
By contrast, a number of communities that have invested in alternatives to detention have

documented the fiscal savings they achieve on a daily basis, in contrast to what they would

"It is quite reasonable spend per day on detaining a youth. In New York City (2001), one day in detention ($385)

costs 15 times what it does to send a youth to a detention alternative ($25).42 InTarrant to suggest that a single County, Texas (2004), t costs a community 3.5 times as much to detain a youth per day

detention bed costs ($121) versus a detention alternative ($35), and even less for electronic monitoring ($3•75)43

the public between

$1.25 and $1.5 million Detention is not cost effective

over a twenty-year Whether compared to alternatives in the here and now, or put to rigorous economic

period of time." efficiency models that account for the long-term costs of crime and incarceration

overtime, juveni'e detention is not a cost-effective way of promoting public safety, or

meeting detained young people's needs.

—Earl Dunlap, CEO,

The Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP), a non-partisan research institution National JLivenile that—at legislative direction—studies issues of importance to Washington State, was

Detention Association directed to study the cost effectiveness of the state's juvenile justice system. WSIPP

found that there had been a 43 percent increase in juvenile justice spending during the

1990s, and that the main factor driving those expenditures was the confinement of juvenile

offenders. While this increase in spending and juvenile incarceration was associated with a

decrease in juvenile crime, WSIPP found, 'the effect of detenìtion on lower crime rates has

decreased in recent years as the system expanded. The lesson: confinement works, but it

is an expensive way to lower crime rates." 44 The )egLsature directed them to take the next

step, and answer the question, 'Are there less expensive ways to reduce juvenile crime?"

WSIPP found that, for every dollar spent on county juvenile detention systems, $1.98 of

benefits" in terms of reduced crime and costs of crime to taxpayers was achieved. By

sharp contrast, diversion and mentoring programs produced $3.36 of benefits for every

dollar spent, aggression replacement training produced $10 of benefts for every dollar

spent, and multi-systemic therapy produced $13 of benefits for every dollar spent. Any

inefficiencies in a juvenile justice system that concentrates juvenile justice spending on

detention or confinement drains available funds away from interventions that may be

more etfectve at reducing recidivism and promoting public safety.

Cost Effectiveness of lnterventons per Dollar Spent

County Diversion and Functional Agression Multi.

Detention Mentoring Family Replacement Systemic

Therapy Training Therapy

Source. Aos. 5. (2002), The Juvenile Justice System n Vshington State Recommendations to Improve Cost-Effectiveness. Olympia, 'A/ashington

Vshington State Institute for Public Policy.

Given the finding by the Journal of Qualitative Criminology that the cost of a youth

offender's crimes and incarceration over their lifetime (including adult) can cost as much

as $1.7 million, 45 a front-end investment in interventions proven to help young people

would seem to be more effective public safety spending.

11

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-17 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 12 of 22
By the end of the

1990s, the system

became more punitive,

and every state in the

nation had changed

their laws in some way

to make it easier to

incarcerate youth in the

adult system. An adult

charge often means a

young person must be

held pre-trial in either a

detention center or an

adult jail.

The rise of youth detention: policy or politics?

"The effect of detention

on lower crime rates

has decreased in recent

years as the system

expanded... it is an

expensive way to lower

crime rates."

—Washington State

Institute for Public

With falling youth crime rates, and a growing body of research that shows that

alternatives are less expensive and more effective than detention, why do we continue to

spend valuable resources building more locked facilities to detain low-risk youth?

Similar to the fate of the adult criminal justice system, the traditional mission of the

juvenile justice system has been altered by the politiczaton of crime policy in this

country.

At the turn of the century, when reformers developed the nation's first juvenile court

in Chicago, Illinois, they set up a separate system for youth to meet the needs of

adolescents, acknowledging that youth have different levels of culpability and capacity

than adults. They also believed that youth deserved a second chance at rehabilitation.

Within 30 years, every state in the nation had a juvenile court system based on the

premise that young people were developmentally different than adults.

Policy But the "tough-on-crime concerns of the 1990s changed the priorities and orientation

of the juvenile justice system. Rising warnings of youth superpredators," 'school

shootings and the amplification of serious episodes of juvenile crime in the biggest

cities fueled political momentum to make the system "tougher" on kids. By the end

of the 1990s, every state in the nation had changed their laws in some way to make

it easier to ncarcerate youth in the adult system. As many states made their juvenile

justice systems more punitive, the courts made more ze&ous use of detention.

The rise of youth detention borne by youth of color

The rapid expansion of the use of juvenile detention has ht some communities

harder than others. From 1985 to 1995, the number of youth held in secure detention

nationwide increased by 72 percent. But during this time, the proportion of white youth

in detention actually dropped, while youth of color came to represent a majority of the

young people detained. The detained white youth population increased by 21 percent,

while the detained minority youth population grew by 76 percent. By 1997, in 30 out of

50 states (which contain 83 percent of the U.S. population) minority youth represented

the majority of youth in detention. 46 Even in states with tiny ethnic and racial minority

populations, hke Minnesota, where the general population is 90 percent white, and

Pennsylvania, where the general population is 85 percent white) more than half of the

detention population are youth of co'or. In 1997, OJJDP found that in every state in

the country (with the exception of Vermont), the minority population of detned youth

exceeded their proportion in the general population.47

The latest figures show that the shift in the demographics of detention that occurred

during the 1980s and 1990s continues today: In 2003 African-American youth were

detained at a rate 4.5 higher than whites; and Latno youth were detained at twice the

rate of whites. Minority youth represented 61 percent of all youth detained in 2003.48

12

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-17 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 13 of 22
C,

C

C,

U

I..

C,

0

While white youth

and minority youth

commit several

categories of crime

at the same rate,

minority youth are

more likely to be

arrested.

1.0%

6.0%

5.0%

4.0%

3.0%

2.0%

0.0%

8.0

10

6.0

50

4.0

= 3.0

20

1.0

0.0

Disproportionate Minority Confinement

Racial and ethnic proportions of the juvenile detention population

1985 2003

Source: Sickmund, Mehssa, Sladky, T.J., and Kang Wei (2004),

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement Databook http /Mww.oJjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/clrp/.

The greatest levels of racial disparity in the use of detention are found in the least serious

offense categories. For example, surveys from the late 1990s found that whites used and

sold drugs at rates similar to other races and ethnicities, but that African Americans were

detained for drug offenses at more than twice rate of whites. 49 White youth self-reported

using heroin and cocaine at 6 times the rate of African-American youth, but AfricanAmerican youth are almost three times as likely to be arrested for a drug crime. 50 On

any given day, African Americans comprise nearly half of all youth in the United States

detained for a drug offense.51

WHITE YOUTH REPORT USING DRUGS AT & TO 7 TIMES THE RATE OF AFRICAN AMERICANS. BUT AFRICAN AMERICAN

YOUTH AR( ARRESTED AT HIGHER RATES THAN WHITES FOR DRUG CRIMES

White African American White Atrican American

RACE RACE

Sources for both graphs: Yarragata, Ekn Poe ad Michael A. Jos. And J#icfor Som. Diffireitia1 Traimr of Miioriy Youth ii thJtic

System Washgto, DC Bi1drng Blocks for Youh, Apnl 2000 US. Pop 1at,oi, Et,mat, by Age, S. Ra, aidHpa Ongrn 1980-1999

Poplatio Estimates Program, PopIation Divisions, U.S. Census Brea, 2000; Moiitorig the Futr &port, 1975-1999, Volume I.

Washington, DC NaioaI lnstitu on DrngAbse, 2000.

The causes of the disproportionate detention of youth of color are rooted in some of the

nation's deepest social problems, many of which may play out in key decision-making

points in the juvenile justice system.

U White

o Minority

13

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-17 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 14 of 22
The way to reduce the

impact of detention is

to reduce the number

While white youth and minority youth commit several categories of crime at the same

rate, minority youth are more likely to be arrested. Once arrested, white youth tend to have

access to better legal representation and programs and services than minority youth.

People involved in the decision to detain a youth may bring stereotypes to their

decision. One study shows that people charged with the decision of holding youth

prior to adjudicatEon are more likely to say a white youth's crimes are a product of their

environment (i.e. a broken home), while an African-American youth's denquency s

caused by personal failings—even when youth of different races are arrested for similar

offenses and have similar offense histories.52

A Better Way:

Juvenile Detention Reforms Taking Hold Across the Nation

of youth needlessly The way to reduce the impact of detention on young people is to reduce the number

of youth needlessly or nappropnatey detained.The Juvenile Detention Alternatives or inappropriately Initiative (JDAI) is a response to the inappropriate and unnecessary detention of youth

detained, in the nation's juvenile justice systems. JDAI is a public-pnvate partnership being

implemented nationwide; pioneering jurisdictions include Santa Cruz County, California

Multnomah County (Portland), Oregon; Bernalillo County (Albuquerque), New Mexico;

and Cook County (Chicago), Illinois.

JDAI is a process, not a conventional program, whose goal is to make sure that Pocked

detention is used only when necessary. In pursuing that goal, JDAI restructures the

surrounding systems to create improvements that reach far beyond detention alone.

To achieve reductions in detention populations, the JDAI model deve'oped a series of

core strategies, which include:

Inter-governmental collaboration: bringing together the key actors in the

uvenite justice system—especially courts, probation, and the police—as well as

actors outside the justice system such as schools and mental health.

• Reliance on data: beginning with data collection and leading to continuous

analysis of data as well as the cultural expectation that decisions will be based on

information and results.

• Objective admissions screening: developing risk assessment instruments and

changing procedures so they are always used to guide detention decisions.

• Alternatives to secure confinement: creating programs and services in the

community to ensure appearance and good behavior pending disposition, and to be

available as an option at sentencing.

• Expedited case processing: to move cases along so youth don't languish in

detention for unnecessarily long time periods.

• Improved handling of "special cases":Youth who are detained for technical

probation violations, outstanding warrants, and youth pending services or placement

create special management problems and need special approaches.

• Express strategies to reduce racial disparities: 'good government" reforms

alone do not eliminate disparities; specific attention is needed to achieve this goal.

• Improving conditions of confinement: to ensure that the smaller number of

youth who still require secure detention are treated safely, legally, and humanely.

14

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-17 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 15 of 22
The fundamental measure of JDAIs success s straightforward: a reduction in the

number of youth confined on any day and admitted to detention over the course of a

year, and a reduction in the number of young people exposed to the dangers inherent in

a detention stay.

Decreasing the use of detention has not jeopardized pub'ic safety. In the counties

implementing JDAI, juvenile crime rates fell as much as, or more than, national

decreases in juvene crime. These communities have also experienced an improvement

in the number of young people who appear in court after they have been released from

detention, further reducing the need for detention.

Like the impact of detention—which can extend beyond the walls of the locked facility—

reducing detention populations influences the entire juvenile justice system. In Cook

County, the number of youth sent from ocal detention to state prison beds declined

from 902 in 1997 to 498 in 2003, at average annual savings of $23,000 per bed. 53 In

addition, more kids who rotated through the juvenile justice system re-enrolled in school

and obtained scholarships for college.

Cities and counties engaged in detention reform also note their progress by their

acceptance in the community. Cook County engaged system kids and their parents

for advice about how to improve the system, and persevered (and supported the staff)

through some daunting complaints. In the aftermath, the probation department adjusted

its office hours and locations, changed the way it communicated with clients and their

families, and institutionalized feedback mechanisms. Now community members are

genuinely engaged n decisions including pohcy formulation, program development, and

even hiring, It is not a formal measure, but it leads to mproved services and priceless

levets of respect and engagement in the community.

15

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-17 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 16 of 22
A better future: invest juvenile justice funds in programs proven to work

If detention reform is successful, communities should be able to reinvest the funds once

spent on detention beds and new detention centers in other youth-serving systems, or

other interventions proven to reduce recidivism.

The Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy, and a plethora

of other research institutes have shown that several programs and initiatives are proven

to reduce recidivism and crime in a cost-effective matter. Some common elements in

proven programs include:

• Treatment occurs with their family, or in a family-like setting

• Treatment occurs at home, or close to home

• Services are delivered in a culturally respectful and competent manner

• Treatment is built around the youth and family strengths

• A wide range of services and resources are delivered to the youth, as well as their

famil es.

Most of these successful programs are designed to serve the needs of youth in famHylike settings, situated as close to home as possible with services delivered in a culturally

sensitive and competent manner.

These proven programs identify the various aspects of a youth—their strengths and

In the counties weaknesses as well as the strengths and resources of their families and communities.

Progress is based on realistic outcomes and carefully matches the particular needs of the

implementing JDA/, youth and family to the appropriate intervention strategy.

juvenile crime rates

fell as much as, or

more than the national

decreases in juvenile

crime.

For online information and assistance on detention reform, visit: wwwjdaihelpdesk.org

To learn more about the work and research of the Justice Policy Institute, visit:

www.justicepolicy org.

16

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-17 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 17 of 22
Authors

Barry Holman is a criminal justice researcher and author. He is the Senior Associate of

Research and Quality Assurance for the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services of

Washington, D.C. and the former Director of Research and Public Policy for the National

Center on Institutions and Alternatives. He authored forthcoming Annie E. Casey

Foundation, Do/rig Deadtime: An Assessment of Detained Youth Awaiting Placement, the

Process that Keeps Them Waiting and Find/rigs from ai Alternative Placement Project.

Jason Ziedenberg is the Executive Director of the Justice Policy Institute, a Washington,

D.C. based public policy organization dedicated to ending society's reliance on incarceration

by promoting effective and just solutions to social problems. He is author of the Annie E.

Casey foundation publication Pathway's 8: Reducing Racial Disparity in Detention.

Acknowledgements

The Justice Po!icy Institute is a Washington DC-based think tank dedicated to ending

society's reliance on incarceration and promoting effective and just solutions to social

problems.This policy brief has been adapted from the forthcoming "The Dangers of

Detention:The Impact of lncarceratingYouth in Detention and Other Secure Congregate

Facilities," Baltimore, Maryland: Annie E. Casey Foundation. This report was edited by

Anjula Razdan, designed by Robert Lewis, and supported by a generous grant from the

Annie E. Casey Foundation. For more information, visit our website, www.justicepolicy.org

17

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-17 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 18 of 22
Adapted from the publication by Holman, Barry and Ziedenberg, Jason. The Dangers of DetenTion: The Impact of Incarcerat,ng Youth n Detention

and Other Secure Congregate Fac,Iities forthcoming). Balumore, Maryland Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Sickmund, M., Sladky, T.J., and Kang, W. (2004), "Census of Juveniles In Residential Placement Databook' Online,

Available: hrtp.I/ ojdp nc/rs.org/ojstatbb/cjrp/

Schiraldi, V. and Ziedenberg, J. (2003), "The Multnomah Experiment: Reducing Disproportionate Minority Confinement." Washington, DC.: The

Justrce Pohcy nstitute.

Herbert Sterz, New'York City's Deputy Mayor for Criminal JUstice, 1984.

Ellen Schall, Commission of New York City Department of Juienile Justice Gregory Marlin eta!. Robert Abrams, Attorney Genera) of New York.

No. 82-1248, 82-1278. (Decided, JUne 4,1984).

Kashani, J.H., Manning, G.W., McKnew D.H., Cytryn, L., Simonds, J.F, and Wooderson, P.C. 1980), 'Depression Among Incarcerated Dehnquents'

Psychiatry ResourcesVolume 3 185-19, Forrest, C.B.Tambor, E., Riley, A.W., Ensminger, ME. and Stariied, B. (2000), "The Health Prohie o

Incarcerated Male Youlhs' Pediatrics Vol. 105, No.1 286-291.

Mace, D., Rohde, P., and Griau, V. (1997), "Psychological Patterns o Depression and Suicidal ehavior of Adolescents in a Juvene Detention

Facility' Journal of Ju,eni1e Justice and Detention Sen'icesVol. 12 No. 1 18-23.

Sickrnurid, M., Sladky, T.J., arid Kan, W. (2004), "Census o Jiveniles ri Residential Placement Databook" http:/M'wwojjdp.ncjrs.org/o)statbb/cjrp/.

In regards to the estimate of the number of yoUth moving through detention each year, the most recent data available from surveys administered

by the National Courici) on Juvenile Justice N.CJJ) estrnate that 350,000 youth were detained in 199B OJJDP. 2001b1,This fure, hoever, does

not include youth detained while they are awaiting a court-ordered out-of-home placement. Further, according to Dr. Barry Krisberg, "The NCJJ

data covers court hearings for detention—many youths come into detention via law eriorcement agencies, schools. parents, social secvce

agencies etc. and are released before a court hearing is held—this might also include probation and paro'e violators in some jurisdictions." Personal

correspondence (2003).

Sickmund, Melissa, Sladky, T.J., and Kang, Wei (2004), 'Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement Databook' Online.

Available: htp.i/ w'aj/dp ncjs.org/ojstatbb/cjrp/

0 Bezruki, D., Varana, D. and Hill, C. (999), An E'aluation of Secure Juvenile Detention. Madison WI: Legislative Audit Bureau.

Benda, B.B. and Toilet, C.L. (1999), "A Study of Recdivism of Serious and Persistent Offenders Among Adolescents," Journal of Criminal Justice

Vol. 27, No.2 111-126.

Dishion, T. J., McCord, J, and Poulin, F. (1999), 'When Interventions Harm Peer Groups and Problem Behavior." American Ps ychologist Vol. 54, No.

9755-764.

Hubner, J. and Wolfson, J. Unlocking lhe Future: Detention Reform in the Juvenile Justice System. Washington, DC: Coalit,on or Juvenile Justice.

a Frazier, C.E. and Cochran, J.C, 11986), "Detention of Juvendes: Its Effects on Subsequent Juveniie Court Processing Decsions:' Youth and Society

Vol. 17 No.3 286-305. Office of State Courts Administrator, Florida Ju'enlle Delinquency CourtAssessmenr. (2003) Tallahassee, FL: Office of

Court Improvements. This study shows that the odds of a previously detaned youth receiving commitment are 3.22 times greater than that of a

youth who has never been detained.

Shelden, R.G. (1999), "Detention Diversion Advocacy: An Eva'uation' Juvenile Justice BulletinWashington, DC Department of Justice, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Fendrjch, M. and Arche M. (1998), "Long-Term Re-arrest Rates in a Sample of Adjudicated Delinquents Evaluating the Impact of Alternative

Programs," The Prison Journal Vol.78 No.4 360-389. In a 12-year study that compared the outcomes of 266 juvenile defenders inTexas placed

in correctional centers and alternatives to detention centers, Fendrich and Archer found that the recidivism rate of youth in alternatives was

6spercent, whereas the recidivism rate of those placed n coaectional faciiitis was 71 percent.

fliott, D. S. 1994), "Serious Violent Offenders: Onset, Developmental Course, and Termination.The Amencan Socety of Cnminology 1993

Presidential Address." Criminology, Volume 32, Number 1.

' Sampson, ft and Laub, J. 1993), Crime In the Making. Pathways andTurnIng Points Through Life. Cambridge, MA Harvard University Press.

'° Golub, A. 1990), The Termination Rate of Adult Crimi,aI Careers Pittsburgh: Carnegie Mellon,

° Uniform Cnrne Report, Crime in the United States Survey (1996; 2002); Cook County, Multnomah and Santa Cruz Probation Departments.

Mace, 0,, Rohde, P. and Gnau, V. 11997), "Psycho'ogical Patterns of Depression and Suicidal Behavior of Adolescents in a Juvenile Detention

Facility' Journal of Juvenile Justice and Detention Serv,cesVol. 12 No. 1 18-23.

Grisso, Thomas (2004), Double jeopardy: Adolescent Offenders with Mental Disorders. University of Chicago Press.

Usiri ceseaccki from the mid-1980s, the Coalition for Juvenile Justice, to-thirds o tho detention cenlers in the country were crowded. Using

research from this data—and after a massive expansion of the detention system—the Ofhce of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

reports that 32 percent of detention centers are crowded, rneasuced by becig at or over standacd bed capacity. Unlockri the Future Detention

Reform ,n the Ju'eni/e Just,ce System. 2003) Washington, DC Coalit,ori for Juvenile Justice. Synder, Howard N., and Sickmund, Melissa. (2006),

Juvenile Offenders and Victims 2006 National Report. Washington, DC U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Poams, Office ot Juvenile

Justice and DelinqUency Prevention,

Kashani, J.H., Manning, G.W., McKnew D.H., Cytryn, L., Simonds, J.E and Wooderson, P.C. 11980), "Depression Among incarcerated Delinquents:'

Psychiatry Resources Volume 3 185-191.

Forrest, C.B.,Tambor, E., Riley, A.W.. nsminger, ME. and Starfield, . (2000). 'The Heahh Profile of Incarcerated Male Youths' Pediatrics Vol. 105,

No. 1 286-291.

Mace, D., Rohde, P., ard Gnau, V. (997), "Psychological Patterns of Depression and Suicidal Behavior of Adolescents in a Juvenile Detentior

Facility," Journal of Juvenile Justice and Detention Services Vol. 12 No. 1 18-23.

Committee on Government Reform, Special nvestJgations Division, MinorIty Staff (2004) Incarceration of Youth who are waiting for Community

Mental Health Services in the Urnted States, Prepared for Sen. Susan Collins, and Rep. Henry A. Waxman.

Available at wwwhouse.go'/reform/min; Committee on Government Reform, Special Investigations Division, M,nority Staft (2002) /ncarcerMion

of Youth with Mental Health Disorders in New Mexico, Prepared for Sen. Jeft Bingaman, Rep.Tom Udall, and Rep. Henry A. Waxman. Available at

w,v.hOuse govlreform/min.

There is a debate within the juvenile justice research community surrounding the true suicide rate in luvenile institutions, and how that compares

to youth in the community at large. One researcher posits that the suicide rate is no higher in juvenile institutions than what is the rate ,n the

commurnty at large, whle another has recently found that it is at least double what is about the same as the rate in the community at large.

The reason for the difference reflects a debate among researchers as to how you calculate rates in a correctional population that "turns over"

18

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-17 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 19 of 22
frequently. Others question whether the number of suicides being accounted in more recent studies accurately reflects the true number of

suicides in juxenite institutions Hayes, Personal Communications; 2006). It beyond the scope of this paper to answer which method yields a more

accurate reflection of true youth risk of 'successful' suicidal behavior—something resulting in a young person's death, rather than the kind of self'

harm befiaviors young people engage in when ri custody. As the researcher who finds no difference in "free-world" and juvenile custody suicide

rates notes. "arty suicide in custody is unacceptable. Its circumstances should be investigated and practice adjusted when possible." Synder,

Howard 120051, "Is Suicide More Common Inside Or Outside of Juvenile Facilities," Corrections Today; Gallagher. Catherine A. and Dobrin, Adam.

"The Comparative Risk of Suicide in Juvenile Facilities and the General Population: The Problem of Rate Calculations in High Turnover Institutions,"

)forthcomingl. Criminal Justice and Behavior

n Parent, D.G., Leiter, V., Kennedy, S., Lixens, L., Wentworth, D. and Wilcox, 5. (1994), Conditions of Conhnement: Juvenile Detention and

Corrections Facilities,. Washington, DC: US. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

° Parent, 0G., Leiter, V., Kennedy, 5., Livens, L., Wentworth, D. and Wilcox, 5. 19941, Conditions of Confinement; Juvenile Detention and

Corrections Facilities. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Hayes, L.M, (1999), Suicide Prevention in Juvenile Correction and Detention Facilities, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,

LeBlanc (19911, Unlocking Learning; Chapter tin Correctional Facilities, Washington, DC: US Department of Education,

° Batfanz, P., Spiridakis, K., Neild, El. and Legters, N. 120031, "Neighborhood Schools and the Juvenite Justice System: How Neither Helps the Other

and How that Could Change." Presented at the School to Jail Pipeline Conference, Harvard University.

0 See finding from the National Dropout Prevention Center, http.u/wwwdropoutprevention.org/stats/quick,,,facts/econ_impacl.htm

0 U.S. Department of Education (1994), Mini-digest of Education Statistics, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics,

ro wagner, M., D'Amico, R., Marder, C., Newman. L., & Blackorby, J. l992), "What Happens Next? Trends in Postschool Outcomes of'r'outh with

Disabilities:' The Second Comprehensive Report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students, Menlo Park, CA,

SRT International,

0 Freeman, RB. 119911, Crime and the Employment Disadvantage of Youth, Cambridge, MA National Bureau of Economic Research,

Western, Bruce and Beckett, Katherine 11999), "How Unregulated Is the U.S. Labor Market?: The Penal System as a Labor Market Institution," The

American Journal of Sociology, 104: 1030-1060.

Bushway. SD. It 998), "The Impact of an Arrest on the Job Stability of Young White American Men," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency

Vol.34 No.4 454-479,

° Freeman, RB. and Rodgers, W.M. 11999), Area Economic Conditions and the Labor Market Outcomes of Young Men in the 1990$ Expansion.

Cambridge. MA Narionat Bureau of Economic Research.

0 Personal correspondence, Earl Dunlap, July 29,2005.

° NewYotk City Department of Juvenile Justice (20011, as cited by the Correctional Association of NewYork, Position Paper:

www correctronalassociationorg/JJP_Juvenile, Detention,,,factsheet.htm

°Tarrant County Juvenile Services 12004),

° Aos, 5. (2002), The Juvenile Justice System in Washington State; Recommendations to Improve Cost-Effectiveness, Olympia, Washington:

Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Researchers analyzed the benefit-to-cost ratios for different types of programs that have been shown

to work or not work in lowering juvenile crime rates.To calculate this. they measured the benefits the programs produced for taxpayers and

victims, and divided this by the cost of the program.

Cohen, Mark A, 119981, "The Monetary Value of Saving a High RiskYouth:' The Journal of Oualitative Criminology., 14, 111, 5-33.

° Sickmund, M. and Snyder, H, 119971, Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1997 Update on Violence—, Statistical Summary, Washington, D.C.: Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

0 Snyder, Howard et al. 1999), EasyAccess to Juvenile Court Statistics: 1988-1997 [data presentation and analysis package), Pittsburgh, PA: National

Center for Juvenite Justice Iproducerl, Washington, DC,: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention [distributor).

° Sickmund, M,, Sladky, TJ., and Kang, W, 120041, "Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement Databook,"

http;//wwnojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/cjrp/. According to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement Survey, 214 African Americans and 106

Latinos were detained for every 100,000 uveniles, Only 47 whites for every 100,000 luveniles were detained,

° Sickmund, M,, Sladky, TJ., and Kang, W, 120041. "Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement Databook'

http.'//wwwoljdp. ncjrs,org/ojsratbb/cjrp/

° Sickmund, M,, Sladky,TJ., and Kang, W, (2004), "Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement Databook'

hrrp.'//www ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/cjrp/

Sickmand, M,, Sladky, TJ., and Kang, W,i 120041, "Census of Juveniles in Rexidentiat Placement Databook,"

http.'//www.ojjdp. ncjrs.orglojstatbb/cjrpt

0 Bridges, George S. and Steen, Sara 11998), "Racial Disparities in Official Assessments of Juvenile Offenders: Attribufional Stereotypes ax

Mediating Mechanisms:' American Sociological Review, Volume 63, 1998.

St Uniform Crime Report, Crime in the United States survey, 11996, 20021; Cook County Department.

19

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-17 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 20 of 22
NOTES

20

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-17 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 21 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-17 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 22 of 22
LESS COST, MORE SAFETY:

Guiding Lights

for Reform

in Juvenile Justice

American Youth Policy Forum

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-18 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 16
AMERICAN YOUTH POLICY FORUM

The American Youth Policy Forum (AYPF) is a non-profit professional development organization based in

Washington, DC. AYPF provides nonpartisan learning opportunities for individuals working on youth policy

issues at the local, state and national levels. Participants in our learning activities include Government

employees—Congressional staff, policymakers and Executive Branch aides; officers of professional and

national associations; Washington-based state office staff; researchers and evaluators; education and public

affairs media.

Our goal is to enable policymakers and their aides to be more effective in their professional duties and of

greater service—to Congress, the Administration, state legislatures, governors and national organizations—

in the development, enactment, and implementation of sound policies affecting our nation's young people.

We believe that knowing more about youth issues—both intellectually and experientially—will help our participants

formulate better policies and do their jobs more effectively. AYPF does not lobby or take positions on pending

legislation. We work to develop better communication, greater understanding and enhanced trust among

these professionals, and to create a climate that will result in constructive action. Each year AYPF conducts

35 to 45 learning events (forums, discussion groups and study tours) and develops policy reports disseminated

nationally. For more information about these activities and other publications, contact our web site at

This publication is copyrighted and may be freely quoted without permission,

provided the source is identified as: Less Cost, More Safety: Guiding lights for

Reform in Juvenile Justice by Richard A. Mendet. Published in 2001 by the American

Youth Policy Forum, Washington, DC. Reproduction of any portion of this report for

commercial sale is prohibited. Contact AYPF for additional copies at $5.00 including

postage and handflng

AYPF events and policy reports are made possible by the support of a consortium of philanthropic foundations:

Ford Foundation, General Electric Fund, William I Grant Foundation, George Gund Foundation, James

mime Foundation, Walter S. Johnson Foundation, W. K. Kellogg Foundation, McKnight Foundation, Charles

S. Mott Foundation, NEC Foundation of America, Wallace-Reader's Digest Fund, and others. The views

reflected in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funders.

American Youth Policy Forum

1836 Jefferson Place, NW

Washington, DC 20036-2505

Phone: 202-775-9731

Fax: 202-775-9733

E-Mail: ypfgforg

Web Site: wwwypfrg

Editors at the American Youth Policy Forum include Samuel Halperin, Betsy Brand, Glenda Partee, and

Donna Walker James. Rafael Chargel designed the cover and formatted the document for publication.

This report made possible by the Walter S. Johnson

and William T. Grant Foundations,

with dissemination assisted by the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-18 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 16
33 CHALLENGE #5: Provide Comprehensive Support and Assistance to

Youth (and Children) with Behavioral Disturbances

34 Wraparound Milwaukee

Systems Reform in a Large Jurisdiction

35 Understanding the "Wraparound' Approach

35 Wraparound -- Milwaukee-Style

36 Blended Funding and "Capitated Rate" Financing

37 Minimizing Out-of-Home Placement

37 Wraparound Success

39 CHALLENGE #6: Offer Quality Treatment and Youth Development

Services for Incarcerated Youth

40 The Last Chance Ranch

Turning Around Florida's Toughest Juvenile Offenders

40 Up From the Sea: The Evolution of a Juvenile Justice Model

41 A Ranch for Florida's Toughest Juveniles

41 A Unique Atmosphere

42 Rewards, Punishments, and Hard Work

43 Phase Three -- Making Aftercare a Centerpiece

43 The New Ferris School Juvenile Corrections Reform in Delaware

44 Unparalleled Results

46 CHALLENGE #7: Provide Quality Education and Career Development

Services that Enable Youth to Assume Productive Roles in Society

47 Preparing Delinquent Youth for Productive Careers

The Gulf Coast Training Center

47 Union Roots

48 FRESH START at the Living Classrooms Foundation:

An Old Trade Leads to New Success

48 Vocational Corrections

51 More Work, Less Recidivism

53 CHALLENGE #8: Reduce Inappropriate Detention of Youth Awaiting Trial

or Pending Placement

54 Juvenile Justice Operational Master Plan

Bringing Detention Reform to Seattle and King County, WA

55 Framing a Master Plan

55 Targets for Reform

56 The Annie E. Casey Foundation's Juvenile Detention Alternative

58 The Fruits of Reform

60 CONCLUSION

61 ENDNOTES

66 ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-18 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 3 of 16
2 American Youth Policy Forum

INTRODUCTION

America has both the knowledge and the mone y we need to substantiall y reduce adolescent crime and

youth violence We have the know-how to reduce the number q!young people likel y to join the next

generation of adult criminals. Better vet, we can likel y achieve this goal at a cost no greater (and perhaps

considerably less,i than what we will spend f current juvenile justice policies and programs remain in

place."

Less Hype, More Help: Reducing Juvenile Crime,

What Works - and What Doesn't

(Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum, June 2000)

D

uring the 1990s, juvenile crime pierced the

national consciousness. Delinquency and

youth violence soared to new heights early in the

decade. Alarming stories about juvenile

"superpredators" and a "ticking time bomb" of

adolescent crime haunted the covers of Time and

Newsweek. Then the school shootings in Jonesboro

and Paducah and at Columbine High shook the

nation. Even a sharp decline in juvenile

delinquency and violence since the early I 990s has

not lessened Americans' continuing sense of alarm.

In June 2000, the American Youth Policy Forum

and six national partner organizations published a

report analyzing America's youth crime challenge

at the turn of the millennium and assessing the

effectiveness of new and existing juvenile crime

policies nationwide. The report, entitled Less Hype,

More Help: Rea'ucing Juvenile Crime. What Work

- and What Doesn , found reason for great

optimism. Juvenilejustice experts and practitioners

have developed an array of effective tools over

the past two decades with proven power to reduce

violence and other lawbreaking by adolescents.

The report also revealed causes for grave concern.

Responding to public demand for action against

youth crime, our nation's political leaders have

responded aggressively to the perceived crisis.

Virtually every state has enacted sweeping new laws

since 1992 - erecting new correctional facilities,

imposing procedures to shift more accused youth

to adult criminal courts, and launching a bevy of

new juvenile justice and youth crime prevention

programs.

Unfortunately, many of the so-called "reforms"

enacted in recent years have ignored the real causes

for delinquency and neglected the promising cures.

Many states have embraced tough-sounding

strategies that appeal to voters but don't work, and

most have failed to address longstanding

weaknesses and imbalances in our nation's juvenile

justice institutions.

Reducing the situation to a simple metaphor,

scholars and practitioners have blazed a promising

new trail toward progress in reigning in America's

adolescent crime problem - a trail leading to less

crime, lower costs, and fewer lost youth. Yet many

of our nation's policymakers are instead marching

full steam ahead in other directions - directions

fraught with alarming costs and inevitable failure

both for protecting the public and for maximizing

success among troubled youth.

EIGHT CHALLENGES FOR JUVENILE

JUSTICE REFORM

This report follows up on Less Hype, More Help

by focusing more squarely on the critical needs

and problems facing juvenile justice efforts

nationwide. Specifically, the report spotlights eight

cross-cutting challenges - both to take advantage

of new opportunities created by advances in

research and practice, and to overcome

commonplace problems that now cripple America's

efforts to reduce delinquent offending and steer

troubled youth away from crime. These challenges

include:

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-18 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 4 of 16
Less Cost, More Safety

I. Reducing Overreliance on Incarceration for

Non-Dangerous Youthfiul Offenders

2. Developing a Continuum of Community-Based

Sanctions and Interventions for Delinquent but

Non-Dangerous Youth

3. Employing Research-Proven Program

Strategies to Reduce Delinquency

4. Identifying and Intervening Intensively With

Youth at Extreme Risk for Chronic

Delinquency

5. Providing Comprehensive Support to Youth

With Behavioral Disturbances

6. Ensuring Quality Treatment and Youth

Development Services for Incarcerated Youth

Providing Quality Education and Career

Development Services to Help Youth Outgrow

Delinquency and Assume Productive Roles in

Society

8. Reducing Inappropriate Detention for Youth

Awaiting Trial or Pending Placement

For each of these challenges, this report highlights

one or more existing programs, policies or initiatives

that show how the challenge can be (and is being)

met successthlly at the state and local levels. (See

table on pages 4-7.) By putting research into

practice, employing best practice reforms,

creating better incentives, improving multiagency cooperation, and eliminating inefficiency,

each of the guiding light programs is

demonstrating that success is possible in juvenile

justice. Recidivism can be lowered. Teen crime

rates can be reduced. More positive outcomes

for high-risk youth can be achieved.

LESS COST, MORE SAFETY AND

SUCCESS

As the following pages will detail, guiding lights

programs not only produce far better outcomes

than are now commonplace in juvenile justice

systems nationwide. They also yield vast savings

for taxpayers.

Most of the model initiatives profiled in this report

achieve their notable successes for a price

significantly lower than what more conventional

programs currently spend on failure. Even those

with high price-tags are proving cost-effective

because they frequently solve problems the first

time, rather than failing repeatedly and ensuring

that youths return to the justice system and require

repeated confinement.

Spend less, achieve nwre safety and more youth

success: that is the opportunity available to

America in juvenile justice reform - if we

demonstrate the energy and resourcefulness and

dedication to put our knowledge into practice.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-18 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 5 of 16
Challenge

No. I

O yer-reliance on

Incarceration

Exemplary Response

Missouri Division of Youth

Services

(State of Missouri)

Tarrant County

Services

(Tarrant County

Juvenile

TX)

No. 2

Continuum of

Community

Sanctions and

I rite rye n t ions

4 American Youth Policy Forum

Criticai CharacterIstics

Statewide system based on

• small-scale residential facilities (rather than

training schools)

• cx ensive 24-hourldaytherapy

• quality education prg rams

• heavy family outreach/counselfng

• well-qualified. highty-trained staff

• extensive nonresidentiaI programming and

aftercare support

County Probation Agency with:

limited number of locked pie-trial detention

l ed -

exlensive array of non-residential

sirictions, including advocate programs.

far iily preservation, and community

serr- -stitution

s trcng partnerships with community-based

service providers

lrmit.-d iis- uf r;on1iment and residential

lreritn isnE

No. 3

Research-8ased

Program Models

No. 4

Youth at Extreme

Risk

Youth Villages Private non-p ofit agency serving youth with

(Memphis, TN) en otional and behavioral disorders rmluding

many delinquents), providing a continuum of

residential and non-res-idential care

neluding:

Multisystemic Therapt, a highly effective

home-based, family-focused mental

health Ic terventton

• MultidimensionalT eatment Foster Care,

another highly effective research-based

treatment model

'8 Percent Solution' County probation program aimed at reducing

(Orange County, CA) the nunlberofchronicluvenile offenders by

• identifying the characteristics of youth at

highest risk to become chronic juvenile

offenders

• screening all first-time offenders to ident fy

those with highest probability to become

chronic offenders

enrolling potential chronic offenders in an

intensive day treatment program including

family therapy substance abUse

counseling remedial academic education

and case management

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-18 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 6 of 16
Less Cost, More Safety 5

Evidence of

1. Far lower recidivism rates than most other

state juvenile corrections agencies.

2. Far smaller budget than juvenile corrections

agencies in other states

1. Substantial reductions in juvenile crime and

via en Ce

2. 90-day failure rate for probation programs

lower than most large urban counties in Texas

3. County s long-term recidivism for youth

served in local probation programs is second

lowest among Texas large urban counties.

1. Only agency in the nation to replicate these

two state-of-the-art treatment models

2. Using these models, substantially increased

long-term success of troubled youth

compared with traditional residential treatment

programs used previously.

3. Achieving greater success at a far lower cost

per participant than residential treatment.

1. Just 49% of youth in initial pilot were rearrested within year. vs. 93% arrest rate for

youth with identical characteristics in an

earlier study.

2. in a controlled evaluation youth who

completed the program suffered two or more

subsequent arrests 29% less often than youth

randomly assigned to a control group.

3. 8%" youth also had fewer arrests, fewer

court petitions, and Spent fewer nays in

confinement than control group youth.

Reclaim Ohio— Statewide funding reform to

reward counties for treating juvenile offenders

locally and preventing excessive commitments to

state training schools

California Youth Authority— New sliding scale

funding formula requiring counties to pay a large

share of the costs for non-serious offenders

committed to state custody.

San Diego County—Developed comprehensive I

strategy including programs to prevent the onset

of delinquency and non-residential programming

to reverse delinquent behavior before juvenile

offenders commit serious crimes and require

ncarceration or transfer to adult courts,

Washington State's Community Juvenile

Accountability Act —A grant program to local

juvenile courts for replication of delinquency

program strategies with proven power to ieduce

re-offending cost-effectively

Repeat Offender Prevention Project - Statefunded project to support the "8 Percent' program

and other early intervention programs n 7

additional California jurisdictions, with a contiotled

evaluation design to measure the programs

impact scientifically.

)

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-18 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 7 of 16
No. 5

Youth With

Behavioral

Disturbances

6 American Youth Po'icy Forum

alIenge Exemplary sponse Critical Characteristics

Wraparound Milwaukee County mental health program to reduce out-of-

(Milwaukee County, WI) home treatment for disturbed (and ofen

derinquent) youth using pooled funding ($28

mdlion/year) from county juvenile probation,

child welfare, and mental health agencies.

• comprehensive home-based services

• intensive case-management

• strength-based treatment philosophy

• extensive service-provider network

• mobile treatment team for crisis

management and prevention of admissions

to psychiatric hospitals

No. 6 FlorIda Environmental Sma, privately-operated correctional facility for

Institute serious and violent youth offenders:

Chronic and Violent (Glades Covnty, EL) • working ranch located in the Florida

Youth Offenders Evemnlades, with no locked cells or restraints

• high staff-to-offender ratio and close staffoffenderrelationships

• intensive behavior management (reward.'

punishments for good/bad behavior)

• extensive chores and work activities as well

as ri-depth educational programming

$ intensive aftercare support for six months

No. 7 Gulf Coast Trades Center Residential corrections factlity using vocational

(New Waverly, TX) training as a primary strategy to rehabilitate

Quality Education luvefiile offenders:

and Career • all students enrolled in one of 9 career

Oev&opment for tracks, each with a 915-hour applied

Dehnquent Youth curriculum

• students receive two hours per day of

academic instruction

• most students participate in paid work

experience on campus, in community

agencies, or in new iow 1 ncome housing

construction

+ intensive aftercare, including job seaich/

jb placement assstance

No. 8 ,Juvenile Justice Comprehensive analysis of county juvenile

Operational Master Plan justice operations in order to:

Juvenile Detention (King County, WA reduce overcrowding at juvenile detention

Reform center

• eliminate need for construction and

operation of added detention beds

• identify alternative programs/policies to

nip rove outcomes for juvenile offenders

and reduce juvenile offending rates

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-18 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 8 of 16
Less Cost, More Safety

Evidence of Effectiveness

1 Reduced use of residential treatment from

3i0 youth per day to 135 per day.

2 Reduced psychiatric hospitalizations of

children/adolescents hy8O percent.

3 Reducea arrests of delinquent youth

participants by more than 70 percent from

year prior to year after treatment.

4. Substantially improved participants behavioral

functioning as measured by ental health

assessments.

Recidivism rate has averaged 15,8 percent

from 1997 2000, compared to recidivism

rates of >40 percent for youth in other Florida

residential corrections programs.

2 Despite longer stays and higher cost per day

trian most Florida training schools, the

program ranks among the most cost-effective

in the state for high-risk offenders due to far

higher success rates.

1 Recidivism rates are far below those of other

moderate security facilities - and more than

30 Y, below expected recidivtsm' based on

risk profile of participants

2. Sixty percent of graduates find paid

employment in their chosen occupational

fields with average starting wage of $7 5-0.

3 Sixt y percent earn GEDs

r Noteworthy Resoonses

See Youth Villages (Challenge #3)

Ferris School - The new Delaware train ilg

school built in die 900s after yea; of IPiqutiun

cver substandard cond 1ron ind inadequate

uruyrarnmulg in an older facflity. New Ferris

offers higtt quality education and other

programming - a dramatic improvement over past

Fresh Start - Baltimore based day program tha

teaches delinquent youth boat bii Iding and other

vocational skjlls as part of comprehensive, 40-

week (plus aftercare) rehabilitation strategy Moegraduates are employed, and tower than one fifth

are re-arrested

County adopted master plan in August 2000

• new p cefproeedures1prog rains estabI shed to prevent unnecessaiy placements into

detention and reduce lengths of stay

• averege detention popu ation down 3-0 percent

since January 1999,

• construction of new detention facility on hold

indefinitely:

• some funds not used for construction invested

in state-of-the-art intervention pro-grams for

high risk offenders and their families.

Juvenile Detention Alternatives InitiativeMulti-million dollar project of the Annie E. Casey

Foundat on that enabled three local jurisdictions to

'edu. mrcrowdinq in iuvenile detention devetn:

sound altern tives-tc- S tention prograrii di

stream inc case processing to reduce

jriniecescirilv lone stays in dtenton fri i':. i. :h n i ii

ot1'ricie"s

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-18 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 9 of 16
8 American Youth Policy Forum

CHALLENGE #1:

REDUCE OVERRELIANCE ON iNCARCERATION

"Evaluation research indicates that incarcerating young offenders in laige, congregate care juvenile institutions

does not effective/v rehabilitate and ma y actually harm them... A centur y of experience with training

schools and youth prLsons demonstrates that the y constitute the one extensive/v evaluated and clear/v

ineffective method to treat delinquents.

Barry Feld, University of Minnesota Law School

N

ationwide, juvenile justice agencies spent

between $10 and $15 billion in 2000 to

prosecute, supervise, punish and treat adolescents

accused or convicted of delinquent or criminal

behavior, or to prevent adolescent crimes before

they occur. The majority of these funds were paid

to confine a small segment of the juvenile offender

population, and most confined youth were sent to

"training schools" - large correctional institutions

typically housing 100 to 500 juvenile offenders.

Conditions of confinement in these facilities are

often poor, and educational and mental health

services are often inadequate. Moreover, the

process of isolating youth exclusively with other

delinquent peers tends to exacerbate rather than

mitigate the law-breaking tendencies of youthful

offenders.

Decisions to send youthful offenders to training

schools (or correctional boot camps) are typically

based upon two rationales: (I) the young person

poses a danger to society and must be removed; or

(2) a period of confinement will teach the young

person a needed lesson. The evidence belies both

of these rationales as justification for devoting the

lion's share of juvenile justice resources to

incarceration.

Most youth placed into training schools are not

dangerous criminals. Nationwide, 27 percent of

youthful offenders in out-of-home placements in

October 1997 were guilty of violent felony crimes.

(The large majority of these placements were to

correctional units, with the rest being residential

treatment centers or group homes.) A 1993 study

of 28 states found that only 14 percent of offenders

in correctional training schools were committed for

violent felonies. More than half of the youthful

offenders in state institutions were committed for

property or drug crimes and were serving their first

terms in a state institution.2

Meanwhile, large training schools have never

proved effective in rehabilitating youthful offenders

or steering them from crime. Recidivism from large

training schools is uniformly high. A follow-up

study on youth released from Minnesota's two

training schools in 1991 found that 91 percent were

arrested within five years of release. In Maryland,

a study of 947 youths released from correctional

facilities in 1994 found that 82 percent were

referred to juvenile or criminal courts within two

and one-half years after release. 3 In Washington

State, 59 percent of incarcerated youth re-offended

within one year and 68 percent within two years.4

"Decisions to send youthful

offenders to training schools (or

correctional boot camps) are

typically based upon two

rationales: (1) the young person

poses a danger to society and must

be removed; or (2) a period of

confinement will teach the young

person a needed lesson. The

evidence belies both of these

rationales.... Most youth placed

into training schools are not

dangerous criminals.... Meanwhile,

large training schools have never

proved effective in rehabilitating

youthful offenders or steering them

from crime. Recidivism from large

training schools is uniformly high.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-18 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 10 of 16
Less Cost, More Safety

In fact, virtually every study examining

recidivism among youth sentenced to juvenile

training schools in the past three decades has

found that at least 50 to 70 percent of offenders

are arrested within one or two years afler release.

Clearly, training schools are not derailing the

criminal careers ofyouthfu! offenders.

Why then do states continue to rely so heavily on

training school incarceration - despite the powerful

evidence against its effectiveness? One factor is

that public pressures to "get tough" on youth crime

have dissuaded political leaders from embracing

less punitive rehabilitation strategies. Also, many

local jurisdictions have declined to invest adequate

resources in community-bused juvenile corrections

programs that can punish, supervise and rehabilitate

young offenders without removing them to state

institutions. Many states have created financial

incentives against local investment in these needed

programs.

Experience shows that states and localities which

overcome these obstacles can substantially reduce

their reliance on incarceration - saving millions for

taxpayers, increasing public safety, and sparing

many youth a needless and potentially damaging

experience in corrections

UN-PRISONMENT:

MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH SERVICES

Steel-gray cement floor. White cinder-block walls.

Narrow cot and open, stainless steel toilet. The room

looks like tens of thousands of training school cells

throughout our nation.

Yet here at the Riverbendjuvenile colTectional facility

in St. Joseph, Missouri, this cell is the only one of its

kind - and it is empty. Though the young people

confined at Riverbend clean the cell every week, it

has remained unoccupied for more than one year,

reserved for emergencies that seldom arise. Rather

than living in individual or two-person cells, the 33

residents of Riverbend - most convicted of felonies -

sleep in three open dormitories. There are no handcuffs

here, and no restraints. Only the 14-foot perimeter fence

signals that this is a correctional facility.

Like all of Missouri's juvenile correctional facilities,

Riverbend's 33-bedcapacity isfarsrnallerthantheimining

schools" that dominatejuvenile corrections in most other

states. Nationwide, only 12 percent of youth confined

by public correctional agencies are housed in facilities

with 30 or fewer residents, and 62 percent arc confined

in facilities with morn than 110 residents. 5 Missouri closed

it's only training school in 1983 (and converted it for use

as an adult prison). Today in Missouri, no juvenile

correctional facility contains more than 85 beds, and all

except three contain 33 beds or fewer.

AN ALTERNATIVE TO "TRAINING

SCHOOL"

Clearly, Missouri's secure juvenile corrections

facilities look quite different from those in most

states. They are also used more sparingly.

Whereas neighboring Nebraska, Illinois, Kansas.

Arkansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, and Tennessee each

confine between 200 and 2,200 youth in training

schools and other high-security correctional

facilities, Missouri confines only 180 youth in

heavily locked facilities like Riverbend! Threefourths of youthful offenders committed to

Missouri's youth corrections agency, the Division

of Youth Services (DYS), are assigned to nonresidential community programs, group homes, and

less secure residential fad Ii tics.

Community-Based Programs. On any given day

in Missouri, 255 juvenile offenders committed to

state custody participate in day treatment

programs" like the Star program in Gladstone,

where 15 youth spend from 8 a.rn. to 3 p.m. every

weekday in a combination of academic education

and counseling. After school, many participate in

community-service or academic tutoring activities,

or in individual or family counseling. For most

youth, the day treatment program is a step down

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-18 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 11 of 16
10 American Youth Policy Forum

A central tenet of the Missouri

approach is that "treatment

occurs 24-hours-per-day." Not only

therapy sessions, but all activities

must reinforce the messages of

individual responsibility and

discipline - and never reward youth

for overpowering others or

slacking in their assigned tasks

or behavioral standards. Missouri

maintains this 24-hour regimen by

ensuring that youth are overseen

at all times by at least two skilled,

educated, and highly trained staff

members.

following residential confinement. This allows DYS

to provide eyes-on supervision when youth return

to the community, and it provides the young people

extra support during the difficult and dangerous

transition period. Day treatment also enables youth

to continue their education without interruption,

rather than enduring a delay between their release

from confinement and the opening of a new

semester in the public schools.

In addition to day treatment, DYS assigns

"trackers" to monitor and support 800 delinquent

teens each day in community supervision. These

trackers usually college students pursuing a degree

in social work or a related discipline - maintain

close contact with delinquent young people and their

families, offering support, mentoring, and

troubleshooting assistance. In addition, 500 youth

statewide are supervised each day on "aftercare"

status - through which youth who have graduated

from DYS programs continue to be supervised by

the same case manager who has overseen their case

all throughout their time with DYS.

Statewide, only 12 percent of youth committed to

state custody are enrolled immediately into a

community-based program. However, the length of

stay for Missouri youth in residential care programs

is typically short - median stay is six months - and

most youth spend time in community programs

following their return from residential care.

Less-Secure Residential Programs. In addition

to these non-residential programs, the Missouri

Department of Youth Services also operates six

non-secure group homes with 1 0-12 beds each, as

well as 18 "moderately secure" residential programs

serving 20-30 youth each. The group homes

typically house youth who have committed only

status offenses or misdemeanors. These young

people pose no danger to the community, hut

require more structure, support and supervision

than their families can provide. Group home

youth spend considerable time away from their

facilities in jobs. group projects, and other

community activities. Within the facilities, they

participate in extensive individual, group and

family counseling.

Missouri's "moderately secure" residential

programs are dotted across the state in residential

neighborhoods, state parks, and two college

campuses. Though many youth sent to these

facilities are felons, they too spend time in the

community. Closely supervised by staff,

residents regularly go on field trips and undertake

community service projects. Those who make

progress in the counseling component of the

program and demonstrated trustworthiness are

often allowed to perform jobs with local

nonprofit or government agencies - thanks to a

$678,000 per year DYS work experience

program.

UN-PRISON ATMOSPHERE

At the moderately secure residential sites - and

even at high-security facilities like Riverbend -

the atmosphere is anything but prison-like.

Residents joke easily with staff, with whom most

are on a first name basis. The furnishings are new

and cheerful, and the grounds arc immaculate.

Each of the facilities is organized into treatment

groups of 10-12 youth who share a dormitory and

participate together in academic classes and group

therapy sessions. Many groups tend their own pet

or pets - a dog, a turtle, a rabbit. Colorful bulletin

boards designed by youth cover most of the walls

- featuring their work or positive messages written

by youth expressing gratitude to staff or other

participants.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-18 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 12 of 16
Less Cost, More Safety 11

Youth attend six 50-minute periods of academic

instruction every weekday all year round. They

break into small groups for GED instruction or

classwork toward their high school diplomas, work

together on special projects or current events, or

do individual lessons in a computer learning lab.

In some DYS facilities, youth participate in a

statewide stock market game where groups invest

a theoretical $100,000 over 10 weeks. These DYS

groups study the markets carefully, and many

participants can knowledgeably discuss the stock

performance of dozens of companies. Several DYS

groups have ranked among the top groups statewide

in the performance of their investments - outdueling

classes from Missouri's regular public schools.

Treatment. In addition to academics, another

critical element of the DYS residential programs is

what residents and staff refer to as "treatment."

Ninety-minute group sessions are conducted five

times per week at all of Missouri's residential and

day treatment programs. Facilitated by highlytrained, college-educated youth specialists and

group leaders, these sessions help youth explore

their own identities, reflect on their family histories,

learn to understand their emotions, and build skills

to recognize and reverse their destructive behavior

patterns.

The walls at all DYS facilities are covered with

work completed by youth as part of this treatment

process. "Genograrns" are family trees which

include not only the names of relatives but also the

In conversations with DYS youth,

the impact of these treatment

activities is unmistakable. Young

people speak openly about their

troubled pasts, their hopes for the

future, and the changes they are

making in themselves to ensure

they don't repeat their past

mistakes. Without prompting,

many youth acknowledge the pain

they have caused the victims of their

crimes-and their determination not

to create any future victims.

problems and challenges they faced: alcoholism,

drug abuse, domestic violence, mental health

problems, physical disabilities, or others. For the

"line of body"exercise, participants trace the outline

of their own bodies and then write and illustrate

essential elements of their histories, hopes, emotions

and identities.

Families are also a critical element of the Missouri

treatment approach. Unlike most other states,

Missouri's juvenile corrections systems is divided

into five sub-state regions, enabling almost every

youth to be housed within a one or two hour drive

from their family homes. DYS family therapists

travel to the homes of residents' parents and

guardians, or they drive family members to and

from the residential thcilities to make visits and

participate in family therapy sessions.

In conversations with DYS youth, the impact of

these treatment activities is unmistakable. Young

people speak openly about their troubled pasts, their

hopes for the future, and the changes they are

making in themselves to ensure they don't repeat

their past mistakes. Without prompting, many

youth acknowledge the pain they have caused the

victims of their crimes and their determination

not to create any future victims. Many relate how

resistant they were at first to examining the

emotional wounds and traumatic experiences that

helped propel them into anti-social behaviors and

thus into trouble. And those who have been

confined for some time talk about the responsibility

they feel to help new arrivals overcome their

skepticism and fear about opening their feelings to

others - and to themselves.

SAFETY, SAVINGS, AND SUCCESS

Missouri's emphasis on treatment and on leastrestrictive care, rather than incarceration and

punishment, is paying big dividends. While the

Division of Youth Services does not track the longterm recidivism ofyouthful offenders released from

its care, several indicators demonstrate that

Missouri's unconventional approach is far more

successful and cost-effective than the training

school-oriented systems of most state juvenile

corrections agencies.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-18 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 13 of 16
12 American Youth Policy Forum

Ohto and Cabfornia:

Using Financial Incentives to Reduce Counties'

Dependence on State Training Schools

Whereas Missouri has developed ts continuum of community-based and non residential programs at the

state level, other states ace using fjnancial incentives to encourage county courts and probation agencies to

meet the challenge at the local level

In Ohio, counties have historica ly inundated state jUvenile correctional institutions with many non-senous

offenders. That began to change in 1993. however, when the state iegislature enacted a new funding

initiative Reclaim Ohio. Until then. the state bore the entire cost of training school ccnfThement for any

young person the counties chose to send, while counties bore the full cost for any young person retained in

the community and enrolled in a non-residential or community-based treatment program. Thus, the counties

faced a powerful financial incentive to commit youth to state facilities - whether or not such a commitment

was in the best interests of the individual young person (or pLibliG safety).

Reclaim Ohio turned these incentives upside down. The new program offered countes a yearly funding

allocation (based on each county's percentage of statewide felony delinquents) fr the treatment of1uvenite

offenders. The state then began charging counties 75 percent of the costs for any young person committed

to state care. ut only 50 percent of the costs for any young person retained in a local corrections facility.

Any unspent funds could be used by the counties for non-residential community corrections programs

Thus, Reclaim Ohio provided counties both the incentive and the means to establish local alternatives to

training school confinement of juvenile offenders.

When it was tested in 1994 in nine pilot counties, Reclaim Ohio caused a 43 percent drop in commitments to

state custody Reclaim Ohio is now a permanent program statew he. serving more than 15,000 youth per

year in local juvenile corrections programs costing $255 million in 1999 alone. Meanwhile, the percentageof

juvenile felony offenders committed to state care declined every year from 1994 to 1997. and overcrowding

in state training schools has fallen substantially.

California has also taken steps to reduce over-reliance on training school incarceration. For decades. the

state paid almost the entire cost of corinernent for any youth committed by county courts to the California

Youth Authority. In 1996, California created a new slidingscalefundingformula. Forseriousoffenders. the

state continuedt pay the lions share of costs for training schof corrflnement However, the state began

charging counties 50 percent of the costs of confinement tor moderately serious offenders, 75 percent of the

bill for youth with leassetious febris. arid 100 percentfor youth with tethrcat parole violations or misdemeanors

- a hefty $2,600 per juvenile per month. The impact of this new funding scheme was immediate within two

years the admission rate for less serious offenders declined by 41 percent.

CONTACTS:

Rec/ai Ohio

Carol Rapp Zimmerman, Ass!. Director

Ohio Department of Youth Services

51 t'4o'th High Street

Columbus. OH 432 S

Phone (614)466-8783

Oahfomias Sauirig Scale Funding Forniula

Iracy Kenny

Legislative Analysts Office

925 L Street, Suite 1000

Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone:(916)445-4660

In each of the past two years, only 11 percent of returned to juvenile custody within one year. A

young people released from DYS custody or 1993 DYS study found that only 28 percent of

transferred from a residential to a non-secure youth released from residential care violated parole

community program were either rearrested or or were recommitted to DYS within three years of

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-18 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 14 of 16
Less Cost, More Safety 13

their release - a failure rate one-half to two-thirds

below that of most other states. More than 90

percent of the 917 youth committed to DYS in

1991 were first time commitments: only 8 percent

had been committed to DYS previously. And a

study offive thousand youth discharged from DYS

in the 1980s found that only 15 percent were

arrested as adults.7

Perhaps most impressively, Missourijuvenile

corrections system has achieved these superior

outcomes at a cost well below that of most states.

By avoiding over-reliance on expensive residential

confinement programs, limiting the length of stay

in these programs, and minimizing recidivism.

Missouri's Division of Youth Services operated with

a budget ofjust $61 million in 2000 about $94

for each young person in the state aged 10-17. By

comparison, juvenile corrections budgets in the

eight states surrounding Missouri average

approximately $140 per young person— one third

more than Missouri.

THE KEYS TO SUCCESS

Despite these impressive results, other states have

not been willing or able to emulate Missouri. Less

than a handful of states have entirely scrapped

training schools, as Missouri has, and all but a

handful have declined to develop a broad network

of small residential and non-residential juvenile

corrections programs. Why not? And how can

youth advocates and taxpayer rights groups in other

states overcome resistance and build support for

Missouri-style juvenile Justice reform? Several

factors appear most important:

Attention to safety. Given the public's

understandable concerns about youth crime

and violence, placing adjudicated youth into

non-secure programs and allowing confined

youth to participate in off-campus activities is

a dangerous proposition. One major incident

can create a firestorm of political protest.

Missouri has been extremely successful in

avoiding such incidents, thanks to a

combination of: I) careful screening of

youthful offenders before allowing them to

interact with the general population; 2) careful

supervision of confined youth during

occasional outings into the community; and 3)

use of trackers to monitor youth residing in

the community to identify and address problem

situations as they arise.

High quality staff. A central tenet of the

Missouri approach is that "treatment occurs

24-hours-per-day." Not only therapy sessions,

but all activities must reinforce the messages

of individual responsibility and discipline -

and never reward youth for overpowering

others or slacking in their as.s'igned tasks or

behavioral standard.s Missouri maintains this

24-hour regimen by ensuring that youth are

overseen at all times by at least two skilled,

educated, and highly trained staff members.

All youth specialists and direct care workers in

Missouri are college graduates, and all must

complete 120 hours of in-service training during

their first two years on the job. In most states,

incarcerated youth spend only a handful of

hours per week in therapy activities with

trained counselors. For the remainder of the

time, youth are overseen by less skilled, lowerpaid correctional officers who often lack the

skills (and perhaps the inclination) to rigorously

enforce a treatment philosophy.

Constituency-building. To overcome public

fears of delinquent youth and political

momentum toward ever-tougher approaches

to delinquency, long-time Division of Youth

Services Director Mark Steward has carefully

cultivated a network ofpromninent supporters

statewide - including leaders in both political

parties. By inviting judges, state legislators

and other powerful figures to tour its facilities

-- and by allowing youth themselves to guide

these tours and describe in their own words

the value of the DYS treatment process --

Steward and DYS have gained the faith of

Missouri leaders across the political spectrum.

Also, by placing dozens of facilities throughout

the state, it has built a powerful base of

grassroots support to maintain its decentralized

programming at a time when most other states

are only building more training school beds.

"Missouri has resisted the get large philosophy,

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-18 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 15 of 16
14 American Youth Pohcy Forum

mostly [bccausel Steward went out and talked

with people around the state and built a

consensus in support ofhis approach." reports

Paul DeMuro, a leading juvenile justice

consultant. "Steward may be the most

longstandingjuvenile corrections director in the

nation. He knows how to work the system.

and he's very well respccted."'

CONCLUStON

Missouri's un-prisonnient approach to juvenile

justice is by no means perfect. Investments in

community-based delinquency prevention efforts

are not extensive statewide, and the state contributes

only a modest (though growing) $6 million per year

to support local juvenile court programs that

intervene early in the delinquency careers of

adolescents and reduce the chances that youth will

be committed to DYS in the future. Missouri also

fails to collect long-term recidivism data for youth

after leaving its juvenile corrections programs.

On balance, though, Missouri s approach should

be a model for the nation. its success offers

definitive pro of that states can protect the public,

rehabilitate youth, and safeguard taxpayers far

better if they abandon incarceration as the core

of their juvenile corrections systems.

"It's the best system in the country in my opinion

for [the correctional phases of] juvenile justice,"

says Paul DeMuro. Bart Lubow, a Senior Associate

at the Annie E. Casey Foundation, also raiiks

Missouri's Division of Youth Services among the

finest juvenile corrections agencies in the nation.

"It shows what's possible," Lubow says, "when

you put in place a smart array of options and you

tailor the dispositions to the needs and risks of the

individual kids."1

Operating Ag2nc \tooL,r l), .!()fl 't Youth Servicc

Program Tpe State Jucnik (nt retton Atncv

Program Goals Puhite S itct R h9bIIilarion of 'rothiul Urlenoets

Target Group OL1tI ml ()1TLnder i. inn imud t State Custody

Ke Steategics Small cm r unnl hic iliti heavy treatmeni

ci ipha ic exteni e uc ut non-i aidcnn,tl tracke

and da\ treatm nt prow u i ii tcnsi c ai I

0 tied h

Primary Funding Stute u( \'lksuuri, [S (tlfec of Juvenile Juatet and

Sou reefs l)clirnucncv l'i evertiori

Evidence of \er lo\v retdc sm, tar len er cOdt than juvniIe

Effectiveness cerrectinna v uern, in most urrouudtnz sttc

Contutt Info, niarion Slaik Stcu rd l'iicmr

SliccoLit, 1). nn ot 'i outh ', ic jcc

l, 44

Jeticrion Citi. Mo t-cS I ll

Phoic 't} '] 4 F ' I 2O 4404

____

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-18 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 16 of 16
Less Cost, More Safety 15

CHALLENGE #2:

OFFER A BROAD ARRAY OF COMMUNITYBASED SANCTIONS AND INTERVENTIONS FOR

DELINQUENT BUT NONDANGEROUS YOUTH

A judge in one count y has many options to crafi appropriate orders Jbr young otfenders. In the next county

ovep especial/v if it is an urban counti a judge niav have ver y few options between probation and incarceration.

That. like choosing between aspirin or a lohotomvfbr a migraine. "

Christine Todd Whitman, Governor of New Jersey

T

he vast majority of young people arrested and

referred to juvenile courts nationwide are not

incarcerated. Instead, 43 percent are never formally

charged with an offense, and two-fifths of those

who are charged in juvenile courts either have their

cases dropped or subsequently sign an informal

probation agreement. Thus, only one-third of

delinquency cases ultimately result in a court finding

of delinquency (i.e., a conviction). Among youth

found to be delinquent, more than two-thirds

receive a sentence of probation, release, or

alternative sanction. Thus, only 11 percent of

delinquency cases result in out-of-home placement

to corrections or to a group home or residential

treatment center.

Within our nation's juvenile justice systems,

however, most of the energy and the funding are

devoted to confining these 11 percent. Far less

effort and creativity, and many fewer resources,

are devoted to appropriately punishing youth who

remain at home or to addressing the underlying

problems that may be causing their delinquent

behavior.

Theoretically, juvenile courts have a wide range of

options to deal with youthful offenders who arc

allowed to remain in the community. These options

can include restitution, community service, home

curfew, academic tutoring, anger management

training, individual or family counseling, substance

abuse treatment, plus many others, oi. supervision

by a probation officer without any of these activities.

If a youth violates probation, the court might have

a range of possible punishments - tightened curfew,

added community service, short-term "quick dip"

incarceration, more frequent drug testing, or reduced

privileges.

Or the judge might have few of these options as

is too often the case. As Eric Joy, director of the

Allegheny County (PA) juvenile courts, told a

congressional committee in 1997, "Utilizing a

system of progressive sanctions can be difficult if

the means to carry them out are not available.":

One disposition that historically has not been

available in most communities, or has been used

only for a select few, is intensive non-residential

treatment and/or youth development services -

aggressive intervention programs to resolve behavior

problems in young people natural environment.

This gap is not due to a lack ofwillingness on the part

ofjuvcnile courts and probation agencies to invest

Theoretically, juvenile courts have

a wide range of options to deal

with youthful offenders who are

allowed to remain in the

community. These options can

include restitution, community

service, home curfew, academic

tutoring, anger management

training, individual or family

counseling, substance abuse

treatment, plus many others.... Or

the judge might have few of these

options - as is too often the case.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-19 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 18
16 American Youth Policy Forum

money in treatment programs; rather, most

jurisdictions regularly place troubled youth into group

homes and residential treatment programs, often

paying $200 or more per day for these services.

Yet, in most communities, juvenile justice authorities

have declined to invest in intensive programming

for youth who remain in their own homes.

This failure is especially striking given the

tremendous success achieved by a handful of

intensive non-residential program models such as

Multisystemic Therapy, Multidimensional

Treatment Foster Care, and Functional Family

Therapy (see Challenge #3). These and other

intensive non-residential juvenile corrections

programs, even when they provide extensive

services, cost far less per day than training schools

or residential treatment programs. Often, their

results are as good or better. Yet these intensive

community-based programs, even more than other

components of a progressive sanctions continuum,

remain all too rare nationwide.

As the following pages explain, Tarraiit County,

Texas is one jurisdiction demonstrating that where

intensive non-residential programming is provided

- and particularly when it is integrated into a

seamless continuum of graduated sanctions and

services - the results are often both superior to and

less costly than those realized using the old "aspirin

or lobotomy" approach.

BUILDING A COMMUNITY-BASED CONTINUUM

TARRANT COUNTY (TX) JUVENILE SERVICES DEPARTMENT

Soon after George W. Bush was first elected

Governor of Texas in 1994 with juvenile justice

retbrm as a major plank in his campaign platform,

the Texas legislature authorized $37.5 million dollars

in general revenue bonds for construction or

expansion of local juvenile corrections facilities.

Half of these funds were designated for Texas'

seven most populous urban counties, and six of

the counties snatched up the funds and quickly

added more than 500 new correctional beds. One

jurisdiction, however, opted not to accept the funds.

Despite the fact that it had many fewer correctional

beds than most urban counties even before the new

construction began, Tarrant County declined its

$3.7 million share of the state's offer.

Why? Because when the county juvenile probation

department conducted an internal study, it found

that added correctional beds were unnecessary.

Moreover, while the new Texas program would

pay the bill for construction, it would not pay most

of the ongoing costs for operating and maintaining

the new facilities. Thus, going ahead with

construction would cost county taxpayers millions

per year in added costs once the beds were built.

Tarrant County decided that it could protect the

public better, serve delinquent youth more

effectively, and save county taxpayers more money

by investing a continuum of non-residential,

community-based responses to delinquency. In

doing so, the county ratified its reputation as a lone

ranger in a state where "law and order" have

reigned for decades and "zero tolerance"

increasingly rules juvenilejustice.

THE TARRANT COUNTY CONTINUUM

The above anecdote offers just one illustration of

how Tarrant County's approach differs from

conventional practice both in Texas and

nationwide. During the l990s, the Texas Youth

Commission nearly tripled the number of youth

it incarcerated each night in state training schools.

Most county probation agencies in Texas also

took increasingly hard line approaches toward

juvenile offenders. Many erected new boot

camps or other correctional centers, and niany

expanded their pre-trial detention centers - further

adding to the number of youth incarcerated

statewide.

Tarrant County. home to the city of Fort Worth,

took a different approach. Instead of building

detention and correctional facilities, Tarrant

County developed an array of programs and

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-19 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 18
Less Cost, More Safety 17

During the 1990s, the Texas Youth

Commission nearly tripled the

number of youth it incarcerated

each night in state training

schools. Most county probation

agencies in Texas also took

increasingly hard line approaches

toward juvenile offenders. Many

erected new boot camps or other

correctional centers, and many

expanded their pre-trial detention

centers - further adding to the

number of youth incarcerated

statewide.... Tarrant County,

home to the city of Fort Worth,

took a different approach.

punishments to sanction juvenile offenders while

at home. Instead of sending large numbers of

youth to state correctional institutions, Tarrant

County placed most delinquents into nonresidential programs. Instead of placing youth

accused of less serious offenses on routine

probation providing few services and little support

-- Tan-ant enrolled most into rigorous counseling,

community service, and/or youth development

programs designed to reverse behavior problems

before they escalated into serious criminality.

Tarrant County Advocate Program. Back in

1992, Tarrant County juvenile services director

Carey Cockerell began scouring the nation fbr local

correctional programs that could serve as

alternatives to committing young offenders to the

Texas Youth Commission (which operates the

state's correctional training schools), or to

residential treatment facilities for adolescents that

cost the county up to $200 per day (and produced

only mixed success). Cockerell seized upon Youth

Advocate Programs, Inc. (YAP), an operation based

in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania that has provided

intensive support and supervision to more than fifty

thousand delinquent and troubled youth over the

past 25 years in seven states and the District of

Columbia.

Designed as an alternative both to pre-trial detention

and to incarceration and other out-of-home

placements following adjudication, YAP trains and

assigns local community residents to serve as

advocates for troubled teens. These advocates

mentor and monitor the youth, and they facilitate

a child/family team including neighbors, volunteers,

professional staff (such as child welfare workers, or

clinical social workers) relatives, parents, and youth

themselves. By keeping close tabs on delinquent

youth, the advocate programs offer a cost-effective

alternative to confinement for youth who pose no

immediate danger to themselves or others. In addition,

advocates facilitate a "wraparound" services approach

that helps youth and their families build on their

strengths, solicit needed counseling and support

services, and stabilize behavior problems.

With funding from Cockcrell's agency, YAP

established the Tan-ant County Advocate Program

(TCAP) late in 1992 in one high-crime Fort Worth

neighborhood. Within a year, the commitments to

secure juvenile corrections facilities dropped by 44

percent for youth in the targeted neighborhood. In

1999, TCAP served 385 young people. Despite a

record of multiple prior arrests among many

participants, 91 percent of the young people

discharged from the program did not incur a more

serious delinquent charge (although some youth

were re-arrested on minor charges) during their 4-

6 month stay in the program. In 2000, TCAP's

success rate dipped to 78 percent.'3

A Comprehensive Continuum. Today. TCAP

is only one element in a comprehensive continuum

of services and sanctions for youthful otTenders in

Tarrant County. Other program offerings include:

• Community service restitution and

monetary restitution, in which youth are

court-ordered to perform 30-100 hours of

service or make a financial payment to victims.

During 2000, 996 juveniles completed 19,775

hours of work for local community agencies.

In addition, Tan-ant County juvenile offenders

made monetary restitution payments of more

than $65,000.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-19 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 3 of 18
18 American Youth Policy Forum

By spurning calls to build more

detention cells and place more

youth into expensive confinement

programs, Tarrant County has saved

local taxpayers millions.. And

contrary to the fears of an alarmed

public, Tarrant's home-based,

treatment-oriented approach has

led to a substantial reduction in

juvenile crime.

Famil y preservation, providing intensive

home-based counseling for troubled youth and

their families. The program offers a

combination of counseling, 24-hour crisis

intervention, and training in social skills (such

as parenting, anger management, conflict

resolution and problem solving) for families of

emotionally disturbed youth at risk for

commitment to the Texas Youth Commission

(TYC). In 1999 and 2000, 389 of the 455

youth (85.5 percent) completing the program

successfully averted a TYC placement. For

the life of the program (January 1992 through

July 2000), just 103 of 1,141 participants (9

percent) were subsequently committed to TYC,

and three-fourths ofthe remaining participants

had no subsequent contact with the juvenile

court.

Juvenile Drug Court, which offers substanceabusing youth the opportunity to enroll in

supervised drug treatment as an alternative to

formal probation. Youth are monitored closely

in their treatment and drug tested regularly, and

charges are dismissed when and if youth

complete their course of treatment successfully.

Of I 72 youth who exited the program in 2000,

7

San Diego County

The Comprehensive Strategy

Like Tarrant County, San Diego County (CA) is also working hard to build a continuum of local sanctons

and intervention programs for juvenile offenders, San Diego was one of the first communities in the

nation to receive federal funding to implement the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's

Comprehensive Strategy againstjuvenile violence,

In 1996. San Diego embarked on an intensive study and planning effort involving more than 200 area

leaders Since then it has mounted an impressive flurry of new activity aimed at reducing youth crime

and promoting the healthy development of young people New efforts include: intensive full-day programs

for high nsk first offenders and for other youth at risk of out-of-home placements, significantly expanded

adolescent substance abuse treatment new after school programming, and new comprehensive cornunity centers to serve youth and their families

San Diego has raised well over 0 million to support these efforts since 1996. However while far more

I extensive than the services offered n most jurisdictions, thecountys new model programs s ill serve only

a fraction of the juvenile population that could benefit. San Diego s once serious detention overcrowding

problem has begun to ease as the detention population declined from 630 in 1998 to 470 in 1999

However, the detention rate remains high in relation to other jurisdictions of similar size

CONTACT:

David Simmons

Director Comprehensive Strategy

The Chiluren s Initiative

4438 tngraham Street

San Diego CA921On

Phone. (13191490 1670

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-19 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 4 of 18
Less Cost, More Safety 19

TARRANT COUNTY VS. DALLAS COUNTY

JUVENILE PROBATION PROGRAMS, SERVICES AND COSTS

500 -'

400

300

200

.7

100

.. .. .. .

•

•Datas County

Total Juven,Ie PopulaSons:

Tarrant County (149407), Dallas Coonly 245,838)

Sources: Data supplred by Tarrant and Dallas County Probation Departments.

135 (78 percent) graduated successfully, while

35 were returned to court to face formal

charges. Juvenile Drug Court participants

submitted 1,958 urinalysis drug tcsts during

2000, of which 257 (13 percent) showed a

positive result for illicit drugs.

Non-residential sex offender treatment,

provided by thee local community agencies to

youth accused of indecent exposure, indecency

with a younger child, or sexual assault. As of

January 2001, only one of the 183 youth

enrolled into the program from 1998-2000

committed a new sexual offense. In 2000, 66

of 72 youth (92 percent) completing the

program were successful, meaning that they

completed the requirements of the treatment

and were committed to the Texas Youth

Authority or placed into residential treatment

Intensive supervision probation (ISP) for

juvenile probationers at highest risk for

placement into TYC. Unlike the ISP programs

in many other counties, the Tarrant County

ISP staff not only supervise youthful offenders

and monitor their compliance with curfews and

probation orders. They also support families

and provide referrals to academic, vocational,

and counseling programs that help keep highrisk youth away from trouble. Of 304

offenders completing ISP in 2000, 82 percent

completed the program without being

committed to TYC or other residential

placements, or transferred to stand trial as an

adult. This success rate was well above a stateimposed standard of 75 percent.

CROSS-COUNTY CONTRAST

Unlike most large jurisdictions in Texas, Tarrant

County operates no local boot camp or correctional

ranch programs for adolescent offenders.

Moreover, Tarrant's juvenile detention center

(housing adolescent offenders pending trial) has

just 72 beds many fewer than the detention

facilities of other large counties in Texas or

nationwide. Beyond detention, Tarrant County

utilizes only two small residential programs for

juvenile offenders. One uses a 16-bed wing of

the county detention center for short-term (10-

20 days) confinement of youth who violate

probation (instead of immediate commitment to

TYC); and the second - a new program in 2000

-- uses another 16-bed unit to provide intensive

treatment and supervision for juvenile sex

offend crs.

Nor has Tarrant County followed the path of

many Texas counties by sending as many young

people as possible to the state corrections agency,

thereby avoiding the expense of punishing and

supervising offenders locally. Tarrant County

committed an average of 185 teens per year to

TYC between 1996 and 1998. That's 35 percent

fewer than the average (285) committed by Bexar

County (San Antonio) which has almost an identical

population as Tarrant, and barely half the average

number (336) committed by neighboring Dallas

County (whose population is only 50 percent

larger than Tarrant's).

Right Next Door and a World Apart. In fact,

comparing Tarrant County with Dallas County

offers perhaps the most vivid evidence of how

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-19 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 5 of 18
20 American Youth Policy Forum

sharply Tarrant County differs in its approach

to juvenile crime from most Texas counties - and

how much more cost-effective its non-punitive

continuum is in reigning injuvenile crime and reducing

recidivism. Dallas and Tarrant share an airport and a

30 mile border as well as a similar history, similar

demographics, and a similar economy. Yet the

juvenilejustice systems of Dallas and Tan-ant Counties

arc a world apart.

Dallas County, with a youth population of 212,000,

operates ajuvcnile detention facility with 224 beds to

confine youths awaiting trial or pending correctional

placement. Dallas County also operates two local

correctional facilities with capacity for 184 youth.

Tan-ant County, with ajuvenile population two-thirds

as large as Dallas County (144,000 vs. 212,000),

maintains one-third as many detention beds (72 versus

224), and - unlike Dallas - Tan-ant County maintains

only the 32 local correctional beds detailed above.

Nonetheless, Tarrant County sends many fewer

juvenile offenders to TYC than Dallas County. (See

Table p.19) Overall in 1998, Dallas County placed

almost twice as many youth into out-of-home

dispositions per capita as Tan-ant County (417 versus

231 per 100,000). Dallas taxpayers also spent far

more local tax dollars on juvenile justice than Tan-ant

- $42 million per year (equal to $200 per young

person in the county) versus $15 million in Tan-ant

($105 per young person). Yet juvenile crime rates

dropped substantially in both counties during the

I 990s, and they look quite similar today. Dallas County

had higher rates ofjuvcnile murder, rape, and robbery

from 1995-97, Tan-ant County suflred higher rates

of aggravated assault and a higher overall juvenile

arrest rate.

LESS COST, MORE SAFETY

By spuming calls to build more detention cells and

place more youth into expensive confinement

programs, Tan-ant County has saved local taxpayers

millions. And contrary to the fears of an alarmed

public, Tan-ant's home-based, treatment-oriented

approach has led to a substantial reduction injuvenilc

crime. In fact. thefailure rates ofyoutli enrolled in

Tarrant county c community corrections programs

consistently rank among the lowest of any urban

county in Texas. Likewise, an August 2000 report

from Texas' lion-partisan Criminal Justice Policy

Council found that the long-tenn recidivism rates of

Tarrant County youth placed into non-incarceration

programs are second lowest of Texas' major urban

counties. Less cost, more safety.

( )ptn AIiIIC \4tliL. Turarit ( uuni Ju\ rilIc Service'.

lro ni l • pe (iunr Probation Avenu

ni ( ,uak roubled

Target ;roup Juvenile offenders in Tirrant (ounty

hiey St ategie' I nnin urn ot nun rrndeIlnal sanctions and services,

rn inn 0 01 reIn tn c on detention, IflCarCCatWfl, Or

oiIncr o-npen 0 L uul 0 hon ønfinemern

I undin ljr-n n ( nun p Fc\a JnrnnI Prchation

Sont Ce(s) ( onnnu non

1vjdence of R.duued uvernnkt crime iaie inec earle Cur,

itttcnvcnes io I lure rater ror outh in lou a! pr)bntnon

ini'fi}l

Contact Information i ( nhcrniI, Directoi

1 nnnt ( o nt' t ende Sers ices

'OI I'.nmh Ru nd

lou Vorth. I \ mill

- Phnet1Th4600,Fax:(817)34ô46

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-19 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 6 of 18
Less Cost, More Safety

CHALLENGE #3:

REPLICATE RESEARCH-PROVEN PROGRAM

STRATEGIES TO REDUCE DELINQUENCY

'To date, most of the resources committed to the prevention and coritmi o/ youth violence, both at the

national and local levels, have been invested in untested progra,ns based on questionable assumptions and

delivered with little consistenc y or quality control. "4

Delbert Elliot, Director, Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence

enty-five years ago, a prestigious study panel

examined the evidence that had been gathered

to that time about the effectiveness of

rehabilitation programs for adult and juvenile

offenders. Their findings were stark and

became popularized in some circles as providing

the definitive word that "nothing works" in

rehabilitation.

In fact, these researchers never found that nothing

works only that social scientists had yet to validate

rehabilitation strategies in careful scientific trials.

Nonetheless, the reality as recently as 20 years

ago was that we had little evidence that any

particular models made a marked difference in

controlling crime or delinquency.

In 2001, those seem like the dark ages.

Over the past two decades prevention and juvenile

justice policy innovators have developed and

validated a number of intervention models that

substantially lower either recidivism by youthful

offenders or the onset of delinquent behavior by

youth at risk for delinquency.

Some pundits and political leaders today still like

to pretend that nothing works, that prevention is

just a dangerous waste of money. On the other

hand, some advocates like to pretend that we

always knew how to prevent crime that it's just

common sense. The reality is that only in the past

two decades have we begun to figure out what

works and doesn't work - and some of those

findings have been unexpected.

For youth already engaged in delinquency, three

mode/s have emerged as proven, powerful

successes. All three work with young people in

their own homes and communities', rat/icr than

in institutions, and they focus heavily on the

family environment. One strategy, called

Multisystemic Therapy (MST). has reduced future

days in corrections or residential treatment by at

least 47 percent in eight scientific trials. MST costs

only about $6,000 per youth, less than one-fourth

the cost of an eight-month stay in juvenile

corrections.

Another home-based strategy, Functional Family

Therapy, has reduced the recidivism rates of

delinquent youth by 25 to 80 percent in repeated

trials dating back to 1972. It costs only $2,000 per

youth. The third model, Multidimensional

Treatment Foster Care, combines short-term,

therapeutic foster care with intensive counseling

for the natural family, followed by rapid reunification and ongoing support. It reduced

subsequent offending by more than 50 percent

among chronic delinquents, a recent study found.

and saved more than $14 in future justice system

costs for each extra dollar spent on the treatment.

Despite these successes, however, none of these

models is in widespread use today. Multisystemic

Therapy and Functional Family Therapy each

served approximately 5,000 young people in 2000

- this in a nation that arrests more than 2.5 million

adolescents each year and confines more than

100,000 every night. Likewise, despite its

overwhelming advantages over other forms of

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-19 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 7 of 18
22 American Youth Policy Forum

treatment, Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care

is being replicated in only a handful of sites

nationwide.

By heeding the research, by replicating what works,

America has an opportunity to substantially improve

its success againstj uvenile crime.

PUTTING RESEARCH INTO PRACTICE

YOUTH VILLAGES IN MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE

During his first 13 years at the helm of Youth

Villages, a youth-serving agency based in Memphis,

Tennessee, Patrick Lawler helped the nonprofit grow

from three residential treatment facilities serving 25

emotionally disturbed youth around Memphis to 23

residences serving 240 youth throughout Tennessee

as well as in Mississippi and Arkansas.

The only problem was, despite long and expensive

stays in its residential treatment facilities, many of the

young people served by Youth Villages relapsed into

delinquency or other problem behaviors soon after

leaving. As with similar systems across the country,

Lawlcr's agency was never punished for this problem,

because Tennessee never required residential

treatment providers to monitor the long-term success

ofparticipants. "The state would ask us at the end of

each year what we did with their money," Lawler

recalls, "and we would tell them the truth: we spent

it."

In 1993, Lawler hired a local MBA candidate to

examine his operation with fresh eyes. Not only were

many youth being incarcerated or returning to

residential treatment after leaving Youth Villages, the

study found, but the families of troubled youth were

often plagued with urgent needs, and no one was

helping them.

LOOKING TO THE RESEARCH

Based on this report, Lawler looked to the research

and turned Youth Villages' operations upside down.

Multisystemic Therapy. First Lawler identified

Multisystemic Therapy (MST), a non-residential

model designed by University of South Carolina

psychologist Scott Henggeler. MST employs trained

mental health counselors to work with troubled teens

in their homes, engaging not just the young person

but his orher whole family based on the understanding

that most adolescent misbehavior can be ti-aced back

to the family system. Therapists seek to determine

the negative dynamics that propel the young person

toward delinquency - he they poor parenting,

substance abuse, a learning disability, or attachment

to delinquent peers. The therapist engages the family

in strategies to overcome these root problems, while

at the same time coaching parents in behavior

management strategies to begin re-establishing order

and respect in the home. During the process, therapists

might refer the youth, parents, or even siblings to a

wide range of possible supports - a substance abuse

program, a job placement service, an after-school

youth program, whatever it takes to overcome the

problems and stabilize the family.

Hengge Icr's model has been tested in eight scientific

trials since 1986. In every case, it dramatically reduced

the number of days that delinquent and otherwise

trouble youth spend in corrections or residential

treatment compared with conventional treatment

strategies. Violent and chronic offenders treated with

MST in rural South Carolina had 43 percent fewer

arrests, committed 66 percent fewer self-reported

offenses, and spent 64 percent fewer weeks in youth

[Multisystemic Therapy] has been

tested in eight scientific trials since

1986. In every case, it dramatically

reduced the number of days that

delinquent and otherwise trouble

youth spend in corrections or

residential treatment compared

with conventional treatment

strategies. Multisystemic Therapy

costs about $6,000 per youth, far

less than incarceration or

placement into a group home or

residential treatment center.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-19 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 8 of 18
20

15

• MST

10

U Usual Services

20

1.5

10

0.5

0.0

Weeks in Out-of-Home

Less Cost, More Safety 23

MULTISYSTEMIC THERAPY VERSUS USUAL JUVENILE JUSTICE SERVICES

FOR SERIOUS ADOLESCENT OFFENDERS

Results of a Randomized Trial in Simpsonville, SC

59 Weeks After Treatment

Source: Henggeler, Scott W., Treating Serious Anti-Social Behavior in Youth: The MSTApproach (Washington, DC

Office of Juvenile and Delinquency Prevention, May 1997).

prisons or treatment centers than youth randomly

assigned to usual court sanctions and treatments.'6

(Sec Table #2.) In Columbia, Missouri, youth who

completed MST showed a five-year re-arrest rate of

22.1 percent less than one-third that of youth who

completed individual therapy (71.4 percent). In two

other cliii ical studies, MST reduced days spent in outof-home placements by 47 percent and 50 percent

compared with youth treated in traditional progranls.'7

Multisystemic Therapy costs about $6,000 per youth,

far less than incarceration or placement into a group

home or residential treatment center.

Based on this track record, Lawler began hiring and

training a new breed of counselors in 1993 to engage

the families of troubled young people using the MST

model. The first and most important step for these

counselors was to examine the underlying conditions

in a young person's life, and then to "find the fit"

the causal connection through which problem

behaviors are the logical outcome of a young person's

overall life situation. The next crucial step was to

identify strengths and assets in the young person's

life that might reverse the problem. MST therapists

at Youth Villages helped youth pursue personal interests

and goals by connecting them with activities in

anything from employment to sports to computers -

and thereby weakened the young people's attachments

to anti-social peers. At the same time, MST therapists

worked with parents, teachers, and other responsible

adults to promote responsible behavior. Therapists

concentrated most on caretakers - helping them

overcome their own psychological, emotional, and

substance abuse issues, and teach ing caretakers to

provide positive and consistent structure and

discipline within the home. Once the young

person's behavior was stabilized, counselors

focused on building an ongoing support system for

the family to ensure success after the MST process

concluded.

Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care. In

1996, Lawler identified another research-based

program, Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care.

Designed in Oregon to help serve troubled youth

whose families remained unprepared to care for them,

the program offers two key services simultaneously:

1) short-term therapeutic foster care, in which troubled

youth live with trained foster parents who employ

strict behavioral monitoring with support from a

licensed therapist; and 2) intensive counseling and

parenting skills training for the youths' parent(s)

or legal guardian(s). After six to nine months,

following a series of increasingly frequent and

lengthy visits home, the families are reunited.

Ongoing counseling continues until the home

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-19 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 9 of 18
24 American Youth Policy Forum

situation is stable and the young person is reacclimated to his or her home environment.

Like MST, Multidimensional Treatment Foster

Care has a strong foundation in research. In one

clinical trial with serious and chronic youthful

offenders, youth participating in Multidimensional

Treatment Foster Care proved twice as likely as

youth placed into groups homes to complete the

program (and not rim away), and they spent an

average of 75 fewer days incarcerated over the

subsequent two ycars.' (Sec Table #3.) In

another trial focused on very serious offenders,

youth in Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care

were arrested less than half as often as youth sent

to group homes (2.6 vs. 5.4 arrests). They also

spent less than half as many days incarcerated

following treatment and were six times as likely to

remain arrest free in the year after treatment (41

percent to seven percent). As a result, the

treatment foster care program saved $14 injustice

costs for each dollar spent on treatment.

For Youth Villages, the addition of Multidimensional

Treatment Foster Care filled an important gap

between its continuing residential treatment services

and its new in-home (MST) therapy. By adding

MST and Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care,

Youth Villages created a comprehensive continuum

of services for troubled youth ranging from homebased (MST) counseling to treatment foster care

to residential treatment and hospitalization.

BRINGING SUCCESS TO SCALE

As the clinical trials predicted, Youth Villages'

success rates soared using the MST and

Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care models,

while costs plummeted. More than 80 percent of

youth participating in the new program (which cost

as little as $6,000 per youth) continued to live

successfully at home one year after treatment,

Lawler reports, compared to about 63 percent of

youth one year after returning home from the old

residential treatment program (which ran more than

$50,000 fora typical ten-month stay).

Launching these family-oriented programs was the

easy part. however. Lawler then had to convince

state bureaucrats to pay for them. He also had to

build in sophisticated supervision and accountability

systems to ensure that programs which worked well

in small-scale tests remained successful when

implemented agency-wide.

Changing Funding Formulas to Reward

Success. Historically, Tennessee's policy for serving

emotionally disturbed youth like the policies of

many other states --was simple: if a young person

is a danger to oneself or others, the state would

pay for hospitalization or placement into residential

treatment center or group home. If the troubled

young person was not a danger, the state provided

little support beyond out-patient counseling from

underfunded and ill-equipped county mental health

departments. Funding for intensive, family-focused

treatment had no place in the state's plans, and

reimbursement for any agency providing these

services was not permitted.

Thus, while Youth Villages' received up to $200

per day from Tennes see for each young person in

its longstanding residential programs, it could not

collect a penny from the state for its $65 -$70 per

day MST program even though the home-based

services were producing better outcomes than the

more-expensive residential treatment.

Based on the success of Yotith Villages' initial tests

ofMST (funded with private grants), Lawler began

seeking a change in state funding. For two years,

state officials ignored his calls. Finally in 1995,

with a new governor in office and the state budget

in deep deficit, Tennessee accepted Youth Villages'

offer to tear up its existing contracts, serve onethird more youth for the same money, and for the

first time guarantee positive outcomes for most

youth following treatment. In return, Youth Villages

gained the freedom to offer a continuum of services,

including both home-based and residential

treatment.

Thanks to its growing use of MST and treatment

foster care, Youth Villages served 1,600 Tennessee

youth in 2000—four times the number it served in

1993. Many spent a short time in residential

treatment, but most proceeded quickly to fumilyfocused non-residential therapy. Eighty percent

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-19 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 10 of 18
Less Cost, More Safety 25

Putting Proven Modeis Into PractIce

Washuigton States Community juvenile Accountability Act

In 1995, Washington State juvene justice leaders had a bold idea. Based on increasingly compelling

research showing that a small handful of chronic offenders commit the bulk of all serious juvenile crime

they convinced Washingto s legislature to support a new early intervention program - funding counties

o provide enhanced treatment services and supervision for their highest nsk youth offenders

Unfortunately, it didn't work A preliminary evaluation by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

a state-funded research agency, found that youth enrolled into the enhanced programs proved no less

fllcely to re-offend thai, non participating youth. In irnplernentinq thø program, most counties had simply

intensified their existing strategies without consulting the research into what works

Based on this experience, Washington's legislature enacted a new law in 1997, the Community Juvenile

Accountability Act ICJAA). It promised new funding for local juvenile courts but only for programs with

proven power to educe re-offending rates co-st-effectively. After the law was passed, the Institute for

Public Pol cy searched for juvenile justice intervention program models with proven impact, and then it

conducted elaborate cost-benefit analyses to demonstrate that the models were indeed cost-effective

Consulting with local court officials, the Institute identified five programs for potential replication using the

CJAA funding stream— Functional Family Therapy (FFT) and Multisystemic Therapy (MST). both profiled

in Challenge #3, along with less intensive program models to control aggression. provide cornmunit

mentors, and improve coordination among agencies serving delinquent and high risk youth

Following a statewide training conference, local officials from the state's 34 local juvenile court initially

selected to implement only two of the models - FF1 and Ariger Replacement Therapy," a 10-week

behavioral skills training curriculum. The State legislature appropriated $765 million tosupport these two

programs from July 1999 through June 2001 and three counties also established MST programs using

federal block grant funds.

As of August 2000, Washington's couritis had developed more than 40 local replication programs arid

enrolled more than 2,000 youth. The Institute for Public Policy has begun an intensive evaluation cornpanng

the outcomes for participating youth with those for similar youth placed on waiting lists While program

evaluation outcomes will not be known until 2002 Policy Institute analyst Steve Rca believes the program

is already a success. The extensive consultation between iiis agency and local juvenile courts has helped

break down longstanding mistrust between the state and local officials, Aos says: It meets a test of

intergovernmental coope ation that is often tacking

For the state level, Aos says. it has been positive because the state is saying for the first time that we're I

only going to put ur money into programs with a track record of success,"21

CONTACT:

Robert Barnoski. Senior Research Associate

Washington State Institute for Public Policy

1106 Ffth Avenue, Suite 214

Olympia WA 98504-0999

(360) 586-2744

2

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-19 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 11 of 18
26 American Youth Policy Forum

will remain home successfully for at least nine

months. Based on these results, Tennessee has made

its arrangement with Youth Villages the model for

all contracts to serve troubled adolescents statewide.

As a result, Youth Villages now employs 100 MST

counselors and clinical supervisors and serves more

than 500 families in MST per year, making Youth

Villages by far the largest provider ofMST services

in the nation. Likewise, Youth Villages serves 420

youth every day in Multidimensional Treatment

Foster Care, making it one of only a handful sites

nationwide to adopt this powerful intervention

model.

However, in neighboring Arkansas (as in most

states), rules still forbid payments for most home

based services. Arkansas contracts with Youth

Villages to care for troubled adolescents, but only

in residential treatment centers, not in home-based

counseling. As a result, Arkansas pays more to

reap less safety and less success.

Ensuring Program Quality. Unlike many therapy

methods, MST is highly regimented. The program

is based on nine core principles, and the process

for implementing these principles is spelled out in

exacting detail in MST program manuals.

Moreover, MST calls for therapists to review each

case three times per week - once with their

supervisor, once with the supervisor plus other

therapists on their treatment team, and once with a

senior MST clinical consultant. Likewise,

Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care is guided

by a specific treatment philosophy and a clear set

of treatment procedures.

In his ongoing research into the effectiveness of

MST, program designer Scott Henggcler has found

that fidelity to these program requirements is a

critical factor for success. While no clinical trial of

MST has resulted in failure, Henggeler has fOund

in several studies that participants achieve far better

outcomes when providers follow the MST

guidelines. For instance, when MST was tested

against usual juvenile justice services forjuvenile

offenders in Orangeburg and Spartanburg, South

Carolina, an analysis of therapists reports "indicated

that outcomes were substantially better in cases

where treatment adherence ratings were high."22

For many local nonprofit and county mental health

agencies, adhering to these exacting procedures and

strict standards is unfamiliar and difficult. However.

MULTIDIMENSIONAL TREATMENT FOSTER CARE VERSUS GROUP HOMES

Results of a Randomized Trial for Chronic Juvenile Offenders

Arrests No Further Arrests

30 150

41

10 120

30 90

20 60

10 7 30

0 0

• MTFC

S Group Homes

Average Number of Days

Population: Delinquent boys averaging 13 prior arrests and 4.6 felony arrests.

Source: Chamberlain, Patricia, Blueprints for Violence Prevention, Book Eight. Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care

(Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, 1998).

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-19 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 12 of 18
Less Cost, More Safety 27

under Patrick Lawler, Youth Villages has won

several awards for innovative management and

quality assurance, including two "Excellence in

Service Quality" awards from the United Way of

Amcrica. Youth Villages' capacity to develop the

elaborate quality assurance systems required to

implement complex programs effectively has been

an important key to its success in bringing promising

research into productive practice.

Operating Agenv Youth \1Jagcs. Inc.

Program Type Privaic, \nprofit 'outh crving Agcncy

Program (;oal NfTcCti\ C Trcatiricnt of En tionaIE I sturbcd and

[)cJ iiqiicnt 'iouli

Target Group Youth vith crnot iul dtsturl nces io Ease Ecuri

paced uto resideninil treatment programs

Ke Strategies fntiiiuum of cure including haumc-huscd counseling

using tIme acclaimed \1ulmivternie Therap y (MSTY

mcdel, and treatment foster cure tustrig a prtaen

proerani merdel des eloped in recan

Primary Funding lemiimcsse Depatiment sit hdrcna Sersmee, Statc

Surcets) of \lissi'sippi and Arkansas

Fvidene of Reduced e stper-partmeipunt and tumntialJ

Iiffe-cti entmss rnprovcd success rttes Eu Youth \illagc-s

pam tucipumnts nec adoption of Ml and tmeatnicnl

Emter care inodelu,

(:ontact Information Patrick \V lom y ler. \dmuinistrumtor

Youth \tllanes. lnL.

REt i3ox 41 14

uicnmphn. T\ S1 4-1 54

Phone: ç( I ) 252-7flfp Fax: ('31)1 ) 52-7P()

\:v outhvillaucsorg

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-19 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 13 of 18
28 American Youth Policy Forum

CHALLENGE #4:

IDENTIFY AND INTERVENE INTENSIVELY WITH

YOUTH AT EXTREME RISK FOR CHRONIC

DELINQUENCY

'The lack of consistent intervention with juvenile oJfendeis Soon after their initial contact with the police

or other authorities has long been recognized as perhaps the single largest gap in services for troubled

youth. 13

National Council on Crime and Delinquency

n 1972. Marvin Wolfgang and his colleagues at

he University of Pennsylvania published a

seminal study, Delinquency in a Birth Cohort,

which tracked delinquency and criminal behavior

among ten thousand Philadelphians born in 1945

throughout childhood, adolescence and young

adulthood. 21 Wolfgang repeated the analysis with

more than 25,000 youth born in 1958, and in recent

years several more cohort studies have been

conducted by other criminologists. 25 In each of

these studies, a small group of boys --just six to

eight percent - committed the majority of all

serious and violent juvenile crimes. For instance,

Wolfgang's second analysis found that seven

percent of Philadelphia youth committed 61 percent

of all offenses, 65 percent of all aggravated assaults,

60 percent of homicides, 75 percent of rapes, and

73 percent of robbcries. The implications are

obvious: To be effective in reducingyo ut/i crime,

prevention and intervention efforts must target

those young people at highest risk to become

chronic offenders.

More recently, delinquency scholars have identified

clear developmental pathways that children follow

on the way to becoming chronic delinquents and

then adult criminals. Experts have isolated critical

"risk" and "protective" factors that influence

whether or not a young person will turn to

delinquency and - if they do - whether they will

persist in criminal behavior overtime. Also,juvenile

justice agencies have consistently found that young

people arrested at an early age are far more likely

than other youth to become chronic juvenile

offenders. Together, these tindings make it possible

for juvenile courts and juvenile justice agencies to

identify early those youth who are at extreme risk

for serious delinquency -- and then to develop

intensive programming targeting these highest-risk

youth.

However, the reality throughout our nation is that

few local juvenile justice systems take the time to

assess objectively the risk of re-offending for firsttime youthful offenders—even for second- or thirdor seventh-time offenders - provided they have

not yet committed a crime serious enough to spark

the attention of a juvenile court prosecutor, judge

or probation officer. The result, writes the National

Council on Crime and Delinquency, is an "all-toocommon pattern: several encounters with

authorities; short-term detentions with no coherent,

intensive interventions; repeated offenses; and

eventual incarceration in juvenile and adult

correctional facilities."7

In recent years, a handful of jurisdictions have

begun to break that pattern. Beginning with Orange

County, CA, these trailblazers are showing that

chronic criminal careers can be nipped in the bud.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-19 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 14 of 18
Less Cost, More Safety 29

NIPPING CRIMINAL CAREERS IN THE BUD

THE 8PERCENTSOLUTION, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

As research director for the Orange County.

California Probation Department in the late I 980s,

Gwen Kurz began studying the county's young

offender population. The good news, she found,

was that 70 percent of Orange County youth

referred to juvenile court never returned, and

another 22 percent came back only once or twice

within three years. However, there was a small

group - 8 percent of all offenders ever referred to

juvenile court - who appeared four or more times

within three years. These chronic offenders

committed more than half of all repeat juvenile

crimes. They reappeared in juvenile or adult court

an average of eight times in the six years following

their initial referral to juvenile court, and nearly all

committed at least one very serious and/or violent

crime. The chronic offenders were incarcerated

an average of 20 months over the three years at a

cost of $44,000 each.

Kurz and her boss. Michael Schumacher, then

began looking for traits that would predict these

chronic offenders at the first offense. They found

that the youth most likely to became chronic

delinquents differed from otherjuven lie offenders

in two ways. First, those arrested at a young age

(beforc 16) were far more likely than other youth

offenders to become chronic delinquents. Second,

youth who exhibited multiple problems - family

discord, school failure, substance abuse, and/or predelinquent behavior - were at highest risk for

recurring lawbreaking.

Based on this research, Orange County developed

an intensive intervention program for youth meeting

the "8 percent" profile. Specifically, the county

created an objective assessment instrument to

determine which young people referred to juvenile

court on delinquency charges were: a) first-time

offenders; b) 15 or younger; and c) suffering three

or more risk factors. The county then placed

youth who met these criteria into an all-day

program operating five days per week. The county

monitored the success of the likely chronic

offenders and found that only 49 percent suffered

subsequent adjudications in the 12 months after

enrollment, barely half the historic re-arrest rate

(93 percent) for youth with the same profile.29

Based on this initial success, Orange County has

expanded the program to serve 350 youth countywide, and it is utilizing a rigorous evaluation design

to compare the outcomes for extreme-risk youth

enrolled in the program with outcomes for youth

with equivalent profiles who are randomly assigned

to conventional juvenile court services and

sanctions. Preliminary results are highly favorable,

making Orange County's "8 Percent Solution" one

of the most promising models in our nation's

evolving efforts to bring adolescent crime under

control.

IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL "8

PERCENT YOUTH"

As part of its strategic planning efforts preparing to

enter the l990s, the Orange County Probation

Department analyzed two cohorts of more than

3,000 youththl offenders--one comprised of youth

who entered the county's juvenile justice system

for the first time during the first half of 1985, the

other entering during the first half of 1987. After

determining that only a small number (i.e., 8

percent) were chronic offenders, Kurz and

Schumacher pored over the data to identify

characteristics that would identify these potential

chronic offenders early.

"There will never be enough

money, people, or programs to

solve all the problems faced by

each youth in our society.. In the

fight against juvenile crime, we

must focus our efforts on the group

with the greatest potential to

burden and victimize society and

the ones most likely to fail in life.

This group cries out for our

attention."

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-19 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 15 of 18
50

40

30

20

10

48.5

30 American Youth Policy Forum

"8 PERCENT SOLUTION" PROGRAM,

ORANGE COUNTY, CA

IMPACT ON MULTIPLE REOFFENDING*

Percentage Arrested Two or More

Times After Program Entry

• 8 Percent Participants

U Non-Participating Control Group

* Analysis based on juveniles who had reached their 12

month post-assignment date as of June 30, 2000.

Source: Data provided via e-mail by Ms. Shirley Hunt,

Orange County Probation Department, December 2000.

One factor jumped out right away: age. The data

revealed that 57 percent of all chronic offenders

were 1 5 or younger when they were first

adjudicated. Moreover, youth first adjudicated at

age 15 or younger were four times as likely (32

percent) to become chronic offenders as youth first

adjudicated at ages 16 or above (8 percent).

Finding additional factors proved more complex,

because (other than age) no single problem or

characteristic could be found in all or most chronic

offenders. However, the data did show that future

chronic offenders displayed an unusually wide

range of difficulties during their initial screening

interviews. Based on this finding, the county

crafted a 'Multi-Problem Factor" to identify

problems in four domains:

• School performance/behavior, including

attendance problems (truancy or frequent

absenteeism); behavior problems (recent

suspensions or expulsions); and/or academic

failure (failing grades).

• Family problem factor, including poor parental

supervision/control (parentisi unaware of

where child goes, with whom, etc., and report

little influence over these matters); significant

family problems (illness, substance abuse,

trauma, financial crisis, etc.); criminal family

members exerting influence on the youth; and/

or documented child abuse or neglect, or other

family violence.

Substance abuse factor, including any use

beyond experimentation.

• Delinquency factor, including pattern of

stealing, pattern of running away from home,

andior gang membership or affiliation.

Remarkably, among youth suffering with problems

in three or more of these domains who were

referred to juvenile court before age 1 6,93 percent

became chronic offenders.

THE "8 PERCENT" PROGRAM

MODEL

Once Orange County had developed the screening

tools to identify likely chronic offenders in their

initial contact with the juvenile court, the next

challenge was to design an intervention program

that would effectively steer these youth away from

delinquency.

County staff scoured the research literature

regai-ding what works with juvenile offenders and

other troubled adolescents. Then they decided upon

a multi-pronged approach centered around a new

"Youth and Family Resource Center." Core

elements of the approach include:

All-day academic and youth development

programming. All youth are picked up at or

near their homes every morning and delivered

to one of five Youth and Family Resource

Centers operated by the county Probation

Department. Once there, participants spend

most of the morning receiving academic

instniction from county board of education

teachers. In the aflernoons. students typically

participate in recreation, study hall, community

service projects or life skills workshops.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-19 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 16 of 18
Less Cost, More Safety 31

John, Rudy, and the Case for Early Intervention

They both run from a liquor store with six-packs of beer. only to fall into the waiting arms of store

security staff, Both are ordered by the court to pick up trash for 10 weekends as their punishment. So

long as this is done, their relationship with juvenile court concludes until the next offense. if there is

one.

"Rudy is a potenti'uI 8 perceriter whereas John is not John s family rs outraged at his behavior and

takes appropriate steps to deal with it, restricting him to home for WeekS and taking away television

privileges John is embarrassed by the whole episode arid never again steps over the line of criminal

behavior.

"Rudy's problems are much larger than stealing a six-pack of beer. The weekend trash dut y will not

turn him around. He ditches school, abuses drugs, arid hangs around with other kids who do the

same. His parents have little or no impact on his life, so there is no righting of the ship' after his first

brush with the law.

"The juvenile justice system may not pay much attention to Rudy until crime number three or four,

unless he seriously victimizes someone. By then. however, bad habits will have been formed. It i's

often much too late."

Excerpt from The 8% Solution Preventing Serious, Repeat Juvenile

Crime (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2000), by Michael

Schumacher arid Gwen Kurz.

Family involvement and counseling. In

addition to tcachers, each Youth and Family

Resource Ccnter (serving 30-60 youth) is

staffed with two therapists trained in both

individual and family counseling, two in-home

counselors from a private counseling agency,

a county drug/alcohol specialist who counsels

both youth and their parents, a nurse

practitioner who helps the entire family secure

needed medical care, and 4.5 full-time staff

from a community-based agency providing parent

education, teen parenting training, and community

service programming for youth and their families.

Focus on substance abuse. Because roughly

two-thirds of Orange County's "8 Percent"

youth abuse drugs and/or alcohol, the program

offers every participant at least one hour of

substance abuse education or counseling eveiy

week. Youth known to regularly abuse

substances or come from families where

substance abuse is problematic receive more

in-depth treatment, as well as drug testing and

home inspections from county probation staff.

MEASURING SUCCESS - THE "8

PERCENT" DIVIDEND

Since 1997, Orange County has been participating

in a rigorous evaluation of its intervention program

for potential chronic offenders. After completing

a screening interview to determine whether first

time offenders meet the criteria for participation in

the program - i.e., below 16 with three or more

problem areas the county randomly assigned

some youth to the program and others to a control

group receiving normal court services and

sanctions. Initial results from this evaluation

indicate that the program is significantly reducing

the offending behavior of extreme-risk youth.

Among the 71 youth who completed the program

by June 30, 1999, 33.8 percent committed two or

more offenses in the 12 months after program entry.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-19 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 17 of 18
32 American Youth Policy Forum

By contrast, 48.5 percent of control group youth

not placed into thc program committed two or more

offenses during the 12-month period. (Sec Table

4.) En addition, participating youth have had fewer

new court petitions, fewer arrest warrants, and

spent fewer days in custody than control group

youth in the first 12 months. 3 ° The "8 Percent"

intervention program is also proving cost-effective.

With a cost of$ 14,000 per individual per year, the

intervention is substantially reducing future costs

for incarceration as well as damages suffered by

would-be victims of future crimes.

Based on the success of Orange County's

preliminary efforts, the California legislature has

funded a Repeat Offender Prevention Project since

1996 to continue the program in Orange County

and to replicate and test the early intervention

concept in seven other jurisdictions statewide.

These programs, too, include a rigorous, controlgroup evaluation design, and results of these

programs also find that youth enrolled in targeted,

intensive early intervention services are committing

substantially fewer felony crimes than youth

assigned to control groups. Participating youth arc

also failing drug tests far less often, and they are

earning significantly more school credits and higher

grades than non-participating youth.3'

Though the early intervention concept is still alien

to juvenile justice agencies in most jurisdictions

nationwide, a handful of states and communities

arc beginning to study and replicate this promising

approach. As Kurz and Schumacher explain, the

logic behind the strategy is obvious: "There will

never be enough money, people, or programs to

solve all the problems faced by each youth in our

society. In the fight against juvenile crime, we

must focus our efforts on the group with the greatest

potential to burden and victimize society and the

ones most likely to fail in life. This group cries out

for our attention."3

()periIing genv Uingc ( tunt Pmhiium i)ep.ii n ci

Program Tp ( cuci R n i)L ii r tuen Jnter cnnou Program

Prograni (4caJs Reduce ( hionic ( )ttcndii g by High Risk Youth

I argct (;ro-up h 'nile o tendet S and neu h dmcnstr.ite

hich ri k i chronic delinq t'

Ke Soa1egk. Surcening 1ir,t iii I u enlic often , ci idtntif

thoc at e\tl ['I u.k e ironic l& nq cc'. n:ensiye

lu'.' Lrecitn) 'nt ii potential ci cone iii idnd i

Prinurs Funding

our e( ,)

E jdenc ol

II ffèctiven es

Oriige (ounty, Ciliturnia Hoard cit Corrcion

itcipunti de ont,ite iniiideantl y lower rrcu.t

rate than tiii lar y outh rceiv!n conceutlina]

johttcn 'cr'ices

C oiitat Information Jell' Corp. Director ct ( Itrnmtlnlle f'rujurn

Orange Count y Probation Ocpurrniciii

lh W (erritos A'.e Buildino 4

\nahetm, (A Q12O5

Phune ]4) Fax 7]4 5 364

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-19 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 18 of 18
Less Cost, More Safety 33

CHALLENGE #5:

PROVIDE COMPREHENSIVE SUPPORT AND

ASSISTANCE TO YOUTH (AND CHILDREN)

WITH BEHAVIORAL DISTURBANCES

Research and experience demonstrate that the services available in the juvenile justice system to alleviate

[mental health] problems are entirel y inadequate.

Shay Bilchik, former Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

U.S. Department ofiustice

y

oung people who commit juvenile offenses

and become entangled in the juvenile justice

system suffer disproportionately from emotional

disturbances and mental illness.

By some estimates, up to 90 percent of young people

referred to juvenile courts for delinquency exhibit the

general symptoms of "conduct disorder" or

"oppositional defiance disordei" The majority suffer

with problems of substance abuse or dependency.

Roughly one-third suffer with atteiition deficit (ADD)

or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Clinical depression and post-traumatic stress disorder

are also disturbingly commonplace. Though estimates

differ, the majority of studies on the mental health

needs ofjuvenilc offenders find that at least 20 percent

suffer severe mental health disorders.34

"In the past, admission to

[residential treatment centers]

has been justified on the basis of

community protection, child

protection, and benefits of

residential treatment per se.

However, none of these

justifications have stood up to

research scrutiny. In particular,

youth who display seriously

violent and aggressive behavior do

not appear to improve in such

settings."

Dr. David Satcher, U.S. Surgeon General

Despite the direct connection between delinquency

and mental health, however, our nation's efforts to

meet the mental health needs of adolescents are

seriously inadequate. The problems arc three-fold:

• Overreliance on Out-of-Home Treatment.

One-half of all the money spent in the United

States for mental health treatment of children and

youth pays for inpatient hospitalization. Another

25 percent pays for residential care for troubled

youth in treatment centers and group homes

costing hundreds of dollars per day. 33 Even

with their high costs, however, hospitalization

and other out-of-home treatments have not

proven effective in resolving the mental health

problems of youth. In 1999, U.S. Surgeon

General David Satcher concluded that

"Inpatient [hospital] care is the clinical

intervention with the weakest research

support." Satcher also complained that: "In

the past, admission to [residential treatment

centers] has been justified on the basis of

community protection, child protection, and

benefits of residential treatment per se.

However, none of these justifications have

stood up to research scrutiny. In particular,

youth who display seriously violent and

aggressive behavior do not appear to improve

in such settings." 3 In a six-state study of

children treated in publicly-funded residential

treatment centers, 75 percent were either

readmitted to a mental health facility (about

45 percent) or incarcerated in a correctional

setting (about 30 percent) within seven years.37

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-20 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 17
34

• Underinvestment in High-Quality

Community-Based Services. The inevitable

result of America's ovcrreliance on expensive

and ineffective out-of-home treatment has been

lack of investment in non-residential services

for disturbed children and adolescents. This

oversight is particularly tragic given the striking

success achieved by a handful of home-based

and family-focused mental health treatment

models. For instance, Multisystemic Therapy

(see Challenge #3) has dramatically improved

the outcomes for youth who are hospitalized

for emotionally disturbances. Likewise, socalled "wraparound services" (see below) -

offering customized and comprehensive

support and treatment services for youth in

their own homes - have also shown potential

to improve outcomes for troubled youth while

decreasing costs for taxpayers. However,

rather than providing these or other intensive

community-based service strategies, most

American Youth Policy Forum

communities offer only a hodge-podge of

fragmented and outdated adolescent mental

health services.

• Lack of Coordination Between Concerned

Agencies. Typically, youth troubled with

emotional disturbances, developmental

disabilities, or other mental health problems

come in contact with multiple public agencies:

department of mental health, child protective

services, special cducation,juvenile justice, and

others. However, these agencies rarely

coordinate their services for youth whose cases

they share in common. As a result, treatment

and support efforts often work at cross

purposes -- leaving youth and their families

confused, distrustful and ultimately

unsuccessful in controlling behavior, preventing

delinquency, and averting expensive placements

into psychiatric hospitals, treatment centers,

andj uvenile corrections facilities.

WRAPAROUND MILWAUKEE

SYSTEMS REFORM IN A LARGE JURISDICTION

In the early 1990s, the leaders of Milwaukee

County's mental health division had a problem. The

county was spending $1 8 million each year to buy

care for emotionally disturbed young people in group

homes and residential treatment programs. And it

wasn't working.

These youth were clearly troubled and needing

services. The majority had been arrested for

delinquent crimes. Many were a danger to themselves

and others and the rest were at serious risk to become

a danger. However, like many jurisdictions

nationwide, Milwaukee County offered emotionally

disturbed youth only an expensive, one-size-fits-all

response: out-of-home placement. The county was

largely ignoring the homes and families from which

troubled children came - and to which they would

return - and it was not working with families to

overcome brewing problems before they reached crisis

proportions. Moreover, even youth placed into $135

per day treatment programs often failed to stabilize

their behavior or avoid relapses when they returned

home after completing the treatment.

Milwaukee County began experimenting with other

treatment options in 1989, after receiving an initial

foundation grant. In 1994 it secured a S 15 million,

5-year federal grant to build an entirely new

adolescent mental treatment system, Wraparound

Milwaukee. The county's plan was predicated on

three elements: I) developing the capacity to offer

intensive, comprehensive assistance to troubled youth

and their families in their own homes; 2) pooling funds

"The hospital and the residential

treatment center have a place in

the care of emotionally disturbed

youth, but they should be a

stabilizing place, not a place for

change. You can't use the hospital

to try and reform or restructure

their personalities. That needs to

happen in a more normalized

environment that's a true

reflection of their day to day life."

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-20 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 17
Less Cost, More Safety 35

and coordinating efforts from the various agencies

working with emotionally troubled youth and 3)

sharply reducing the reliance on out-of-home care by

avoiding placements whenever possible and by limiting

lengths of stay for youth who are placed in residential

care.

Given the high costs of residential treatment and the

limited evidence of its effectiveness, as well as the

growing promise of wraparound and other homebased treatment strategies for troubled youth, these

might seem like common sense solutions. In reality,

however, they are anything but commonplace. By

putting these reforms into practice - pooling $28

million per year from county agencies and Medicaid

reimbursements to fund the Wraparound program,

dramatically reducing delinquency and emotional

distress for 600-700 youth per year while keeping

these youth at home with their families—Milwaukee

County has made itself a model for the entire nation.

UNDERSTANDING THE

"WRAPAROUND" APPROACH

The "Wraparound" philosophy was initially developed

in Canada during the I 970s, and it was transported to

the United States during the I 980s by innovators in

Alaska, Chicago, and Vermont. The concept revolves

around five fundamental principles:

• Address problems in youths' natural

environment - i.e., home --- rather than an

artificial environment, where lessons learned will

be difficult to translate when youth return home.

Work with and listen to the whole family,

especially parents. Evidence increasingly finds

that the family system is both the most important

determinant of behavior problems and the most

important ally for therapists in reversing negative

behavior patterns. Unlike most mental health

modalities, where the professional is the "expert"

and the individual and/or family has the problems,

wraparound is based on the belief that families

know best what they need. Thus, the job of

professionals is to help families achieve their own

goals and build the skills to sustain success.

• Individualize services based on the needs of

each youth and family, rather than employing

the one-size-fits-all approach typical in residential

treatment programs. This notion of "wrapping"

needed services "around" each individual young

person lies at core of the wraparound concept.

Focus on strengths. Even the most troubled

adolescents and families have hidden aptitudes,

interests, and desires. Tapping these strengths

and building families' capacity to anticipate and

solve problems can be critical to avoiding crises

in the future.

Build a support system. Most youth have

relatives, family friends, or other interested adults

who care about them and are willing to provide

guidance and support. Recruiting support from

these natural allies - to be mentors, or provide a

respite for beleaguered parents - can be an

invaluable step in creating a stable environment

for young people.

WRAPAROUND - MILWAUKEE-STYLE

Milwaukee County has built a unique system for

applying wraparound principles to local needs.

Wraparound Milwaukee targets services only to

emotionally disturbed youth who are either in

residential treatment or face imminent risk of

placement. Though youth can be referred to the

program by local child welfare officials as well as the

local probation agency, most (70 percent) have a

history of delinquency and many are on probation at

the time of their referral to the Wraparound Milwaukee

program.

Wraparound Milwaukee's program involves four key

components:

• Care Coordinators - The county's Wraparound

office contracts with eight local nonprofit agencies

to hire, train, and supervise care coordinators,

who serve as the cornerstone of the

wraparound process. Though they are not

trained therapists or social workers, these

coordinators are college graduates who

receive extensive pre-service and in-service

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-20 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 3 of 17
36 American Youth Policy Forum

training in the wraparound model. Working

with a caseload of up to eight youth, the

coordinators: a) conduct in-depth assessments

of each youth and family to identify strengths

and needs; b) assemble a "child and family team"

(see below) including family members,

counselors, and other adults committed to helping

the young person succeed; c) facilitate

development of a plan of care by the child and

family team; d) identi' provideis to offer needed

services; and e) monitor the delivery of services

and the overall progress of the young person.

Child and Family Teams - The actual plan for

each young person's wraparound care is

developed by a 'Child and Family Team" a

collection of all the adults involved in supporting

the family to care for the young person. These

include family members, natural supporters (i.e.,

relatives, church members, and friends), and

professionals such as probation officers, child

welfare workers, and mental health professionals.

Convened by the care coordinator on at least a

monthly basis, the teams are responsible to create

and periodically revise the plan of care for each

young person.

• Service Provider Network - To help care

coordinators find qualified providers to meet the

identified needs of troubled youth, Wraparound

Milwaukee has enrolled more than 170

community agencies to provide any of 60 services

- everything from tutoring and after school

programming to substance abuse treatment to

transportation. To hold down costs, Wraparound

Milwaukee has set a standard rate for each

service, using its bargaining power as a large

consumer of services to press providers to accept

below-market rates.

Mobile Crisis Team - In addition to their care

coordmator and child and family team, each youth

and family enrolled in Wraparound Milwaukee

also has access to a Mobile Urgent Treatment

Team —a 24-hour-per-day service continuously

on call to intervene in family crises that might

otherwise result in rapid placement into out-ofhome care. Through this mobile team, and

through the crisis safety plans created for every

young person in the program, Wraparound

Milwaukee brings urgent situations under control

without removing participants from their homes

and unraveling progress made to date.

BLENDED FUNDING AND "CAPITATED

RATE" FINANCING

Before Milwaukee launched the wraparound program,

the county paid for more than 360 young people per

night to sleep in residential treatment facilities, and it

maintained a waiting list of youth approved for

residential treatment and awaiting placement.

Placements into residential treatment were made by

a variety of county agencies —child welfare,juvenile

justice, and mental health - and each agency paid the

bills for any young person it referred. The average

length of stay in residential treatment was 14 months.

at a daily cost of $135 per day per youth. That

resulted in an overall cost of$ 18 million per year - or

$60,000 for each young person.

Wraparound Milwaukee replaced this fimding hodgepodge with a unified system. It collected the funds

previously spent for out-of-home care by the county's

child welfare ($8 million/year), juvenile justice ($8

million/year), and mental health ($1.5 million/year)

agencies, and used these funds to support a continuum

of services including both wraparound and residential

care. Wraparound Milwaukee also captures additional

funds ($10 million per year) in Medicaid

reimbursements for eligible youth, creating a total

budget of $28 million in 1999.

To ensure that the project minimizes unnecessary outof-home care, Wraparound Milwaukee is paid on a

"eapitated rate" basis similar to that used by health

maintenance organizations. Wraparound Milwaukee

receives $3,300 per month per child for evetyjuvenile

justice and child welfare case referred to the program,

plus $1,542 per month for each young person on

Medicaid. Wraparound Milwaukee pools all ofthese

funds and pays for all services needed by each youth

participant, regardless of cost. Nonetheless, the fixedi-ate funding formula ensures that the program

maintains its focus on cost-effectiveness and avoids

unnecessary out-of-home placements.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-20 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 4 of 17
Less Cost, More Safety 37

MINIMIZING OUT-OF-HOME

PLACEMENT

The use of wraparound services and the capitated

rate financing system have both helped limit the

number of young people placed into expensive

residential treatment. In addition, the county also

took two additional steps to limit the use of

residential placements:

Limiting commitment periods. Prior to

wraparound. most youth placed into residential

treatment (either by child welfare agencies or

probation) were sent on court orders with a

one-year duration. Only through a new court

order could youth be released from the facility

before the year was up. Today, most youth

ordered into residential treatment are placed in

the custody of Wraparound Milwaukee, and

the initial term of treatment is usually just 90

days. The case are reviewed regularly and

each young person is discharged (to begin

home-based wraparound care) at the earliest

possible date. Through this system,

Wraparound Milwaukee has reduced the

WRAPAROUND MILWAUKEE:

IMPACT ON OFFENDING RATES OF

DELINQUENT YOUTH PARTICIPANTS*

Average Number of Arrests

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

Year Prior to Enrollment

• Year of Enrollment

E7l Year After Treatment

* Data through October 31. 2000

Source: Milwaukee County Mental Health Division

average length ofstay in residential treatment

from 14 months to just 3.5 months.

County-wide crisis intervention. Whereas

most services provided by Wraparound

Milwaukee are limited only to youth formally

enrolled as wraparound participants, the project

makes one service available to any young

person in the county anytime: the Mobile

Urgent Treatment Team. Historically, many

young people have been placed into long-term

residential treatment programs after a crisis

erupts - a suicide attempt. perhaps, or an assault

on a family member. The mobile team helps

youth and families weather such crises without

triggering a long-term residential placement.

The mobile team reviews all requests for

inpatient psychiatric admissions for adolescents

countywide, and it offers services to help

defuse crises: group homes providing shortterm (up to 14 days) housing, plus treatment

teams made up of psychologists and social

workers who offer up to 30 days of emergency

case management and family preservation

assistance.

WRAPAROUND SUCCESS

When it was first establishing its wraparound

program in the mid-90s, Milwaukee County

conducted a pilot project targeting 25 young people

who were then in residential treatment programs

and had no date for release. Using Wraparound,

the county enabled 1 7 of the 25 to return home

within 90 days - thereby reducing the average

three-month cost from over $5,000 per young

person to $2,700. Eventually, 24 of the young

people left residential treatment facilities and

returned to the community: 17 were reunited with

their families, and seven entered foster homes.

By 2000, Wraparound Milwaukee was proving that

such success was possible on a broad scale.

Countywide, the program has reduced the daily

population in residential treatment programs

from 360 (plus wait list) down to 135 per day.

In addition, psychiatric hospitalization of

adolescents has declined by 80 percent since

Wraparound Milwaukee went into effect.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-20 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 5 of 17
(Jperatiiig Aencv

Program I5I)e

Program Goals

38 American Youth Policy Forum

Even more impressive have been the substantial

behavior improvements and reductions in

delinquency displayed by Wraparound participants.

Among 169 delinquent youth for whom one year

follow-up data were available in October 2000, the

average number of arrests per participant declined

from 2.32 arrests during the year prior to enrollment

in Wraparound Milwaukee, to .98 arrests per

participant during the year of enrollment, to .63

arrests per participant in the year following

treatment. (See Table #5.) Whereas .57 percent

of participants committed two or more offenses

during the year prior to enrollment, only 15 percent

committed two or more offenses in the year

following treatment— a reduction of 74 percent.

Likewise, Wraparound Milwaukee participants have

also significantly improved their clinical outcomes:

measures such as the Child Behavior Check List and

the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale

show significant improvement in emotional thnctioning

and stability.

"The hospital and the residential treatment center have

a place in the care of emotionally disturbed youth,

but they should be a stabilizing place, not a place for

change," explains Dr. Chris Morano, who heads

Wraparound Milwaukee's Mobile Urgent Treatnient

Teams. "You can't use the hospital to try and reform

or restructure their personalities. That needs to happen

in a more normalized environment that's a true

reflection oftheirdaytoday life."

larget Group

Milwaukee Counw Mental F fcalth T)Riicm. thrid

Adolescent Serv ices fl ranch

(eunt-nin Ssstcrn of fao ñí EnrotinrtlIy

L)istnrbcd 'iouth

Pr o dine Eftcctrvc TrOattrICnt and Reducino )utof

[Into c tIiiC t @ ii ot inna I v J)i turbed and

Delinquent \'outh

[iran unal iy disturb-cd ad sceiits inc ud I ng many

delinquents at risk lOs iriiinediate placement iii in a

icsidcritral U'atrnent prorrrattt

Kt's Strategies (omprehensive hiiic-baed acrviees strenglh-ha'red

treatment; partnership with families und othei caring

jduli. citsi inicreentian to prevent rer,idcntia!

p1 rerrirenis ipn d d ia iundin to d1eoUrLr

unneccssars or eiidLlrv out!-horne plaiirenra

Priivaiv Funding fooled tunding b-our cliilcl-erving agencies

Source(s) iprühation, child \vcIlarc, mental healthy. \iedicaid.

as nail ar, federal arant funding, (aspired in

la idence of Dramatic reductions in orinof-horna plrrcernciit_s for

Effetiveness youth courits-wtdc: horp reductions in of'ftnding ha

dclinguerrt pariietprinrs. rubtanriaI gains in

heha cii ru ta neti on in a

Con tact Information Erirca Kaiirrudt, Director

tTh ridren 's Mental F icaltir F3rnch

Mjksankcc (riunt y Division at Mental fealiti

\\atcrtnwn iFnk b-crud

\\auwatrsa. WI 3n

Phone: 41dt 27-7nIL Fax: i414t 277575

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-20 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 6 of 17
Less Cost, More Safety 39

CHALLENGE #6:

OFFER QUALITY TREATMENT AND YOUTH

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

FOR INCARCERATED YOUTH

The majority a! delinquents, even those who have co,n,nitted serious crimes, will he released back into

their communities /while they are st illj in their teens and twenties....Without an education, without health

care, without practical skills, without transition steps hack into their communities, without prograns that

have turned their antisocial activity into ineaningtiil li/è lessons, what chance do the y have ot becoming

productive, law abiding citizens? What chance does our societ y have of being sa/è?"

Coalition for Juvenile Justice

E

very day in America, about 105,000 young

people are held in custody. They include

27,600 awaiting trial or pending placement, and

76,500 who have been found delinquent and

committed to correctional facilities. Most of the

youth offenders committed to a residential

placement are housed in state-funded "training

schools" —large, congregate care facilities that often

mirror adult prisons both in physical environment

and correctional philosophy.

Nationwide, only one-fourth of young people confined

in training schools have been convicted of (or

"adjudicated" for) violent felonies, and many have

committed only status offenses, drug possession,

disorderly conduct, or other less serious crimes. Thus,

many or most could be safely and more effectively

sanctioned in community-based correctional programs.

Indeed, the success of' Missouri's Division of Youth

Services (see Challenge #1) proves that many youth

now committed to state care could be safely supervised

in the community - and that community-based

correctional programs can produce recidivism rates

far below those typically achieved by training schools.

However, in Missouri and every other state, there

remain youthful offenders who have committed crimes

so heinous or suffer behavioral problems so severe

and potentially dangerous that secure (i.e., locked)

residential placement is the only safe option. Simply

locking up these youth does not guarantee public

safety, however. Because most youth will return to

thecommunitywithin 12-18 months(andalmostall

will return by their early twenties), the quality of the

corrections program is critically important.

Unfortunately. the quality of juvenile corrections

facilities nationwide is highly uneven. Several

problems are commonplace:

Substandard conditions of confinement. In

1993, the U.S. Justice Department released a

comprehensive study finding that 62 percent of

confined youth were held in overcrowded

facilities, which suffer higher rates of violence

against both staff and other youth than noncrowded facilities. Also, physical abuse by

juvenile corrections staff has been documented

in several states. Overall, 37 successful lawsuits

have been filed on behalf ofjuvenile offenders

in 25 states in the past three decades regarding

both overcrowding and abuse issues, and the

problems show no sign of abating.40

Inadequate programming. Though required

to provide educational services to all youth I 6

and younger, many training schools of'f'er

educational activities for only a few hours per

day. These educational activities often lack

academic rigor, and they seldom include quality

special education services for youth with

learning disabilities (as required by law).

Inadequate mental health screening and

treatment are also pervasive in juvenile

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-20 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 7 of 17
40 American Youth Policy Forum

corrections facilities, despite the high rates of

mental, emotional and substance abuse problems

plagu ing juvenile inmate populations.

Undertrained staff. Day-to-day supervision of

juvenile offenders in most training schools is

provided by low-paid workers without college

cducation or in-dcpth training in youth

development. Thus, even if quality education

and counseling services are provided for a few

hours each day, confined youth spend the bulk

of their waking hours overseen by staff without

the skills or motivation to maintain a positive,

therapeutic environment.

Inadequate aftercare. Perhaps the most selfdefeating weakness injuvenile justice today is

the lack of support and supervision for youth

returning home from juvenile correctional

institutions. By definition, these are the most

dangerous and high-risk of all youth. Yet in

most states and communities these young

people are provided only modest supervision

as they re-enter the community and few services

to help them achieve success and remain crimefree.

"Research shows that subjecting youth to such

harsh confinement conditions increases rates of

violence and recidivism," concluded the American

Bar Association in 1998. "In a society that already

faces daily violence and crime, deficiencies in the

care of incarcerated youth serve only to further

threaten the well-being of our children, families,

and communities."4'

THE LAST CHANCE RANCH

TURNING AROUND FLORIDA'S TOUGHEST JUVENILE OFFENDERS

For more than twenty years, Florida's juvenile

courts have been sending some of their most

difficult and dangerous cases to a unique program

in the Everglades, the Florida Environmental

Institute. So too have Florida's criminal court

judges, giving hard case adolescents a final

opportunity in the juvenile justice system before

sentencing them to adult prison.

Here's why: unlike virtually every other juvenile

corrections facility in the nation, Florida

Environmental Institute has a long track record of

effectively rehabilitating serious and violenijuvenile

offenders. "This is a demonstration project that

shows that when you look at sending these kinds

of kids to prison, it doesn't make sense," says Frank

Orlando, for 21 years a judge in Broward County,

Florida and now Director of the Center for the

Study of Youth Policy at Nova Southeastern

University in Ft. Lauderdale. "We're talking about

kids, most of whom have a much more serious

background than the majority of kids being

transferred to adult courts today. But the recidivism

rates are very low. Public safety is enhanced."42

UP FROM THE SEA: THE EVOLUTION

OF A JUVENILE JUSTICE MODEL

The roots of the Florida Environmental Institute

date back to 1969, when Florida Atlantic University

in Boca Raton launched a new oceanographic

research institute. That same year, the Institute's

director accepted several troubled boys to work

on the Institute's research projects. Quickly,

institute leaders saw that the marine research

activities had a powerfully positive effect on

participating youth. Overtime, they devoted more

and more of the Institute's efforts to redirecting

the lives of troubled youth, rather than research.

The initial program for juvenile offenders in Boca

Raton was replicated in Tampa and St. Petersburg

in 1972, then in three more sites by 1974. Each

program was (and still is) run by an autonomous,

non-profit corporation with a local board of

directors. However, an umbrella organization,

Associated Marine Institutes (AM!), was created

in 1974 to provide the local programs with

management and administrative support.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-20 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 8 of 17
Less Cost, More Safety 41

"We have no lock-up room at FEI

and we don't teach our staff to

'take kids down' by wrestling them

to the ground and pinning them.

We are convinced that the more

unusual you treat a kid, the more

unusual he will act."

AMI President, Robert Weaver.

Today, the AMI network includes 51 institutes in

seven states and the Cayman Islands. Thirty of these

arc non-residential day programs, like the initial marine

project in Boca Raton. The remaining 21 arc

residential juvenile corrections centers, including seven

in Florida. Among them, the oldest and most

successful is Florida Environmental Institute.

A RANCH FOR FLORIDA'S

TOUGHEST JUVENILES

Located at Fish Eating Creek in the township of

Venus, 40 miles northwest of Lake Okeechobee,

the Florida Environmental Institute (FEI) is

surrounded by miles of open, humid, alligator-and

mosquito-infested swamp and forest. When

delinquent youths first started arriving in 1982, they

slept in tents. There was no choice: no buildings

yet stood on the 40-acre site. Since then,

participants and staff have erected several structures

- including two dormitories, general education and

vocational classrooms, a tool shed, a barn, and a

dining hall. They have also turned the property

into a working ranch, raising cattle and pigs, tending

horses, and growing corn, peas, cucumbers, and

other crops.

FEI earned its "Last Chance Ranch" nickname in

the I 980s, soon after opening. The label was

coined by the participants themselves, all of whom

were sent to FEI on serious felony charges. Though

all were 17 or younger when committing their

offenses, many of the youth had been transferred

to adult criminal courts. Local judges sent them

to the FEI juvenile program as a final opportunity

- a last chance before a sentence to adult

prison. A study in the I 980s reported that FEI

youths had been charged with an average of 18

delinquent offenses each, including 11.5 felonies.

In 1997-98, the average youth released from FEI

had accumulated a remarkable 32.7 charges,

including 11.8 felony charges, the highest felony

rate among the 35 Florida programs serving

serious juvenile offenders and the second highest

rate of total offenses.43

A UNIQUE ATMOSPHERE

Despite the serious profile ofjuvenile offenders

sent to FEI, the facility has never used iron bars,

handcuffs, or locked cells. The nearest state

road is 15 miles away -- and the nearest town is

another 20 miles beyond that. Thus, despite the

lack of correctional hardware, escape is virtually

impossible. (FEI's most recent escape attempt

came in 1998, unlike Florida's "secure"juvenile

corrections facilities which suffer several escapes

every year.) The lack of bars and physical

restraints has long been a core element of the

Associated Marine Institute philosophy - and it

provided the rationale for AMI's decision to

locate the facility in the remote Everglades.

According to Frank Orlando, who helped found

the initial program in Roca Raton and still sits

on AMI's board of trustees, "If the program was

in the community, it would have to be hardware

secure. This way, the kids don't get the feeling

that they are being caged like animals."

"We have no lock-up room at FEI and we don't

teach our staff to 'take kids down' by wrestling

them to the ground and pinning them," explains

AMI President Robert Weaver. "We are

convinced that the more unusual you treat a kid,

the more unusual he will act."44

Orlando also points to FEI's unusually small

population as a key to its success. The ranch has

capacity only for 22 participants at a time,

compared with the 1 00-400 youth capacity of

Florida's prison-like "youth development centers."

According to Orlando, "The small population at

Last Chance Ranch gives the program the

opportunity to carry out its mission, which is to

address the kids' problems and change their

behavior."

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-20 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 9 of 17
42 American Youth Policy Forum

REWARDS, PUNISHMENTS,

AND HARD WORK

When a young man is referred to the Ranch, his

ride to the program ends on the side of the road

two miles from the main facility. He is met there

by the program's director and another counselor.

Freed from handcuffs, leg irons, and any other

restraints, he then hikes through the swamp and

palmetto forest as staff begin explaining to him the

programs rules, philosophy and expectations. The

hike ends at "0 Camp,"just outside the main FEJ

campus, where the offender will talk with staff and

senior participants and begin the physical work

(grass cutting, weeding, etc.) that will be a steady

part of his days at FEI. At 0 Camp, new

participants must agree to abide by the many rules

that govern life at the Ranch, and they begin to

bond with staff and peers. If all goes well in 0

Camp, the new participant will join the rest of the

FE! population for the evening meal on the third

day. If the participants resists or acts out, the

process may extend one or two additional days.

Phase One. Upon entering the main FEI campus.

participants begin the first of the three stages in the

FEI rehabilitation process. In Phase One, which

lasts six months or longer, youth sleep in an austere

dorm with a hard floor, bunk beds, plywood walls,

screened windows without glass, and no television

or other amenities. Despite the steamy climate, the

Phase One dorm has no air conditioning, although

ceiling fans are provided to circulate the hot air.

The participants' days are consumed with two kinds

of work: I) individualized academic education,

where they make progress toward a high school

diploma or GED; and 2) physical labor tending farm

animals, caring for crops, digging up tree stumps

to clear land, cleaning and maintaining ranch

"The small population at Last

Chance Ranch gives the program

the opportunity to carry out its

mission, which is to address the

kids' problems and change their

behavior."

facilities, making repairs and improvements to the

ranch buildings (and sometimes building new oncs),

and more.

However, youths' primary task at FEI is to earn

credit toward going home. FE!, like all of the

Associated Marine Institute programs, is operated

on a strict behavior management regimen.

Participants are ranked five times per day on seven

areas of behavior: being on time, appearance,

attitude, leadership, participation, enthusiasm, and

manners. In the short-term, these rankings

determine the order in which participants are seated

in the cafeteria, and who is first to receive a second

portion. The primary importance of the weekly

rankings, however, is long-term: FE! youth are

released from the program only after they have

earned enough "point cards" to progress through

all of the required levels. Each participant earns

between half and one-and-a-half point cards per

week, and each must earn 12 cards to complete

each of FEE's six levels. While fighting, rule

breaking and disobeying instructions do not land

young people in physical restraints or solitary

confinement, as in a typical youth corrections

facility, they do set back the youth's progress toward

going home, and often lead to an extra helping of

tough physical chores.

"Their behavior and their attitude determines their

whole length of stay," says FE! director, Mike

Shumans. "If they're not doing well and they don't

earn the point cards they need to progress, then

they can be here a long time. If they follow the

rules and do well, they can get out in a year. It's

basically up to them."

Phase Two. In Phase One, participants must

progress from the "Tenderfoot" level to the "Ranch

Hand" level and finally to the "Buckaroo" level.

Once they complete this third level, youth shift

into Phase Two, which begins with a move into a

more comfortable, air-conditioned dormitory with

a television, more comfortable furnishings, and bit

of private space. Participants continue their

academic and ranch work during this phase, and

they also take part in occasional community service

and environmental projects. Toward the end of

Phase Two, which also lasts six months or longer,

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-20 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 10 of 17
Less Cost, More Safety 43

students earn the right to go back to their home

towns with an FE! staff member and begin finding

work, rebuilding faini ly relationships, and making

living arrangements (if there is no safe and healthy

family home).

PHASE THREE - MAKING

AFTERCARE A CENTERPIECE

Unlike many juvenile corrections programs, where

the treatment largely stops when youth leave the

facility, the FE! program has always included a

heavy focus on the transition home. During the

month prior to leaving the ranch, youth work closely

with their counselors to develop plans tbr their

return. Once home, youth receive five visits per

week from an FEI community coordinator, plus

frequent calls from the case manager on staff at

the FEI campus.

Community coordinators monitor the progress of

the young people - and can even return youth to

the ranch if their behavior lapses. As at the ranch,

however, the emphasis is more on supporting youth

The New Ferris School

Juvenile Corrections Reform in Delaware

Back in the early 1990s, Delaware's Ferris training school was a ter ble place. Designod to houie 47

youthful offenders, the facility typically held 80 or 90 even 100. TI e conditions were atrocious, said

JuzMh Mellen, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union for Delaware The physical plant

was not only in very poor repair, it was almost impossible to keep clean Food was not adequate. Clothing

was not adequate. Education was not adequate.5

The ACLU filed suit in 1990 to protest conditions at Ferris. but nobody in state government listened until

Governor Thomas Carper was elected and settled the suit u 1993. Under a consent decree, Deieware

rared the old Ferris School and spent $14 million to build a new 69,000 square-foot facility. Moreover, it

adopted a new correctional philosophy. Today, all youth in Ferris School receive drug and alcohol

education, anger management. conflict resolution, sex education and HlVpreventon Aspartof that new

approach, all direct care workers at Ferris must now have a bachelor's degree in education or a hehavoral science

Perhaps the most impressive advance at the 'New Ferris" ha been the educatrnn program. Thanks to a

unique partnership with the DuPont Company. almost every youth in the facility now has a mentor

DLIPOO provides financial support for the program and 78 vo unteers - DuPont executives, chemis s

engineers, and researchers who meet weekly with youth and help them with their academic work

Since the new Ferris School opened in 1997 and the meritoring program began, students have averaged

a remarkable increase of 2.5 grade levels during their six-nine month stays at Ferris

"It may not be conr'on practice for the American Civil Liberty Union to publicly laud state officials who

have faced them in court and over the negotiating table' wrote Dotaware ACLU Director, Judith Mallen in

February 2000, "hut Ferris' transformation is an uncommOnly successful result of the initiative f state

officials and the ACLU, The Delaware experience should serve as a model, not only or Ferris but also

for the cOoerative process that went into achieving this result.'

CONTACT:

Dianne Gadow, Superintendent

The Fmris School

Delaware Youth & Family Center

95$ Centre Road

Wilmington. DE 19805

(3021 993-381

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-20 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 11 of 17
44 American Youth Policy Forum

than threatening them. Coordinators get actively

involved in helping youth to gain admission to

schools or collegcs or employmcnt, assisting youths'

families to secure needed services or bcnefits,

and advocating for youth with schools or

cmployers. The intensive support continues fr

six months before the youth finally graduates

from the FEI program.

UNPARALLELED RESULTS

Each year, the Florida Department of Juvenile

Justice evaluates each of the more-than-IOU

juvenile corrections programs operating

statewide. The Department calculates the

success rates and costs per successful completion

for each program, and it measures each

program's success against an "expected success

rate" that is based upon the specific demographic

and offending profile of youths assigned to the

program.

For the four-year period from 1997 through

2000, only nine of 57 (15.8 percent) serious

juvenile offenders released from FEI were

found guilty of a nen' offense in their first 12

months after completing the program. This

compares to an average reconviction rate of

more than 40 percent for all Florida

institutions serving serious juvenile offenders.

In 2000, only one FEJ graduate out of2l —just

4.6percent - was found by a court to have

committed a new offense.

The average cost for one youth to complete a

term at FET, $75,000, runs well above the rates

($30,000 - $50,000) in Florida's four prison-like

juvenile corrections facilities for serious

offenders. However, despite this disparity

which is due to FEI's high staff-to-participant

ratio and the longer than average periods of

confinement at FE! - the program also scores

well in terms of cost-effectiveness. For the twoyear period from July 1996 through June 1998

(in which FE! experienced a 21.6 percent

reconviction rate), the program's average cost

per successful completion ($58,120) was higher

than two of Florida's four "youth centers" and

lower than two others.

However, this figure does not include the costs

of continued crime committed by youth after

leaving these training schools. According to an

analysis published by the Florida Department of

Juvenile Justice in September 2000, each time a

juvenile offender reoffends following release

from a commitment program, it costs the state

$165,571 in criminal justice and victim costs.47

Each of the larger programs suffers reconviction

rates of 45-55 percent - more than twice the

FEI rate. Had Last Chance Ranch graduates

reoffended at the rates of the larger Florida

FLORIDA ENVIRONMENTAL INSTITUTE VS. OTHER "LEVEL 8"

JUVENILE CORRECTIONS FACILITIES IN FLORIDA:

Actual vs. Expected Success*

-- 78.6

FEI (28) Total "Level 8'

Facilities (2,313)

* Data for juvenile offenders released from correctional facilities during

fiscal years 1996-97 and 1997-98.

Success is defined as no offenses within one year of release.

Expected success rates are calculated by the Florida Department of

Juvenile Justice based on characteristics of juvenile offenders placed into

each facility.

Source: Program Accountability Measures for DJJ Commitment Programs:

A Two-Year Analysis, FY 1999-2000, Management Report #2000-9

(Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Juvenile

Justice, March 2000), p. 12.

• Actual Success Rate**

• Expected Success Rate***

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-20 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 12 of 17
Op&rating 5.gcnc

Program lype

Program Goals

htrget (;roup

Priinar Funding

So u ic C(s)

kidnce ol

Et'l'etivcnes

(ontact Information

Less Cost, More Safety

programs, at least 20 additional offenses would

have been committed - at a sum cost of more

than $3 million to victims and taxpayers. Clearly,

FEI is not only more effective than traditional

incarceration programs: it is also more costeffective. Less cost, more safety.

A ssoc iaed v1ari nc Inst itutcs

Pri\atcly-Run IciticntiaI C rrections fcUiIit\

Rhahi litation tf Serious and C hionie juscuile

Otiejiders

Serious and chronic u\enilc ot coders, including

usarsy scho haec been transferred to adult courts

Ke Stra1eies Remote locution in the Florida Everglades; srnull

scale {22 yonthi: no Iockcd cells or rciu1nI5: lube

stafCtrooffendcr isttInL inensisc bcha\ior

rndrlatrcrncnt: cxtcnsrsc aftercare support

f lirida Dcparnrrcnt ot Juscnilc Justicc

211 y ear-record of catremel y low rccidisisrn. strong

coat-ctfcctiscncss dospite high cost-per-partic pant

Robert \Vcuvcr Prestdent

Asociatcd iuiiir Intittcs

Benjamin C enter Drive

2arnpa, ft o34

Phone l3t tt 11(1 } t 151 y

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-20 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 13 of 17
46 American Youth Policy Forum

CHALLENGE #7:

PROVIDE QUALITY EDUCATION AND CAREER

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES THAT ENABLE YOUTH

TO ASSUME PRODUCTIVE ROLES IN SOCIETY

For too long, education has been regarded as just another service ftr incarcerated youth. For too long,

yesterday s pedagogy has friiled to educate delinquent youth Jbr toda y c world. It/s time to change. "

Robert Gemignani, National Office for Social Responsibility

O

verwhelmingly, young people who become

chronic delinquents and adult criminals suffer

from two crippling problems: 1) weak academic

achievement; and 2) poor preparation for the world

of work.

If we want to hasten the pace at which delinquent

youth mature into adulthood and terminate

delinquent behavior patterns (as most eventually

do), helping youth prepare for and enter the labor

market is critical. That means education. That

means job readiness. That means vocational skills.

And for troubled youth long used to failure, many

of whom suffer learning disabilities and behavioral

disorders, each of these goals requires hands-on

learning opportunities providing both a first taste

of success and a clear path toward employment.

Nationwide, detailed information about the scope

and quality of education and training programs for

delinquent youth is virtually non-existent. The latest

national survey ofjuvenile correctional education

programs was completed in 1996 (using data from

1992), and it included little more than an incomplete

checklist from 39 states. The report listed state

budgets for juvenile correctional education, the

agency responsible for administering correctional

education programs, and simple yes-no lists of

program types offered (elementary & secondary

education, GED prep, vocational education, etc.).

The report included few data regarding how many

youth participate in these programs, and no data at

all on participant outcomes.4

As one federally-funded study concluded. "No

systematic and cumulative data exist to show what

programs [youthful offenders] receive, from what

kinds of staff, at what cost - let alone what

results. "°

Even without national data, however, it is clear

that most juvenile justice systems remain

substantially unprepared to provide delinquent

youth with a quality education and prepare them

for the labor market. According to the National

Center on Education, Disability, and Juvenile

Justice: "Education programs in many juvenile

correctional facilities are inadequate.....Juvenile

correctional institutions often have limited capacity

to support appropriate educational interventions for

the youth confined to their care and custody. Major

systemic impediments include overcrowding,

insufficient financial resources, ineffective

governance structures, isolation of correctional

schools from education reform practices and from

public schools, inadequate transition and aftercare

services, and lack of collaboration and coordination

with treatment and security components within the

juvenile facility."

Particularly serious in juvenile corrections is the

lack of career preparation. The majority of youth

who are removed from home and placed in juvenile

corrections facilities never again return to school -

and most never complete high school. "While

correctional educators must find better ways to

motivate students to return to school," writes

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-20 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 14 of 17
Less Cost, More Safety 47

correctional education expert, Robert Gemignani,

"they must also provide students with the

knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed in entryleveljobs."52

"The relationship [between youth and correctional

staff] and a sense of safety are the absolute,

necessary fundamental things that have to be in

place" in juvenile corrections," explains juvenile

justice consultant, Paul DeMuro. "Once they are

in place, you can step back and look at what causes

the delinquency in the first place, and I think in

most cases that is lack of opportunity. So if that's

the cause, then skills enhancing is clearly an

important part of the solution."

PREPARING DELINQUENT YOUTH FOR PRODUCTIVE CAREERS

THE GULF COAST TRAINING CENTER

In New Waverly, Texas, a new neighborhood is

sprouting up eight houses purchased since 1998 by

moderate income families at affordable prices, and

five more on the drawing board. With wall-to-wall

carpeting, modern kitchens and central heating, the

homes look conventional in every respect. But in

one way they arc entirely unique: all were primarily

built by delinquent juvenile offenders.

The development and construction of these homes

has been spearheaded by the Gulf Coast Trades

Center, ajuvenile corrections program located in the

Sam Houston National Forest outside ofNew Waverly,

an hour's ride north of Houston. By teaching youthful

offenders practical, hands-on vocational skills (in

construction and several other career tracks) and

providing opportunities to employ those skills in a

real world context, Gulf Coast Trades Center stands

virtually alone in our nation's juvenile justice

in.structuiv - a residential program for seriousjuvenile

offenders that makes education and career preparation

the cornerstone of its treatment and rehabilitation

philosophy.

Not only for new homeowners, but also for the young

Gulf Coast Trades Center stands

virtually alone in our nation's

juvenile justice infrastructure - a

residential program for serious

juvenile offenders that makes

education and career preparation

the cornerstone of its treatment

and rehabilitation philosophy.

people served and Texas citizens concerned about

youth crime, the results of Gulf Coast's vocational

approach are noteworthy: low recidivism and high

rates of success for program graduates in fmding wellpaying employment in their chosen occupations.

UNION ROOTS

Gulf Coast Trades Center caine to life in 1971 on the

grounds of an abandoned site of the federal Job Corps

program. The Gulf Coast Trades Union, in

partnership with city government in Houston, secured

funding from the federal Model Cities program to

continue using the site to train low-income youths.

The new program struggled until former union

organizer Mike Buzbee took over in 1974. Though

Buzbce and five staff members went without pay for

three months in these early days, Gulf Coast captured

contracts with the Texas Youth Commission and the

federal CETA job training program early in 1975 and

began training delinquent teens for trades and careers.

A quarter century later, Buzbee remains in charge at

Gulf Coast, and tile agency retains its union-based

focus on trades and careers. Gulf Coast provides

academic and vocational training, work experience,

counseling and aflercare for 176 delinquent youth each

day. Sixty percent of these youth are refelTed from

the Texas Youth Commission (TYC) either as a

step down from their initial stays in TYC training

schools, a consequence for violating parole, or as a

direct placement fol lowing adjudication. The

remaining 40 percent are referred to Gulf Coast

directly from county courts and probation agencies

throughout Texas.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-20 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 15 of 17
48 American Youth Policy Forum

FRESH START at the Living Classrooms Foundation:

An Old Trade Leads to New Success

Down on the waterfront in Baltimore's Fells Point neighborhood. once home to a thriving shipbuilding

industry. 20 young men arrive each morning to earn that honored old trade. Five days per week for 40

weeks, they practice hoatbu1lding, carpentry and other hands-on skills They also receive valuable job

readiness training, advance academically, and learn self-discipline with the help uf an innovatwe daily

self-evaluation process. By the time they graduate from this "Fresh Start" program, most of the youth

- all juvenile offenders ages 16 to 21 - are ready to succeed in employment and/or education. Even

more importantly, unlike youth confined in Maryland's more conventional juvenile corrections programs

they are unlikely ever to be rearrested or reinc-arcerated.

Fresh StrL was launched in 1989 by the Living Classrooms Foundation, a Baltimore-based nonprofit

dedicated to youth development through hands-on learning. Fundedpcirnarily by the Maryland Department

of Juvenile Justice, the program senes 20 youth at a time in a curriculum with five eight-week modules.

All participants are referred by a probation officer or a juvenile court judge. More than half reside at the

Maryland Youth Residence Center, a locked facility, while the remainder reside either in state-funded

group tiomes(ahout one-fourth) or in their own family homes.

Because Fresh Start is voluntary and uses no locks or restraints, the program operates with a strict

behavioral code: youth who commit or threaten violence and those found with or under the influence of

drugs, are automatically expelled. Also, youth are allowed three personal days during each eight-week

cycle. Absence counts as one personal day, and any lateness counts for half a day. If they exceed the

three-day limit, youth are removed from the program and must apply for re-admission. As a result,

Fresh Start has a daily attendance rate of more than 90 percent.

Although Fresh Start participants spend only 75 minutes per day in a classroom, most make substantial

academic progress thanks to the programs extensive hands-on learning activities. Youth gain an

average of 1 85 grades in reading 1 0 grades in writing and 65 9rades in math Of those who enter

the program at an 8 grade level or higher. 77 percent earn their GEDs. Fresh Start youth also earn

The main 46-acre Gulf Coast campus - which has no

perimeter fence and uses no locked cells or physical

restraints houses 144 youth in six dormitories.

Another 32 participants - mostly older youth who

are unlikely to return to their family homes - reside

on an independent living campus. 53 All participants

are between the ages of 16 and 18, and 80 percent

are male. One-fifth of participants are white, while

African American and Hispanic youths each comprise

about two-fl fths of the Gulf Coast population.

VOCATIONAL CORRECTIONS

The Gulf Coast program offers a strong dose of

academic education. Participants spend two hours

every day in GulfCoast's Learning Resource Center

where they work on basic skills, study for the GED,

or earn high school credits with the help of a 20-

station computer lab, as well as videos, workbooks,

and individual tutoring from the Center's academic

instructors. Students work at their own pace, using

individualized plans developed and updated by staff

based on extensive pre-testing and ongoing

assessments.

These academic activities (as well as the vocational

training described below) are overseen entirely by Gulf

Coast, which established an independent charter school

in 1998 after struggling to partner with local school

districts throughout the prior two decades. With the

charter school, Gulf Coast is now free to hire its own

instructors, set its own hours, and establish its own

curriculum rather than trying to fit its program

into the regulations and routines of the public

schools.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-20 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 16 of 17
Less Cost, More Safety 49

dollars during the program through work with student-run businesses to build and sell boats and patio

furniture. Youth typically earn $500 to $800 over the course of the program, although they can claim

these rewards only if they graduate the program,

According to John Billow, who oversees Fresh Start as director of Living Classrooms Maritime Institute

the key to Fresh Start s success is the close personal attention participant receive both during and

after the program At Living Classrooms eauh group of four five particpants has its own instrui tor and

each participant meets daily with the instructor to review his performance Following graduation, Fresh

Start continues to monitor and counsel graduates, with help from a team of retention specialists.'

Because of the close supervision and strict rules of the program, Fresh Start has a high attrition rate. Of

the 154 youth who have entered the program between July 1997 and June 2000 and completed at least

twc weeks, 112 completed at least one 8-week medule and 50(32 percent) completed the entire 40-

week program cycle. However, the long-term success of these graduates underscores the value of

Fresh Start: 66 percent of graduates were either employed and/or enrolled in education in December

2000, Wages among the 52 percent of graduates who were employed averaged 7 67."

Perhaps most impressively, only 19 percent of Fresh Start graduates had been rearrested since leaving

the program and only 7 percent had been reincarcerated this in a state where 76 percent of outh

releisedfroi-n state-funded juvenile corrections facilities are re-arrested within three years Despite its

far higher success rates, the 40-week Fresh Start program costs the state less than half as much as a

40-week stay in a juvenile corrections facility. Less cost, more safety

CONTACT:

John Ditlow, Director

Maritime Institute

Living Classrooms Foundation

802 South Caroline Street

Baltimore, MD 21231

Phone: (410i 685-0295

Nine Vocations. In addition to its academic activities,

every Gulf Coast participant also enrolls in one of

nine vocational programs:

• construction carpentry

• painting and decorating

• bricklaying/stone masonry

• culinary arts (cooking)

• horticulture-related occupations

• building trades (plumbing/electrical)

• automotive technology (and repair)

• mill and cabinetmaking

• office support systems (and office technology)

For each vocational track, GulfCoast has a customized

workshop, a dedicated instructor, and a 915-hour

vocational curriculum. These curricula include a

mixture of classroom lectures and hands-on learning

activities. In the automotive shop, for instance,

participants perform maintenance on the 36 vehicles

owned by Gulf Coast. In the office support systems

shop, they learn to operate office software programs

and perform diagnostic tests and repairs on Gulf Coast's

office computen. In addition, all participants take part in

job readiness training to prepare them for the world-ofwork, and most also take drivers education training.

Real-World Work Experience. In each vocational

track, participants must demonstrate mastery ofseveral

dozen competencies in order to earn a vocational

certificate. During their stays at Gulf Coast (which

average six to nine months), 80 to 90 percent of Gulf

Coast youth earn this credential, at which point they

can participate in Gulf Coast's work experience

activities (and begin wearing green shirts, rather than

the blue trainee shirts they've worn until then).

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-20 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 17 of 17
30

25

20

• % Incarcerated

15

• Expected Rate

10

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

50 American Youth Policy Forum

GULF COAST TRADES CENTER:

RE-INCARCERATION VS. OTHER MEDIUM RESTRICTION JUVENILE FACILITIES IN TEXAS

Re-Incarceration Within Felony Re-Incarceration

One Year of Release Within Three Years

Gulf Coast Other Medium Gulf Coast Other Medium

Restriction Facilities Restriction Facilities

Source: Data provided via fax by Dr. Chuck Jeffords, Texas Youth Commission, December 2000.

Work assignments include maintenance or office work

activities within the Gulf Coast campus itself or parttimejobs with local government agencies and nonprofit

corporations in the New Waverly area. Gulf Coast

staff transport the youth to and from these

assignments, and they monitor participants'

performance on the job through written agreements

with the employers, plus frequent phone calls and

site visits. The work activities are supported through

the federal Workforce Investment Act (successor to

the Job Training Partnership Act), and participants

arc paid minimum wage for all hours worked. Some

money is deducted from many participants' wages

for restitution, and the remaining wages are placed in

savings accounts to be used for expenses related to

finding employment. The balance is released when

youth begin working in unsubsidized jobs in their home

communities.

While work experience opportunities have long been

a cornerstone of Gulf Coast's rehabilitative strategy,

these opportunities have become even a more positive

tool over the past three years thanks to the agency's

new housing construction efforts. Gulf Coast

established its own housing development corporation

in 1998. Since then, with funding from the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development's

YouthBuild program (which provides funding for

education and training and for wages), as well as a

companion state Youth Works" program (which

provides finding for materials and construction costs),

Gulf Coast has built eight new homes, with another

five scheduled to begin construction in January 2001.

At any one time, 35 youth can participate in Gulf

Coast's YouthBuild program, and these youth split

their time evenly between academics and on-the-job

construction training. They participate in most aspects

of the constniction process - from laying foundation,

to framing, to sheet-rocking, to roofing. Only highly

technical areas, such as electrical wiring and plumbing,

arc left primarily to experienced professionals. Once

finished, Gulf Coast sells the houses to low and

moderate-income families at bargain prices (as low as

$50,000 for a new three-bedroom home).

Aftercare (and Job Placement). After training

delinquent youth for careers and providing them onthe-job work experience, Gulf Coast does not simply

send them home and wish them luck. Rather, the

agency provides extensive aftercare support -

including job search and job placement assistance.

Roughly half of the graduates take part in an intensive

90-day aftercare program, in which Gulf Coast staff

serve as advocates and mentors, visiting youth in their

homes at least three times per week. Another 40

percent of graduates take part in a more moderate

aftercare program, and 10 percent live too far away

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-21 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 19
Less Cost, More Safety 51

from Gulf Coast to receive aftercare support.

Regardless of where they live, all GulfCoast graduates

receive job placement andjob coaching assistance.

Behavior Management and Supervision. In

addition to its strong emphases on academics,

vocational training, work experience, and aftercare,

Gulf Coast utilizes many behavioral management and

counseling strategies typical in other juvenile

corrections facilities. GulfCoast uses a level system

to rate each youth weekly on their behavior and

cooperation, and then it allots privileges —recreational

time, use of a game room, officampus outings - for

youth ranked at level three or level four (the top level).

Youth can be dropped a level at any time for serious

misconduct, and it takes two weeks of good behavior

to restore a youth to his or her prior level. GulfCoast

also supports a Youth Leadership program, in which

youth who volunteer can meet quarterly with the

agency's board and have a say in facility policies,

serve on an appeals board to hear other participants'

grievances, qualify for the YouthBuild program. and

go on occasional special outings.

Unfortunately, both staff and participants at Gulf Coast

report that the behavior management regimen has

suffered in recent years due to problems with the

direct care workers who supervise youth in their

dorms. In the past, many of these direct care workers

were criminology students at nearby Sam Houston

State College. However, as the economy has picked

up in recent years, fewer and fewer students have

applied for these jobs. As a result, Gulf Coast is

increasingly forced to hire local residents with limited

skills. Even after granting a wage increase in 2000,

Gulf Coast pays the direct care workers a maximum

of only $7 per hour during their first year on the job.

Thus, staff turnover is high, and some of those hired

lack the skills or motivation to rigorously enforce the

GulfCoast behavior management philosophy.

MORE WORK, LESS RECIDIVISM

Despite these staffing challenges, performance data

from Gulf Coast reveal that its vocational approach

to juvenile corrections is working. According to the

Texas Youth Commission (TYC), only 15.7 percent

of youth who graduated from Gulf Coast from 1995

through 1999 were incarcerated within one year of

release - compared to 37.6 percent of Texas youth

released from other moderate security residential

facilities during this same period. TYC also performed

a statistical analysis (involving 20-30 variables) to

calculate the predicted incarceration rate based on

the specific profiles of youth in the Gulf Coast

program, and it found that 36 percent fewer Gulf

Coast graduates were incarcerated than its

sophisticated model predicted. Likewise, the oneyear arrest rate for violent offenses among Gulf Coast

graduates was 29 percent lower than expected. Also,

a three-year recidivism analysis found that GulfCoast

graduates' overall incarceration rate was 32 percent

lower than expected and its ijcarcemtion rate for felony

offenses was 31 percent lower.

In addition to staying out of trouble, Gulf Coast

graduates also excelled in terms of academic and

occupational achievement. Roughly 60 percent of

Gulf Coast graduates complete their GEDs, and 60

percent find employment in their chosen occupational

field at an average starting wage of $7.50 per hour.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-21 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 19
52 American Youth Policy Forum

Operating Agelic

Program Type

Program (aI

1 arLet (ruup

StrategIe

Prirnar\ Ftinling

Sources}

FI\idence of

t:ftetivenes

(;ull Coast Tcides Ccntcr

F'isvath-Ruii eadcntial (1 rection'c Facility

Rebuhilitatian rind Cureci Prcpaiation 4c luvcnj Ic

() Ic nticr

\outhii I aftn iIci con nshted to statc cu st

lntcnsivc \ocat]anal training in ninc calccr tracks;

job rcadinew training and ark cxpccicncc, stianO

aftcrcarc sup-crs Uion unLI support

Texas Youth Coninksion: caunta piobtition

ayci1cics. US Dcpurrincnt of Hausiny and Urban

t)evelopncnt \? ikl'ircc Jn cstrucnt \ct

low rccidisisin. 1 gb percentage of graduates

cipinued at fl\un y wages

( oniact Information Thomas \, Nhke' }3uzhce, hxeutic I)ire&1ar

(iuIt g oast Trades Center

P1). lt I5

Sew S\ofert y. TX 7731t

Plioiw t 44 00 1- c 0 44 P

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-21 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 3 of 19
Less Cost, More Safety 53

CHALLENGE #8:

REDUCE INAPPROPRIATE DETENTION OF

YOUTH AWAITING

TRIAL OR PENDING PLACEMENT

"The inappropriate use of secure detention poses hazards /br youth, jurisdictions, and societi' at large.

Research indicates that detention does not deter Jbture u//ending, hut it does increase the likelihood that

children will he placed out u/their homes in the /bture, even when controlling/br of/nse, prior history,

and other Jbctors.

Annie E. Casey Foundation

en an adolescent is arrested, one of the

most important decisions affecting his or her

future will be made almost immediately: detention.

The choice whether or not to hold a young offender

in ajuvenile detention center— analogous to a local

jail in the adult justice system is not just a question

of short-term liberty for the offender. Rather, this

decision can have serious consequences for

ultimate disposition of the young person's case.

According to Mark Soler of the Youth Law

Center, "Youth who are detained, rather than let

go to their parents or released to some other

program, are much more likely to be incarcerated

at the end of the process."57

Unfortunately, evidence is abundant that pre-trial

detention is used excessively, inefficiently, and

inequitably in many jurisdictions nationvide,

perhaps most. Under the law,juvenile detention

centers are intended to house young people

Meaningful detention reform can

ease chronic overcrowding and

avert the need for new multimillion dollar juvenile lock-ups....

It can also be a fulcrum for a more

fundamental change in juvenile

justice - embracing what works

and discarding unproductive but

still-common practices that waste

money, damage youth, and fail to

protect citizens.

pending trial only if they pose a danger to

themselves or others, or if they are a risk to flee

the jurisdiction rather than appear for scheduled

court hearings. However, 79 percent of all youth

held in juvenile detention nationwide in 1997

were not charged with violent felony crimes.

Many were accused only of a misdemeanor,

status offense, or property crime. Many inure

were detained after failing to appear at an earlier

court hearing—often following a long delay from

arrest to hearing date and minimal (if any) followup to remind the youth of the hearing or

encourage attendance.

Meanwhile, inefficient case processing lengthens

the duration of stay for many detained youth --

causing young people to spend far more time

than necessary away from their families and out

of school. Once youth are convicted of crimes

("adjudicated delinquent" in the parlance of

juvenile courts), many spend weeks or months

more in detention waiting idly for placement into

a corrections or treatment program.

These problems are a large part of the reason

why the population housed in juvenile detention

facilities nationwide has risen dramatically in the

past two decades - not only during the period of

rapidly increasing juvenile crime (from 1984 to

1993) but also since 1993 when juvenile crime

rates have declined sharply. In 1995,62 percent

of youth held in detention were in overcrowded

facilities -- placing them at heightened risk for

violence, and decreasing the quality ofeducation,

health and other services provided.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-21 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 4 of 19
54 American Youth Policy Forum

Fortunately, a number ofjurisdictions have shown

in recent years that over-use of detention can be

overcome. In 1987, youth advocates filed suit in

Broward County, Florida to protest overcrowding

in the local juvenile detention center, which was

overflowing with an average daily population of

160 young offenders. The county responded with

a multi-pronged detention reform initiative, It

introduced an objective screening device to

determine whether each offender was a danger to

himself or others, or a risk to flee, and it only

detained those who met one of those two criteria.

The county created new procedures to minimize

"failures to appear" tr court hearings, a major

problem in Broward (and many other juvenile

courts) and a cause for youth to be rounded up

and detained. And Broward launched alternativesto-detention programs to provide intensive oversight

as well as mentoring and case-management for

higher-risk youth released pending trial. Through

these efforts, Broward County reduced its average

daily headcount by two-thirds over five years —to

only 56 young people per day - and the county

saved $5.2 million in operating costs, construction,

and overtime.

Broward County's success in reforming juvenile

detention paved the way for the Annie E. Casey

Foundation's multi-city Juvenile Detention

Alternatives Initiative (see sidebar on p. 56) - which

demonstrated again that many young people now

languishing in detention beds can be safely

supervised in the community or more rapidly placed

into correctional programs. So too does the

Juvenile Justice Operational Master Plan project

in King County (Seattle), Washington, which is

detailed in the following pages.

Meaningful detention reform can ease chronic

overcrowding and avert the need for new multimillion dollarjuvenile lock-ups. As the King County

story demonstrates, it can also be a fulcrum for a

more fundamental change in juvenile justice -

embracing what works and discarding unproductive

but still-common practices that waste money,

damage youth, and fail to protect citizens.

Juvenile Justice Operational Master Plan

Bringing Detention Reform to Seattle and King County, WA

Like most urban centers in America, the Seattle area

has seen a sharp drop in serious juvenile crime since

the early 1 990s. Yet, like a lot of places, the juvenile

detention center in King County - opened in 1991

brimmed to capacity in the late 1 990s. Admissions to

detention rose 27 percent from 1993 to 1998, and the

average length of stay in detention rose 39 percentcau sing the average daily population to jump from

119 to 199. In January 1999, the detention population

topped 200, though the facility was designed to house

only 160 youth. The overcrowding forced King

County to draw up plans for another detention center:

construction for a 80-bed unit would cost $11 million,

and operational costs would add another $5.8 million

per year.

Such an investment would be worth every penny if

the safety of King County residents was at stake.

But was a new detention center the only option to

prevent the county from having dangerous young

criminals loose on the streets? A team of community

and local government leaders began examining this

question in 1997 as part of a larger review of county

juvenile justice programs for the new millennium.

Here's what they found: Withoutjeopardizing safety,

King County could dramatically reduce the detention

population, avert the need for a new detention center,

and reduce subsequent offending. The only catch

was, to achieve these goals the county would have to

change virtually everything about how its juvenile

justice system did business. In August 2000, the King

County Council voted to do just that - placing the

proposed new detention center on indefinite hold and

instead investing would-be construction and opemtions

funds into long-needed administrative reforms and

far-sighted prevention and treatment programs.

These reforms, which are now in varying stages of

implementation, have already reduced King County's

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-21 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 5 of 19
Less Cost, More Safety 55

detention population by 30 percent while offering

troubled youth an array of new and improved programs

with proven power to prevent or reverse delinquency.

FRAMING A MASTER PLAN

King County's Juvenile Justice Operational Master

Plan (Master Plan), commissioned by County

Executive Ron Sims in December 1997, was

developed over three years by a 22-person oversight

team with support from a I 6-person working group,

expert consultants, and various project teams

involving more than 100 representatives from

county and city agencies, courts, community

agencies. and schools.

In the first phase, the study team interviewed several

dozen stakeholders in the Seattle area and held

juvenile justice policy workshops in May and June

1998. These efforts, along with research by project

staff and deliberations by the oversight committee,

formed the basis for an interim report in August

1998. This report concluded, in part, that

"Additional detention capacity will be needed to

meet the current and future demand for the county

if community based alternative programs... and other

diversion programs are not expanded." However,

the Phase One report stated, "This analysis found

a high potential for the use of alternatives, which

are more effective in terms of cost and impact for

a high percentage of the youth entering thejuvenile

justice system."5

"We are at a crossroads regarding

the future of juvenile justice in

King County. The choices are

clear. We can continue to do what

we did throughout the 1990s and

face the need to construct and

operate a major new juvenile

detention facility, or we may

rethink how we do business and

find other ways to promote

justice, protect the public, and

help youth in trouble make

responsible choices."

In the second phase of the study process, the Master

Plan team developed a mountain of data regarding

the options for reform in the local juvenile justice

system. Not only did the study team identif' 17

policy and program recommendations, but it also went

the next step of combining these recommendations

into three refonTn scenarios (ranging from limited

implementation to full implementation of the

recommendations). The team then developed a model

to project the impact of each scenario on the size of

the detention population and the county's juvenile

justice costs overtime.

"We are at a crossroads regarding the future ofjuvenile

justice in King County," the Phase Two report found.

"The choices are clear. We can continue to do what

we did throughout the I 990s and face the need to

construct and operate a major new juvenile detention

facility, or we may rethink how we do business and

find other ways to promotejustiee, protect the public,

and help youth iii trouble make responsible choiccs."

TARGETS FOR REFORM

The Master Plan identified many areas ripe for reform,

including several that contributed directly to

overcrowding in the county detention facility.

Objective Detention Screening. Historically, when

police arrested young people for charges and decided

not to release them with a warning, they would bring

offenders to detention and simply drop them off. Only

then would probation staff assess youth to determine

whether they posed a threat to public safety or a risk

to flee. If the young person did not pose a danger,

detention center staff tried to find an adult or guardian

to take custody - often unsuccessfully. Thus, many

low-risk youth found their way behind bars. When a

team of consultants and staff analyzed the problem,

they found that by providing police with specific

detention criteria, and then prohibiting officers from

bringing less serious offenders to detention, the county

could free up many detention beds.

Alternatives to Detention. As of October 1998, 46

percent of the youth locked inside King County's

detention center were charged with a misdemeanor

or status offense. Only 28 percent were charged

with a serious felony. However, only about twenty

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-21 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 6 of 19
56 American Youth Policy Forum

The Annie E. Casey Foundation's Juvenile

Detention Alternatives Initiative

After the dramatic success of ts grants to support juvenile detention reform in Florida's Broward County

(see p.54'), the Annie E. Casey Foundation decided to take its show on the road. Beginning in December

1992, the foundation developed, launched. and supported a multi-million dollar, multi-site project to help

develop a model for detention reform that could be used Throughout the nation,

Specifically the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JOAI) provided implementation grants of

$2.25 million cacti to Sacramento County. CA. Multnomah County (Portland), OR. and Cook County

(Chicago). IL over a period of three years.' The aim of the grants was to help these localities achieve

four goals: 1) build a consensus on the purposes of juvenile detention (and thereby eliminate unnecessary

and inappropriate detention placements); (2) reduce the number of youth who fail to appear in L.oud to

scheduled hearings or commit a new offense wh Ic pending adjudication 3 improve cost-efficiency in

detention by developing responsible alternatives to secure confinement, arid (4) improve conditions and

alleviate overcrowding in secure (i.e., locked) detention facilities

The results from this JDAI initiative effort were rich - both for the localities involved, and for juvenile

justice practitioners nationwide thanks to the wealth of tangible information disseminated by Casey through

this initiative.

"Every measure we have suggests that in Chicago, Portland. and Sacramento, JDA1 achieved significant

reductions in detention admissions and significant improvements in the conditions of confinement," reports

Barry Krisberg, president of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency and chief evaluator of JDAI.

"And there were no increases in either aiture to-appear rates or pretrial crime rates."

In the three counties, staff from juvenile justice agencies and the courts made their most significant

progress in three areas:

• Reducing inappropriate admissions to detention In each of the three jurisdictions, juvenile probation

agencies developed objective risk-assessment inStruments to measure which youth offenders were

really dangerous or likely to skip their scheduled court hearings. These objective measures replaced

haphazard screening processes that previously allowed many youth to sit in detention as punishment

(which is unfair to youth who not yet been convicted) or because no guardian could be located.

youth each day participated in alternatives-to-detention

programs such as home detention, electronic

monitoring, or intensive supervision, and an

alternatives-to-detention intake worker was assigned

to only one of the county's four juvenile courtrooms.

In other jurisdictions, alternative programs report

success rates of 85-90 percent supervising youth

without arrests and getting them to scheduled court

hearings - and at a fraction of the cost of secure

detention. Expanding its alternative programs, analyst.s

found, would free up many beds,

Appearance Rates for Juvenile Court. Twentynine percent of youth admitted to King County's

detention center in 1996 were arrested on bench

warrants because they failed to appear in court,

Though 78 percent of these youth were accused of

misdemeanors or minor property felonies, most were

admitted to detention - at an average cost of $144

per day. Despite these costs, the county did little to

encourage youth to appear— mailing a reminder letter,

in English only, and often to incorrect addresses.

Juvenile justice staff recommended a new plan to

begin phoning youth and their parents just prior to

hearing dates, a procedure that could cut the failure

to appear rate and free more beds.

Truants and Status Offenders. In 1995, the state

of Washington passed the "Becca Bill," named for

Rebecca Hedman, a 13-year-old runaway who was

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-21 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 7 of 19
Less Cost, More Safety 57

• Expedited case-process irig and reduced lengths of stay in detentibn. Sacramento and Muhnomah

Counties made dramatic strides in eliminating unnecessary and expensne delays in juventie cases and

redr cing the periods of confinement for:youth initially placed into detention In both of these jurlsthctions,

probation staff began to meet with prosecution and defense attorneys as soon as possible after arrest

to resolve cases and/or find alternatives to locked detention for youth who posed few dangers

• Detention alternatives for non-dangerous youth. In Cook County. the most impressive outcome of the

JDAI project was an array of new detention alternatives programs to supervise youth in the community

while they awaited court hearings. These alternatives - including evening reporting centers, home

confinement, community service work projects, and non-secure Shelters have succeeded with more

than 90 percent of the youth assigned. The alternatives have allowed the coLinty to reduce the no iber

of youth placed into secure detention and lower the average daily population in its detention facility

(designed for 498 youth) from more than 750 per night early in 1996 to fewer than 550 in the summer

and fall of 1999

In addition to these concrete accomplishments in the targeted cities, JOAI also produced valuable information

for juvenile lustice practitioners in other jurisdictions, The Casey Foundation hosted a national juvenile

detention conference in December 1996, and it has since published a series of thirteen athways to

Detention Reform reports examining aspects of detention refo m. plus an interim evaluation report IA final

evaluation report is pending.) Thu, for the First mae, juvenile Justice practitioners have a wealth ot information

at their dispo at to undeistand and address detention refo m - a critical hut little-understood battleg'ound in

the larger juvenile justice reform challenge

CONTACT:

BartLuhow Senior Associate

The Annie E. Casey Foundation

701 St. Paul Street

Baltimore MD 21202

(4 0) 547-6600

murdered while walking the streets. The law granted

wide discretion to the courts to intervene with and

confine young people who have not committed crimes

- including runaways, truants, and other status

offenders. The results in King County were

dramatic: within two years the number of nonoffenders admitted to detention increased by 1800

percent. from 34 in 1995 to 615 in 1997.

Consultants and staff found that many costeffective options were available to avert detention

and reduce court costs for non-offenders. These

included non-court truancy boards to resolve

problems before court petitions are filed, truancy

sweeps by police to round up truant youth and

intervene before truancy becomes ingrained, and

mediation to resolve problems between

unmanageable youth and their guardians without

court involvement.

Lengths of Stay. From 1993 to 1998 the average

period of confinement for youth in the King County

detention rose from 7.6 days to 10.6 days,

accounting for 62.5 percent of the overall growth

in average daily population at the detention center.

These increasingly lengthy periods ofdetention could

be reversed, staff found, by adopting clear sentencing

guidelines to expedite transfers out of detention

following adjudication hearings and by speeding up

required assessments for youth bound for state juveni Ic

conections facilities.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-21 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 8 of 19
58 American Youth Po'icy Forum

Research-driven Intervention Programs. In 1997,

the Washington State Legislature passed a new

"Community Juvenile Accountability Act" that set

aside $7.65 million for local juvenile courts to

implement research -proven intervention models that

reduce recidivism among high- and moderate-risk

youthful offenders. (See sidebar in Challenge #3.)

Using these funds, King County implemented

programs for Functional Family Therapy (serving 150-

200 youth in 2000), Multisystemic Therapy (serving

45 youth in 2000), and a less intensive ($400 per

participant) classroom-based social competency

training called Aggression Replacement Training

(serving 300 in 2000). Juvenile justice staff expect

these programs to substantially reduce recidivism

among participating youth - lowering both the crime

rate and the need for juvenile detention beds.

THE FRUITS OF REFORM

Tn April 2000, the juvenile justice staff compiled a

package of four options for King County Executive

Ron Sims and the King County Council. The first

option involved no change in policies, and the remaining

three ranged from moderate to aggressive

implementation of the reforms detailed above.

Whereas the status quo option would require 255

detention beds by 2005, necessitating construction of

a new detention center, the three reform plans would

result in space needs ranging from an estimated 175

beds for the least aggressive option to 137 beds for

the most aggressive plan. Weighing added costs for

detention alternatives and other new services against

the savings in reduced detention, these three options

would result in a net savings to King County of $3.9

to $5.4 million per year.62

Even before the final decision was made in August

2000, King County began to implement many of the

proposed refoms. Police officers now carry cards

detailing precise criteria for which youth can be taken

to detention center and which youth must be released

to parents or guardians. Volunteers now operate a

"warrant reduction" phone bank to remind youth and

parents of upcoming hearing dates and encourage them

to attend. Model intervention programs are up and

running, and the county has funding proposals pending

to significantly expand these programs in the coming

years. As a result, the King County detention

population has begun to decline, falling from more

than 200 in January 1999 to fewer than 140 in August

2000.

Though the Master Plan's long-term prospects for

success arc clouded somewhat by administrative

issues,63 many signs of progress are now evident in

King County's juvenile justice efforts. At a cost far

below what would have been required to build a new

detention facility, King County youth are participating

in new altematives to detention and home-based

intervention programs that have solid records for

reducing future offending rates.

When it comes to detention, perhaps even more than

other areas in juvenile justice, the opportunities are

many for less spending, more safety.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-21 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 9 of 19
Less Cost, More Safety 59

Operating Agenc Kina OufltV Juvenile Justice flper:itionul Muster

Plan t)versieht (vonniittee

t'rograni Tpe ( uotrSpcinsored Stud y furnrii asian

rogram (oals Rduee Ctvetiro drn in Juvenile [itetentiorn

Eliminate Need far (onstruction u New f)etenlion

Facitit; IJevelop Aternative PogramPulicica to

La\er L)clmuqueitcv and Iniprure Owecsmes fur

Youthful Of nders

Target Group Otlinquent atTenders und children in need of

supers sian

Ktr Strategies Prevent unnecesitrv placrinent into juvenile

detentmon reduce iSilures- -appear in court h

rielinquent south implement rIrarnutmves to secure

detention. replicate no-dI intervention pranmams to

reduce ceirjis ism anionu delinquent ufRnder,

I> riirir Fu ruling Kini^ (ourrts; State of \Voshrngtart US Office at

Source(s) .1 u ernIe Justice and Delmnquencs Prevention

Eideticc of Sitaij drop in iail detention papulittioru

Eftectivenss construction of new detention facilit y detErred

mndetinitels. and muodI delinquenc y intervention

procranrs being rcplieatd in King (ounta

Contact Information Michael Oedenne Project Uoortnator

,luvent1 luotice Operational Master Plait

I I lai Alder Street

Seattle, W\ 9S!

Phone 2u( Pft-o32, Pa: itib) 2ftt14b

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-21 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 10 of 19
60 American Youth Policy Forum

CONCLUSION

L

ess cost, more safety. Lower recidivism, more

youth success. These are the bottom line

results of the programs and initiatives highlighted

in this report.

Nor are these highlighted programs alone in

demonstrating that substantial progress is attainable

through juvenile justice reform. Other guiding light

programs and initiatives in other jurisdictions are

also proving that the eight ___________________

challenges identified in this

report can be effectively

met and overcome. In

addition, Less help, More

Hype identified several

more weaknesses that now

cripple juvenile justice

efforts nationwide and

several more challenges for

juvenile justice reform:

reducing excessive

transfers of youthful

offenders to adult courts;

engaging community organizations and volunteers

to help supervise juvenile offenders; improving legal

representation for youthful offenders; and carefully

monitoring the success ofjuvenile justice programs

and institutions. Guiding light programs are also

tackling these challenges, proving again that far

greater success is attainable.

In its cover story for the week of November 13,

2000, Newsweek reflected on the paradoxical trend

in America - the land of the free - toward

incarcerating an ever-increasing proportion of our

nation's poor and minority youth. "We believe in

making people pay for their crimes," wrote reporter

Ellis Cose, "in protecting the weak from the vicious.

We believe in justice. And we believe in simple

truths.

"Our strivings to protect society may have

weakened it," Cose continued, "for they fuel the

notion that we can afford to throw human beings

away. And they discourage us from asking whether

it is morally or economically

justifiable to invest so much

in locking lost souls down

and so little in salvaging

them.

"In fact," the Newsweek

story concluded, "a strategy

of hunian reclamation may

be the only thing that makes

sense in the long run, not

only for those fated to

spend time locked down,

but for the communities to

which they seem destined to return—communities

that now are doubly damned: to suffer when

wrongdoers are taken away and yet again when

they come back."'4

Particularly when it comes to juvenile offenders, a

strategy ofhuman reclamation is not a pie-in-thesky fantasy. Rather, as the programs highlighted

in this report demonstrate, reforming juvenile justice

represents a common sense, dollars-and-cents

opportunity a sound and sorely needed

investment in our safety and in our future.

Particularly when it comes to

juvenile offenders, a strategy of

human reclamation is not a pie-inthe-sky fantasy. Rather, as the

programs highlighted in this report

demonstrate, reforming juvenile

justice represents a common sense,

dollars-and-cents opportunity - a

sound and sorely needed investment

in our safety and in our future.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-21 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 11 of 19
Less Cost, More Safety61

ENDNOTES

Feld, Barry C., "Juvenile and Criminal Justice Systems' Responses to Youth Violence," in Tonry, M. &

Moore, M.H. (Eds.), Youth Violence: Crime and Justice, A Review of Research, Vol. 24 (Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press, 1998), pp.236-237.

2 DeComo, R., Tunis, S., Krisberg, B., & Herrera, N., Juveniles Taken Into Custody Research Program.'

FYI 992 Annual Report (Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1993),

cited in Jones, M.A., & Krisberg, B.. Images and Reality.' Juvenile Crime, Youth Violence, and Public

Policy (San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 1994), p.27.

Maryland Department of Juvenile Justice Recidivism Analyses.' A Program By Program Review of

Recidivis,n Measures at Major Facilities jhr Department of Juvenile Justice Youths (Baltimore, MD:

Maryland Department of Juvenile Justice, 1997), p.8.

Cited by Feld, B.C., Bad Kids: Race and the Trans/ormation of the Juvenile Court (New York: Oxford

University Press, 1999), p.280.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims.' 1999 National Report (Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile

Justice, 1999), p.206.

Some of these states, including Arkansas, operate a mix of training schools and smaller juvenile corrections

facilities. Kentucky, the final state bordering Missouri, relies exclusively on small-scale juvenile correctional

facilities. However, Kentucky's juvenile corrections system has a troubled histoiy. A consent decree

signed in 1995 cited the state's juvenile justice facilities for 140 violations ranging from harsh isolation

practices to routine abuse and neglect. Fortunately, the situation has improved since then. See Alexander,

Bill, "Once Lame Juvenile Justice System Jockeys to the Lead," Youth Today, vol. 10, no.1, Decembcr/

January 2001.

Gorsuch, K.R., Steward, M.D., Van Fleet, R.K., & Schwartz, TM., "Missouri Department of Youth

Services: An Experience in Delinquency Reform," in Missouri and Hawaii: Leaders in Youth Correction

Policy (Ann Arbor, Ml: Center for the Study of Youth Policy, 1992), pp.1 0-11.

6 State juvenile corrections budgets were compiled from various sources, including phone interviews, state

documents, and survey data provided by the Council on Juvenile Correctional Administrators.

Phone interview with the author, January 2001.

Interview with the author, December 2000.

Cited in Juvenile Justice: Views From Both Sides of the Aisle (San Francisco, CA: National Council on

Crime and Delinquency, 1996).

Joy, E.L., Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House

of Representatives, March 20, 1997.

'3 Data for this program (and for other programs cited below) provided by Lyn Willis, Tarrant County

Juvenile Services, January2001.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-21 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 12 of 19
62 American Youth Policy Forum

Cited in the "Editor's Introduction" to Blueprints for Violence Prevention Book Six: Multisvsteinic

Therapy (Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, 1998), p.xi.

5 Lipton, Douglas, R. Martinson, and J. Wilks, The Efj'ctiveness of Correctional Treatment: A Surve y of

Treatment Evaluation Studies (New York: Praegcr Press, 1975).

' Henggelcr, SW., Melton, G.B., & Smith, L.A., "Family Preservation Using Multisystemic Therapy: An

Effective Alternative to Incarcerating Serious Juvenile Offenders," .Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, vol. 60. 1992, pp. 953-961 , cited in Blueprints jOr Violence Prevention Book Six: Multisvstemic

Therapy (Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, 1998).

'7 Borduin, C.M., Mann, B.J., Cone, L.T., Henggeler, SW., Fucci, B.R., Blaske, D.M.. & Williams, R.A.,

"Multisystemic Treatment of Serious Juvenile Offenders: Long-Term Prevention of Criminality and

Violence," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Ps ychology. vol. 63, no. 4, 1995, pp. 569-578.

' Chamberlain, P., "Comparative evaluation of Specialized Foster Care for Seriously Delinquent Youths: A

First Step," Comparative Alternatives: International Journal of bairn/v Care, vol.2, 1990, p.21 -36, cited

in Blueprints fOr Violence Prevention Book Eight: Multidimen.sional Treatment Foster Care (Boulder,

CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, 1998).

'9 Chamberlain, P.. & Reid, J.B., Comparison of Two Community Alternatives to incarceration for Juvenile

Offrnders, manuscript submitted for publication, 1997, cited in BlueprintsJOr Violence Prevention Book

Eight, ibid.

20 Aos, S., P. Phipps, R. Barnoski, & R. Leib, The Comparative Costs and BenefIts of Programs to Reduce

Crime: A Review ofNational Research Findings With Implications fOr Washington State (Olympia, WA:

Washington State Institute for Public Policy, May 1999).

21 Phone interview with the author, December 2000.

22 Henggeler, Scott W., Treating Serious Anti-Social Behavior in Youth: The MSTApproach (Washington,

DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1997), p.6.

23 Promising Approaches fOr Graduated Sanctions, (San Francisco: National Council on Crime and

Delinquency, n.d.)

24 Wolfgang, M.E., Figlio, R.M.. & Sellin, 1., Delinquency in a Birth Cohort (Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago, 1972).

25 Tracy, P., Wolfgang, M.E., & Figlio, R.M., Delinquency in Two Birth Cohorts, Washington, DC: Office

ofJuvenilc Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1990), cited in Howell, J.C. (Ed.), Guide fOr implementing

the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offrnderc (Washington, DC:

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1995).

26 Guide/Or Implementing, ibid. p.2.

Ibid.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-21 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 13 of 19
Less Cost, More Safety 63

20 Schumacher, M., & Kurz, GA., The 8% Solution: Preventing Serious, Repeat Juvenile crime (Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2000), pp.4-5, 41-42.

29 Ibid,p.66.

° Data provided by Ms. Shirley Hunt. Orange County Probation Department, December 2000.

Repeat Otjnder Prevention Project: Status Report to the Legislature (lu/v 2000,) (Sacramento. CA:

California Board of Corrections, 2000).

32 Schumacher, M., & Kurz, G.A., The 8% Solution: Preventing Serious, Repeat Juvenile crime (Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2000), p.41.

Bilchik, S., Mental Health Disorders and Substance Abuse Pmhlems Among Juveniles (Washington, DC:

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, July 1998).

Cocozza, Joseph J.. and Skowyra, Kathleen R .,'Youth With Mental Health Disorders: Issues and Emerging

Responses," Juvenile Justice, vol.7, no. 1, April 2000, p.6.

Satcher, D.A., Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General (Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for

Mental Health Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Mental Health, 1999), p.1 85.

° Ibid.

Cited in Satcher, ibid.

° Am 't No Place Anybod y Would Want to Be: conditions ofCon/Inen7entjbr Youth, 1999 Annual Report

(Washington, DC: Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 1999), pp.1 2-13.

Parent, D.G., Leiter, V. Kennedy, S.. Livens, L., Wentworth, D., & Wilcox, S., conditioiis o/C'onjInement:

A St uc/y to Evaluate condmtio??s in Juvenile Detention and Corrections Facilities - Executive Summary

(Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1993).

40 Juvenile Detention and Training School civding: A Clearinghot.ve of court Cases (Richmond, KY:

National Juvenile Detention Association, 1998).

Puritz, P. & Scali, M., Beyond the Walls: Improving concution,c ojConllnementftr Youth in Custod)'

(Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice,

1998).

Phone interview with the author, December 2000.

Data reported in 2000 Outcome Evaluation Report (Tallahassee: Florida Department of Juvenile Justice,

Bureau of Data and Research, February 2000), Appendix 4, p.120.

' Cited in Lemer, Steve, The Good News A ho ut Juvenile Justice: The MovementAway from Large Institutions

and Toward Cominunitv-ba.s'ed Services (Bolinas, cA: Commonweal Research institute, /990), p. 120.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-21 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 14 of 19
64 American Youth Policy Forum

Cited in Fields. Gary, "Reform School Gets High Marks," DetroitNews, December 22, 1999.

° Judith Mellen, "State spending for troubled youth is wise investment," Letter to the Editor, The/ Wilmington,

DEJ News Journal, February 20, 2000.

The Fiscal Impact ofReducing Juvenile Crime (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department ofiuvenile Justice,

Bureau of Data and Research, September 2000), p.9.

Gemignani, RobertJ., Juvenile Corre ctional Education: A Time jr ('hange, OJJDP Update on Research

(Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, October 1994).

° Kirshstein, Rita, & Best, Clayton, Survey of State Correctional Education Systems: Analysis of Data

1mm /992 Field Test (Washington, DC: Pelavin Research Institute, 1996).

° Coffey, O.D., & Gemignani, R.G., Effective Practices in Juvenile Correctional Education: A Stud y of

Literature and Research 1980-1992 (Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, 1994), p.6, cited in Dedel, Kelly, Assessing the Education of Incarcerated Youth (San Francisco:

National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 1 997).

.Juvenile Correctional Education Programs, Issue Summary by National Center on Education, Disability,

and Juvenile Justice, downloaded from EDJJ website [http://www.edjj.org/education.htmlI, November

2000.

52 Gemignani, supranote4l.

These figures do not include another 48 beds reserved for a new 90-day "conservation corps" program

established by Governor George W. Bush for youth who have violated parole.

The Fresh Start Program Reportfor 1997-2000 (Baltimore, MD: Living Classrooms Foundation, December

2000).

Data provided via fax by Chuck Jeffords, Texas Youth Commission, December 20, 2000.

Rust, Bill, "Juvenile Jailhousc Rocked," AdvoC'asey (Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation, Fall!

Winter 1999).

Cited in "Juvenile Jailhouse Rocked," ibid.

° Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative: An Experiment in RejOrni, downloaded from the website of

the Annie E. Casey Foundation, www.aecf.org/initiatives/juvenile/exper.htm.

King C'ountv Juvenile Justice Operational Master Plan, Phase One: Final Draft Report (Seattle, WA:

Chinn Planning, Inc., in association with CGA Consulting Services, Inc., August 3, 1998).

'° King County Phase II Juvenile Justice Operational Master Plan (Seattle, WA: Christopher Murray and

Associates, March 2000).

(1 A fourth site, New York City, dropped out ofJDAI during the implementation phase.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-21 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 15 of 19
Less Cost, More Safety 65

62 King County Phase II Juvenile Justice Operational Master Plan (Seattle, WA: Christopher Murray and

Associates, March 2000), p.9.

Operational control of the local probation agency was taken away from the local administrative agency

and shifted back to the courts in January 2000. due to longstanding management problems in the agency.

Likewise, the juvenile detention center was placed under the county's adult probation agency, which

operates the local jail for adult offenders.

Cose, Ellis, "US: The Prison Paradox," iVewsweek, November 13, 2000.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-21 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 16 of 19
66 American Youth Policy Forum

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Richard Mendel is an independent writer and researcher on poverty-related issues in youth

development, neighborhood safety, employment and training, and community economic

development. In June 2000, he authored Less Hype, More Help: Reducing Juvenile Crime,

What Works -And What Doesn't, a comprehensive review of delinquency prevention and

juvenile justice co-published by the American Youth Policy Forum, Child Welfare League of

America, Coalition for Juvenile Justice, National Collaboration for Youth, National Crime

Prevention Council, National League of Cities, and National Urban League.

Mr. Mendel worked for four years at the South Bronx Overall Economic Development

Corporation, ending in 1998 as Assistant Vice President for Program Development and

Evaluation. From 1986 to 1991 he was staff associate at MDC, Inc., a non-profit employment

policy research firm in Chapel Hill, NC. In addition, Mr. Mendel has completed projects for

the Enterprise Foundation, National League of Cities, Lilly Endowment, Annie E. Casey

Foundation, Jobs for the Future, and Surdna Foundation, among others. He has written for

The Atlantic, Washington Post, Miami Herald, Baltimore Sun, Washington Monthly, and

others. Previously for the American Youth Policy Forum, Mr. Mendel wrote The American

School-to-Career Movement: A Background Paper for Policymakers and Foundation Officers

(1994), and Prevention or Pork: A Hard-Headed Look at Youth-Oriented Anti-Crime

Programs (1995). Mr. Mendel earned a bachelor's degree in public policy from Duke

University (1983) and a master's in journalism from the University of Maryland (1992).

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-21 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 17 of 19
USEFUL PUBLICATIONS FROM THE

AMERICAN YOUTH POLICY FORUM

(See our complete catalog at www.aypf.org )

LESS HYPE, MORE HELP: Reducing Juvenile Crime, What Works - And What Doesn't by

Richard A. Mendel. Demonstrates that trying youthful offenders in adult courts - "adult time for adult

crime" - is a counterproductive fad that actually exacerbates juvenile crime. A groundbreaking new

report describes alternative approaches that are far more effective in preventing teens from committing

crimes - and in protecting the communities in which they live.

90 pages $5.00 prepaid

PREVENTION OR PORK? A Hard-Headed Look at Youth-Oriented Anti-Crime Programs by

Richard A. Mendel. Surveys what is known about the effectiveness of youth crime prevention

programs. What works and what doesn't. Readable and helpful in competing for crime prevention

funding.

40 pages $5.00 prepaid

A GUIDE FOR THE POWERLESS - AND THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW THEIR OWN POWER; A

Primer on the American Political Process by Samuel Halperin. A guide to getting what you need

from any legislative body. How to work with politicians and develop the attitudes and skills that

assure success for your program.

60 pages $5.00 prepaid

HIGH SCHOOLS OF THE MILLENNIUM. High schools need to be redesigned to meet the needs

of today's youth. Offers a new vision of high school that uses all the resources of the community to

crate smaller learning environments, to engage youth in their striving for high academic achievement,

to support them with adult mentors and role models, and to provide opportunities to develop their

civic, social and career skills.

49 pages $4.00 prepaid

LOOKING FORWARD: School-to-Work Principles and Strategies for Sustainability. Organized

around Ten Essential Principles, this report assists policymakers, practitioners and the wider

community in thinking about ways to sustain successful school-to-work approaches: improving the

school experience for young people, expanding and improving work-based learning opportunities,

and building and sustaining public/private partnerships. Identifies national funding that could support

these state and local gains.

43 pages $4.00 prepaid

RAISING ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT FOR AMERICA'S YOUTH: A Study of 20 Successful

Programs. Evaluation summaries show evidence of success on multiple measures and suggest a

combination of strategies leading to program effectiveness.

92 pages $4.00 prepaid

Prepaid orders only please. Cost covers shipping and handling in contiguous U.S.

Send all orders to: American Youth Policy Forum, 1836 Jefferson Place, NW, Washington,

D.C. 20036-2505. (Federal ID 31-1576455). Call (202) 775-9731 for rates on quantity orders.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-21 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 18 of 19
ISBN 1-887031-71-5

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-21 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 19 of 19
J Abnorm Child Psychol (2006) 34:457-470

DOl 10.1007/s10802-006-9043-x

OR1GINALPAPR -- V

National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science

Conference Statement

Preventing Violence and Related Health-Risking, Social Behaviors

in Adolescents, October 13-15, 2004

Published online: 2 August 2006

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

NIH consensus and state-of-the-science statements are prepared by independent panels of health professionals and

public representatives on the basis of (1) the results of a

systematic literature review prepared under contract with the

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), (2)

presentations by investigators working in areas relevant to the

conference questions during a 2-day public session, (3) questions and statements from conference attendees during open

discussion periods that are part of the public session, and (4)

closed deliberations by the panel during the remainder of the

second day and morning of the third. This statement is an

independent report of the panel and is not a policy statement

of the NIH or the Federal Government.

The statement reflects the panel's assessment of medical

knowledge available at the time the statement was written.

Thus, it provides a "snapshot in time" of the state of knowledge on the conference topic. When reading the statement,

keep in mind that new knowledge is inevitably accumulating

through medical and behavioral research.

Background

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) convened a Stateof-the-Science Conference on Preventing Violence and Related Health-Risking Social Behaviors in Adolescents on

October 13-15, 2004. The National Institute of Mental

Health (NIMH) and the Office of Medical Applications of

Research (OMAR) of the NIH were the primary sponsors of

this meeting. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development,

the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institute

of Nursing Research, the National Library of Medicine, the

Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,

the U.S. Department of Education, and the U.S. Department

of Justice were the cosponsors.

AHRQ supported the NIH State-of-the-Science Conference on Preventing Violence and Related Health-Risking

Social Behaviors in Adolescents through its Evidence-based

Practice Center program. Under contract to the AHRQ, the

Southern California Evidence-based Practice Center (SCEPC) and its partner, Childrens Hospital Los Angeles, developed the systematic review and analysis that served as

one of the references for discussion at the conference. The

National Library of Medicine, in collaboration with the SCEPC and Childrens Hospital Los Angeles, conducted the

literature search for the systematic review.

This two-and-a-half-day conference at the NIH examined

and assessed the current state of knowledge regarding adolescent violence and related health-risking social behavior

and identified directions for future research.

Experts presented the latest research findings on risk and

protective factors involved in the development of adolescent violence and related behaviors and on interventions to

reduce those behaviors. After a day-and-a-half of presentations and public discussion, an independent panel weighed

the available evidence and drafted a statement addressing the

following key questions:

• What are the factors that contribute to violence and associated adverse health outcomes in childhood and adolescence?

• What are the patterns of co-occurrence of these factors?

• What evidence exists on the safety and effectiveness of

interventions for violence?

• Where evidence of safety and effectiveness exists, are

there other outcomes beyond reducing violence? If so,

IT Springer

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-22 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 14
458 J Abnorm Child Psychol (2006) 34:457-470

what is known about effectiveness by age, sex, and

race/ethnicity?

• What are the commonalities among interventions that are

effective and those that are ineffective?

• What are the priorities for future research?

On the final day of the conference, the panel chairperson

read the draft statement to the conference audience and invited comments and questions. A press conference followed

to allow the panel to respond to questions from the media.

Introduction

Violence affects all of us at some level and represents an issue

of vital national and international importance. As upsetting as

violence in general may be, the notion of our children engaging in significant violence is particularly distressing. While

rates of adolescent violence have decreased from their peak

levels of a decade ago, violent crime rates and consequences

remain high and are substantially higher in the United States

than in most industrial countries. Thus, adolescent violence

is a public health issue of the highest level of concern with

tremendous human and economic costs.

The field of adolescent violence prevention is complicated by the fact that it involves multiple scientific disciplines

(e.g., medicine, nursing, psychology, sociology, architecture

and civil engineering, economics, social work, criminology)

and a multitude of professional juiisdictions (e.g., education,

public health agencies, law enforcement, legislatures, the judiciary system). Each of these constituencies has different

conceptualizations of the problem, including different terminologies, different intellectual as well as financial stakes

in its origins and putative solutions, and differing views on

approaches to its resolution. And yet, to effectively address

adolescent violence, common perspectives, research agendas, and implementation plans must be developed.

A maturing and promising field

The field of adolescent violence prevention has many

strengths. The involvement of many highly-productive, creative investigators has allowed the field to advance considerably over the past two decades. Research has suggested the

existence of distinct trajectories potentially leading toward

violence with different intervention implications. Numerous

developmental antecedents of violence and related behaviors

and of risk constructs have been identified.

We can, today, identify a variety of interventions addressing children and youth across developmental and risk involvement spectra that have evidence of effectiveness even

when stringent criteria are established for this designation.

In addition, current trends offer the capacity for future

gains in this field, including the establishment of specific,

articulated criteria for the categorization of intervention effectiveness and a system for evaluating and disseminating

information on cost effectiveness. Although this potential

has not yet been fully realized, the plethora of fields and disciplines involved in adolescent violence prevention allows

for extensive methodological and design cross-fertilization.

Opportunities for further advances in the field

Great advances have already been made within the violence

prevention research field; more substantive advances will

be possible when this field further integrates advances in

methodology, theory, and conceptualization from other related fields. Theory can be further used, as it has in other

fields, to develop specific intervention components and corresponding evaluations of putative determinants of intervention effect. Such efforts enable a progressive research development process in which one generation of studies informs

the next iteration of intervention efforts across disciplinary

lines. Likewise, as has been recognized in other disciplines,

community-based effectiveness trials may require different

experimental paradigms.

To date, there has been relatively minimal incorporation

of new developments in researchers' understanding of the

human genome and human brain development into the field

of violence prevention. Much has been Learned over the past

decade about understanding behavior and behavioral change

in differing ethnic and cultural groups, but this growing

knowledge base does not appear to be reflected in many

violence prevention efforts. In addition, substantial evidence

from other fields and a growing body of evidence within

the field of violence prevention speak to the need to examine possible adverse effects as well as beneficial effects of

suggested interventions. Moreover, the violence prevention

field, while admirably struggling with questions of bringing

research to wider scale implementation, does not appear to

have benefited fully from the experience of other research

fields in this regard. Intervention efforts in other fields have

been able to take advantage of potentially strategic moments

such as those that might occur for violence prevention in the

emergency room or at the police department with victims

and/or perpetrators of violence. Efforts to draw upon the research findings from these disparate fields will be hampered

until a common research language has been developed and

agreed upon—and data is widely shared.

Even within the field of violence prevention, the extent

to which interventions have been based on significant epidemiologic and behavioral findings within the field remains

opaque. For example, it is not clear whether the existing

interventions have adequately recognized the likelihood of

differing risk trajectories and how intervention effects may

Springer

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-22 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 14
J Abnorm Child Psychol (2006) 34:457-470 459

differ depending on whether youth violence reflects earlyonset violent behaviors that are likely to endure or lateronset, adolescent-limited violent behaviors that cease with

the transition to adulthood, or if they endure, are likely to

have shorter trajectories.

Organization of the remainder of this paper

The panel has responded to the six questions posed by the

conveners of this conference. The panel's responses are intended to highlight the complexities of the field and to indicate the panel's perceptions of the directions in which future

gains can be made. The panel understands and wishes to state

that responding to the directions implied in its comments

will require the development of interdisciplinary investigative methods and innovative transdisciplinary interventions.

Moreover, such responses will require realignment of funding sources for both research and the implementation of

effective programs.

1. What are the factors that contribute to violence and

associated adverse health outcomes in childhood and adolescence?

The term adolescent violence is used to encompass a broad

spectrum of behaviors ranging from bullying at school to

murder. While the greatest concern is about violent behaviors

like aggravated assault, armed robbery, rape, and homicide,

many studies focus on more serious violence precursors, such

as delinquency, physical aggression, or antisocial behavior.

Identifying risk factors for adolescent violence allows us

to better understand which adolescents are likely to become

violent—and to learn how to reduce violence. In this context, a risk factor is any characteristic or behavior that is

associated with an increased chance that a young person will

become violent. Factors that reduce the chance of violence

are called protective factors. Risk factors can be useful in

identifying people who are at high risk of violence. It should

be emphasized, however, that having a risk factor does not

mean a person will be violent; it just means that he or she is

more likely to be violent than a similar person without the

factor.

Some risk factors are causal. That is, the presence of

the factor leads directly to violent behavior. Knowing about

causal risk factors helps point to how to intervene. A causal

relationship is suggested if the risk factor precedes the outcome, if the association is strong and consistent, and if there

is a plausible underlying theory that predicts the relationship.

To the extent that causal factors are modifiable, removing the

risk factor will reduce the chance of violence.

Finally, risk factors can serve another function. When

a risk factor reliably predicts the outcome of interest, the

factor can be thought of as a proxy for the outcome. That is,

interventions that can be shown to reduce the prevalence of

the risk factor are likely to reduce the chance of the outcome

itself. Such proxy outcomes are useful when the outcome

of interest is rare, removed in time, or difficult to measure.

Identifying good proxy measures for adolescent violence

would help researchers conduct studies of reasonable size

and duration by focusing on more common outcomes that

are violence precursors, such as physical aggression.

Reflecting the importance of the issue, there is a growing

body of literature regarding possible risk factors for adolescent violence. Because the studies come from multiple

disciplines and employ a variety of study designs, it is dif -

ficult to summarize them succinctly. Moreover, the field is

limited by a lack of consistent language in defining violence

and in how putative risk factors are defined and measured.

Further complications arise from the fact that the strength of

a risk factor may change as an individual ages and may be

modified by personal experience or changing social contexts.

Nonetheless, drawing on longitudinal studies in the

United States and elsewhere, researchers have been able to

draw a number of consistent inferences.

A number of analyses have attempted to identify factors that are shown to be associated with adolescent violence and related proximate outcomes like delinquency

across research studies and populations using meta-analytic

approaches. These analyses rely on data from longitudinal

studies of children as they transition into adolescence and

adulthood. The types of risk factors that have been examined

commonly include characteristics of individual children and

youth, their families, their schools, and their communities,

reflecting both individual and ecological perspectives. Some

specific factors have consistently emerged as antecedent situations or characteristics that are associated with increased

or decreased probabilities of violence. For example, being

male has consistently been identified as a risk factor for violence because male youth are much more likely to engage in

violent behavior than female youth. Analyses of other factors, such as race/ethnicity or parental socioeconomic status,

have produced ambiguous results.

There is evidence suggesting that adolescent violence develops along distinct trajectories, each with different natural

histories and sets of risk and protective factors. For example,

there is evidence for an early-onset form of violence that

commonly persists well into adulthood as well as a lateronset and limited-duration form of adolescent violence that

ceases with the transition to adulthood, or if it persists, has

a shorter trajectory. Regardless of the trajectory, risk and

protective factors differ by developmental stage. Examples

of individual-level risk factors that are important in early

childhood are incidents of the child fighting, crimes or status offenses, victimization, or childhood substance use. At

the family level, risk factors include inconsistent or harsh

parenting and family conflict. In contrast, poor peer relations, involvement in gangs, lack of connection to school,

Springer

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-22 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 3 of 14
460 J Abnorm Child Psycho! (2006) 34:457-470

and living in a violent neighborhood emerge as important

risk factors in adolescence rather than in early childhood.

Further research and analysis needs to focus on identifying the causal pathways between risk and protective factors

and adolescent violence using longitudinal studies of representative samples of children and youth. Oversampling of

areas with high prevalence of adolescent violence will be

necessary to ensure adequate numbers of violent behaviors.

Collecting contextual information about the survey respondents' school and neighborhood environments will greatly

improve the utility of surveys. Promising areas for further

research include identifying factors associated with the observed decline in the late-onset form of adolescent violence

and examining the possible association of violence in media

and video games with behaviors.

2. What are the patterns of co-occurrence of these factors?

In the violence literature, the term co-occurrence often

refers to the observation that adolescents who commit violent

acts also tend to engage in other dangerous behaviors (e.g.,

substance abuse, physical aggression, delinquency). These

co-occurring behaviors should be considered comorbidities.

In this section, we describe the state of the science on how

various risk factors cluster.

In general, the identification of co-occurring predictive

risk factors and the explication of relationships between them

is complex. The concurrent presence of two or more risk factors as predictors of a particular outcome can be due to the

factors' independent prediction of the outcome or to the moderation of the effect of one risk factor by levels of another

(synergism or interaction). For example, an aggressive child

may only become violent when parenting skills fall short in

certain ways. Competent parenting skills, such as monitoring, consistent discipline, and supportiveness, may reduce

the likelihood of the child engaging in more violent, antisocial behaviors. Further, one risk factor may be mediated by

the presence of another factor in the causal pathway toward

serious violence. For example, when low socioeconomic status or low family income is studied alone, it appears to be

an important risk factor. However, when other factors are

taken into account in statistical models, the effect of socioeconomic status diminishes or disappears—suggesting that

other factors explain the effect of socioeconomic status on

violence.

In violence, there is even more complexity. Co-occurring

factors can operate at multiple levels (e.g., individual, contextual) and may differ by subgroups of the population (e.g.,

gender, ethnicity, urban/rural, cultural groups, developmental stage) and by the type and severity of the violent outcome

studied. In addition, the ability to identify risk factors will

vary by the quality of the measurement and research design.

For example, individual child characteristics predictive of

serious violence must be understood in the context of family, peer group, school, and community contextual risk factors, which vary over developmental stages and in different

settings. Analytic advances in statistical methodology (e.g.,

structural equation models with latent class variables, hierarchical linear models) aid the understanding of the complex

dynamics of time-varying risk factor constructs during the

life course of youth in studies of developmental trajectories.

The research evidence, however, is not adequate to untangle

the dynamics of the co-occurrence of risk factors or their

developmental trajectories. To understand these dynamics,

there must be more long-term cohort studies that measure a

rich set of risk factors (including individuals, families, peers,

and neighborhoods) in diverse populations and that are analyzed using state-of-the-art statistical methods.

3. What evidence exists on the safety and effectiveness of

interventions for violence?

The good news is that there are a number of intervention programs that have been shown in high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to reduce either arrests or

violence precursors. The Blueprints for Violence Prevention prepared by the University of Colorado Center for the

Study and Prevention of Violence used the following criteria

to certify the effectiveness of programs designed to reduce

substance abuse, delinquency, or violence: (1) experimental

design (RCT); (2) statistically significant positive effect; (3)

effect sustained for at least 1 year postintervention; (4) at

least one external RCT replicating the results; (5) RCTs adequately address threats to internal validity; and (6) no known

health compromising side effects.

Two programs reducing arrests for violent crimes or violence precursors met all the criteria: Functional Family Therapy and Multisystemic Therapy. Functional Family Therapy

is a short-term family-based prevention and intervention program to treat high-risk youth and their families. Participating

youth and families attend 12 1-hour sessions (and up to 30

sessions for difficult cases) over 3 months. Program evaluations demonstrate reductions in rearrest rates, violent crime

arrests, and out-of-home placements that were sustained over

4 years. Multisystemic Therapy provides community-based

clinical treatment for violent and chronic juvenile offenders who are at risk for out-of-home placement. The average

duration of treatment is about 4 months, which includes approximately 60 hours of therapist—family contact. Therapists

with low case loads (4-6 families), available 24 hours a day,

7 days a week, provide the treatment. Program evaluations

have demonstrated reductions in long-term rates of rearrest,

violent crime arrest, and out-of-home placements. Positive

results were maintained for nearly 4 years after treatment

ended.

Six programs addressing arrest or violence precursors

were classified as "effective with reservation;" that is, they

only had internal rather than external RCT replications.

Springer

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-22 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 4 of 14
J Abnorm Child Psychol (2006) 34:457-470 461

Those programs include: Big Brothers Big Sisters (e.g., reduction in hitting); Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care

(e.g., reduction in incarceration); Nurse Family Partnership

(e.g., reduction in arrests, crime); Project Towards No Drug

Abuse (e.g., reduction in weapon carrying); Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (e.g., reduction in peer aggression); and Brief Strategic Family Therapy (e.g., reduction in

conduct disorder, socialized aggression).

Safety, however, is much more difficult to assess because

the intervention literature does not report systematically on

safety (side effect) issues. Among the most important safety

issues to be considered is the hazard of "contagion." When

young people with delinquent proclivities are brought together, the more sophisticated can instruct the more naïve

in precisely the behaviors that the intervener wishes to prevent. This provides a substantial objection to programs that

aggregate violent youth rather than providing an individualized home and school-based treatment program. Even when

treatments are individualized, contagion is possible. For example, clinical interventions may facilitate interactions between clients on the way to and from program activities

as well as on program premises (e.g., "hanging out" at the

clinic, using common public transportation, creating friendship networks as the result of having met in the treatment

program).

The evidence indicates that "scare tactics" don't work and

there is some evidence that they may make the problem worse

rather than simply not working. One of the hazards of the

juvenile court system is the impact of having a record on the

child's subsequent life course. Such evidence as there is indicates that group detention centers, boot camps, and other "get

tough" programs can provide an opportunity for delinquent

youth to amplify negative effects on each other. The Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention has reviewed evidence

that indicates that laws increasing the ease of transferring

juveniles to the adult judicial system are counterproductive

and lead to greater violence in the juveniles moving through

the adult systems without deterring juveniles in the general

population from violent crime.

In other fields, it has been shown that identifying children

as being at risk has its own hazards. Labeling a child as deficient in some respect may lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Researchers must be certain that similar problems do not

happen here.

Ineffective programs may not harm the participants directly (although some do) but they may have an important

toxic effect nonetheless; namely the "opportunity cost" of

funds misspent on an unsuitable program that might have

been spent on an effective one.

The juvenile violence literature does not pay enough attention to secular effects and ecological change and their consequences for life trajectories. What, for example, is the impact

of an intervening economic recession, the dismantling of a

housing project, or the gentrification of the neighborhood?

There is little in the juvenile violence literature that rigorously addresses such questions. Because secular change is so

significant in modern life, this becomes a significant problem

for longitudinal studies. That is, the life circumstances when

youngsters enter a study may have changed so greatly by the

time they enter the age of risk that the findings based on one

cohort no longer apply to the new generation of youngsters.

This is an argument for employing accelerated longitudinal

designs in epidemiologic studies; that is, entering cohorts of

different age (e.g., 1 year, 5 years, 9 years) at the beginning

of the study so that after a followthrough of 4 years, one can

have a sample extending from 1 to 21 (instead of waiting 21

years).

The difficulty of doing sophisticated meta-analytic studies of intervention outcomes is compounded by the fact that

different investigators often do not collect similar data or

report them in a standard fashion. Indeed, no meta-analysis

of individual-level data has ever been done in the field of

violence. We strongly recommend that the Federal agencies

concerned with violence (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Department of

Justice, and U.S. Department of Education) jointly convene

a meeting of leading investigators with the aim of achieving consensus on a core of common data elements to make

such comparisons possible. Investigators would obviously

be free to collect additional data but all studies would collect at least these elements. Further, all data sets ought to be

deposited at a common site, established, for example, by the

National Library of Medicine, so that the data can be reexamined through pooling of data by all investigators (with proper

controls for protecting privacy and guaranteeing the rights of

the individual investigator). In addition, a national adolescent

violence registry modeled on the National Cancer Institute's

Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program should be considered. (SEER is a population-based

registry of cancer incidence, treatment, and outcomes.)

To promote the translation of research studies in the service settings, there is a need for additional economic research on the cost effectiveness of different programs. One

such project has been undertaken by the Washington State

Institute for Public Policy. This economic analysis attempts

to make available data on the cost savings produced by an

intervention compared to the cost of the intervention itself.

This makes it possible to discard both ineffective services and

costly services that bring only a small benefit and, in principle, to redirect the available funds toward cost-effective

interventions. An additional problem is that effective programs are often not widely implemented. There needs to be

more emphasis on the implementation and dissemination of

these programs.

In both theory-based research and bringing programs to

scale, it is necessary to address the competing needs for

Springer

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-22 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 5 of 14
462 J Abnorm Child Psychol (2006) 34:457-470

fidelity in program implementation and the need for local

"ownership" of a program, which generally includes modification of the intervention. Successful programs require repeated review and careful supervision to maintain the fidelity

of the intervention and the enthusiasm of the interveners.

Continuing education, supervision, and technical assistance

for staff, as well as periodic surveys of outcomes to be fed

back to staff, are important to maintain program morale.

Because of the nature of the problem studied, diversity

among researchers and implementers is of particular importance. Federal agencies, universities, and funders must

develop programs to increase diversity among investigators

and service-delivering personnel. This is not an equal opportunities employment maneuver to create jobs, but is essential

to the intellectual integrity of the field itself. A more diverse

group of researchers (especially a group more reflective of

the populations that need service) will more likely take into

account cultural factors that characterize those diverse populations and may gain easier entry into those communities.

That is, a more diverse set of investigators will lead to higher

quality research.

The evidence presented makes clear the role of neighborhood and community (in addition to individual and family)

factors in protecting against or generating antisocial behavior. What is missing is a substantial body of research directed

at changing neighborhoods to enhance their role in protecting young people. We have in mind the notion of "collective

efficacy" as a constructive factor in economically-deprived

neighborhoods that reduces delinquent acts in contrast to

similarly deprived neighborhoods without a similar sense

of efficacy. For example, when adults intervene to separate

children in a fight, stop someone painting graffiti, or ask a

child why he or she is out of school during school hours,

this identifies an effective neighborhood that also demands

trash collection, police services, and street repair—and has

less youth crime. The evidence that moving children out of

high-risk neighborhoods is associated with a reduction in

delinquent behavior is striking. How often does this work?

How feasible is it as a public policy measure? Are there negative side effects for the child or family? What is the response

of the receiving neighborhood? These questions merit closer

examination.

There is a long history of research attempting to identify

the effects of violence in the media. Because television is but

one variable in a complex set of life circumstances, it has

been difficult to demonstrate long-term as opposed to shortterm effects. There is even more reason for concern now

that violent video games and music videos that exalt macho

lifestyles have been added to the steady diet of violence on

television. The relationship between media and violence is a

critical area for investigation.

The barriers to implementing clearly-effective programs

inevitably include the resistance by the individuals operating

ineffective programs to having their institutions closed and

their jobs abolished. Often, resistance is fostered by the honest belief of those involved that what they are doing works.

Hence, program ineffectiveness, like effectiveness, should be

established by the highest quality research. Further, despite

the evidence for intensive multisystem therapy, communities

may be apprehensive at having delinquent youngsters treated

in their midst as opposed to segregating them in detention

centers that have the appearance of being safer by keeping

the children invisible.

A conference audience member who works in a trauma

center suggested that such settings provide opportunities

for intervention in an escalating war of violence. Typically,

trauma centers deal with the emergency itself and have no

staff or space for providing ongoing care once the immediate

crisis has been resolved. Federal agencies might encourage

research on patients identified at trauma centers and systems for providing services to the youth, the family, and the

perpetrators on a rapid response time basis.

4. Where evidence of safety and effectiveness exists, are

there other outcomes beyond reducing violence? If so, what

is known about effectiveness by age, sex, and race/ethnicity?

Successful prevention programs influence other types of

outcomes besides the reduction of violence. Interventions

that aim to reduce violence invariably have other outcomes

on the way to that terminal objective (e.g., reducing physical aggression). Interventions that seek to decrease problematic behavior and violence typically set out to do so

by reinforcing elements thought to strengthen subsequent

positive behaviors. These include parenting effectiveness

(e.g., communication style, behavior management, goal setting, problem solving, monitoring), individual coping on

the part of the child/adolescent (e.g., impulse control, anger

management, decreased risk taking, communication skills),

academic achievement (e.g., school readiness, organization

skills, good learning habits, reading), peer relations (e.g.,

conversational and other social skills), and the social climate

of schools (e.g., classroom and playground management,

parent–teacher collaboration). As a whole, prevention programs have had the most impact when addressing conduct

problems and reducing risk behaviors (e.g., alcohol/drug use,

smoking, delayed sexual initiation). More research on prevention programs by race/ethnicity and gender is indicated.

Age has demonstrated importance in shaping prevention strategies. Effective programs conceptualize interventions and the outcome measures in terms of specific and

appropriate developmental stages. Indeed, some studies deliberately focus on developmentally-important transitions,

such as entry into first grade or the moves to middle school

and high school. Age and developmental stage are important in predicting serious delinquency or violence. Predictors of eventual delinquency in younger children may not

Springer

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-22 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 6 of 14
J Abnorm Child Psychol (2006) 34:457-470 463

be the same as predictors of delinquency in older children.

Developmentally-appropriate family management will vary

from primary school through middle and high school. Direct

supervision is possible in the younger grades, but monitoring

when the adolescent has a driver's license will often take the

form of teen check-ins. Age has regularly been equated with

developmental stage, but that association cannot be assumed

to hold within normal parameters if the child/adolescent is

substantially developmentally challenged.

A number of effective interventions have been sensitive

to how circumstances vary by race/ethnicity (e.g., Nurse

Family Partnership and Multisystemic Therapy). More attention needs to be paid to adapting intervention protocols

for diverse communities. Given the demographic changes in

many neighborhoods across the Nation, there is a compelling

need to implement and conduct intervention research in dif -

ferent racial and ethnic communities. Over the past three

decades, the United States has witnessed a radical change

in its racial and ethnic profile—much of it due to immigration of people from Latin and Asian countries. Since racial

and ethnic groups may differ in the cultural meanings they

ascribe to various facets of life, there is a compelling need

for prevention science to incorporate mechanisms that make

program elements responsive to and appropriate for diverse

communities. For example, while parenting style may be

an important construct that helps prevent violence across

groups, parents and children from some families may derive different meanings from specific behaviors (e.g., eye

contact). Without attending to these cultural differences, inappropriate assessments will be made about the behavior.

Moreover, more intervention research in diverse communities may need to focus on different targets of intervention. Gangs, for example, are responsible for a significant

proportion of violent behavior. Since racial and ethnic minorities comprise a large segment of the gang population, it

seems likely that more programmatic research is needed to

identify ways to intervene with gangs to prevent violence.

We are in urgent need of population-based studies that deal

with culture and race/ethnicity in the detail they demand.

That is, children are not "Hispanic American" but Puerto

Rican, Cuban, Dominican, Mexican American, etc. The label Asian American is a generic term that conceals as much

as it reveals about Japanese Americans, Chinese Americans,

Korean Americans, and Vietnamese Americans. In a similar

way, within each of these groups, the children of concern are

not "immigrants" as a generic category, but first-, second-,

or third-generation immigrants.

Gender is a strong predictor for violence in that males

are more likely to commit serious violence as they age. This

variable is, however, one that underscores the need to continue to ask questions about whether findings in one decade

hold in other times as societal norms change. There is evidence that the ratio of male to female violence has changed

in the past few decades, with the gap in gendered violence

rates closing by half. The rarely-studied social construction

of gender roles is likely to be important in understanding the

dynamics of youth violence, particularly in fleshing out why

being male is a risk factor and why females are increasingly

becoming juvenile offenders.

5. What are the commonalities among interventions that

are effective and those that are ineffective?

At one time there was a suspicion that when it came to

developing programs to prevent violence, nothing worked.

Today it is known that efficient programs exist. The task is to

identify those efficacious programs, to separate them from

programs that do not work or even harm, and to discover

the mechanisms that underlie treatments that are successful in preventing violence. That is, the task is to identify

common features and components of effective versus ineffective programs. In the panel's opinion, the violence research field has not yet organized specific research efforts

(i.e., across program component analyses) sufficient to do

this.

A good start, however, has been made. The materials prepared for the panel in advance, and presentations made to

the panel, reveal that successful interventions tend to share

a constellation of characteristics. In particular, the information available allows us to identify the following common

characteristics of successful programs:

• They are derived from sound theoretical rationales

• They address strong risk factors

• They involve long-term treatments, often lasting a year and

sometimes much longer

• They work intensively with those targeted for treatment

and often use a clinical approach

• They follow a cognitive/behavioral strategy

• They are multimodal and multicontextual

• They focus on improving social competency and other

skill development strategies for targeted youth and/or their

families

• They are developmentally appropriate

• They are not delivered in coercive institutional settings

• They have the capacity for delivery with fidelity

There are other interventions (for which this list is not

as appropriate) that also appear to reduce subsequent problem behavior. The most prominent, perhaps, is dramatically

changing neighborhood environments, as in the Moving to

Opportunity intervention. In addition, any program that increases educational attainment and decreases school dropout

rates is likely to have the tangential benefit of reducing violence among those who are helped.

It should be noted that, currently, few of the interventions that appear effective in reducing violence (Head

Springer

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-22 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 7 of 14
464 J Abnorm Child Psycho! (2006) 34:457-470

Start-type programs being the notable exception) have been

brought to scale (i.e., moved from demonstration programs

to widespread implementation). Ultimately, a capacity to

scale will be necessary for any program to have a substantial

long-term impact on reducing adolescent violence. This, too,

will require research and experimentation, although there is a

body of knowledge on bringing health and other initiatives to

scale that researchers in violence prevention can and should

draw on.

Turning to programs that do not work, there are many

flaws in both theory and execution that can cause an intervention to fail. The panel has been presented with evidence

that identifies some characteristics of programs that have

been shown to be unsuccessful as well as factors that make

prospects for success poor. Some are the obverse of factors

that lead to success, such as the failure to address strong risk

factors, limited duration, and developmentally inappropriate

interventions. Others include:

• Programs that aggregate high-risk youth in ways that facilitate contagion (i.e., most likely to have harmful, iatrogenic

effects)

• Implementation protocols that are not clearly articulated

• Staff who are not well-supervised or held accountable for

outcomes

• Programs limited to scare tactics (e.g., Scared Straight)

• Programs limited to toughness strategies (e.g., classic boot

camps)

• Programs that consist largely of adults lecturing at youth

(e.g., classic D.A.R.E.)

In addition to these findings that appear to be supported

by good evidence, there are aspects of interventions that have

been studied very little but that may be important contributors to the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of programs. One

dimension that merits more attention is the cultural appropriateness of programs and the cultural competency of the

interveners. Another is greater involvement of relevant communities in establishing goals for, and contributing to, the

design of interventions. There is also traditional punishment

in juvenile facilities. We did not review this area in depth,

but there appears to be little evidence of strong deterrence,

and there is some evidence that youth with records of incarceration, or indeed juvenile court involvement, are later

handicapped in finding employment with possible criminogenic consequences. At the same time, there may be crimereducing benefits from incapacitation through incarceration,

but as with deterrence, this is not an area we have delved into

deeply.

In searching for commonalities among programs that

work and flaws in those that do not, one must bear in mind

that the effectiveness of treatments can be highly context dependent. Thus, a set of common characteristics that predict

intervention effectiveness in one context (e.g., among adolescents or with respect to primary interventions) may not

predict effectiveness in another context (e.g., among firstgraders or with respect to tertiary interventions). It may, of

course, also be the case that context itself is a factor that

predicts intervention effectiveness. This has several important implications. First, there is unlikely to be a universal set

of necessary or sufficient factors for successful treatment.

Rather, what is necessary or sufficient will vary by the context in which treatments are administered, the group targeted,

and the aims of the treatment. Second, research must proceed

in different contexts to be sure that what works in one setting

will work in others. Third, time itself is a context, and as

time brings changes (e.g., proliferation of HIV, destruction

of high-rise public housing developments, introduction of

violent video games, spread of cell phones), programs that

have worked may need to be adjusted. Thus, monitoring of

program effectiveness must be ongoing. Finally, interventions cost money. Even if a program works, it may not be the

most cost-effective way to achieve results. In particular, some

aspects of a program may be important to its success while

others are not. Even successful programs can be improved

or made more cost-effective as we come to better understand

what ingredients are essential to their success and what are

peripheral.

6. What are the priorities for future research?

• A research agenda needs to be developed that shows

whether reductions in proxy measures (e.g., physical aggression, delinquency) reliably translate into reductions in

actual violence.

• Federal agencies concerned with violence (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of

Labor, U.S. Department of Justice, and U.S. Department of

Education) should jointly convene a meeting of leading investigators with the aim of achieving consensus regarding

a taxonomy for violent behavior and a minimal common

data set to make possible the collection and reporting of

standardized data.

• The Federal Government should establish a populationbased registry of adolescent violence modeled on the National Cancer Institute's SEER program.

• In order to broaden and widen the horizons of research,

Federal agencies, private foundations, and universities

should increase the diversity of students in research training programs.

• Given the role of the neighborhood and community in protecting against or generating antisocial behavior, there is

an urgent need for research directed at changing neighborhoods to enhance their role in protecting young people.

• More long-term cohort studies that measure a rich set

of risk factors (from the individual to the contextual

level) in diverse populations and that are analyzed using state-of-the-art qualitative and statistical methods are

Springer

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-22 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 8 of 14
J Abnorm Child Psychol (2006) 34:457-470 465

needed to untangle the dynamics of the co-occurrences

of risk factors. Potential biologic markers also should be

explored.

• Systematic procedures for adapting established intervention protocols need to be developed for diverse communities with special attention to race, ethnicity, culture, and

immigrant status (e.g., language issues).

• Across-program component analysis should be carried out

to develop a more rigorous understanding of the mechanisms that underlie successful and unsuccessful interventions.

• More research on the gendered aspect of violence is

needed. In particular, we need research targeting women,

given the growing percentage of women involved in violence.

• Programs should be evaluated in different contexts to

be sure that apparently-important aspects of successful

demonstration programs have external validity.

• More dissemination research is needed so that programs

that work can be implemented more effectively in community settings. Successful programs need to be monitored in

an ongoing fashion to ensure their effects are maintained

as circumstances change over time.

Conclusions

In conclusion, we highlight the following findings and recommendations:

• Violence affects all of us at some level and represents an

issue of vital national and international importance.

• Some interventions have been shown by rigorous research

to reduce violence precursors, violence, and arrest. However, many interventions aimed at reducing violence have

not been sufficiently evaluated or proven effective, and a

few widely implemented programs have been shown to be

ineffective and perhaps harmful.

• Programs that seek to prevent violence through fear and

tough treatment appear ineffective. Intensive programs that

aim at developing skills and competencies can work.

• Interventions to reduce violence may be context dependent. Research must proceed in varying contexts and take

account of local culture.

• Attention to diversity among investigators involved in violence prevention research is important. Universities and

funding agencies should make improving the situation a

priority.

• We encourage funding sufficient to promote the dissemination of violence prevention programs that have been

shown to be effective through rigorous RCT research.

Funding must include support for research, and monitoring must continue as these programs are more widely

implemented.

State-of-the-Science Panel

Robert L. Johnson, M.D.

Panel and Conference Chairperson

Professor and Chair

Department of Pediatrics

Professor of Psychiatry

Director of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine

University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey

New Jersey Medical School

Newark, New Jersey

Shrikant I. Bangdiwala, Ph.D.

Professor

Collaborative Studies Coordinating Center

Department of Biostatistics and Injury Prevention Research

Center

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Michael F. Cataldo, Ph.D.

Professor of Behavioral Biology

Departments of Pediatrics and Psychiatry

The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

Director

Department of Behavioral Psychology

Kennedy Krieger Institute

Baltimore, Maryland

J. Virgil Costley, Jr., J.D.

Juvenile Court Judge (Retired)

Professor of Paralegal Studies and Criminal Justice

Dekalb Technical College

Covington Campus

Covington, Georgia

Angela Diaz, M.D., M.P.H.

Professor of Pediatrics and Community Medicine

Mount Sinai School of Medicine

Director

Mount Sinai Adolescent Health Center

Mount Sinai Medical Center

New York, New York

Leon Eisenberg, M.D.

Presley Professor of Social Medicine

Professor of Psychiatry, Emeritus

Department of Social Medicine

Harvard Medical School

Boston, Massachusetts

Richard 0. Lempert, Ph.D., J.D.

Eric Stein Distinguished University Professor of Law and

Sociology

University of Michigan

Director

Springer

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-22 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 9 of 14
466 J Abnorm Child Psychol (2006) 34:457-470

Division of Social and Economic Sciences

National Science Foundation

Arlington, Virginia

Angela Barron McBride, Ph.D., R.N., F.A.A.N.

Distinguished Professor

Indiana University School of Nursing

Indianapolis, Indiana

Lisa Schwartz, M.D., M.S.

Senior Research Associate

Veterans Affairs Outcome Group

Associate Professor of Medicine and Community and Family

Medicine

Dartmouth Medical School

Hanover, New Hampshire

Veterans Affairs Medical Center

White River Junction, Vermont

Freya L. Sonenstein, Ph.D.

Professor and Director

Center for Adolescent Health Promotion and Disease Prevention

The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

Baltimore, Maryland

Bonita Stanton, M.D.

Schotanus Professor and Chair

Carman and Ann Adams Department of Pediatrics

Children's Hospital of Michigan

Wayne State University

Detroit, Michigan

David T. Takeuchi, Ph.D.

Professor

School of Social Work and Department of Sociology

University of Washington

Seattle, Washington

Steven Woloshin, M.D., M.S.

Senior Research Associate

Veterans Affairs Outcomes Group

Associate Professor of Medicine and Community and Family

Medicine

Dartmouth Medical School

Hanover, New Hampshire

Veterans Affairs Medical Center

White River Junction, Vermont

Speakers

Steve Aos, M.S.

Associate Director

Washington State Institute for Public Policy

Olympia, Washington

Deborah M. Capaldi, Ph.D.

Senior Scientist

Oregon Social Learning Center

Eugene, Oregon

Richard F. Catalano, Ph.D.

Director

Social Development Research Group

University of Washington, Seattle

Seattle, Washington

Patricia Chamberlain, Ph.D.

Senior Research Scientist

Oregon Social Learning Center

Eugene, Oregon

Linda S. Chan, Ph.D.

Professor

Department of Pediatrics

Director

Biostatistics and Outcomes Assessment

Los Angeles County and University of Southern

California Medical Center

Los Angeles, California

Rand D. Conger, Ph.D.

Professor

Human and Community Development

University of California, Davis

Davis, California

Thomas J. Dishion, Ph.D.

Professor of Psychology

Child and Family Center

University of Oregon

Eugene, Oregon

Kenneth A. Dodge, Ph.D.

William McDougall Professor of Public Policy

Professor of Psychology

Duke University

Director

Center for Child and Family Policy

Durham, North Carolina

Felton Earls, M.D.

Professor

Department of Social Medicine

Harvard Medical College

Cambridge, Massachusetts

Delbert S. Elliott, Ph.D.

Director

Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence

Institute of Behavioral Science

University of Co'orado

Boulder, Colorado

Springer

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-22 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 10 of 14
J Abnorm Child Psychol (2006) 34:457-470 467

Scott Walter Henggeler, Ph.D.

Director

Family Services Research Center

Professor

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences

Medical University of South Carolina

Charleston, South Carolina

Sheppard G. KeUam, M.D.

Director

Center for Integrating Education and Prevention Research in

Schools

American Institutes for Research

Baltimore, Maryland

Michele D. Kipke, Ph.D.

Professor

Department of Pediatrics

University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine

Director

Division of Research on Children, Youth, and Families

Childrens Hospital Los Angeles

Los Angeles, California

Benjamin B. Lahey, Ph.D.

Professor of Psychiatry and Chief of Psychology

Department of Psychiatry

University of Chicago

Chicago, Illinois

John A. Landsverk, Ph.D.

Director

Child and Adolescent Services Research Center

Children's Hospital Health Center, San Diego

San Diego, California

Rolf Loeber, Ph.D.

Distinguished Professor of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Epidemiology

University of Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Terrie E. Moffitt, Ph.D.

Professor

Department of Psychology

University of Wisconsin

Madison, Wisconsin

David Olds, Ph.D.

Director

Prevention Research Center for Family and Child Health

Professor of Pediatrics

University of Colorado Health Sciences Center

University of Colorado

Denver, Colorado

John B. Reid, Ph.D.

Executive Director

Oregon Social Learning Center

Eugene, Oregon

Robert J. Sampson, Ph.D.

Henry Ford II Professor of the Social Sciences

Department of Sociology

Harvard University

Cambridge, Massachusetts

Carolyn Webster-Stratton, Ph.D.

Professor

Family and Child Nursing

University of Washington, Seattle

Seattle, Washington

Planning Committee

Farris K. Tuma, Sc.D.

Planning Committee Chairperson and Chief

Traumatic Stress Program and Disruptive Behaviors! ADD

Program

Division of Mental Disorders, Behavioral Research, and

AIDS

National Institute of Mental Health

National Institutes of Health Bethesda, Maryland

Karen Babich, Ph.D., R.N.

Director

Office of Global Mental Health

National Institute of Mental Health

National Institutes of Health

Bethesda, Maryland

Jacqueline S. Besteman, J.D., M.A.

Director

EPC Program

Center for Practice and Technology Assessment

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Rockville, Maryland

Gail M. Boyd, Ph.D.

Prevention Research Branch

Division of Clinical and Prevention Research

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

National Institutes of Health

Bethesda, Maryland

Elsa A. Bray

Senior Advisor for Consensus Development

Office of Medical Applications of Research

Office of the Director

National Institutes of Health

Bethesda, Maryland

Springer

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-22 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 11 of 14
468 J Abnorm Child Psycho! (2006) 34:457-470

W. Rodney Hammond, Ph.D.

Director

Division of Violence Prevention

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Atlanta, Georgia

Scott Walter Henggeler, Ph.D.

Director

Family Services Research Center

Professor

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences

Medical University of South Carolina

Charleston, South Carolina

William Bukoski, Ph.D.

Associate Director for Research Coordination

Office of the Director

Division of Epidemiology, Services, and

Research

National Institute on Drug Abuse

National Institutes of Health

Bethesda, Maryland

Nancy A. Carney, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor of Emergency Medicine

Oregon Health & Science University

Portland, Oregon

Adam Glazer

Librarian

Public Services Division

National Library of Medicine

National Institutes of Health

Bethesda, Maryland

Mark Helfand, M.D., M.P.H., M.S.

Director

Evidence-Based Practice Center

Oregon Health & Science University

Portland, Oregon

Sally T. Hillsman, Ph.D.

Director

Office of Research and Evaluation

National Institute of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

U.S. Department of Justice

Washington, DC

Kimberly Hoagwood, Ph.D.

Associate Director

Child and Adolescent Research

National Institute of Mental Health

National Institutes of Health

Rockville, Maryland

Marian D. James, Ph.D.

Center for Practice and Technology Assessment

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Prevention U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Rockville, Maryland

Robert L. Johnson, M.D.

Panel and Conference Chairperson

Professor and Chair

Department of Pediatrics

Professor of Psychiatry

Director of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine

University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey

New Jersey Medical School

Newark, New Jersey

Michele D. Kipke, Ph.D.

Professor

Department of Pediatrics

University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine

Director

Division of Research on Children, Youth, and Families

Childrens Hospital Los Angeles

Los Angeles, California

Joanne Kievens, M.D., Ph.D., M.P.H.

Epidemiologist

Program Development and Evaluation Branch

Division of Violence Prevention

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Atlanta, Georgia

Doreen S. Koretz, Ph.D.

Associate Director for Prevention and Chief

Developmental Psychopathology and Prevention Research

Branch

Division of Mental Disorders, Behavioral Research, and

AIDS

National Institute of Mental Health

National Institutes of Health

Bethesda, Maryland

Barnett S. Kramer, M.D., M.P.H.

Director

Office of Medical Applications of Research

Office of the Director

National Institutes of Health

Bethesda, Maryland

Kelli K. Marciel, M.A.

Communications Director

Office of Medical Applications of Research

Office of the Director

National Institutes of Health

Bethesda, Maryland

Springer

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-22 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 12 of 14
J Abnorm Child Psychol (2006) 34:457-470 469

Susan E. Martin, Ph.D.

Health Scientist Administrator

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

National Institutes of Health

Bethesda, Maryland

Peggy McCardle, Ph.D., M.P.H.

Associate Chief

Child Development and Behavior Branch

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

National Institutes of Health

Rockville, Maryland

Denise Middlebrook, Ph.D.

Senior Social Science Analyst

Division of Program Development, Special Populations, and

Projects

Center for Mental Health Services

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Rockville, Maryland

William Modzeleski, M.P.A.

Director

Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

U.S. Department of Education

Washington, DC

Richard K. Nakamura, Ph.D.

Deputy Director

Office of the Director

National Institute of Mental Health

National Institutes of Health

Bethesda, Maryland

Karen Patrias, M.L.S.

Senior Resource Specialist

Public Services Division

National Library of Medicine

National Institutes of Health

Bethesda, Maryland

Janice Phillips, Ph.D., R.N., F.A.A.N.

Program Director

Health Promotion and Risk Behaviors

Office of Extramural Programs

National Institute of Nursing Research

National Institutes of Health

Bethesda, Maryland

John B. Reid, Ph.D.

Executive Director

Oregon Social Learning Center

Eugene, Oregon

Cynthia A. Rooney

Senior Advisor to the Consensus Development Program

Office of Medical Applications of Research

Office of the Director

National Institutes of Health

Bethesda, Maryland

Susan Rossi, Ph.D., M.P.H.

Deputy Director

Office of Medical Applications of Research

Office of the Director

National Institutes of Health

Bethesda, Maryland

Mona J. Rowe, M.C.P.

Associate Director

Office of Science Policy, Analysis, and Communications

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

National Institutes of Health

Bethesda, Maryland

Bruce Simons-Morton, Ed.D., M.P.H.

Chief

Prevention Research Branch

Division of Epidemiology, Statistics, and Prevention

Research

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

National Institutes of Health

Rockville, Maryland

Susan Solomon, Ph.D.

Senior Advisor

Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research

Office of the Director

National Institutes of Health

Bethesda, Maryland

Ellen L. Stover, Ph.D.

Director

Division of Mental Disorders, Behavioral Research, and

AIDS

National Institute of Mental Health

National Institutes of Health

Bethesda, Maryland

Melanie Zimmer-Gembeck, Ph.D.

Senior Lecturer

School of Applied Psychology

Director

Family Interaction Program

Deputy Director

Griffith University Psychological Health Research Centre

Griffith University

Gold Coast Campus

Queensland, Australia

Was approved as co-Institute coordinator as of

September 2001

LeShawndra N. Price, Ph.D.

Chief

Springer

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-22 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 13 of 14
470 J Abnorm Child Psychol (2006) 34:457-470

Disruptive Behavior Disorders Program

Division of Pediatric Translational Research and Treatment

Development

National Institute of Mental Health

National Institutes of Health

Bethesda, Maryland

Conference Sponsors

National Institute of Mental Health

Thomas R. Insel, M.D.

Director

Office of Medical Applications of Research

Bamett S. Kramer, M.D., M.P.H.

Director

Conference Cosponsors

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Carolyn Clancy, M.D.

Director

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Julie Louise Gerberding, M.D., M.P.H.

Director

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

Ting-Kai Li, M.D.

Director

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

Duane Alexander, M.D.

Director

National Institute on Drug Abuse

Nora D. Volkow, M.D.

Director

National Institute of Nursing Research

Patricia A. Grady, Ph.D., R.N., FA.A.N.

Director

National Library of Medicine

Donald A.B. Lindberg, M.D.

Director

Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research

Virginia S. Cain, Ph.D.

Acting Director

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Admnistration

Charles G. Curie, M.A., A.C.S.W.

Administrator

U.S. Department of Education

Rod Paige, Ph.D.

Secretary

U.S. Department of Justice

John Ashcroft, J.D.

Attorney General

Springer

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-22 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 14 of 14
CHILDREN FIRST

TRUST FUND

SPENDING OVERVIEW

FY 2003

ABC BOARD

$ 120,837.54 Responsible Vendor Program

$ 375,345.12 Enforcement Division

AOC - JUVENILE PROBATION SERVICES

$5,913,973.00 Personnel Costs

$1,668,267.00 Employee Benefits

$ 104,376.00 Travel-In-State

$ 2,030.00 Repairs and Maintenance

$ 22,766.00 Rentals and Leases

$ 58,443.00 Utilities and Communications

$ 3,806.00 Professional Services

$ 161,672.00 Supplies, Materials, and Operating

Expenses

$1,498,335.00 Grants and Benefits

CHILDREN'S TRUST FUND

$2,293,863.00 Community-Based Prevention Programs

$ 250,000.00 Corporate Foundation for Children

(Professional Development)

$ 205,900.00 CPC Executive Directors

EDUCATION

$8,112,737.00 Alternative Education Programs

$ 231,915.00 Monitoring and Technical Assistance

$ 200,000.00 School Based Social Workers

$3,065,063.00 School Safety Enhancement

$2,687,896.39 Teacher Background Checks

FORENSIC SCIENCES

$ 86,775.00 Capital Outlay

$ 2,726.00 Professional Service

$ 360,537.00 Salaries and Benefits

$ 839.00 Supplies

HUMAN RESOURCES

$4,000,000.00 Foster Care board payments

$7,000,000.00 Therapeutic Foster Services

MENTAL HEALTH/MENTAL RETARDATION

$ 50,000.00 Child Psychiatric Services Training

$ 468,276.00 Community Contracted Crisis Stabilization!

In home services

$ 50,000.00 Community Contracted expansion of Case

Management for SED Children

$ 102,299.63 Community Contracted Services Abuse

Services

$ 92,774.73 Contracted Community Service for Dually

Diagnosed children

$ 50,000.00 Early Intervention Services

$ 581,080.32 Mental Health Juvenile Court Liaisons

$ 133,027.96 MR Community Contracted In-Home

Services

$ 26,026.15 MR Community Contracted Service

Coordination

$ 109,795.59 Office of Children's Services

$ 100,000.00 State Match for Federal Grant

MULTI-NEEDS CHILDREN'S FUND

$2,750,000.00 Services for Multi-Needs children

PUBLIC HEALTH

$ 260,000.00 Medication for HIV positive pregnant

women & their infants

$ 440,000.00 Newborn screenings

$4,800,000.00 ALLKids Child Health Insurance Pgni (CHIP)

REHABILITATION SERVICES

$ 275,000.00 Child Death Review

YOUTH SERVICES

$7,884,734.00 Contract Placements

$ 500,000.00 Day Programs

$ 205,150.00 Juvenile Detention Centers

$ 37,994.00 Multi-Needs Children

$ 120,000.00 Other Children Services.

TOTAL SPENT FOR ALL AGENCIES: $57,464,260

MEDICAID AGENCY

$ 0.00

ETI

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-23 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 15
THE HISTORY OF

CHILDREN FIRST

The Children First Trust Fund was initiated in the mid 1990's by a group of advocates and legislators who

wanted to improve the lives of children in Alabama. Efforts focused on increasing cigarette taxes to fund a

wide array of needed programs and services. For several years the Children First legislation was introduced

but not passed, each year gaining more credibility and supporters. During the same period negotiations were

being conducted between tobacco companies and the states to settle lawsuits stemming from the health costs

of smoking.

At the end of the legislative session in 1998 any potential tobacco settlement funds were linked to

Children First. Later that year the landmark agreement between the states and big tobacco was reached,

and settlement dollars began to come to the state in late 2000.

The 21st Century Fund was set up to receive the settlement and distribute funds to pay for economic

development bonds, medical care, and programs for the elderly, with the majority of the settlement going

to the Children First Trust Fund. CFTF dollars not spent by agencies each year are to remain in the

Children First Trust Fund for future use.

Compiled here is the Children First Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2003. It details the expenditures of

Children First dollars for each of the twelve state agencies that received funds in FY03.

FY04 CFTF Spending Estimates

CFTF balance Estimated FY04 Estimated FY04 Estimated balances at

from FY03 settlement receipts agency spending the end of FY04

ABC Board

AOC -JP

CTF

Education

Forensic Sciences

Human Resources

Medicaid Agency

Mental Health

Multiple Needs

Public Health

Rehabilitation

Youth Services

$ 983,662

$ 5,082,724

$ 3,280,961

$13,070,588

$ 1,131,498

$13,372,281

$ 3,039,649

$ 5,624,744

$ 5,365,717

$ 1,694,611

$ 179,596

$21,257,201

$ 467,998

$ 4,679,979

$ 2,339,989

$10,295,953

$ 467,998

$ 9,359,958

$ 1,637,993

$ 2,339,989

$ 2,339,989

$ 4,679,979

$ 233,999

$ 7,955,964

$ 733,350

$ 9,958,168

$ 3,827,453

$ 20,157,550

$ 750,000

$ 14,540,694

$ 2,165,000

$ 5,004,659

$ 3,000,000

$ 6,370,000

$ 350,000

$ 14,182,800

$ 718,310

$ (195,465)

$ 1,793,497

$ 3,208,992

$ 849,496

$ 8,191,545

$ 2,512,642

$ 2,960,074

$ 4,705,706

$ 4,590

$ 63,595

$ 15,030,365

$74,083,232 $46,799,788 $81,039,674 $39,843,347

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-23 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 15
Alabama State-Specific Account

100%$

Economic deveiopment

bond Issue

45% $11 million to debt

________________________ service in FY01

Children First

Trust Fund 44%

Public Health

10%

Juvenile

Probation

I 1\ 0?

lv JO

How the Tobacco Settlement Funds

Children First ________

Payments by tobacco I

companies

When tobacco settlement dollars come to Alabama they are These initial payments These strategic payments

are planned to begin in deposited into the 21st Century Fund ($95.8 million FY01), stopinFYO4causinga

where approximately 9°/o are used first for debt service on for CFTF FY03 evels

drop of 13% MSscrowAccoun'O8'tumi CFTF to

economic development bonds. Assisting Honda to locate

in Alabama is one of several economic efforts funded Alabama Initial Alabama Annual Payments A'abama Strategic

through these bonds. Payments (in April oLyearLj Payments

The remaining tobacco dollars are then split between

Children First (approx. 45%), Medicaid (approx. 44%), and

Senior Services Trust Fund (2%). Once money comes to

Children First, the fund then divides among 12 agencies for

specific programs as instructed by law (Section 41-15B-2.2).

As an example, Education must spend its funds on

alternative schools and safety programs.

Once funds are deposited into Children First they cannot be

spent for other purposes. Unspent money remains within

the fund and individuaL departments accrue a balance.

The Master Settlement Agreement

The Master Settlement Agreement is a legal compact

between the states and the four major tobacco companies

that pays states an annual amount based on the number of

cigarettes sold. An estimated $.85 of the total cost per pack

goes to pay for the agreement. Alabama receives a small

portion (approximately 1 .6%) of the overall national

settlement. There are three important facts everyone should

know about the settlement and Children First:

The settlement is based on consumption. If states do well in 5% Rehab Services -

getting kids and adults to stop smoking, or if tobacco 1 % Forensic Sciences

companies go bankrupt, then the amount Alabama receives 1 % ABC

could go down substantially or be lost entirely. Settlement 3.' MfdjCid

dollars are not guaranteed, and their loss would leave

agencies and their programs without a funding source.

maximum t4bm per year)I

Senior Services Trust Fund

'10/

/0

fund breakdown

to departments

The settlement is structured so that states get some extra

initial payments that cease in 2004. Estimates of settlement

dollars drop more than 13% in 2004, and do not recover

until 2008.

Alabama's fiscal year begins in October, yet receives its

annual payment in late April. It is the savings each

department has built in the past two years that are used to

fund programs before new money comes. The savings also

provides insurance in case the annual payment drops, or

does not come at all.

Understanding the settlement makes clear that some funds

must be saved each year to provide money throughout the

year, and as insurance for the future. Over the past three

years, Alabama has done just that.

Youth

Services

1 7O

I / /0

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-23 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 3 of 15
CONTACT

Jan Byrne

(334) 271-3840

ADDRESS

2715 Gunter Park Drive West

Montgomery, AL 36109

LONG TERM GOALS

IJ Prevent the purchase of

tobacco products by minors

using law enforcement and

education.

ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD

FY 2003 Appropriation Bill:

One percent of the funds shall be allocated to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board for education and enforcement

of Chapter 11 of Title 28, which prohibits access to tobacco products by minors.

Year Received Released Un-Spent Balance

FY2000 $502,809 $125,728 $23,035 $400,116

FY2001 $567,263 $298,763 $ 12,694 $681,309

FY 2002 $660,247 $600,000 $107,956 $849,513

FY 2003 $630,332 $550,000 $ 53,81 7 $983,662

FY2004 *$467,998 $733,350 $718,310

Estirnacd ota1

2003 Spending Overview 2004 Spending Plans

Responsible Vendor $ 120,837.54 Responsible Vendor Program $ 198,124.00

Program

Enforcement Division $ 375,345.12

Enforcement Division $ 535,226.00

TOTAL $496,182.66

TOTAL $733,350.00

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-23 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 4 of 15
2003 Outcomes

U Funded 66% of the $14,364,800 total cost

U Served 213,986 Children

J 242 certified JPO positions in the 62 assumed

counties

U 81.5 support positions in the 62 assumed counties

U Subsidize the salaries of 92 of the 115 certified JPO

positions in 5 unassumed counties

2004 Spending Plans

State Juvenile Probation Services $7,283,465.00

County Juvenile Probation $2,478,021.00

Officers

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF COURTS

FY 2003 Appropriation Bill:

Allocations to the Juvenile Probation Services Fund shall be expended by the Administrative Office of Courts to

unify and upgrade the juvenile justice system and improve the delivery of services to children who have been

referred to the juvenile court.

CONTACT

Tom Monroe

(334) 242-0300

ADDRESS

Judicial Building

300 Dexter Avenue

Montgomery, AL 36104

LONG TERM GOMS

U Provide a unified system of

juvenile probation services by

certified state juvenile

probation officers in the

remaining 62 counties.

Year Received Released Un-Spent Balance

FY 2000 $5,028,093 $1,257,275 $ 338,254 $4,109,072

FY 2001 $5,672,628 $2,623,813 $2,448,392 $9,606,279

FY 2002 $6,602,465 $8,688,000 $ 692,330 $8,213,074

FY 2003 $6,303,318 $9,954,610 $ 520,942 $5,082,724

FY 2004 *$4,679,979 $9,958,168 $ (195,465)

* Esliniated total

U Assist the counties of Jefferson, Madison, Montgomery, Morgan and Shelby in the provision of

juvenile probation services through their local juvenile/family courts by subsidizing the base salaries of

certified county juvenile probation officers.

2003 Spending Overview

Personnel Costs $5,913,973.00

Employee Benefits $1,668,267.00

Travel-In-State $ 104,376.00

Repairs and Maintenance $ 2,030.00

Rentals and Leases $ 22,766.00

Utilities and Communications $ 58,443.00

Professional Services $ 3,806.00

TOTAI $9,761,486.00

Supplies, Materials, and $ 161,672.00

Operating Expenses

Children First represents approximately 55% of the

Grants and Benefits $1 ,498,3 35.00 total anticipated cost of the State and County Juvenile

Probation Services paid through state funds.

T0TAI $9,433,668.00

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-23 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 5 of 15
2004 Spending Plans

Community-Based Programs

(Unification of Prevention Services)

Community-Based Programs

(At-Risk children or Teens)

Professional Development

for Grantees

CPC Executive Directors

Personnel

Personnel Benefits

TOTAI

$1,602,900.00

$ 1,417,459.00

$ 131,250.00

$ 175,000.00

$ 367,924.00

$ 132,920.00

$3,827,453.00

CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT PREVENTION BOARD

CHILDREN'S TRUST FUND

FY 2003 Appropriation Bill:

AUocations to the Children's Trust Fund shall be expended as follows:

a. Seventy-five percent for grants for programs targeted toward at-risk children.

b. Twenty-five percent for grants to Family Resource Centers.

CONTACT

Alicia Luckie

(334) 242-5710

ADDRESS

RSA Union Building

100 North Union Street

Montgomery, AL 36104-3702

tONG TERM GOALS

U Provide funds for

community-based programs.

I Provide funds for at-risk

youth programs.

Year Received Released Un-Spent Balance

FY 2000 $2,514,047 $ 628,637 $0 $1,885,410

FY 2001 $2,836,314 $2,514,047 $20,109 $2,227,786

FY 2002 $3,301,232 $2,650,000 $46 $2,879,064

FY 2003 $3,151,600 $2,750,000 $237 $3,280,961

FY 2004 *$2,339,989 $3,827,453 $1,793,497

Estimated total

I Provide funds for seven Executive Directors of Local Children's Policy Councils.

LI Provide funds to the Corporate Foundation for Chi'dren (CFC) for training and consultation services

to CTF grantees only.

2003 Spending Overview

Community-Based $2,293,863.00

Prevention Programs

Corporate Foundation for $ 250,000.00

Children (Professional

Development)

CPC Executive Directors $ 205,900.00

TOTAL $2,749,763.00

2003 Outcomes

U Served 130,142 Children

U Served 289,469 Adults

U 7 Children's Policy Council Executive Directors

funded

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-23 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 6 of 15
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

FY 2003 Appropriation Bill:

Allocations to the State Board of Education shall be expended as follows:

a. The first $490,000 for the Background Checks Initiative at the State Department of Education.

b. Ninety-eight percent of the remaining allocations for the operation of alternative schools and the School

Safety Enhancement Program.

c. Two percent of the remaining allocations for monitoring local school programs funded by Children First

allocations, identifying the most effective local school programs and creating a best practices program to train local

school system personnel in the most effective programs.

CONTACT

Dr. Sue Adams

(334) 242-8165

ADDRESS

3318 Gordon Persons Building

50 North RipleyStreet

P.O. Box 302101

Montgomery, AL 36130-2 101

LONG TERM GOALS

U Provide training of school

safety/drug prevalence for LEA

personnel; student, teacher, and

parent surveys; school climate survey

for schools.

Year Received Released Un-Spent Balance

FY 2000 $11,061,805 $ 2,766,004 $0 $8,295,801

FY2001 $12,479,781 $11,061,805 $50,048 $9,763,825

FY 2002 $14,525,423 $11,452,450 $664,101 $13,500,899

FY 2003 $13,867,301 $15,879,750 $1,582,139 $13,070,588

FY 2004 *$10,295 953 $20,157,550 $3,208,992

U Implement education programs Estlrnate(1 toaI

that provide students with alternatives to suspension, expulsion, or dropping out of school, that emphasize individual social

behavioral needs, and that provide the academic requirements necessary to enable children to perform.

U Develop School Safety Enhancement programs to prevent or reduce school disciplinary or school safety problems.

U Provide Program Evaluation.

U Provide background checks for approximately 35,000 teachers and other school personnel who may have unsupervised

access to children.

U Initiate pilot Social Worker program for ten (10) LEAs.

2003 Spending Overview

Alternative Education Programs $8,112,737.00

2004 Spending Plans

Alternative Education Programs $12,288,195.00

Monitoring and Technical

Assistance

School Based Social Workers

School Safety Enhancement

Teacher Background Checks

TOTAI

$ 231,915.00

$ 200,000.00

$3,065,063.00

$2,687,896.39

$14,297,611.39

Monitoring and Tech. Assistance

School Based Social Workers

School Safety Enhancement

Teacher Background Checks

Training and data analysis

TOTAI

$ 136,282.00

$ 200,000.00

$3,072,049.00

$3,780,240.00

$191,274.00

$20,157,550.00

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-23 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 7 of 15
ADDRESS

C.J. Rehling Laboratories

991 Wire Road

P.O. Box 3510

Auburn, AL 36831-3510

LONG TERM GOAIS

L Provide training to staff on

child deaths.

DEPARTMENT OF FORENSIC SCIENCES

FY 2003 Appropriation Bill:

Allocations to the Department of Forensic Sciences shall be expended as follows:

a. Sixty percent for educational training.

b. Forty percent for equipment purchase.

CONTACT - -

F. Taylor Noggle Year Received Released Un-Spent Balance

InterimDirector -_______ _______ ____________

(334) 844-4648 -- .7 A

rr uuu uz,ou izj,tzo p iu,joo o,,o'-i/

FY 2001 $567,263 $386,294 $83,088 $651,704

FY 2002 $660,246 $600,000 $240,095 $952,043

FY2003 $630,332 $550,000 $99,123 $1,131,498

FY 2004 *$467,998 $750,000 $849,496

U Accurately determine cause

and manner of death involving

children.

U Provide expert testimony in child deaths

U Provide accurate toxicology results on cases

involving children.

*Ehtl total

2003 Outcomes

J 278 Child Deaths

U 610 Cases Involving Child Deaths

J 1509 Cases involving Chiuldren as Suspects

2119 Total cases involving children as Suspects and Subjects

2003 Spending Overview 2004 Spending Plans

Capital Outlay

Professional Service

Salaries and Benefits

Supplies

TOTAL

$ 86,775.00

$ 2,726.00

$ 360,537.00

$ 839.00

$ 450,877.00

Toxicology Services

Training of physicians and

investigators

Salaries and Benefits

Expert Testimony

Vehicle Purchase

Autopsy Equipment

TOTAL

$ 140,000.00

$ 35,311.00

$ 514,689.00

$ 10,000.00

$ 45,000.00

$ 5,000.00

$ 750,000.00

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-23 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 8 of 15
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

FY 2003 Appropriation Bill:

Allocations to the Department of Human Resources shall be divided among day care initiatives, foster care basic monthly

maintenance rates of foster families, and expenditures related to the RC Consent Decree. Day Care Initiatives shall include a

one-time expenditure of $300,000 to organize a liability insurance pooi for the states child care management agencies.

CONTACT

Jim Connell

(334) 242-9425

ADDRESS

50 Ripley Street, Suite 2118

Montgomery, AL 36130

LONG TERM GOALS

L To enable children placed

in out of home care to live in

community-cased therapeutic

foster family homes to meet

complex emotional needs.

Year Received Released Un-Spent Balance

FY 2000 $10,056,186 $ 6,800,000 $0 $ 3,256,186

FY 2001 $11,345,256 $5,988,437 $102,200 $8,715,205

FY 2002 $13,204,930 $10,154,492 $0 $11,765,643

FY 2003 $12,606,638 $11,000,000 $0 $13,372,281

FY 2004 *$9,359,958 $14,540,694 $8,191,545

* Estimated Iotal

U To provide for increased support and compenstation to foster family homes in order to provide

services to chfldren.

U To provide direct services to sexually and severly abused children.

2003 Spending Overview 2004 Spending Plans

Foster Care board payments $4,000,000.00 Foster Care board payments $4,000,000.00

Therapeutic Foster Services $7,000,000.00 Therapeutic Foster Services $9,700,094.00

TOTAI $11,000,000.00 Children's Advocacy Center $840,600.00

TOTM $14,540,694.00

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-23 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 9 of 15
CONTACT

Mike Lewis

(334) 242-2290

ADDRESS

P.O. Box 5624

Montgomery, AL 36103

ALABAMA MEDICAID AGENCY

FY 2003 Appropriation Bill:

Allocations to the Alabama Medicaid Agency shall be expended for the benefit of the needs of children and AIDS

waiver.

1.ONG TERM GOALS

Year Received Released Un-Spent Balance

FY 2000 $1,759,832 $0 $0 $1,759,832

No expenditures made,

but all funds were

FY 2001 $1,985,420 $2,222,628 carriedoverin $1,522,624

Medicaid accounts (or

____________________ ________________________ _______________ future_expenditures ______________________

FY 2002 $2,310,863 $3,000,000 $0 $833,487

FY 2003 $2,206,162 $1,925,000 $1,925,000 3,039,649

FY 2004 *$1,637,993 $2,165,000 $2,512,642

* Estimated total

2003 Spending Overview 2004 Spending Plan

TOTAL $ 0.00 No PLANS HAVE BEEN $ 0.00

RECEIVED

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-23 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 10 of 15
DEPT. OF MENTAL HEALTH/MENTAL RETARDATION

FY 2003 Appropriation Bill:

Allocations to the Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation shall be expended for community-based

programs and programs for children and families in crisis, including, but not limited to, drug and alcohol treatment

programs.

CONTACT

Steve LaFreniere

(334) 353-7832

ADDRESS

100 North Union Street

Montgomery, A1 36130

LONG TERM GOALS

I Expansion of Intensive Outpatient

programs for adolescents with

substance abuse issues.

I Provide services to expand the

Continuum of Care for children and

adolescents with Serious Emotional

Disturbances.

Year Received Released Un-Spent Balance

FY 2000 $2,514,047 $2,514,047 $1,674,339 $1,674,339

FY 2001 $2,836,314 $2,335,476 $1,825,742 $4,000,919

FY 2002 $3,301,232 $3,432,000 $ 366,213 $4,236,364

FY 2003 $3,151,600 $2,750,000 $ 986,720 $5,624,744

FY 2004 *$2 339,989 $5,004,659 $2,960,074

EsLirnatcd total

I Provide for expansion of services for children with Mental Retardation who need In-Home services, Service

Coordination and crisis stabilization! transition services.

LI Provide expanded Community Based and Crisis services across the Mental Health Service System to children

and adolescents that have multiple agency involvement and cross DMH/MR Divisional responsibilities.

2003 Spending Overview 2004 Spending Plans

Child Psychiatric Services Training

Community Contracted Crisis

Stabilization/In home services

Community Contracted expansion of

Case Management for SED Children

Community Contracted Services Abuse

Services

Contracted Community Service for

Dually Diagnosed children

Early Intervention Services

Mental Health Juvenile Court Liaisons

MR Community Contracted In-Home

Services

MR Community Contracted Service

Coordination

Office of Children's Services

State Match for Federal Grant

TOTAL

$ 50,000.00

$ 468,276.00

$ 50,000.00

$ 102,299.63

$ 92,774.73

$ 50,000.00

$ 581,080.32

$ 133,027.96

$ 26,026.15

$ 109,795.59

$ 100,000.00

$1,763,280.38

Mental Health Juvenile Court Lianons

Multiple Needs Children

"Our Kids" Projects

Community and crisis services for children

and adolescents with dual diagnosis

Office of Children's Services

Crisis stabilization / in home services

Service Coordination

In Home Services

Expansion ofCrisis Stabalization Services

Expansion of Service Coordination

Expansion of In Home Services

Expand Case Management

Respite Care Services

State Match for Federal Grant

Expand FIND Teams

Adolexcent Outpatient Substance Abuse

Expand Adolescent Outpatient Programs

TOTM

$ 770,000.00

$ 349,000.00

$ 678,788.00

$ 566,475.00

$ 1 29006.00

$ 468,276.00

$ 30,000.00

$ 133,028.00

$ 200000.00

$ 143,543.00

$ 200,000.00

$ 75,000.00

$ 98,000.00

$ 200,000.00

$ 270,000.00

$ 250,000.00

$ 443,543.00

$5,004,659.00

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-23 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 11 of 15
MULTIPLE NEEDS CHILD OFFICE

FY 2003 Appropriation Bill:

Allocations to the State Multiple Needs Children Fund shall be distributed by the Alabama Children's Services Facilitation Team

pursuant to the written plan called for in Section 41-15B-2.2(5), Code of Alabama 1975. Monies not obligated by local

children's service facilitation teams by the end of the second quarter of the fiscal year shall revert to the Alabama Children's

Services Facilitation Team.

CONTACT

Donna Glass

(334) 223-0744

ADDRESS

RSA Tower, Suite 1670

201 Monroe Street

Montgomery, AL 36130-2755

LONG TERM GoAts

U Provide services to children

identified as Multiple Needs

Children at the State level.

Year Received Released Un-Spent Balance

FY 2000 $2,514,047 $628,512 $101,813 $1,987,348

FY 2001 $2,836,314 $1,200,000 $27 $3,623,689

FY 2002 $3,301,232 $2,000,000 $39,136 $4,964,057

FY 2003 $3,151,660 $2,750,000 $0 $5,365,717

FY 2004 *$2 339989 $3,000,000 $4,705,706

* Estimated total

U Provide services to children

identified as Multiple Needs Children at the County level.

U Provide technical assistance to County Children's Services Facilitation Teams to enhance services to

Multiple Needs Children. Additional services to include quality assurance and accounting oversight of

funds.

2003 Spending Overview 2004 Spending Plan

Services for Multi-Needs $1,375,000.00 Purchase of services by the $1,475,000.00

children by the State Team Alabama Children's Services

Facilitation Team.

Services for Muilti Needs $ 1,375,000.00

children by County Teams Purchse of Services by $1,375,000.00

county Children's Services

TOTM $2,750,000.00 Facilitation Teams

Administrative (hiring staff) $150,000.00

TOTAI $3,000,000.00

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-23 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 12 of 15
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH

FY 2003 Appropriation Bill:

Allocations to the Department of Public Health shall be expended for children's health issues. An allocation

totaling $150,000 shall also be expended for support of the Alabama Qualified Health Center Grant Program and

on an allocation totaling $260,000 shall be expended for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program.

CONTACT

Kathy Vincent

(334) 206-5300

ADDRESS

RSA Tower, Suite

201 Monroe Street

Montgomery, AL 36130

LONG TERM GOALS

U Provide newborn screening

for metabolic disorder

detection.

Year Received Released Un-Spent Balance

FY 2000 $5,028,093 $5,028,093 $0 $ 0

FY 2001 $5,672,628 $5,583,983 $183 $ 88,828

FY 2002 $6,602,465 $5,800,000 $0 $ 891,293

FY 2003 $6,303,318 $5,500,000 $0 $1,694,611

FY 2004 *$4,679,979 $6,370,000 $ 4,590

* Estimated total

U Provide ALL Kids Coverage to eligible low income children

U Prevent transmission of HIV/AIDS to newborns.

2003 Outcomes

U 62,499 chidren insured through All

Kids / CHIP

U 29 women and 9 children provided

HIV Medication

U 600,000 new born screenings for

metabolic disorders

2003 Spending Overview 2004 Spending Plans

Medication for HIV positive

pregnant women & their

infants

Newborn screenings

ALLKids Child Health

Insurance Pgm (CHIP)

TOTAL

$ 260,000.00

$ 440,000.00

$4,800,000.00

$5,500,000.00

Medication for HIV positive

pregnant women & their

infants

Newborn screenings

ALLKids Child Health

Insurance Pgm (CHIP)

Community Grants

TOTAL

$ 260,000.00

$ 810,000.00

$5,000,000.00

$300,000.00

$6,370,000.00

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-23 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 13 of 15
DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION SERVICES

FY 2003 Appropriation Bill:

Allocations to the Department of Rehabilitation Services shall be expended as follows:

a. The first $300,000 received, for child death review teams.

b. The remainder for early intervention services and services for children with traumatic brain injuries.

CONTACT

Steve Shivers

(334) 281-8780

ADDRESS

2129 East South Boulevard

Montgomery, AL 36116

LONG TERM GOALS

U To better understand how

and why children die in

Alabama.

Year Received Released Un-Spent Balance

FY 2000 $251,405 $ 62,864 $0 $188,541

FY 2001 $283,631 $362,864 $0 $109,308

FY2002 $330,123 $300,000 $0 $139,431

FY 2003 $315,165 $275,000 $0 $179,596

FY 2004 *$233,999 $350,000 $ 63,595

* Estimated total

2003 Spending Overview 2004 Spending Plans

Child Death Review $ 275,000.00 Child Death Review $ 300,000.00

TOTAL $ 275,000.00 Early Intervention Services $ 50,000.00

TOTAL $ 350,000.00

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-23 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 14 of 15
DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH SERVICES

FY 2003 Appropriation Bill:

Allocations to the Department of Youth Services shall be expended for intensive programs that may include

wilderness programs, boot camps, day treatment programs, and other local alternative programs.

CONTACT

Allen Peaton

(334) 215-3852

ADDRESS

P.O. Box 66

Mt. Meigs, AL 36057

LONG TERM GOALS

U To provide adequate

bed space in order to

comply with the S.S. v.

Wood Consent Decree.

Year Received Released Un-Spent Balance

FY 2000 $ 8,547,758 $ 1,250,000 $ 700,000 $ 7,977,758

FY 2001 $ 9,643,467 $17,545,451 $14,234,543 $14,330,317

FY 2002 $11,224,190 $ 8,600,000 $2,334,931 $19,289,438

FY 2003 $10,715,641 $ 10,900,000 $2,152,122 $21,257,201

FY 2004 *$7 955,964 $14,182,800 $15,030,365

* Estimated total

U To provide afternative programs in order to reduce commitments to State DYS Custody.

U To adequately provide services to youth with multiple needs and disabilities.

2003 Spending Overview 2004 Spending Plans

Contract Placements $7,884,734.00

Day Programs $ 500,000.00

juvenile Detention Centers $ 205,150.00

Multi-Needs Children $ 37,994.00

Other Children Services $ 120,000.00

TOTAI $8,747,878.00

2003 Outcomes

U 1,361 youth served through contract placements

U 550 juvenile detention beds subsidized

U 598 youth served through day treatment programs

U 80,000 youth received 'Play By The Rules" publication

Contract Placements

Day Programs

Juvenile Detention Centers

Multi-Needs Children

SOur Kids" Project

Alternative Programs

Wilderness Programs

TOTAL

$10,160,000.00

$ 500,000.00

$ 992,800.00

$ 400,000.00

$ 1,000,000.00

$ 630,000.00

$ 500,000.00

$14,182,800.00

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-23 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 15 of 15
CHftDR[N FIRST

RUST FUND

L

ANNUM Published by the:

[)epartment of Children's Affairs

201 Monroe Street

Suitel 670

Montgomery, AL 361 30

wwwdca.state.aI.us REPORT

(334) 223-0502

;\?h..

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-24 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 21
The History of Children First

The Children First Trust Fund was initiated in the mid 1 990's by a

group of advocates and legislators who wanted to improve the lives

of children in Alabama. Efforts focused on increasing cigarette taxes

to fund a wide array of needed programs and services. For several

years the Children First legislation was introduced but not passed,

each year gaining more credibility and supporters. During the same

period negotiations were being conducted between tobacco companies and the states to settle lawsuits stemming from the health

costs of smoking.

At the end of the legislative session in 1998 any potential tobacco

settlement funds were linked to Children First. Later that year the

landmark agreement between the states and big tobacco was

reached, and settlement dollars began to conic to the state in late 2000.

The 21st Century Fund was set up to receive the settlement and

distribute funds to pay for economic development bonds, medical

care, and programs for the elderly, with the majority of the settlement going to the Children First Trust Fund. CFTF dollars not spent

by agencies each year are to remain in the Children First Trust

Fund for future use.

Compiled here is the Children First Annual Report for Fiscal Year

2004. It details the expenditures of Children First dollars for each

of the twelve state agencies that received funds in FY04.

The Master Settlement Agreement

The Master Settlement Agreement is a legal compact between the

states and major tobacco companies that pays states an annual

amount based on the number of cigarettes sold. An estimated $.85

of the total cost per pack goes to pay for the agreement. Alabama

receives a small portion (approximately 1 .6°Io) of the overall

national settlement. There are three important facts everyone

should know about the settlement and Children First:

The settlement is based on consumption. If states do well in getting children and adults to stop smoking, or if tobacco companies

go bankrupt, then the amount Alabama receives could go down

substantially or be lost entirely. Settlement dollars are not guaranteed, and their loss would leave many agency programs without a

funding source.

The settlement was structured so that states got extra initial payments each year through FY2003. The loss of this payment has

meant a 16%decrease in receipts into the Children First Trust

Fund. Estimates of settlement dollars anticipate a return to FY2003

levels in 2008.

Alabama's fiscal year begins in October, but it receives its annual

payment in late April. The savings each department has built in the

past are used to fund programs before new money becomes available. The savings also provide insurance in case the annual payment drops, or does not come at all.

Most agencies are currently surviving on the savings accumulated

in the first years of Children First. Each agency spent more money

than they received in FY04 and had to utilize money saved in previous years to make up the difference. The trend of decreasing revenues and increasing expenses can not continue for many more

yea rs.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-24 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 21
Children First

Payments by tobacco colilpanies

These initial Payments

stop in Fh04, causing a

dm of more than 16% MS.A Escrow Account for CFTF

Once funds are deposited into Children First Trust Fund they cannot he spent until the

Legislature appropriates them to the agency. Until then the funds can not be used tor other

purposes. Unspent money remains within the lund and individual departments accrue a halan cc.

FY04 Allocations

i)c Heaith $5,306,903

Education $11,67,187

Human Resources $10,613,807

.Chiidren's Tn.,st Fund $2,653,452

Muitipie Needs $2,653,452

'Mentai Health $2,653,452

Probation Scm $5,3,903

Youth Sersices $9,021,736

MeBicaid $1,857,416

ABC Board $530,690

Forensic Sciences $530690

Rehabilitation Sersices S265,345

funds allocated to

departments can

not l:ie spent u n i

appropriated by

legislature.

.50 Rel'

1% For

1 % A13(

T Me

How the Tobacco Settlement Funds

When tobacco settlement dollars come to Alabama they are deposited into the 21St Century

Fund ($102 million FY04), where $13,000,000 is used first br debt service on economic

development bonds. Assisting Honda and Hyundai to locate in Alabama is one of several

economic efforts funded through these bonds.

I The remaining tobacco dollars are then split between Children First (approx .52%), Medicaid

These strateglcpayments (approx. 31 °/), and several other small funds. Once monet' comes to Children First, the fund

are oiar'trc to dccii in then divided mon, 12 a,enc es tor spec fe pro,rims as insti ucted by law (Section 41 158 FY08, returning CF F 0 - - -

EE,5 2.2) .As an example, Education must spend its funds on alternative schools and safety programs.

Alabama Initial Alabama Annual Payments Alabama Strategic

Payments (in April of each year) Payments

Alabama State-Specific Account

I S I 0

After full funding of 21st Century Fund

pledgedrevenues ____________________________________

to bonds then

monies are paid to

the CFTF

Economic Development

Bond Issue

Children First

Trust Fund

Alabama Medicaid

I I I (rnaxiriwm $4Sin pir

I I S€niitr SLi\ us Ti ust Fund

General Fund - Aging

Medicaid tyavet

P Children's Affairs

Administration

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-24 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 3 of 21
The Next Step

Each agency begins the year with

the dollars remaining from previous years. This is a combination

of funds that were not appropriated to them by the legislature and

funds that were unspent for various reasons. The balance available at the beginning of FY04

was $73,537,542. The majority

ot these funds were received five

months earlier in May 2003.

Public Health

Education

Human Resources

Children's Trust Fund

Multiple Needs

Mental Health

Juvenile Probation Serv

Youth SenAces

Medicaid

ABC Board

Forensic Sciences

Rehabilitation SerAces

$80,000,000

$70,000,000

$60,000,000

$50,000,000

$40,000,000

$30,000,000

$20,000,000

$10,000,000

$-

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Balance atthe FY04

End of FY03 FY04 Reciepts FY04 Available Appropriation

$ 1,738,697.20 $ 5,306,903.40 $ 7,045,600.60 $ 6,370,000.00

$ 14,070,815.99 $ 11,675,187.48 $ 25,746,003.47 $ 20,157,550.00

$ 13,460,452.00 $ 10,613,806.80 $ 24,074,258.80 $ 14,540,694.00

$ 3,303,004.34 $ 2,653,451.70 $ 5,956,456.04 $ 3,827,453.00

$ 5,415,329.86 $ 2,653,451.70 $ 8,068,781.56 $ 3,000,000.00

$ 5,646,624.60 $ 2,653,451.70 $ 8,300,076.30 $ 5,004,659.00

$ 5,135,891.33 $ 5,306,903.40 $ 10,442,794.73 $ 9,958,168.00

$ 21,332,146.95 $ 9,021,735.78 $ 30,353,882.73 $ 14,182,800.00

$ 1,130,079.00 $ 1,857,416.19 $ 2,987,495.19 $ 2,165,000.00

$ 988,052.59 $ 530,690.34 $ 1,518,742.93 $ 733,350.00

$ 1,134,647.23 $ 530,690.34 $ 1,665,337.57 $ 750,000.00

$ 181,801.25 $ 265,345.17 $ 447,146.42 $ 350,000.00

$ 73,537,542.34 $ 53,069,034.00 $119,560,975.74 $ 81,039,674.00

Trends

While the first few years were

marked by low spending and

increasing receipts, 2004 marked

a clear change as expenses

exceeded receipts by over $21

million. The balance which provides cashflow until tobacco settlements are received in April

and reserves has taken a dramatic decline. Lack of a balance

will hamper agencies abilities to

expend funds throughout the first

halt of the year and will necessitate a decline in spending to

match recelots.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-24 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 4 of 21
Plans of Investment

Beginning in FY2004 each agency must have a Plan of Investment approved by the Commissioner of the Department of Children's Affairs

before they allowed to spend the money appropriated to them. This process requires planning for the use of Children First Funds and

requires agencies to identify outcome measures for determining the effectiveness of these programs. All 12 CFTF agencies had approved

plans.

Children First Plan of Investment

4gerscy Department of Youth Seivices

.,4ddres P 0 BOX 06 Ml MeI4s, AL 36057

Cairtacf A Walter Wood Ji Executive Director / Alice L Peaton Support Operations Administrator

Ptrnere 334-215-3830/334-215-3862

Fax 334-2163011

c-marl aisosi5ov-ol stole

____________________________________ ____________________________ QuaLity Assurouwe items __________________________________________ _______

Report Long Term Outcome Exprenue atdgriry Leguuatt%o Atathonzation Budget °\auocmt Meanure of Success

F

To provide adequate bedspace in order to comply Contruct Placements secure beds and graduated release fucihtoes 150000 Number of bed spaces purchased Quarterly with the S.S. v. Wood Consent Decree.

alternative oroqrams In orde: to reduce

ate to Stata DYS custody.

Programs

dtsiitioe t;roScorstce wiusi shall IncludE OhiO sxpoi-tsssy 0 0130.000

-- centers - i - - -- -

alternatuve programs which shall uuclude boot camps $ 630,000

mher of youth served f3uaiterl

rcerrtage reiuctico in tow f

mmftmei-to fros coiusstin0 oeece4_________________

To adequatety provide services to youth with multiple -needs Children

needs and disabilities

alfemaveproguotunclude criJersros ycrogsasis 0 SOrJ,000 noon/her of o{o to be oemxd

secure beds and gruduated release facihtoeo $ 400,050 Pertcertage of [rh'S referrals accepted for

multi-needs placement Quarterly

Number of youth accepted tot placement Quarterly

I QC /30 1 rho lj In a soy sot acloud eli Ily

$ 992,050 7 % of rev' Children birsl allotmenl provided

to detention centers Quarterly

cshec:iuildcdb ors-escen

Juvenile Detentuori Centers subsidies for reonul detentuon centers

1

14,182,00080

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-24 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 5 of 21
FY 2004

FY03 Balance $988,053

FY04 Receipts $530,690

FY04 Budget $733,350

FY04 Expended $578,863

FY04 Balance $939,880

oniaci in

an byrne

715 Gunter Park Drive West

Viontgomery, AL 36109

34-271 -3840

an-rvp-aaj uno.com

utcome Measures

1. Merchant Trainings

655 Individuals

123 Vendors

Materials

1 5,000 Register Stickers

2,500 ID. Checking Guides

3. 2,012 Compliance Checks

248 Actual Sells to Minors

5. 12.33°Io Non-Comphance Rate

Alcoholic Beverage Control Board

tong Term Outcomes Accomplishments

1. Prevent the purchase of

products by minors.

1. Upgraded presentation equipment to allow video and graphics to be used in training of merchants. This enables our

training to go further in depth showing fake and altered drivers licenses, risky sales situations, and role play alternatives.

2. Presented statewide Trainers of Trainers course with accompanying materials which could be left with participants to

take back to the work environment and continue practicing.

3. Completed 2,012 Minor Compliance Checks of locations selling tobacco products with 248 cases made, resulting in an

overall non-compliance rate of 12.33%.

4. Successfully protected millions of dollars in federal funding for the Alabama Department of Mental Health and Mental

Retardation by completed federally required SYNAR checks. 533 SYNAR Compliance Checks were completed with 74

SYNAR cases being filed, resulting in a SYNAR non-compliance rate of 13.88%; or well below the federally required

standard of 20°/s.

5. Successfully issued tobacco permits to locations selling tobacco products within the state and completion of 5,179

inspections of these premises.

6. Filed 95 cases for Minor in Possession of Tobacco Products to deter under age tobacco use.

tY 2005 Plan

1. Responsible Vendor Program $198,124

2. Enforcement $535,226

TOTAI $733,350

Prepared By The Department of Children's Affairs Children First Trust Fund FY04 Annual Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-24 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 6 of 21
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board

Detailed Expenditures

COUNTY

ACTIVITY PAYEE SERVED AMOUNT TOTALS

ENFORCEMENT SALARIES STATEWIDE $40026.26 _________

ENFORCEMENT SALARIES STATEWIDE $59,116.7 _________

ENFORCEMENT SALARIES STATEWIDE $38,046.20 _________

ENFORCEMENT SALARIES STATEWIDE $41,161 12 _________

ENFORCEMENT SALARIES STATEWIDE $37,831.81 ________

ENFORCEMENT SALARIES STATEWIDE $38 940.08 ________

ENFORCEMENT SALARIES STATEWIDE $19544.45 _______

ENFORCEMENT SALARIES STATEWIDE $35,032.56 _________

ENFORCEMENT SALAR IES STATEWiDE $38,848.18 ________

ENFORCEMENT SALARIES STATEWIDE $37 665.71 ________

ENFORCEMENT SALARIES STATEWIDE $43 593.12 _________

ENFORCEMENT FINANCE RISKMMGEMENT STATEWIDE $6,323.06 _______

ENFORCEMENT J C PENNEY COMPANY STATEWIDE $400.00 ________

ENFORCEMENT P1002500220193 ADJ J C PENNY PTV STATEWIDE ($33004) ________

ENFORCEMENT J C PENNEYCOMPAN4Y STATEWIDE $3,499 40 ________

ENFORCEMENT TECHNOLOGYAMERICA STATEWIDE $10,836.00 ________

ENFORCEMENT TECHNOLOGYAMERICA STATEWIDE $1,750.00 ________

______________________ __________ _____________ $452,284.70

RVP ALARIES STATEWIDE $8,644.28 ________

________________ ALARIES STATEWIDE $9,666.97 _________

RVP ALARIES STATEWIDE $4 859.58 ________

RW ALARIES STATEWIDE $12,430.11 ________

RW ALARIES STATEWIDE $8,644.28 ________

RVP ALARIES STATEWIDE $8,844.28 __________

RVP ALARIES STATEWIDE $8 644.27 _________

RW ALARIES STATEDE $8644.30 _______

RVP '&ARIES STATE1DE $8644.28 ________

RW ALARIES STATEWiDE $8 644.28 ________

RVP ALARIES STATE WiDE $8 644. ________

RW IG BEAR AUDIONISUAL INC STATEWiDE $427. ________

RW APITOL CHEVROLET INC STATEWIDE $16 135.1 _________

RW DELL MARKETING LP STATEWiDE $7 384. ________

RW DRUNK BUSTERS OFAMERICA STATEWiDE $499. _______

RW FINANCE PRINTING & PUB STATEWiDE $773. 1 ________

RVP FINANCE RISKMMGEMENT STATEWIDE $1,328 _______

RVP HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS STATEWiDE $484.1 ________

RW KLENTON TMCLEMORE III STATEWDE $108. ________

RW UK INC STATEWIDE $139. _______

RW UK INC STATEWIDE $143. ________

RW LONGS ELECTRONICS INC STATEWIDE $470. _________

RW OFFICE DEPOT INC STATEWIDE $198. _________

RW OFFICE DEPOT INC STATEWIDE $232 2 __________

RW ROYAL OFFICE EQUIPMENT STATEWIDE $495 _________

RW SATS CLUB STATEWIDE $177.1 _______

RW SOUTHERN LINC STATEWIDE $416. ________

RW SOUTHERN LINC STATEWIDE $46. _________

RVP WILSON & WILSON STATEWIDE $85. _________

RW WILSON & WILSON STATEWIDE $304. _________

RVP WS GROUP LTD STATEWIDE $418. ________

COMPTROLLER .IVU9OO99YRNDOUNDINGADJ __________ $1.61 _______

________ _______ -________________

- $126,578.02

TOTAL FY2004 EXPENDITURES $578862721 $578.862.72

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-24 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 7 of 21
12.73 child abuse and neglect prevention grants funded statewide serving at-risk youth.

13.Funded seven Children Policy Council Executive Director positions.

4. Corporate Foundation for Children conducted training, consulting, and FDC credentialing to 53

agencies and approximately 400 participants serving families and children.

FY 2004

FY03 Balance

FY04 Receipts

FY04 Budget

FY04 Expended

FY04 Balance

!1 I

's Affairs

FY2004 Expenditures

1. Salaries $ 308,847.00

2. Benefits $ 93,024.59

3. Community Based Programs $1,622,900.00

4. At- Risk Programs $1,314,572.58

5. Children's Policy Council Ex. Dirs $ 1 71,583.00

6. Grantee Professional Development $ 131,250.00

Ill

Outcome Measures

I

200,000 families served through

Community Based Programs

38,000 children/teens served through

programs for At-Risk Children

35 workshops were provided to

gra ntees

400 grantees participated in training

workshops

131 site visits conducted

520 Financial / Programmatic

Reports reviewed

1,950 contacts with grantee programs

$3,642,177.17

$1,560,049

$1,560,049

$ 527,738

$ 179,617

$3,827,453

Children's Trust Fund

Long Term Outcomes I

1. Provide funds for comm unitybased grant awards.

2. Provide funds for at-risk youth

grant awards.

3. Provide staff to monitor and

provide technical assistance to all

funded programs.

I

Accomplishments

1. 58 child abuse and neglect prevention grants funded statewi

family resource centers.

for family support programs and

4. Provide benefits to staff to

monitor and provide technical

assistance to all funded programs.

$3,303,004 TOTAL.

$2,653,452

$3,827,453 _______________________________

$3,642,177 FY 2005 PI

$2,314,279 1. Grant Awards - Community Base

2. Grant Awards - At Risk Programs

ation I 3. Salaries

Paul Smelley I 4. Benefits

RSA Union Building

100 North Union Street

Montgomery, AL 361 04-3702

(334) 242-5710

paul smel Iey©ctfalabarna.gov

Prepared By The Department of C Childi

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-24 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 8 of 21
Children 's Trust Fund

I

Detailed Expenditures

Famliy_Spport

Organization Name

Baldwin County Mental Health Center

Exchançlub Family Center of Mobile

Exchange Club Family Center of Mobile

Goodwill Easter Seals of the Gulf Coast

GRCMA Early Childhood Directions

ACES Crenshaw County

Alfred Saliba Family SerAces Center

Montgomery Public Schools

Parenting Institute- Family Guidance Center of Alabama

Parenting Institute- Family Guidance Center of Alabama

Southeast Alabama Child Athocacy Center

Success By 6 (Montgomery YMCA)

ACES Auburn Uni.ersity

Alabama Department of Public Health

Chambers County Council for Neglected and Dependent

Children and Youth Incorporated, doing business as The

Circle of Care Center for Families

Child Care Resource Center, Inc.

Childrens Adocacy Center of Cherokee County

East Alabama Mental Health/Mental Retardation Center

Family SenAces Ctr. Of Calhoun Co., Inc.

First Family SerAce Center

Talladega Clay Randolph Child Care Corp.

Children and Family Connection

ACES Cullman County

Childcare Resource Network

DeKaIb County Schools Early InteRention Prpgp

Franklin County School

United Way of Etowah CountySuccess by 6

Lauderdale Counypard of Education

Lawrence Count y Board of Education

Parents and Children To her (PA

Parents and Children T her (PA

Program Name

Reaching and Encouraging Actk.e Pa

Parent_Network

Parent Aide Program

Parent Education and Support

Caring for the Caregher

Building Healthy Families

Children First

Parents As Teachers

Buildinci Healthy Homes

Healthy Parenting

Parent Enrichment Project

Chisholm Pre.ention Project

Healthy Couples, Healthy Children 2003

Parents as Teachers - Cherokee Count

Special DeIi.eries

Parent ProAde Connection

Parent Enhancement

The Godparent Project

Parenting Education and In Home Support

BABY Program

A Child's Ha.en

Nurturing Parent Program

FirstYears Count ______________________

S uccess-By-6

Ready Set Schools

ALSAH

All Aboard the Brain Train

ParentPartners ____________________

Parentsas Teachers_____________________

Strengthening Families through Wrap-Around

SerAces

Parents as Teachers (PAT)

Baldwin

Mobile

Mobile

Mobile

Mobile

Crenshaw

Houston

Montgom

gprn

Houston

Statewide

Cherokee

Chambers

Lee

Cherokee

Lee

Calhoun

Russell

Cullman

DeKaIb

Franklin

Etowah

Lauderdale

Lawrence

Morgan

M oraan

Final_Award

$30,000.00

$25,000.00

$30,000.00

$18,000.00

$30,000.00

$20,000.00

$25,000.00

$30,000.00

$35,000.00

$15,000.00

$25,000.00

$20,000.00

$40,000.00

$20,000.00

$40,000.00

$30,000.00

$15,000.00

$25,000.00

$40,000.00

$20,000.00

$25,000.00

$20,000.00

$30,000.00

$22,000.00

$35,000.00

$20,000.00

$17,500.00

$24,400.00

$28,000.00

$35,000.00

$40000.00'

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-24 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 9 of 21
Statewide

Jefferson

Jefferson

Jefferson

Jefferson

Jefferson

Jefferson

Jefferson

Tuscaloosa

Hale

Tuscaloosa

Family SenAce Center- Bay Minette Baldwin

Hope Place Career Center Escambia

Family Support Program Mobile_____

Rainbow Family Resource Center/Parenting

Program Conecuh

F.A.S.T.(Family Action Support Team)

Butler County Education and Community Center Butler

Building Blocks and Young Parents _____ Coffee _________

Gene Co. Family Resource Ctr. Gene

Special Delh.eries Program Lee

pciaIFamilies/Special Needs Program Marshall/Jackson

Healthy Families North Alabama Madison

IMPACTWrap-Around Program Jefferson

Jump Start Early Learning Center Hale

Theres No Place Like Home Tuscaloosa

West Way Child Deeloprr

Alabama Public TeleAsion

_______________________ ent Center. Inc. Parents

Glenwood, Inc.

Glenwood, Inc.

Children 's Trust Fund

Detailed Expenditures

(NE CAP) Nurturing Ernnronment for Children and

Alabama Public TeleAsions Ready to Learn/Right

from Birth

FACS(Family and Community SenAces) Home

Visitation Program

F .A. S. T.

Kid One Transport System

Child De.elopment Resources

Children of the Village Network, Inc.

Health and Weilness Educational Center

HERO Family Resource Center

Tuscaloosa Family Resource Center

TOTAL

Family Support

Catholic Social SenAces for Family SenAce Center- Bay

Minette________________________________________

pePlace Family Resource Center ____________________________________________

MobileCounty Health Dpment ________________________________________

ACESConecuh County ____________________________________________

AutaugaCounty Family Support Center, Inc. __________________________________________

ButlerCounty Board of Education __________________________________________

FamilySenAces Center of Coffee County __________ _____________________

GeneCo. Children's Non-Profit Council ________________________________________

East Alabama Mental Health/Mental Retardation Center

Marshall-Jackson Mental Retardation Authority

National Children's Ad.ocacy Center

IMPACT Family Counseling, Inc.

HERO Family Resource Center

Tuscaloosa Family Resource Center

$20,000.00

$10,000.00

$10,000.00

$20,000.00

$20,000.00

$10,000.00

$25,000.00

$20,000.00

$35,000.00

$40,000.00

$13,000.00

$25000.00

$10,000.00

1.121900.00

$20,000.00

$45,000.00

$45,000.00

$45,000.00

$35,000.00

$35,000.00

$20,000.00

$25,000.00

$30,000.00

$30,000.00

$40000.00

_______________________________________________ Family Reading/Parent Education Program

_______________________________________________ Parents as Teachers

_______________________________________________ Parent Aide

_____________________________________________ The Nurturing Program

Better Basics, Inc.

Childcare Resources

Exchange Club Ctr. Of Jefferson Co.

ExchanQe Club Ctr. Of Jefferson Co.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-24 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 10 of 21
County

Baldwin

Baldwin

Baldwin

Mobile

Mobile

Mobile

Mobile

Baldwin

Mobile

Mobile

Mobile

Children 's Trust Fund

Detailed Expenditures

At-Risk ________________________ __________________

Lowndes

Montgom€

Butler

Elm ore

Montgom€

Houston

Cherokee

Lee

Tallapoos

Calhoun

Chambers

Clay

Coosa

Organization Name

Baldwin County Judicial Volunteer Prc

Baldwin County Mental Health Center

Baldwin Youth SenAces

Bi Brothers Big Sisters of the M itan Mobile YMCA. Inc

s & Girls Club of South Alaba Inc.

Boys and Girls Club of South Alabama, Inc.

Boys and Girls Club of South Alabama - GROWTH

CARE House, Inc.

CASA Mobile, Inc.

Dumas Wesley Community Center

Girl Scouts of the Deep South Council, Inc.

Alabama Writers Forum. Inc.

and Girls Clubs of South Central Alabama

Boys and Girls Clubs of South Central Alabama

Brantwood On-Site Education Program

Butler County Board of Education

Elmore County Juvenile Court

Family Guidance Center of Alabama-Parent Institute

Southeast Alabama Youth SenAces

Alcoholism/Substance Abuse Council

Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Lee County

Boys & Girls Clubs of the Lake Martin Area

Calhoun County Schools Alternathe Education Program

Chambers County Council for Neglected and Dependent Children

and Youth Incorporated, doing business as The Circle of Care

Center for Families

çyçounty Arts League

Community Enabler Deeloper, Inc. ________________

Coosa Vaflev Youth SenAces

Program Name

Baldwin County Judicial Volunteer Program

Community Mentors

Parent and Child Training

Big Brothers Big Sisters School-Based Mentoring

Program

Project FLEX

Project Bond

GROWTHS Safe Start

Solutions

Program Director CASA Mobile

Children-Youth March to Adulthood

STUDIO 2B and Badge Work Program

WRITING OUR STORIES: AN ANTI-VIOLENCE

CREATIVE WRITING PROGRAM

P.L.A.A.Y. HayneAfle (Partners for the Lhes of AtRisk Youths)

P.L.A.A.Y. William Kid' Franklin Unit (Partners for

the Lies of At-Risk Youths)

Brantwood On-Site Education Prog (BOSEP)

LIFT(Linking Infrastructures For Teens)

JueniIe Conference Committee

Youth Connection

Building Blocks for Emotional Health

PANDA Project of Cherokee Co.

Project Empowerment ______________

SMART Moes

Calhoun County Schools AlternatRe Education

P roaram

Skill Builders

2004 Arts Camp for Kids

Conflict without Violence

Coosa Valley Youth SerAces Parentinq Project

Award Amount

8,000.00

10,000.00

6,000.00

20,000.00

20,417.87

20,000.00

45,000.00

25,000.00

20,000.00

15,000.00

15,000.00

iESISISISX$II]

15.00000

20,000.00

35,000.00

30,000.00

7,000.00

14,764.71

38,000.00

29,000.00

15,000.00

15. 000.00

'.Isisxsis:

25,000.00

8,000.00J

10,000.00

18,500.00

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-24 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 11 of 21
30,000.00

15,000.00

20,000.00

30,000.00

20,000.00

20,000.00

20,000.00

30,000.00

25,000.00

25,000.00

10,000.00

Lawrence

Jefferson

Jefferson

Shelby

Jefferson

Jefferson

Jefferson

Shelby

St. Clair

SheffieldCity Schools ________________________________________ ________

CampFire USA Central Alabama Council ______________________________________ ________

ChildrensAid Society __________________________________________ ________

Friendsof the Court, Inc./CASA of SheIbS __________________________________ _______

GraceHouse Ministries, Inc. ______________________________________ ________

HooerCity Schools ______________________________________ ________

SafeHouseof Shelby County ____________________________________ ______ _______

Reconnecting Youth

Aim High Mentoring

Links-Up Mentoring

Teen Parent Program

Friends of the Court, Inc./CASA of Shelby C0L

Growing In Grace Through Artistic Expression

The BRIDGES Program

IMPACT Family Court Program

Caroline E Jackson Child DeeIopment Center

Abuse Preention Program

LEAP Project

CATS Proqram

Children's Trust Fund

Detailed Expenditures

Sylacauga Alliance for Family Enhancement, Inc. Turning Point TaUa 23,000.00

BEACON (Benelicial Educational Activities

Beacon House/Concerned Citizens for Our Youth, Inc. Centered on Needs) ___________ 27,000.O0

Big Brothers Big Sisters of Northeast Alabama P.A.L.S./Site-Based Mentoring ______________ 15,000.00

Boys & Girls Club of Northeast Alabama Project Learn ___________ 20,000.00

Child Athocacy Center of Marshall County Family Weliness and Anger Management Marshall 5,000.00

Cuilman County Judicial Volunteer Program Culiman County Ju'enile Conference Committee Cullman 7,500.00

DeKaIb County Childrens AcKocacy Center, Inc. School Based At-Risk Therapy DeKaIb 20,000.00

DeKaib County Childrens Ad.ocacy Center, Inc. Parent Project, Junior DeKaIb 12,000.00

Etowah County Board of Education Transition Specialist Etowah 30,000.00

Etowah County Board of Education SEE. Plus Etowah 20,000.00

P.E.A.C.E. (Positie Educational Alternaties to

Thirteenth Place, Inc. help our Children Excel) _______________ 15,000.00

Walker Co. Children's Policy Council, Inc. Parent Project of Walker Co. Walker 20,000.00

Administratie Office of Courts-Morgan Co. JVP Morgan Co. JVP Morgan 5,000.00

Big Brothers/Big Sisters of North AL The Sharpe Team __________ 15,000.00

Boys & Girls Clubs of Northwest Alabama, Inc. Positie Place for Kids ___________ 35,000.00

Colbert-Lauderdale Attention Home HEART (Helping Encourage At-Risk Teens Colbert/Lauderdale 40,000.00

Girls Inc. of Huntsville Teens Loving Children Madison 18,390.00

Huntsville/Madison County Mental Health Board, Inc. Panda Project Madison 25000.00

LawrenceCounty Schools ______________________________________

IMPACTFamily Counseling, Inc. ________________________________________

St. Clair County Day Program ________________________________________

Tarrant Middle School

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-24 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 12 of 21
Children's Trust Fund

Detailed Expenditures

Alabama Blues Project Mer School/Summertime Blues Camp Tuscaloosa ______ 15,000.00

BAMA Kids, Inc. BAMA Kids and Families Wilcox 20,000.00

Child Abuse Preention SerAces of Tuscaloosa, Inc. Second Step ___________________________ Tuscaloosa 30,000.00

Hale County Judicial Volunteer Program Hale Couy Judicial Volunteer Program Hale 7,500.00

Pickens County Family Resource Center Supporjg the At Risk Student (STARS) Pickens 32,000.00

Project B.E.T.H.E.L. Project Bethel Tuscaloosa 20,000.00

Teen Moms/Youth for Christ Teen Moms Tuscaloosa 10,000.00

Tuscaloosa Family Resource Center R.E.A.L. Ready to Excel in Academics and Life Tuscaloosa ______ 25,000.00

Tuscaloosa Volunteer Juenile Conference

Tuscaloosa Judicial Volunteer Program Committee Tuscaloosa 7,500.00

YMCA of Tuscaloosa-Central Branch YMCA PATHS Programs Tuscaloosa _____ 10,000.00

YouthEmergency SerAces Family Weekends __________________________ _______________ 25,000.00

TOTAL AT-RISK YOUTH GRANT 1,314,572.58

Professional Deelopment(CFC) Corporate Foundation for Children $ 131,250.00

CPC Executi,e Directors MOBILE CO. CPC Mobile $ 25,000.00

COVINGTON CO. CPC Coington $ 25,000.00

CHILTON\SHELBY MENTAL HEALTH Shelby $ 25,000.00

WALKER CO. CPC Walker $ 25,000.00

LAUDERDALE CO. CPC Lauderdale $ 21,583.00

JEFFERSON CO. COMMISSION Jefferson $ 25,000.00

LOWNDES CO. PARTNERSHIP FOR Lowndes $ 25,000.00

TOTAL CPC GRANT $ 171,583.00

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-24 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 13 of 21
Outcome Measures

Alternative Discipline Programs served 24,371

children who showed a 1 7.0°/a improvement in

academic achievement and a 16.8% improvement in

behavior.

Alternative Academic Programs served 20,251

children who showed a 15.30/0 improvement in

academic achievement and a 5.7°/a improvement in

behavior.

hool within a school programs served 1 7,287

ildren who showed a 2.2°/a improvement iii

ademic achievement and a 2.9°/a improvement in

havior.

)llaboranve Programs served 22,834 children who

owed a 1 .6°/a improvement in academic

hievement and a .7°/a improvement in behavior.

ol Safety Programs served 276,930 children

showed a .6°/a improvement in academic

vement and a 3.4°/a improvement in behavior.

Other Programs served 65,436 children who showed

a 1 .0°/a improvement in academic achievement and

a .4°/a improvement in behavior.

ren First Trust Fund FY04 Annual Report

FY2004 Expenditures

1. Alternative Education Programs $10,797,054.00

2. School Safety Enhancement Programs $ 4,563,189.00

3. School Based Sociai Workers $ 200,000.00

4. Monitoring and Technical Assistance $ 301,964.49

5. Teacher Background Checks $ 4,137,986.89

OTAL. $20,000,194.38

1. Alternative Education Programs

2. School Safety Enhancement Programs

3. School Based Social Workers

4. Monitoring and Technical Assistance

5. Training and Data Analysis

6. Teacher Background Checks

TOTAL.

$ 8,856,000

$ 2,214,000

$ 200,000

$ 138,000

$ 102,000

$ 490,000

$12,000,000

Department of Education

Long Term Outcomes Accomplishments

I

. Provide an alternative education program

that provides students with an alternative to

dropping out of school with emphasis on

individual social/behavioral needs and provisions of the academic requirements designed

to enable children to perform in traditional

classroom settings.

2. Develop School Safety Enhancement

programs to prevent or reduce violence in the

school and community and reduce school

disciplinary or school safety problems.

3. Continue pilot Social Worker program for

ten (10) LEAs.

4. Provide Program Evaluatton and monitoring

personnel/materials/supplies/equipment.

5. Provide training for school safety/drug

prevalence for IEA personnel; student, teacher,

and parent surveys; school climate survey for

schools.

6. Provide background checks for approximately 35,000 teachers and other school

personnel who may have unsupervised access

to chi'dren and who were not checked during

FY03.

FY 2004

FY03 Balance $14,070,816

FY04 Receipts $11,675,187

FY04 Budget $20,157,550

FY04 Expended $20,000,194

FY04 Balance $ 5,745,809

Contact Information

Dr. Sue B. Adams

3318 Gordon Persons Bwlding

50 North Ripley Street

P.O.Box 302101

Montgomery, AL 36130

(334) 242-8165

Prepared By The Department o Children's Affairs r

1. Alternative Programs

The CFTF aliocation provides additional funding to Alabama's school districts in establishing alternative education

programs, which may include but are not limited to alternative behavior and discipline programs, alternative academic

programs, alternative education personnel and alternative education training.

2. School Safety Enhancement Programs

The CFTF allocation provides additional funding to Alabama's school districts in establishing school safety enhancement

programs, which may include but are not imited to school safety equipment (e.g., cameras, surveillance, metal detectors),

school safety curriculum programs (e.g., conflict training, drug awareness, health awareness), school safety personnel

(e.g., school resource officers, nurses, social workers) and school safety training (administration, safety personnel, faculty

and stafO.

3. Teacher Background Checks

The CFTF allocation provides additonaI funding for the state in processing teacher background checks, which may

include but are not limited to background checks, fingerprinting, clearances, and investigations.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-24 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 14 of 21
Department of Education

Detailed Expenditures

I

BUDGETED Spent BALANCE

MONITORING (Administration)

01 Salaries $ 79,936.70 $ 79,935.80 $ 0.90

02 Bereflts 25,671.64 $ 23,582.96 2,088.68

03 TraeI In-State 2,682.28 $ 2,682.28 -

05 Repairs $ - -

06 Rentals & Leases 5,600.22 $ 5,600.22 -

07 Utilities 2,243.19 $ 2,243.19 -

08 Professional Serices $ - -

09 Supplies and Materials 185,163.30 $ 181,051.61 4,111.69

14 Equipment 6,868.43 $ 6,868.43 -

______ $ ______

$ 308,165.76 $ 301,964.49 $ 6,201.27

$

TEACHER BACKGROUND CHECKS $ -

08 Professional Serices $ 396,770.48 $ 395002.53 $ 1,767.95

09 Supplies and Materials 51,619.76 $ 13,142.58 38,477.18

______ $ ______

$ 448,390.24 $ 408,145.11 $ 40,245.13

$

$

01 Salaries $ 267,724.50 $ 265,742.30 $ 1,982.20

02 Benefits 87,093.35 $ 85,738.76 1,354.59

03 Trael In-State 30,752.18 $ 9,622.48 21,129.70

05 Repairs 71,291.00 $ 71,290.79 0.21

06 Rentals & Leases 29,372.77 $ 27,343.11 2,029.66

07 Utilities 18,165.29 $ 17,620.85 544.44

08 Professional Ser.ices 2,010,524.70 $ 2,010,524.08 0.62

09 Supplies and Materials 456,973.21 $ 434,106.84 22,866.37

11 Grants and Benets 431,260.00 $ 431,260.00 -

14 Equipment 376,593.00 $ 376,592.57 0.43

____ $ ______

$ 3,779,750.00 $ 3,729,841.78 $ 49,908.22

LEA

11 City/County School Systems $15,621,244.00 $ 15,560,243.00 $ 61,001.00

$

$

TOTALS $20,157,550.00 $ 20,000,194.38 $ 157,355.62

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-24 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 15 of 21
Department of Education

Detailed Expenditures

Alternative Frograrr Funds School Safety Erihancerrent Funds

School Systerr FèrsonneLl Computer Fa 1 Materials & Other School Social School IVtaI Caneras/ Safety Other Security

Services Hrdwr & CIItY Supplies Worker Nurses Detectors Surveillance Personnel Devices

AlbertvilleCity $47,489 $18000 $4,595 _______ ______________________ __________ $5,000

Alexander City $25,224 $21,335 __________ $2420

AndalusiaCity $36,787 ________ _______________________ ________

Anniston City $56,492 ______ ______ ______ _______ ____________ ______

ArabCity $50345 $2,500 $3381 $550 ________________________ _______ _______ ____________

Pthens City $54,180 ______ _______ $1,000 ____________________ ______ $3,800

AttailaCity $28,318 $12,670 $400 _______________________ _______ _______ _______

AuburnCity $65,277 ______ $28,120 $2,700 _____________________ __________

Bessenr City ________ ______ $100 $3,000 $88064 ______

$89,849 $155,000 $25,000 $9,810 $97,469 $145,390 _______ $30,000 _________

Brewton City $17,784 ______ $64 $10,005

Culiman City $38,676 $4,500 $4,086 $2,500 $4,600 $500 _______ $500 ________

Daleville City $6,000 ______ $500 $3,625 _____________________ $15,000 _______ $10J05

Lcatur City

$185593

$21,178 ,572 500

Dothan $172,465 $2 ii ,221

Elba 01 $14,530 $601 $5

$106,989

Eufaula ( $61,044

Fairfield $34923 $5 000

Florence 472 1,512 001

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-24 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 16 of 21
Department of Education

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-24 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 17 of 21
$35,352

$51,895

$6,848

10,000

$2,500

$5,910 $30

$21,299

$81,892

$12,000 134

$25,000 ______

$1,112

$530 ,112

$125,801

Department of Education

Detailed Expenditures

Thomasyule City $7,326 _______ ______________________

Troy City $22,904

Tuscaloosa City $79,969

Tuscurrbia City $28,811 _______

VestaviaHills City ___________ ________

Wnfield City $2,000 $7,310 ______

Alabama School of 1

Fine Arts

Total City Cistricts $2,333,694 $399,053 $126,333 $77,343 $322,601 $714,882

AutaugaCounty $138,173 _______ $5,025 _____________________

Baldwin County $222,615 $160,000 $98178 $10800

Barbour County $6,081

Bibb County $21,943 ______

Blount County $77,585 ______ ________

Bullock County $19,887 _______ $

Butler County $28,364 $4,200 _______

Calhoun County $103,267 ______ ______

Chanters County $63,118 ______

Cherokee County $86,166 ______ _________

Chilton County $65,217 ______

Choctaw County $45,852 _______

ClarkeCounty $51,719 __________ ______ _____ _____

ClayCounty $22,737 ________ ________ ________

Cieburne County $51,035 _______ _____

('rffi,-nh, icna q1fin(Wi

$134

$5,000 $3,000

$1,142 _______

$3,300

oc

ii

$47

$472,221 $250,913 $251,598

$40,920

$12,926 $12,000

$37446 $19,000

$16,698

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-24 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 18 of 21
57

$1,822 $3500

$137

$500

d itures

$2,000 $10,250

$10,242 $5,000 $10,000

$2,048 936

$122

$12,944

$4948

$129

$27

$56,000 $28,056

$560

$4,188 118

$2,268

$1,791 $11

Department of Education

Dale County $55,782

Dailas County $75,967

EKalb County $9,330

Arrore County $86,722 $46,726

Escantia County $91,102 _______

Etowah County $102,577 $15,000

Fayette County $34,170 ______

Franklin County $51,107 ______

Geneva County $31,468 ______

Greene County $36,646 ___________

Hale County $47,698 _______

Henry County $56,609 _______

Houston County $116,752

Jackson County ____________

Jefferson County $809,653

Lamar County $26,878 _______

Lauderdale County $159,737 $26,208

Lawrence County $115,267 $1,682

Lee County $87,832

Lnistone County $20277 $2,000

Low ndes County $51,528

Macon County $69,629 ____________

Madison_County $254,032 _______

Marengo County $17,121 $2,000 $13

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-24 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 19 of 21
949

$104,036

$2,500

Department of Education

Perry County $28,029 ________

RckensCounty ____________

AkeCounty _________

Randolph_County $24,706 _________

Russell County $63,750 $5,450

St. aair County $84,100 $10,000

Shelby County $134,594 $31,891

Surrter County $28,034 $2,000

Talladega County $85,955 ________

Tallapoosa County $60,193 ________

Tuscaloosa County _______

Walker County $91,932 $18,000

Washington County ________

Wilcox County

tMnston County $58,084

Total County lIstricts $6,576,252 $367,557

Total Alt stricts $8,909,946 $766,610

Detailed Expenditures

$17,725 1 1

$500 $31,209

$20,594

72 _______$5

$186

18 500 $11

$66,746 $10,512 _ _

$9,751 $1,500 $23,530 _____ $25,052 _____

$4,064 _____ _________ $71,224 _____

$28,755 $4,151 $18,820 __________

$584 $566

$239,812 $128,435 $225,974 $1,303,594 $6,500 $696,522 $374,746 $235,750

$366,145 $205,778 $548,575 $2,018,476 $6,500 $1,168,743 $625,659 $487,348

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-24 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 20 of 21
1 73 Appearances in court to render

expert testimony in criminal

proceedings

4 vehicles purchased

23 children transported by purchased

vans

P

$ 532,456

$ 128,290

$ 57,000

$ 10,000

$ 40,000

$ 10,000

$ 22,254

$ 50,000

$ 850,000

Department of Forensic Sciences

Long Term Outcames 

I I

Accomplishments

1. Provide adequate death investigation services to determine cause

and manner of death in children.

2. Out-sourcing of toxicology cases to

reduce child death investigation

delays and other cases where children

are impacted and other professional

services.

3. Education of resident physicians

and investigators regarding fatal child

death issues.

4. Provide funding for expert

testimony in court cases invotving

forensic findings n criminal investigations and child death training.

5. Fund purchase of vans for transport

of bodies.

6. Purchase equipment for

conducting autopsies.

FY03 Balance $1,134,647

FY04 Receipts $ 530,690

FY04 Budget $ 750,000

FY04 Expended $ 688,013

FY04 Balance $ 977,325

F. Taylor Noggle, Jr.

P.O. Box 3510

Auburn, Alabama 36831

334-821-6254 ext. 230

taylor. noggleadfs.aIabama.gov

1. During FY 2004 ADFS utilized $136153 for tlw "out-sourcing" of toxicology cases to a private vendor for analysis. This $136,153 along with

approximately $125,000 in General Fund revenues allowed for the completion of 1,034 full panels and 151 special tests for drugs and poisons, This

"out-sourcing' reduced the toxicology backlog of unworked cases by 1 78. Without the Children Trust Fund revenues toxicology backlogs would

continue to increase and reports vital for prosecutions and deith certificates would have been delayed.

2. Training vitil to child death investigations was received by two forensic pathologists. The two forensic pathologists attended the Seventh Annual

Pediatric Forensic Issues dealing with Pathology, Diagnosis Imaging and Investigation of child deaths held in Orlando, Florida, Seven medicil

examiners were able to attend all or part of the National Association of Medical Examiners Meeting held in Nashville, TN. Two medical examiners

attended the American Academy of Forensic Sciences meeting in Dallas, TX. In addition, several investigators attended death investigation seminars that

improved their abilities in all aspects of death investigation and child death investigation.

3. The salaries of two pathologists and two investigators were paid with Children First Trust Fund revenues. One of the pathologists was hired during

FY 2004 using these funds. There is simply no way to predict how many children's lives are impacted by investigations conducted by the Alabama

Department of Forensic Sciences (ADFS). ADFS conducts autopsies of children to determine cause and manner of deith. Autopsies of adults to

determine cause and manner of death impact children's lives in obtaining insurance benefits and settlement of estates that will impact the child's future.

Rape of uveniles is becoming a serious crime and ADFS is involved in the DNA analysis of evidence derived from suspected rapes (approximately 50

cases). Controlled substances confiscated from juvenile offenders are analyzed by ADFS (approximately 1500 cases). ADFS is involved in the scene

investigation ind analysis of illicitly manufactured methamphetamine. Many children have been found to live in the rooms where this drug is being

manufactured. ADFS participates in Child Deith Team reviews conducted in the judicial circuits of the state contributing to solutions to reduce child

death.

4. Children First Trust Fund revenues the ADFS was able to purchase tour new vans used in the transport of bodies from across Alabama.

These vans were the first new vehicles purchased for body transport since 1992. The vehicles replaced vehicles which were in excess of 200,000 miles.

FY2004 Expenditures Outcome Measures

1. Employee Salaries and Benefits $ 492,3 74.00 75 C ild Deaths Investi

2. Toxicology Services $ 136,153.00

3. Training of Physicians and Investigators $ 1 3,099.00 0 Child Autopsies Performed

4. Expert Testimony $ 90.00

5. Vehicle Purchase $ 44,95 7.00 1184 out-sourced toxicology cases

6. Autopsy Equipment $ 1,340.00 involving children under 19

AL $ 688,013.00 23 employees attended child death

conferences (pediatric forensic issues,

NAME, AAFS, etc.)

FY 2005

1. Employee Salaries and Benefits

2. Toxicology Services

3. Training of Physicians and Investigators

4. Expert Testimony

5. Vehicle Purchase

6. Autopsy Equipment

7. Autopsy Supplies

8. Grant to Child Death Review Team

TOTAI

Prepared By The Department of Children's Affairs Children First Trust Fund FY04 Annual Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-24 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 21 of 21
Department of Forensic Sciences

Detailed Expenditures

Sub-Total Grand Sub-Total Grand

Vendor Amount Total Vendor Amount Total

Marie Herrmann 1,729

Salaries & Benefits $492374 Marie Herrmann - reimbursement for National

Association of Medical Examiners Conference 580

Toxicology Services National Medical Services 1,264 Mark Day 550

5,669 Mark Day - reimbursement for Investigation

2,250 of Crimes Seminar. 250

667 Marie Herrmann 90

984 Marie Herrmann 510

19,437 Marie Herrmann - reimbursement for National

1,486 Association of Medical Examiners Conference 60

7,603 Johnny Glenn 1,500

40,600 Johnny Glenn - reimbursement for New

1,199 England Forensic Saence Seminar 495

54,719 Marie Herrmann - reimbursement for Alabama 200

135,878 Cornors Association Seminar (Reference JV#

40480000033) 75

Training Mathew Dyer - Public Agency Training 275 Marie Herrmann - reimbursement for Alabama 200

Leszek Chrostowski 1,059 State Association of Forensic Scientists

Leszek Chrostowski - reimbursement for Donna Weaver - Departmental training 300

Forensic Pediatrics Conference registration Peter Macchia - Departmental training 30

fee 725 Donna Weaver - Departmental training 100

Gerald Howard 333 William Jones - Departmental training 100

Gerald Howard - reimbursement for Scerarios Adam Craig - Departmental training 100

of Death Investigation Seminar 249 Scott Milroy - Departmental training 15

Stephen Boudreau 1,388

Stephen Boudreau - reimbursement for

Basc Forensic Pathology course. 950

James Sparrow 733

James Sparrow - reimbursement for Medical

Death Investigation Seminar 275

Expert Testimony Vaughn Barron

Deborah Dodd

Deborah Dodd

Vaughn Barron

Song Wong

Stephen Boudreau

Johnny Glenn

Song Wong (reference Jv #40480000033)

Vehicle Purchase & Tr Mike Patton Ford Inc. (4 F-250 Vans)

Autospy Equipment & Technology America (1 Laserjet printer)

Grand Total Expenditures

12,871

8

100

100

22

101

15

200

47

593

44,957

1,340

$688,013

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-25 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 21
FY 2004

FY03 Balance

FY04 Receipts

FY04 Budget

FY04 Expended

FY04 Balance

$1 3,460,452

$10,613,807

$14,540,694

$14,540,694

$ 9,533,565

Contact Infor

Margaret Bonham

50 Ripley Street

Montgomery, AL 36130

(334) 242-9502

mbonham@dhr.state.al.us

res

$ 9,700,094.00

$ 4,000,000.00

$ 840,600.00

$14,540,694.00

Department of Human Resources

tong Term Outcomes Accomplishments

To provide for increased

ipport and compensation to foster

mily homes in order to provide

leq uate services to children.

Due to the availability of CFTFs the Department has increased its capacity to serve children in need of therapeutic care.

The Department continues to observe children who are coming into care that have issues that require specialized care

and services. With CFTFs support, the Department has greater capacity to meet those needs and use the funds to

maximize federal revenues. The Department works towards the goal of children remaining in their own home if at all

possible. When that is not possible due to safety issues, these funds are critical to their receiving quality out of home care

until permanent plans can be made for them. The support from CFTF has allowed children in all areas of the state to

receive therapeutic services in the least restrictive environment possible, which is provided through the therapeutic foster

home network, in their own home counties or in close proximity to their families. This has allowed children to maintain

those important connections to promote healthy self-identity.

The Department of Human Resources further enables the States network of Child Advocacy Centers to address the trauma

that child victims of abuse and neglect experience by offering a range of specialized services and support to these youngsters and their families.

3. To provide direct services to

sexually abused children.

FY2004 Exp

1. Therapeutic Foster Care

2. Foster Care Board Payments

3. Children's Advocacy Center

OTAL

FY 2005 Plan

1. Therapeutic Foster Care $ 7,500,000

2. Foster Care Board Payments $ 4,000,000

3. Children's Advocacy Center $ 870,600

AL $12,370,600

Ill

Outcome Measures I

1,438 TFC Homes

1,229 Children Served in TFC Homes

90 Children in TFC transferred to less

restrictive environment

69 Children in TFC transferred to more

restrictive environment

2,400 Foster Homes

2,767 Children Served in Foster Care

2 Children's Advocacy Center Network

Meetings Held

1,273 Forensic Interviews Performed

1 74 Forensic Assessments Performed

526 Counseling Sessions Performed

Prepared By The Department of Children's Affairs Childr

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-25 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 21
Inc.

S

S

$

286,445.00

232,106.00

56,876.00

202,901.00

3,658.00

253,890.00

2,285.10

200,954.00

2,464,371.00

48,684.00

464,094.00

4.930.453.90

398,545.00

147,810.00

7,021.00

9,700,094.00

Camellia Therapeutic Foster

Chiistian Services

Families iii Transition Homes

Families in Transitional Homes

Family Values Networks Inc.

Qsteway

Glenwood MHS Inc.

Lee County Youth Developmei

Seraaj Family Homes Inc.

Southeastern Psychiatric Man

Specialized Alternatives For

Therapeutic Programs Inc.

United Methodist Childrens 1-lome

University ofA labama Tuscaloosa

W ilmer Hall Children's Home

Department of Hu man Resources

Detailed Expet litures

Therapeutic Foster Care

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-25 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 3 of 21
229 juvenile probation officer positions

in the 62 counties serving 18,463

children

68 support personnel positions for

juvenile probation officers in the 62

counties

6 of administrative personnel at the

Administrative Office of Courts

45 JPO positions in Jefferson County

serving 2,589 children

16 JPO positions in Madison County

serving 1,520 children

1 5 JPO positions in Montgomery

County serving 1,872 children

7 JPO positions in Morgan County

serving 819 children

10 JPO positions in Shelby County

serving 234 children

IOutcome Measures

I

7,070,582.90

2. County Juveni'e Probation Officers $ 1,940,137.24

FY2004 Expenditures

1. State Juvenile Probation Services

OTAL

FY 2005 Plan

1. State Juvenile Probation Services

2. County Juvenile Probation Officers

TOTAL

$ 9,010,720.14

$ 4,062,066

$ 500,000

$ 4,562,066

juvenile Probation Services (AOC)

Long Term Outcomes

1

Accomplishments

1. Provide and administer juvenile

probation services for children

referred to the juvenile courts of

the 62 counties in which these

services became a state function on

October 1,2000.

2. Subsidize the base annual

salary of one county juvenile

probation officer per 1 5,000

population or fraction thereof

(2000 Census) at the annual rate of

$22,000 or one-half the base

salary, whichever is greater, in the

five counties in which juvenile

probation services remains a

county function.

FY 2004 Fiscal Status

FY03 Balance $5,135,891

FY04 Receipts $5,306,903

FY04 Budget $9,958,168

FY04 Expended $9,010,720

FY04 Balance $1,432,074

Contact Information

Tom Monroe, Juvenile Services Manager

300 Dexter Avenue

Montgomery, AL 36104

(334) 353-5107

tom.monroeaIacourt.state.aI.us

Prepared By The Department ren's Affairs Children First Trust Fund FY04 Annual Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-25 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 4 of 21
Object Code

juvenile Probation Services (AOC)

Detailed Expenditures

I

Expense Category

Total

Annual Amount

Commitments To

Budgeted

Date

State JueniIe Probation SerAces

('ou nty Juvenile Probation Officers

01 Personnel Costs $ 5,577,788.00 $ 5,285,771.72

02 Employee Benfits $ 1,556,760.00 $ 1,533,829.00

03 TraeI-In-State $ 100,000.00 $ 77,384.72

04 TraeI-Out-State $ 20,000.00 $ -

05 Repairs/Maint. $ 15,000.00 $ 65.00

06 Rentals/Leases $ 47,000.00 $ 43,984.91

07 Utilities/Comm. $ 55,000.00 $ 60,859.16

08 Professional Scs. $ 10,000.00 $ 225.15

09 Supplies, Etc. $ 100,000.00 $ 45,705.03

10 Trans.Eguip. Oper. $ 10,000.00 $ 22.68

14 Other Equip. Pur. $ 100,000.00 $ 22,735.53

11 Grants & Benefits $ 1,951,649.00 $ 1,940,137.24

Total $ 9,543,197.00 $ 9,010,720.14

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-25 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 5 of 21
$3,055,079

$1,857,416

$4,912,495

$ 585,009

$4,327,486

FY03 Balance

FY04 Receipts

FY04 Budget

FY04 Expended

FY04 Balance

Contact Information

Mike Lewis

501 Dexter Avenue

Montgomery AL 36103

(334) 242- 5942

mlewis@medicaid.state.al.us

Outcome Measures

1 31,230 Immunizations provided by

Medicaid

185,237 EPSDT Screenings Provided by

Medicaid

146,957 Dental Screenings provided by

Medicaid

Alabama Medicaid Agency

Long Term Outcomes Accomplishments

I

1. Provide medcaI care to

uninsured children.

1. Number of immunizations reimbursed in FY 04 for Medicaid recipients age 0-20: 131,230

2. Expanded school-based services in FY04 such that this year 1 5,891 recipients received services,

an increase from the 12,828 recipients in FY '03.

3. Continued improved access to dental care. Only 65,088 recipients under 21 years of age received

preventive dental services in 1998. By 2004, 146,957 children under 21 received this care.

Prepared By The Department of Children's Affairs Children First Trust Fund FY04 Annual Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-25 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 6 of 21
FY2004 res

hot-

-Ho' risis XLafl

I ustaln JLLI

I Exoand FIND

J

Adolescent Ii Expansion of

TOTAL

Children's A

FY 2005 Plan

h Juvenile Court Liaisons ds Children

eCtS1 hildrens Sryices (Arninistrion) risi Sta serv for chilciren w/MR nçl beh. proberns. rv, Serv. Dually Diag. children in Jefferson County. anon! In .Hoipe Services for DulIy D!agnosed (MI!MR) e Coordination! Case Mngement Services! Diversion! Transition services In Home Services! Respite Services Management Services Services System of Care Project Fearns ([n-Home Intervention) tensive Outpatient Services Substance Abuse Services (RFP)

377,329

irs Ch

Outcome Measures

2,053 children served by Mental Health

Juvenile Court Liaisons

104 Multiple Needs children served

1,466 children served through Our Kids

Projects

93 Dually Diagnosed children served through

contracted community services

51 children served through crisis stabilization /

in home services

25 children served through contracted service

coordination

3 children served through intensive in home

wrap around services

100 0/o of children maintained in home through

intensive in home wrap around serv.

108 children served through planned respite

care

11 children served through expanded case

management in 7 counties

444 children served through expanded service

in Jefferson County

7 children served through expanded FIND

Teams

181 children served Adolescent Intensive

Outpatient Substance Abuse Treatment

4,546 total children served

rst Trust Fund FY04 Annual Report

Department of Mental Health I Mental Retardation

Long Term Outcomes 1

Accomplishments

1. Provide expanded Community

Based and Crisis services across

the Mental Health Service System

to children and adolescents that

have multiple agency involvement

and cross DMHIMR Divisional

responsibilities.

2. Provide for expansion of

services for children with Mental

Retardation who need In-Home

services, Service Coordination and

crisis stabilization! transition

services.

3. Provide services to expand the

Continuum of Care for children

and adolescents with Serious

Emotional Disturbances.

4. Expansion of Intensive

Outpatient programs for adolescents with substance abuse issues.

FY 2004 Status

FY03 Balance $5,646,625

FY04 Receipts $2,653,452

FY04 Budget $5,004,659

FY04 Expended $2,781,946

FY04 Balance $5,518,130

Steven Lafreniere, Director

Children's Services Office

100 N. Union Street, P.O. Box 301410

Montgomery, AL 361 30-1410

(334) 353-7110

Steven. Lafreniere@mh.alabama.gov

Prepared By The Department of

1. The Department was pleased to increase expenditures over last year by approximately one million dollars (58%),

which in turn increased the number of chi'dren and families severed from 3,101 in FY03 to 4,559 in FY04. This represents an increase of 31% in the number of children and families served with Children First Funds by this department.

This success is due in part to the contract providers ability to leverage these funds and draw down payments from third

party providers (i.e. Medicaid, ALLkids, etc.) to offset their costs; and maturity and stability of programs that were established in previous years with Children First dollars.

2. In 2004 the Juvenile Court Liaison Program was recognized as one of eight (8) programs nationally by the National

Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice as a "Promising Practice' for creatively addressing the needs of children and

families with mental health needs who are involved with the juvenile justice system. DMH/MR Children First dollars

fund twenty two (22) positions across the state.

3. Although much of the expansion activities occurred late in the fiscal year, the department was able to issue Requests

for Proposals (RFPs) for new services (crisis residential, substance abuse treatment! intervention) and expand current

contracts for existing services for children and adolescents. All service development is a function of the departments

planning process that occurs in each service division and through the departments Plan of Investment. Children First

Funds enable the department to enhance the continuums of care in each service division.

Mental Health Juvenile Court Liaisons 585,677

Multiple Needs Children $349,000

Our Kids Proi ects $678,788

Contracted community services and inpatient crisis services for children and

adolescents who have dual diagnosis $65,073

DMH/MR Office of Children's Services (Administration) $110,085

Community contracted Crisis Stabilization! In Home Services $468,276

Community contracted Service Coordination $23,280

Community contracted In Home Services $124,992

Expansion of In Home Services $50,000

Expand Case Management Services $25,000

State Match for Federal System of Care Grants to col'aborate and expand

services to children. $100,000

Expand FIND Teams (In-Home Intervention) $90,000

Existing Community Contracts for Adolescent Intensive Outpatient Substance

Abuse Programs. ( 4 Programs) $111,775

TOTAI $ 2,781,946

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-25 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 7 of 21
28,156.01

35,000.00

8,205.76

30,875.18

35,000.00

31,234.50

35,000.00

13,372.79

28,440.30

35,000.00

31,854.97

35,000.00

35,000.00

35,000.00

35,000.00

35,000.00

23,174.66

19,321.69

0.00

19,462.01

15,598.73

20,980.29

Department of Mental Health I Mental Retardation

Detailed Expenditures

EXPENDITURES: AMOUNT

Administrative Cost: 110,084.65

One Professional and one clerical staff to administer and monitor kinds and programs

Juvenile Court Liaison Projects:

Master's-level therapist working with the Juvenile courts to proide mental Health serices and

consultation for chidren/ adolescents coming to the attention of the court with mental health needs.

Activity Payee County Served

Baldwin Co.MH Center (Baldwin)

Cahaba MHC (Dallas, Wilcox, Perry)

Calhoun Cleburne MHC (Calhoun,Cleburne)

Cheaha MHC (Clay, Randolph, Talledega)

Chilton Shelby MHC (Chilton, Shelby)

Cullman Area MHA (Cullman)

East Alabama (Lee, Tallapoosa, Chambers, Russell)

East Central MHC (Pike, Macon, Bullock)

Etowah-Dekalb-Cherokee MHB (Etowah, Dekalb, Cherokee)

Greater Mobile/Wash. Co MHB (Mobile, Washington)

Indian Rivers (Tuscaloosa, Bibb, Pickens)

Jefferson Blount St. Clair MHA (Jefferson, Btount, St. Clair)

Madison County MHC (Madison)

Marshall Jackson MHB (Marshall, Jackson)

Montgomery Area MHA (Montgomery, Elmore, Lowndes, Autauga)

North Central AL MHC (Morgan. Limestone, Lawrence)

Northwest AL MHC (Walker, Lamar, Marion, Winston, Fayette)

Rierbend Center for MH (Lauderdale, Colbert, Franklin)

South Central MHB (CoAngton, Crenshaw, Butler, Coffee)

Southwest AL MHC (Monroe, Clark, Conecuh, Escambia)

West AL MMC (Marengo, Sumter, Choctaw, Greene, Hale)

Wiregrass MHB (Houston, Dale, Henry, Gene, Barbour)

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-25 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 8 of 21
Department of Mental Health I Mental Retardation

Detailed Expenditures

OUR Kids Projects:

OUR Kids projects represent a coIIaboratie initiative with DHR and DYS to serw youth in

their community and aod their commitment to a state agency or need for serAces away

from their communities. Cost for these serAces are shared between DMH/MR, DHR, and DYS.

Activity Payee Counties Served Amount

Baldwin County MHC (Baldwin) 69,112.62

East Alabama MHC (2 projects) (Lee, Tallapoosa, Chambers, Russell) 61,350.06

Cahaba MHC (Dallas, Wilcox, Perry, Marengo, Sumter, Choctaw, 35,269.66

Greene, Hale)

Jefferson Blount St. Clajr MHA (Jefferson, Blount, St. Clair) 69,332.58

(2 Projects)

Marshall Jackson MHB (Marshall, Jackson) 12,403.44

North Central AL MHC (Morgan. Limestone, Lawrence) 61,242.08

Greater Mobile/Wash. Co MHB (Mobile) 84,327.39

Indian Rivers MHC (Tuscaloosa) 68,265.75

Cuilman Area MHA (Cuilman) 8,874.61

Montgomery Area MHA (Elmore, Autauga) 28,295.73

East Central MHC (Pike, Macon, Bullock) 54,192.32

Southeastern Psych. Mang. (Etowah, Dekalb, Cherokee) 71,265.51

Shared SerAces Carryover for FY05 54,856.36

Multiple Needs Children

DMH/MR uses a portion of Children First funds to support children identified as Multiple Needs

through the Multiple Needs Child Office. These funds help sen.e children statewide through

a iariety of serAces.

Counties Served: Statewide

Glenwood Mental Health SerAce

Crisis respite care and in-home type serAces proAded to children/ adolescents

and their families who have emotional Disturbances and mental retardation related issues.

Respite can be access statewide.

Counties Served: Jefferson County and Statewide

Regional 310 Authority

Specialized Case Management for children transitioning to/from residential care.

Cniintip s Srvd Etowih

349,000.00

468,276.00

23,280.00

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-25 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 9 of 21
Department of Mental Health / Mental Retardation

Detailed Expenditures

Division of Mental Retardation

Jefferson County MR/DD Jefferson

Intense in home serAces to preent institutionalization of 2 children with deelopmentaI

disabilities and multiple health care needs

Counties Served: Jefferson

91,964.29

MR/DD Board of Mobile 33 027 96

Intense in home senices to preent institutionalization of a child with deeIopmental

disabilities and multip'e health care needs

Counties Served: Mobile

ARC of Alabama 50,000.00

Respite Care SenAces for children! adolescents with deeIopmental disabilities

Counties Served: Statewide

Division of Mental Illness

Jefferson-Blount-St.Clair MHA

Federal Match for Child SerAces lnitiatke Grant

Counties Served: Jefferson

Montgomery Area Mental Health Authority

Child! Adolescent Case Management

Counties Served: Montgomery, Autauga, Elmore, Lowndes

Rierbend MHC

Child and Adolescent In-Home lnten.ention Team

Counties Served: Lauderdale, Colbert, Franklin

South Central AL MHC

Child and Adolescent In-Home Tnten.ention Team

Counties Served: Congton, Crenshaw, Butler, Coffee

99,999.97

12,500.00

45,000.00

45,000.00

lndin Ricrs MHC

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-25 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 10 of 21
Department of Mental Health I Mental Retardation

Detailed Expenditures

Division of Substance Abuse

Cheaha MHC 18,990.00

Substance abuse treatment senAces for adolescents.

Counties Served: Clay, Randolph, Talledega

Greater Mobile 82,203.50

Substance abuse treatment senAces for adolescents.

Counties Served: Mobile, Washington

Southwest AL MHC 10 581 00

Substance abuse treatment senAces for adolescents.

Counties Served: Monroe, Clark, Conecuh, Escambia

West AL MMC (contract terminated in FY04) 0.00

Substance abuse treatment senAces for adolescents.

Counties Served: Marengo, Sumter, Choctaw, Greene, Hale

TOTAL 2,781,945.85

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-25 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 11 of 21
Multiple Needs Child Office

long Term Outcomes

I

Accomplishments

1. Provide services to children

identified as Multiple Needs

Children at the State level.

2. Provide services to children

identified as Multiple Needs

Children at the County level.

3. Provide technical assistance to

County Children's Services

Facilitation Teams to enhance

services to Multiple Needs

Children. Additional services to

include quality assurance and

accounting oversight of funds.

FY 2004

FY03 Balance $5,415,330

FY04 Receipts $2,653,452

FY04 Budget $3,000,000

FY04 Expended $2,823,968

FY04 Balance $5,244,514

Contact Information

Donna Glass, Director

201 Monroe Street, Suite 1670

Montgomery, AL 36130

(334) 223-0744

Donna.Glass@mnc.alabama.gov

The Alabama Children's Services Facilitation Team (ACSFT) is charged with the responsibility to serve children identified

as Multiple Needs Children (MNC). These children are defined as children at risk of out-of-home placement or placement

in a more restrictive environment whose needs require the services of two or more of the following entities: Department

of Education, Department of Human Resources, Department of Mental Health/Mental Retardation, Department of Public

Health, and Department of Youth Service. These children's needs are often multifaceted and require intensive collaborative efforts and service coordination from the child care agencies.

The Alabama Chi'dren's Services Facilitation Team utilized $1,448,968.33 of Children First funds to provide services to

1 7 multiple needs children representing 46 counties. These children paticipated in an array of services including wraparound, crisis intervention, and residential.

The County Children's Services Facilitation Teams received Children First funds based on the current Federal Census child

population data for each county totaling $1375 million. The County Children's Services Facilitation Teams participated

in 3614 staffings on the local level.

FY 2005 Plan

1. State Multiple Needs Team $1 ,475,000

2. County Multiple Needs Teams $ 1,375,000

3. Administration $ 150,000

TOTAL $ 3,000,000

Outcome Measures

Provided funding for 11 7 children

identified as Multiple Needs

Children through the state team.

ACSFT staffed 435 referrals submitted

by the County Children's.

Services Facilitation Teams

MNC Office provided technical

assistance to County Children's

Services Facilitation Teams

Developed and implemented monthly

County Children Services

Facilitation Team reporting

procedures.

The MNC participated in funding an

array of services including wraparound, crisis intervention, and

residential.

ildren First Trust Fund FY04 Annual Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-25 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 12 of 21
Multiple Neech.ChiI Office

Detailed Exp nditures

County Team [istributions

Total Percent Total Percent

COUNTY Population Under 18 Children FY04 ( OUNTY Population Under 18 Children FY04

AUTAUGA 43,671 12,494 1.11% $ 15,292.75 1 OUSTON 88,787 22,986 2.05% $ 28,133.88

BALDWIN 140,415 34,320 3.06% $ 42,006.25 \CKSON 53,926 13,036 1.16% $ 15,955.50

BARBOUR 29,038 7,383 0.66% $ 9,036.50 EFFERSON 662,047 164,240 14.62% $ 201,025.00

BIBB 20,826 5,286 0.47% $ 6,469.38 L MAR 15,904 3,750 0.33% $ 4,589.75

BLOUNT 51,024 12,948 1.15% $ 15,848.25 L UDERDALE 87,966 20,267 1.80% $ 24,806.38

BULLOCK 11,714 3,058 0.27% $ 3,742.75 L WRENCE 34,803 8,940 0.80% $ 10,942.25

BUTLER 21,399 5,754 0.51% $ 7,042.75 L EE 115,092 26,772 2.38% $ 32,767.63

CALHOUN 112,249 26,456 2.36% $ 32,381.25 1 MESTONE - 65,676 16,341 1.45% $ 20,000.75

CHAMBERS 36,583 9017 0.80% $ 11,037.13 1 DWNDES 13,473 4,068 0.36% $ 4,978.88

CHEROKEE 23,988 5,320 0.47% $ 6,512.00 r ACON 24,105 6,081 0.54% $ 7,442.88

CHILTON 39,593 10,165 0.90% $ 12,441.00 ADISON 276,700 70,787 6.30% $ 86,641.50

CHOCTAW 15,922 4,148 0.37% $ 5,076.50 F ARENGO 22,539 6,422 0.57% $ 7,860.88

CLARKE 27,867 7,811 0.70% $ 9,560.38 ARION 31,214 7,038 0.63% $ 8,614.38

CLAY 14,254 3,397 0.30% $ 4,158.00 ARSHALL 82,231 20,437 1.82% $ 25,014.00

CLEBURNE 14,123 3,435 0.31% $ 4,204.75 OBILE 399,843 109,881 9.78% $ 134,491.50

COFFEE 43,615 10,806 0.96% $ 13,226.13 ONROE 24,324 6,883 0.61% $ 8,424.63

COLBERT 54,984 13,077 1.16% $ 16,006.38 ONTGOMERY 223,510 57,646 5.13% $ 70,556.75

CONECUH 14,089 3,648 0.32% $ 4,464.63 ORGAN 111,064 28,144 2.51% $ 34,447.88

COOSA 12,202 2,891 0.26% $ 3,537.88 F ERRY 11,861 3,537 0.31% $ 4,329.88

COVINGTON 37,631 8,860 079% $ 10,844.63 F ICKENS 20,949 5,711 0.51% $ 6,990.50

CRENSHAW 13,665 3,372 0.30% $ 4,127.75 F IKE 29,605 7,211 0.64% $ 8,826.13

CULLMAN 77,483 18,790 1.67% $ 22,998.25 F ANDOLPH 22,380 5,620 0.50% $ 6,879.13

DALE 49,129 13,047 1.16% $ 15,969.25 F USSELL 49,756 13,194 1.17% $ 16,149.38

DALLAS 46,365 13,253 1.18% $ 16,220.88 1. CLAIR 64,742 16,417 1.46% $ 20,094.25

DEKALB 64,452 15,899 1.42% $ 19,460.38 HELBY 143,293 37,620 3.35% $ 46,046.00

ELMORE 65,874 16,924 1.51% $ 20,714.38 UMTER 14,798 4,305 0.38% $ 5,269.00

ESCAMBIA 38,440 9,270 0.83% $ 11,346.50 LLADEGA 80,321 20,066 1.79% $ 24,560.25

ETOWAH 103,459 24,654 2.19% $ 30,175.75 - LLAPOOSA 41,475 10,037 0.89% $ 12,285.63

FAYETTE 18,495 4,424 0.39% $ 5,414.75 - JSCALOOSA 164,875 38,543 3.43% $ 47,174.88

FRANKLIN 31,223 7,645 0.68% $ 9,356.88 \ IALKER 70,713 16,636 1.48% $ 20,362.38

GENEVA 25,764 6,183 0.55% $ 7568.00 \ IASHINGTON 18,097 5,189 0.46% $ 6,351.13

GREENE 9,974 2,911 0.26% $ 3,562.63 \ (1LCOX 13,183 4,041 0.36% $ 4,945.88

HALE 17,185 5,087 0.45% $ 6,226.00 \ (INSTON 24,843 5,888 0.52% $ 7,206.38

HENRY[ 16,310 3,925 0.35% $ 4,804.25 1 Dtal 4,447,100 1,123,392 100.00% $1,375,000.16

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-25 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 13 of 21
FY03 Balance

FY04 Receipts

FY04 Budget

FY04 Expended

FY04 Balance

ntact

4 Exp

Ii. Child Health insurance Benefits

2. AIDS Drugs

3. Community Grants

TMS

itures

$5,000,000.00

$ 260,000.00

$ 299,992.00

$ 744,588.59

Measures

60,655 children enrolled in All Ki

1 6,500 TMS Screening for newborns

and follow-up tests performed

11 projects funded and 532 youth

trained in tobacco prevention

TOTAL $6,304,580.59 to serve a tota' of 8,953 fellow

students

8 local councils educated in tobacco

an I prevention.

$5,000,000 I

I Local tobacco free facility policies $ 325,000 passed.

$ 721,214 H

9 HIV positive pregnant women treated

for prevention of HIV/AIDS

$6,046,214 transmission to newborns

First Trust Fund FY04 Annual Report

Department of Public Health

Long Term Outcomes Accomplishments

1. Provide ALL Kids coverage to

eligible low income children

2. Prevent transmission of HIV

(AIDS) to newborns

3. Expand newborn screening to

include disorders detected through

Tandem Mass Spectronomy

4. Initiatives to reduce tobacco

use and exposure for children and

youth

1. CHIP - The Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) was able to enroll eligible uninsured children beyond the

level stated as the anticipated result in the Children First Plan of Investment. End of FY 04 enrollment was 60,655.

2. Tandem Mass Spectronomy - Testing on the MSMS began Oct 25, 2004. The number of specimens tested through the

end of November was 8831. By the end of December approximately 16,500 specimens will be tested. One infant has

been identified with MCADD, and several other infants with abnormal amino acid levels have also been identified

(mostly due to prematurity). The pilot study was conducted from April to May 2004. There were 6053 specimens

included in the pilot study. Biotinidase testing began April 2004. There have been 75,915 specimens tested through the

end of November. By the end of December, approximatdy 85,000 specimens wW be tested. There has been one infant

identified with Bioti n idase Deficiency.

3. Tobacco Control - 532 local community youth have received advocacy training on tobacco prevention and control

initiatives to reduce exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. These youth conducted peer advocacy presentations to

other peers, impacting 8,953 feflow students on tobacco prevention and control initiatives to reduce tobacco use and

exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.

4. HIV/Aids - From Oct 1. 2003 - September 30, 2004, Alabama's ADAP served nine HIV positive pregnant women.

$1,738,697

$5,306,903

$6,370,000

$6,304,581

$ 764,848

rmation 11 2. Community Grants

Kathy Vincent 3. TMS

201 Monroe Street, Suite 1552

Montgomery, AL 36104

(334) 206-5200 TOTAL

kvin cen tad ph. state.al. us

Prepared By The Department of Children's Affairs

FY 201

1. Child Health Insurance Be

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-25 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 14 of 21
Department of Public Health

Detailed Expenditures

CHIP

Object Code Payee Amount Exp Amt Enc County Served

0800 Blue Cross Blue Shield 5,000,000.00 Statewide

of Alabama

Total 5,000,000.00 0.00 5,000,000.00

TANDEM MASS

Object Code Payee Amount Exp Amt Enc County Served

0100 Salary 31,206.00 Statewide

0200 Benefits 7,438.00 Statewide

0400 Tra'.eI 331.75 Statewide

0500 Neometrics 20,112.00 Statewide

0800 Reid & ODonahue A&.ertising 2,600.00 Statewide

0800 Assoc of Public Heatth 500.00 Statewide

0900 Wilson & Wilson 29.97 Statewide

0900 JacksonAIIe Specialty Ad.ertising 1,401.96 Statewide

0900 Booksamillion Com 31.50 Statewide

0900 Design Display Inc 349.00 Statewide

0900 Finance Printing & Publication 18.86 Statewide

0900 MYOFFICEPRODUCTS.COM 446.54 Statewide

0900 Office Depot 42.01 Statewide

0900 Neometrics 655,081.00 Statewide

1100 UAB Office of Grants & Contracts 1,172.06 23,827.94 Statewide

Total 720,760.65 23,827.94 744,58&59

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-25 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 15 of 21
Department of Public Health

Detailed Expnditures

TOBACCO CONTROL

ObjectCode Payee AmouritExp AmtEnc CountyServed

1100 ACAT/Madison Co. 6,992.00 Madison

1100 Hoover City Schools 30,000.00 Jefferson

1100 Jefferson Co. Dept. of Health 30,000.00 Jefferson

1100 Reco.ery SerAces of Dekalb 30,000.00 Dekalb

1100 ACATA/Calhoun Co. 23,000.00 Calhoun

1100 PASS 30,000.00 Autauga

1100 Youth Enhancement SerAces 30,000.00 Elmore

1100 Faith Outreach SerAces 30,000.00 Montgomery

1100 Escambia Co. Board of Education 30,000.00 Escambia

1100 Wiregrass Mental Health/Spectracar 30,000.00 Houston

1100 Mobile Co. Health Dept. 30,000.00 Mobile

HIV-AIDS

Object Code Payee

0901 Amerisource

Total 299,992.00 0.00 299,992.00

Amount Exp Amt Enc County Served

260,000.00 Statewide

Total 260,000.00 0.00 260,000.00

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-25 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 16 of 21
Department of uhuic Health

Detailed Expe htures

ADPH BHPCD Tobacco Preveni on and Control Division

Describe the top accomplishments for this year with CFTF dollars

1. 532 local community youth have received advocacy training on I )bacco prevention and control initiatives to reduce exposure to

environmental tobacco smoke.

2. 532 youth conducted peer advocacy presentations to other peer impacting 8,953 fellow students on tobacco prevention and

control initiatives to reduce tobacco use and exposure to environmenta tobacco smoke.

3. Local youth gathered 948 Citizens Surveys to determine the bc I community's support for a Clean Indoor Air Ordinance

4. Local youth have conducted presentations to educate 8 local co ncils on the benefits of reducing the exposure of environmental tobacco smoke in children through clean air policy initiatives.

5. The Coalition for a Tobacco Free Alabama featured the efforts o

Citizen Survey are posted and an article about the Coalitions presental

tobacco taxes to reduce tobacco prevalence in youth. (please visit: ww

honored the Hoover Coalition by recognizing us their "Advocate of the

Recreation Board has passed a policy that all their facilities and ballpai

requested that the city attorney draft an ordinance and present it to the

the Hoover Coalition on their website. The results of the

n to the City Council regarding the effects of increasing

i.tobaccofreealabama.org ) The American Cancer Society

'ear" for our efforts in tobacco prevention. Hoover Parks and

:s wi!l be tobacco free zones. The Park Board members have

city Council. The purpose of the ordinance will be to specify

who will enforce the ordinance and what the consequences will be for I ose who choose to ignore the tobacco free zone ordinance.

Detail outcome measure from Plan of Investment

Provide llyouth-empowered tobacco prevention community grants to r duce tobacco use and eliminate exposure to environmental

tobacco smoke among children and youth, as evidenced by the total ni iiber of youth trained and empowered on tobacco prevention

and control initiatives, the number of decision makers educated, and th policy changes that are made by 6/30/2005.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-25 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 17 of 21
Department of Public Health

Detailed Expenditures

Newborn Screening

Tandem Mass Spectrometry and Follow-Up

Describe the top accomplishments for this year with CFTF dollars

1. Laboratory personnel have been trained on instrumentation, Family Health Services has hired an additional FHS Nurse Followup Coordinator who is responsible for developing the follow-up infrastructure for this expansion, and a registered nurse has been hired

to work with Dr. Rutledge to assist with follow-up of infants identified by MS/MS.

2. Cut-off values have been established for the first panel of expanded screening tests. Analytes are used to screen for the

following disorders: Maple Syrup Urine Disease, Homocystinuria, Tyrosinemia, Citrullinemia, Medium Chain AcyI-CoA dehydrogenase

deficiency (MCADD), Propionic Acidemia, Methylmalonic Acidemia, and Carnitine Transport Defect.

3. Testing on the MSMS began Oct 25, 2004. The number of specimens tested through the end of November was 8831. By the

end of December approximately 16,500 specimens will be tested. One infant has been identified with MCADD, and several other

infants with abnormal amino add levels have also been identified (mostly due to prematurity). The pilot study was conducted from

April to May 2004. There were 6053 specimens included in the pilot study. Biotinidase testing began April 2004. There have been

75,915 specimens tested through the end of November. By the end of December, approximately 85,000 specimens will be tested.

There has been one infant identified with Biotinidase Deficiency.

Detail outcome measure from Plan of Investment

Expand newborn screening to include disorders detected through Tandem Mass Spectrometry: Number of tests performed = 16,500

(October 25, 2004-December 31, 2004).

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-25 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 18 of 21
1. Early Intervention services for

children from birth to age 3.

2. Child death review teams

pursuant to Article 5 of Chapter 1 6

of Title 26.

Measures

0-32 additional children rec

Intervention services

380 preventable child deaths in CY 2001

reduced to 335 in CY 2002 = reduc

tion of 45

11 total child deaths reported in CY 2001;

897 total reported in CY 2002 = 14 or

1.54°I reduction

$181,801

$265,345

$350,000

$350,000

$ 97,146

FY 2005 Plan

1. Children Death Review $300,000.00 380 child deaths that meet CDR criteria for

review in CY 2001 vs. 335 in CY 2002

= 11.84% reduction

TOTAI $300,000.00

By The Department of Children's Affairs

FY 2004 F

FY03 Balance

FY04 Receipts

FY04 Budget

FY04 Expended

FY04 Balance

Contact Information

Dawn Ellis

2129 E. South Blvd.

Montgomery, AL 361 11

(334) 613-2294

dellis@rehab.state.al.us

280 of 335 child death cases reviewed by

CDRreviewed in CY 2002 = 83.58°I

reviewed vs. 82.37°I for CY 2001 =

1.21.°I increase in review rate

Children First Trust Fund FY04 Annual Report

Department of Rehabilitation Services

Long Term Outcomes J

Accomplishments

I

1. The Child Death Review (CDR) program was administered by the Alabama Department of Public

Health to understand how and why children die in Alabama and to take steps to reduce preventable

child deaths. As a result during the report year, there were 45 fewer preventable deaths from the

previous year; 14 fewer total deaths; an 11 .84% reduction in deaths meeting the CDR criteria for

review; and a 1.21% increase in the total cases reviewed by CDR.

2. The Alabama Department of Rehabilitation Services provided 10 additional children with Early

Intervention services during January through February and 20-22 additional chfldren with Early

Intervention services during March through September.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-25 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 19 of 21
Contract Placements

Day Programs

Alternative Programs

Multi-needs Chi'dren

"Our Kids" Project

juvenile Detention Centers

$21,332,147 TOTAL

$ 9,021,736

$14,182,800 ___________________

$11,642,836 FY 2

$18,711,047 Contract P'acements

Information

J. Walter Wood, Jr., Executive Director

P. 0. BOX 66

Mt. Meigs, AL 36057

(334) 215-3800

alen.peaton@dys.alabama.gov

Prepared By The Department

- Day Programs

Alternative Programs

- Wilderness Programs

Multi-needs Children

"Our Kids" Project

Substance Abuse Treatment

Juvenile Detention Centers

TOTAL

Children's Affairs

FY 2004

FY03 Balance

FY04 Receipts

FY04 Budget

FY04 Expended

FY04 Balance

Department of Youth Services

Long Term Outcomes Accomplishments

1. To provide adequate bedspace

in order to comply with the 5.5. v.

Wood Consent Decree.

2. To provide alternative programs

in order to reduce commitments to

State DYS custody.

3. To adequately provide services

to youth with multiple needs and

disabilities.

1. Supported compliance with the S.S. v. Wood Consent Decree through the purchase of 309

spaces for committed youth.

2. Provided community based alternatives to state placement for over 1,000 youth.

3. Continued cooperative efforts with the Department of Human Resources and the Department of

Mental Health to serve Multi-Needs Children and support 14 "Our Kids" Projects.

Provided $842,050 to support local Juvenile Detention Centers.

itu res

$ 8,120,036

$ 500,000

$ 685,402

$ 796,704

$ 698,644

$ 842,050

$11,642,836

$ 8,560,084

$ 500,000

$ 814,975

$ 500,000

$ 400,000

$ 700,000

$ 227,000

$ 880,825

$ 12,582,884

Outcome Measures

- 309 additional beds purchased through

contract placements

1,575 additional youth served through

contract placements

15.79°/s reduction in low risk commitments

from Morgan County

1 7.39°/s reduction in low risk commitments

from St. Clair County

10.000/0 reduction in low risk commitments

from Shelby County

643 youth served in Day Programs

382 youth served in Alternative Programs

65,000 'Play By The Rules" books

published

- 1000/o of DYS referrals to Multi-Needs

Accepted

9 DYS youth accepted for Multi-Needs

Placement

14 joint agency contracts issued for 'Our

Kids" Projects

12 regional juvenile detention centers

subsidized

Children First Trust Fund FY04 Annual Report

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-25 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 20 of 21
30

48

80

32

48

95

52

34

Department of Youth Services

Detailed Expenditures

Expense pveC S ofbeds Am ountpail Coundes Served

Category____________________ sewed ____________

C onct

Pcements Lee CoHn' 24 158 541911 Stetewe

________ OakMtYS. 24 134 685,964J Statewñe

________ Bthge -STEPS 40 196 1067,653 Stthpwile

_______ ge-44 idemess 32 241 625,186 Stelmwile

_________ Bige-COB01 32 135 833,660 Stelmwe

_________ BithgeBoot )Eema) 24 178 440,529 0tetewe

________ Eithge -Reach 24 190 604,287 Stetew1e

______ gs-Nadon 49 79 2,015,669 Stewile

_________ 3 Spthgs-W idetness 24 103 507,981 Stetmwile

________ 3Spthgs-W Itdetness ema) 24 116 524,305 Stetmwile

It estAihYS. 12 45 272891 StflWe

25

27

_______ MoanCoComm SOS)

_______ StCrCoComm (IUSTEE)

A]temam

Prrrams HeniyCoBdofEd 4AYLA)

_______ MobIbCoCsesm DROWTH)

A CenrtrLas & C Ed -

_______ 'P y By the u2s

Juenj

Detenthrn

Centerm Baw4CoComm

_______ Coosa Vahiiy Youth Ser

________ Jerson Co C em m

________ Lee CoYouthDvCentnr

_______ IladdonCo Comm

______ IlobhiiCoComm

H Onom ery Co Corn Sr

________ S helsy Co C em m_________

SoutheastAYouSer

__________ Tennessee_VaThy_Youth Sec

Ttascabosa Co Comm

_______ H estAthbamaYouthoer

M u]needs UeptofHum an Resouaces t4 utChddnn needs)

'OCR KtIs' UeptofHuman Resources ØUR

1001100 I St.C1r

65,000 130,000 Sthtnwe

BaSS, mChrrcira Cb.ria',

n/a 45,930 Err'aahe5'i ashmgSrnr

O C rc5ajroun Cherokee ,Ciibume

1K,,IcLtee amosrh,rJ5

nih 73,488 StC'Sr,TaJBde5aSk aBer

nh 122,480 rekeraros __________

Bulbekllhae berm C By Crimea

Csenshaw lee $ecoiuPke,

n,h 48,992 Rar,deyh5usseitcaiiiprrr,sa

njh 73,488 MadiOn

n/a 145,445 Eobi

5 uSa9a yuthr,Cosec,,h,

n/a 79,612 Osormliorrseet400iriomeiy

n,h 52054 ________B±ibChdrrn$he11y

BathsurCofteeCovS,gtonliah

n/a 75,019 Geseva5tenry5tousmo

Coibert,Culflr an,FIar,kiu

Laudesiab Law seflce tin esuane,

ri/a 38,275 Masest1o,SarlknsSrr,

njh 41,337 SuoimrTascabosa

Dais Layeke p seene flaB yam as,

n/a 45930 Lair rides Stasenqo,Peray,Prkens3o 4aox

nih 796,704 Stetewile

Sthtewe

Toil ) I I 11,642,836

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-25 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 21 of 21
FOR EXHIBIT 12,

PLEASE SEE

EXHIBIT 5

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-26 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 1
FOR EXHIBIT 13,

PLEASE SEE

EXHIBIT 5

EXH(s1f

tc LC

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-27 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

J.B., a minor child, by and through his next friend,

Addie Ward,

Plaintiff,

vs.

WALTER WOOD, in his individual capacity, 2:06-C V-00755-MHT

Defendant.

DECLARATION OF SHEILA BEDI

I, Sheila A. Bedi, state that the following is true and correct to the best of my knowledge:

1. I am an attorney employed by the Mississippi Youth Justice Project (MYJP) in

Jackson, Mississippi. MYJP is a project of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

2. I have been heavily involved in juvenile justice reform in Mississippi since 2003.

3. The executive agency responsible for juvenile justice in Mississippi is the

Department of Human Services (DHS), which includes the Division of Youth Services (DYS).

4. When a youth court in Mississippi orders that a delinquent child be removed from

his home for reasons other than mental health commitment, the child is either sent to one of the

two DYS -operated training schools for delinquent children - Oakley Training School (for boys)

or Columbia Training School (for girls) - or confined in a juvenile detention center pursuant to a

disposition order.

5. On any given day in Mississippi, the state's seventeen juvenile detention centers

hold approximately 250 children. Of those 250, most are awaiting trial. The rest have been

adjudicated delinquent and are being held in detention pursuant to a disposition order by a youth

court judge. At the moment, there is no reliable data showing precisely how many children are

U EXHIBfl

1

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-28 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 5
currently being held in detention pursuant to a disposition order. The Mississippi Legislature's

Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review Committee (PEER Committee) is currently

researching this issue and will issue a report within the next few months. Based on my

experience around the state, I estimate that there are no more than 100 children statewide who

have been adjudicated delinquent and are being held in detention pursuant to a disposition order.

6. MYJP presently serves as class counsel to all children at Oakley Training School.

In that capacity, my colleagues and I conduct regular legal visits with children at Oakley. On

November 9, 2007, MYJP staff member Vanessa Carroll visited with children at Oakley and

obtained a roster showing all children who were confined there on that day. Attached is a

redacted copy of the roster, showing that there were 156 boys confined at Oakley on November

9, 2007. This is an unusually high number for Oakley's population, which during the past few

months has ranged from 90 to 120 children on any given day.

7. On November 9, 2007, I attended a legislative hearing before the Juvenile Justice

Committee of the Mississippi House of Representatives. Colonel Don Taylor, the Executive

Director of the Mississippi Department of Human Services, testified before the committee about

juvenile justice. In his testimony, Colonel Taylor noted that as of that morning, there were only

twenty-two (22) girls at Columbia Training School. This is not an atypical number for

Columbia.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date: November 2007

By:

Sheila A. Bedi

Mississippi Youth Justice Project

A Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center

2

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-28 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 5
CAMPUS POPULATtON

I 110812007

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-28 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 3 of 5
CAMPUS POPULATION

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-28 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 4 of 5
CAWUS POPULAtION

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-28 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 5 of 5
'STATE CAPITOL

MONTGOMZ ALABAMA 36130

(334) 2424100

FAX (334) 242-0937

Q'P10E OF TJ GOV!RNOR

Boa I4JLEY

G0VESN0R

STATE OF ALABAMA

December 21, 2005

Ms. Kathleen Feely

Ms. Tracey Field

Mr. Joe flu

Casey Strategic Consulting

The Annie E; Casey Foundation

701 St. Paul Street

Baltinaore, Maryland 21202

Dear Mses. Feely and Field and Mr. Liu;

BE; Juvenile Justice 'In Alabwrna -

On behalf of Alabama's children and families, I want to express

appreciation 'for the Casey Foundatioif a work with my Task Force on Strengtheriin

Faffiiliea. Casey has been a wonderful partner to us.

lain writing to request your assistance in a related area—juvenile justice. We

would be very grateful for the Stxategic Consulting Group's guidance in helping the

State of Alabama to design and implement a network of more effective, less

expensive community-based sanctions. for our court-involved youth. As Walter

Wood, the Executive Director of our Department of Youth Services (DYS), has

repeatedlytold his Board, the labama legislature, and the public, there are far too

many non-ctiminal" youth in state custody in Alabama. I hope Casey will help us

reduce reliance on large secure care institutions and develop prograrus that will

effectively 'and efficiently reduce juvenile crime.

Of youth adinitted to DY8 in 2004, 57% were committed to residential care

for "public order" and status offenses - including Children in Need of Supervision,

probation violations, and aftercare violations. At the moment, we have more 'than

1,000 youth in custody at DYS and an additional 130 on a waiting list DYS Director

Wood estimates That at least 25% of those youth could be served in the community

if we had appropriate alternatives for our juvenile court judges. Although .a few

counties offer an array of community-based sanctions, those counties are the

exception. Judges in our more rural counties are particularly in need of options.

- EXHIBIT

cc: ,cCtkk

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-29 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 2
Msee. Peely and Field and Mr. Uu

PaaeTo

ceiiiber 2., 2005

Iwiderstancithat Casey is flooded with requests, and I hope that you will give

se us. consideration to this invitation. X have beei greatly impressed with 'Casey's

expertise and would be p1eased to expand our partnership. I am avail.b1e to meet.

with ytiu and look forward to hearing from you soon.

.jcereIy,

Bob Rfley

Governor

BHfrdg

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-29 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 2
OFFIcE OF THE GOVERNOR

Bos RILEY

GOVERNOR

STATE OF ALABAMA

STATh CAPiTOL

MONTGOMERY, AuBu 36130

(334) 242-7100

FAx: (334) 242-0937

March 1 7, 2006

Ms. Kathleen Feely

Mr. Bill Buckner

Casey Strategic Consulting

The Annie K Casey Foundation

701 St. Paul Street

Baltimore, Maryland 21202

RE: Juvenile Justice in Alabama

Dear Ms. Feely and Mr. Buckner:

Thank you for your response to my letter. Although I was disappointed to hear that you

could not make a decision before June, I appreciate your candor. When your staff is

strong enough, I hope you will select Alabama as your next engagement.

Alabama presents a unique opportunity for Casey. We have a very serious problem with

incarcerating non-criminal youth, but we recognize that problem and are dedicated to

correcting it. This dedication is not limited to my office. The Department of Youth

Services (DYS) and the advocacy community agree that dc-institutionalization is a

priority issue and would welcome Casey's assistance in developing a network of

graduated sanctions for non-criminal youth and low level offenders.

The legislature and the judiciary have also taken important steps toward juvenile justice

reform. Last month, the Alabama legislature voted to establish a Commission on Girls

and Women in the Criminal Justice System. The Commission will meet for the first time

in April. Also pending is a bill from the Administrative Office of Courts (AOC) that

would make substantial revisions to Alabama's juvenile code. Among other changes, the

bill would impose sentencing restrictions designed to reduce the number of non-criminal

youth in juvenile prisons.

- EO1IIT

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-30 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 2
In the judiciary, the Chief Justice has launched a juvenile justice data integrity project to

rationalize and standardize the collection of data by juvenile courts. The project's goal is

to ensure that juvenile justice resource and policy decisions are driven by accurate and

comprehensive data. Over the next two months, the AOC will work with DYS, child

advocates, and other stakeholders to recommend a uniform set of measures to be used in

every juvenile matter across the state. I know that everyone involved in that project

would be grateful for any suggestions you might have.

If you have any questions or suggestions about any of the projects outlined above, please

do not hesitate to contact me or my Senior Policy Advisor, Dave Stewart, at (334) 242-

7 116. I look forward to hearing from you this summer.

Sincerely,

BRJs1/rs

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-30 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 2
05/2B/200E @9:40 334215:1 453 DEPT OF YOUTH SVCS PAGE @2/04

STATE OF ALARAMA

DFAFITM IVl

BOB RILEY POST OFFICE aox 66 J. WALTER WOOD JR.

MT. MEIGs, AI.AAMA 36057 Excuriv Dcro

April 20, 2006

Ms. Kathleen Feely

Ms. Tracey Field

Mr. Joe Liu

Casey Strategic Consultiig

The Annie E. Csey Foii idation

701 St. Paul Street

Baltimore, Maryland 21202

Dear Mses. Feely and Fi1d and Mr. Liu:

Alabnia's Governor, Hcnorable Bob Riley, recently communicated with you regarding our

state's desire to obtain your guidance and assistance with our juvenile justice system. The

purpose of this communization is to follow-up on that request and provide additional information.

As you know, those of ui who work within Alabama's juvenile justicc system have identified

several areas of concern ncluding the use of state facilities for non-criminal offenders, the

growing girls committed population and attendant special needs within the girls group, the need

to better coordinate Mena1 Health services (evaluation, screening, and treatment), and related

system issues. From your prospective, those may seem to be issues consistent with problems in

all states. Why get involved with Alabama? As is nouhe case in most states, you will find the

environment here 4'ripe r change." Ow- Governor, the Youth Services Department and staff,

Legislative leadership working in the juvenile justice arena and system advocates are

communicating on a regular basis, identifying problems, arid working together to address needs,

together. We need a cat lyst to bring our work to full consensus and to assist us with

implementing needed ch;tnges. You will not find this level of cooperation in other states.

We respectfully request "ou give serious consideration to assisting us.

Sincerely,

J. Walter Wood, Jr.

Executjv Director

.1 WWJr,/gjw

EXHIT.

1

LI

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-31 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 1
-'oi St. F'ul Srrc

B.lI(lnlOre. MD '1201

.W ¶4-6600

FAX 410 146624

The Annie E. Casey Foundation

August 1, 2007

I-Ion. Sue Bell Cobb

Chief Justice

Supreme Court of Alabama

300 Dexter Avenue

Montgomery, AL 36104-3741

Dear Chief Justice Cobb:

Based upon the very productive meetings held last week, I am pleased to inform

you that Alabama has been chosen as a replication site for the Juvenile Detention

Alternatives Initiative (JDAI). We look forward to a stimulating multi-year partnership

with state and county officials in these endeavors to strengthen juvenile justice.

It is our understanding that Alabama will begin the process ofjuvenile detention

reform in four counties (Jefferson, Mobile, Montgomery and Tuscaloosa). All of these

sites showed great interest in this work and each had local champions who can rally the

support and operational leadership needed for success. Their local collaborative

detention reform activities will be coordinated statewide by the Administrative Office of

Courts, assisted by state-level stakeholders who will seek to ensure that state law, policy,

administrative regulation, practice and funding are appropriately aligned with the reform

strategies these counties will pursue.

To support these efforts, we will make a cash grant to the Administrative Office

of the Courts for S 150,000 for the period August 1, 2007 through July 31, 2008.

Assuming appropriate progress. you can anticipate up to three years of funding at this

level. In the fourth year, most JDAI sites receive a grant equal to half of their prior year's

grant. Subsequently, sites are eligible for "maintenance" grants to cover travel and

related costs. To move the grant process forward, we need a letter from your office

affirming your plans to implement JDAI and a budget for the first twelve-month term.

The details of this letter and budget have already been discussed with Karen Trussell.

In addition to this grant, we will support detention reform in Alabama through

direct technical assistance and your state's inclusion in the JDAI national network. Tim

Roche, an experienced justice system consultant, will serve as the Foundation's

Technical Assistance Team Leader for Alabama.

Most states that pursue IDA! have at least matched our financial support; many

have exceeded our grant amounts. Matching funds have come from government agency

budgets, new appropriations, private foundations or federal block grants (e.g., OJJDP

EXHIBIT

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-32 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 2
Hon. Sue Bell Cobb

August 1, 2007

Page 2

funds). If there is anything that I might do to assist Alabama officials to increase the

funds available for detention reform activities, please let me know. We are very eager to

leverage additional resources for this important work.

Please be aware that JDAI's annual national conference will convene in Dallas

September 25-27, 2007. This gathering will offer unique opportunities for Alabama

officials to immerse themselves in the strategies and innovations now being implemented

across the country. We have designated 20 slots for Alabama representatives and I

encourage your office to begin assembling the state's delegation and making travel

arrangements as quickly as possible. Our grani, of course, may be used to cover

conference travel costs. I will forward a detailed conference logistics memorandum to

Karen to guide these efforts.

Your support for .TDAI was a very significant influence in our decision to

undertake this work in Alabama. We genuinely appreciate your leadership and your

advocacy on behalf of disadvantaged children. I am personally looking forward to

working with you on these endeavors to strengthen Alabama's juvenile justice system.

Bart Lubow

Director, Program for High Risk Youth

CC: K. Trussell

0. Mumford

T. Roche

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-32 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 2
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

1-IEFLIN-TORBERT JUDICIAL BUILDING

300 DEXTER AVENUE

MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104-3741

(334) 229-0700

CHIEF JUSTICE

SUE BELL COBB, OF EVERGREEN

ASSOCIATE JUSTICES

HAROLD SEE, OF NORTHPORT

CHAMP LYONS, JR., OF POINT CLEAR

THOMAS A. WOODALL. or BIRMINGHAM

LYN STUART, OF BAY MINETE

PATRICIA M. SMITH, OF INDIAN $PP1NES

MICHAEL F. BOLIN, OF BIRMINGHAM

TOM PARKER, OF MONTGOMERY

GLENN MURDOCK, OF BIRMINGHAM

March 20, 2007

Ms. DanieHe J. Lipow, Esq.

Southern Juvenile Defender Center

Southern Poverty Law Center

403 Washington Avenue

Montgomery, AL 3604

Dej(

Alabama, like most states, is experiencing some very real challenges in its local Juvenile

Detention systems. Overcrowding, expanding costs, conditions of confinement, and competition for

funding are just some of the issues I have heard about in recent months.

J have asked the Annie E. Casey Foundations "Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative"

(JDAI) to come and speak with a small group about what the JDAI might offer Alabama and to

determine if Alabama might be a good candidate for JDAI's expertise. This would be an exploratory

meeting, but one in which honest talk and thoughtful listening would be critical.

The meeting will be on Wednesday, April 4, in the large classroom on the lobby level of the

Hefhn-Torbert Building, beginning at 2 p.m. and ending by 4 p.m. Parking is available at the Center

of Commerce parking deck which is located at the intersection Adams and Hull Streets. Please access

via the Hull Street entrance and enter the parking code of 167*. As part of this collaborative effort,

Walter Wood, Executive Director of the Department of Youth Services, has graciously agreed to pay

per diem and mileage reimbursement to all in-state attendees.

JDAI has an excellent reputation for its success in addressing detention issues with local and

state authorities in a number of locations around the country. You can access their website and read

about their efforts at www.aecf.org.

I am asking that you participate in this small group as one of the key persons familiar with

detention problems in our state. You will be joined by representatives from the state and local judicial,

executive, and legislative branches, as well as representatives from allied organizations.

Please let me know of your attendance plans at your earliest convenience. You may do that by

contacting Karen Trussell at 334-954-5063, or by e-mail at trussçl(jalacourt,gy.

I look forward to seeing you at the meeting and I am confident that this will be a most

worthwhile discussion.

Sincerely

Sue Bell Cobb

Chief Justice

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-33 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 1
2006 Rate (per 2007 Rate (per

2006 Juvenile 2006 10,000 juveniles 2007 10,000 juveniles Change in

County Popn (0-17 y-o) Admissions in popn) Admissions in pop'n) Admissions (%)

Coosa 2,422 13 54 21 87 62%

Conecuh 3,210 13 40 27 84 108%

Greene 2,506 15 60 20 80 33%

Tallapoosa 9,428 90 95 70 74 -22%

Covington 8,360 37 44 56 67 51%

Bibb 5,131 41 80 32 62 -22%

Randolph 5,447 48 88 33 61 -31%

Franklin 7,411 29 39 44 59 52%

Pickens 5,109 15 29 29 57 93%

Tuscaloosa 39,270 215 55 203 52 -6%

Houston 23,624 142 60 121 51 -15%

Baldwin 37,954 215 57 178 47 -17%

Elmore 18,231 89 49 84 46 -6%

Marengo 5,084 29 57 23 45 -21%

Autauga 12,996 51 39 56 43 10%

Hale 4,655 14 30 20 43 43%

Barbour 6,681 44 66 27 40 -39%

Dallas 12,123 53 44 48 40 -9%

Lee 27,858 107 38 109 39 2%

Etowah 23,830 66 28 92 39 39%

Madison 73,244 228 31 270 37 18%

Chambers 8,444 30 36 30 36 0%

Geneva 5,763 27 47 20 35 -26%

Calhoun 26,325 63 24 80 30 27%

Jefferson 160,016 570 36 480 30 -16%

Monroe 6,089 18 30 18 30 0%

Jackson 12,243 23 19 35 29 52%

St. Clair 17,562 38 22 49 28 29%

Pike 6,992 32 46 19 27 -41%

Talladega 19,064 57 30 51 27 -11%

Cherokee 5,266 12 23 14 27 17%

Russell 12,846 32 25 34 26 6%

Bullock 2,676 13 49 7 26 -46%

Choctaw 3,460 8 23 9 26 13%

Chilton 10,255 28 27 26 25 ____________

Winston 5,531 17 31 14 25 -18°!

Fayette 3,953 13 33 10 25 -23°

Escambia 8,816 19 22 21 24 11°

Marshall 22,015 50 23 52 24 40

Macon 5,111 17 33 12 23 -29°

Mobile 107,090 248 23 235 22 50/

Blount 13,382 18 13 29 22 61°

Lauderdale 18,808 39 21 39 21 0°!

Montgomery 58,213 133 23 120 21 -10°!

Coffee 10,866 18 17 21 19 17°!

Dale 13,091 34 26 25 19 -26°!

Perry 3,245 5 15 6 18 20°!

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-34 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 2
2006 Rate (per 2007 Rate (per

2006 Juvenile 2006 10,000 juveniles 2007 10,000 juveniles Change in

County Pop'n (0-17 y .o) Admissions in popn) Admissions in pop'n) Admissions (%)

Clarke 7,067 8 11 13 18 63%

Cleburne 3,356 3 9 6 18 100%

Marion 6,442 10 16 11 17 10%

Lawrence 8,049 8 10 13 16 63%

Walker 15,944 20 13 25 16 25%

Limestone 16,886 22 13 24 14 9%

Sumter 3,560 9 25 5 14 -44%

Clay 2,975 5 17 4 13 -20%

Lowndes 3,398 4 12 4 12 0%

Shelby 45,658 54 12 52 11 -4%

Morgan 27,791 26 9 29 10 12%

DeKaIb 16,773 18 11 17 10 -6%

Colbert 12,184 13 11 12 10 -8%

Cullman 18,336 17 9 18 10 6%

Washington 4,520 3 7 3 7 0%

Lamar 3,123 1 3 2 6 100%

Henry 3,759 1 3 2 5 100%

Butler 5,038 1 2 2 4 100%

Crenshaw 3,179 0 0 1 3 _____________

Wilcox 3,817 0 0 0 0 ____________

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-34 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 2
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

DIVISION OF YOUTH SERVICES

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

THE TONY GOBAR INDIVIDUALIZED ASSESSMENT AND COMPREHENSIVE

COMMUNITY INTERVENTION INITIATIVE (IACCII)

(BOLl VAR, LEE, RANKIN)

Application Issue Date: Thursday, September 6, 2007

Application Submission Deadline: Friday, October 5, 2007 - 5:00 P.M.

Mississippi Department of Human Services

750 North State Street

Jackson, Mississippi 39202

XHLBII

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-35 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 21
SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this Request for Proposal (REP) is to solicit proposals from interested

parties/organizations which can most effectively and cost-efficiently replicate the Tony Gobar

Individualized Assessment and Comprehensive Community Intervention Initiative (IACCIII). The

IACCIII is a highly-structured, intensive, community-based service for eligible youth. The program

provides comprehensive strength-based needs assessments, individualized treatment plans and

community-based services for eligible youth. Major keys to program success are: (1) the intensity

and regularity of the supervision effort, (2) the constant provision of clinical counseling

interventions addressing the chi]d's developing social and coping skills; and, (3) the daily

interaction, support, and mutual acceptance of responsibility among community agencies responsible

for various services, i.e., Youth Court Judges and staff, Division of Youth Services (DYS) staff,

educational system staff, law enforcement, mental health staff, and related groups.

Therefore, through the proposal process, MD}{S/DYS intends to award funds specifically for the

purpose of developing IACCII sites, to the Proposer(s) in Bolivar County, Lee County, and Rankin

County; who, in the sole judgment of MDHS/DYS, is best suitable to accomplish the establishment

and successful operation of an IACCII within the conditions, rules, and guidelines established in this

RFP. MDHS/DYS will conduct training sessions for all established IACCII's.

The total obligation of MDHS and the State of Mississippi for all services and performances

required by this Request for Proposals (REP) shall not exceed the balance of the funding that MDHS

has on hand for the IACCII. The anticipated amount shall not exceed $250,000.00. The proposed

Period of Performance for subgrant contracts will run from December 1, 2007 to June 30,

2008.

The closing date for proposal submission is no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, October 5, 2007.

No proposals will be accepted afier 5:00 p.m. on Friday, October 5, 2007.

SECTION II. RFP PROCESS

This RFP provides background information and describes the subgrant services desired by MDHS.

It delineates the requirements for this procurement and specifies the contractual conditions required

by MDHS.

Parties responding to this RFP will be referred to as "Proposers." The successful Proposer to whom

a subgrant will be awarded will be referred to as 'Proposer."

A. Receipt of Proposer's Questions

Proposer's questions regarding this RFP or questions related to the information that must be

provided in response to it must be submitted in writing prior to September 18, 2007. All

questions must be addressed to: Ms. Kathy Pittman, Director, Division of Youth Services,

Mississippi Department of Human ServIces, 750 North State Street, Jackson, MS

39202.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-35 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 21
policies and procedures of MDHS and/or the State of Mississippi;

3. Bias, discrimination, or conflict of interest existed on the part of an evaluator; or

4. Scope and intent of the project as specified in the executed subgrant differ

materially from the scope and intent of the RFP.

Protests not based on the above described criteria will be rejected.

Resolution of Protests. Protests allowed by this Section shall follow MDHS' procedures for

hearing contested cases, which will be made available upon request.

L. Fidelity/Dishonesty Bond

Upon receipt of notification of an award, the Proposer shall submit to MDHS a

Fidelity/Dishonesty Bond in favor of MDHS with surety or sureties satisfactory to MDHS

for the term of the subgrant. The amount of the Bond must equal 25% of the total subgrant

amount. Failure to provide the Fidelity/Dishonesty Bond within the stated time period may

result in the Proposer being deemed as non-responsive and the proposal will be immediately

disqualified with no further consideration given for potential awarding of the subgrant to

said Proposer.

The Bond must be secured from a company authorized to transact business in the State of

Mississippi. The Bond shall be made payable to MDHS.

The Bond shall become effective upon written notification that a subgrant has been awarded

to the Proposer. The Bond shall remain in full force and effect for the entire duration of the

subgrant. Any action by the Proposer and/or the bonding company to revoke and/or cancel

the Bond prior to the expiration of the subgrant will constitute a breach of subgrant and will

result in immediate cancellation of the subgrant.

M. Publicity

Any use or reference of this RFP by the Proposer to promote, solicit, or disseminate

information regarding the award ofthe Subgrant or the services being provided is prohibited,

unless otherwise agreed to in writing by MDHS.

N. Proposal Submission

Proposals must be received by MDHS no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, October 5,

2007. Proposals must be sent to: Ms. Kathy Pittman, Director, Division of Youth

Services, Mississippi Department of fluman Services, 750 North State Street,

Jackson, MS 39202, or hand delivered to the first floor lobby of the same address to

the Division of Youth Services designated employee.

Proposals must be received (regardless of postmark) by the above named party by

5:00 p.m. Friday, October 5, 2007, to be considered. Proposals will be timestamped as they are received. Any proposals received after 5:00 p.m. on Friday,

October 5, 2007, will be marked LATE and will not be evaluated.

5

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-35 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 3 of 21
No facsimiles (faxes will be accep.

All Proposals, including revisions, will be considered confidential until a final

determination has been made by MDHS.

2. In order to be considered for selection, Proposers must submit a complete response to

this RFP. One signed original and three (3) copies of the proposal must be submitted

to the party designated in number 1 above by 5:00 p.m., October 5, 2007. No other

distribution of the proposals must be made by the Proposer. The proposal must be

clearly marked "Transmittal Letter and Proposal in response to MDHS' Adolescent

Offender Program Initiative" on the outside of the envelope.

MDHS RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT ANY AND ALL PROPOSALS

WHERE THE PROPOSER TAKES EXCEPTION TO THE TERMS AND

CONDITIONS OF THE RFP AND/OR FAILS TO MEET THE TERMS AND

CONDITIONS AND/OR IN ANY WAY ATTEMPTS TO LIMIT THE RIGHTS OF

MDHS AND/OR THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED

TO, THE REQUIRED CONTRACTUAL TERMS AND PROVISiONS SET FORTH

IN THIS RFP.

SECTION III. PROPOSAL FORMAT

Acceptable proposals must offer all services identified in Section IV, Scope of Work, and agree to

the Subgrant conditions specified in Section VII, Subgrant Terms and Provisions.

A. Proposal Preparation

Proposals shall be signed by an authorized representative of the Proposer. All information

requested must be submitted. Failure to submit all information requested will result in

MDHS' requiring prompt submission of missing information and/or giving a lower

evaluation of the proposal. Proposals which are substantially incomplete or lack key

information will be rejected by MDHS.

Proposals must be organized in the order in which the requirements are presented in the RFP.

All pages of the proposal should be numbered. Each paragraph in the proposal should

reference the paragraph number or letter of the corresponding section of the RFP. If the

response covers more than one page, the paragraph number and/or letter should be repeated

at the top of the next page. The proposal should contain a table of contents which cross

references the RFP requirements. Information which the Proposer desires to present that

does not fall within any of the requirements of the RFP should be inserted at an appropriate

place or be attached at the end of the proposal and designated as additional material.

Proposals that are not organized in this manner risk elimination from consideration if the

evaluators are unable to find where the RFP requirements are specifically addressed.

The proposal must be typed with double spacing and be no more than 25 one-sided pages

(8'/2 x 11), excluding appendices, in length. The proposals must be separately bound, each

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-35 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 4 of 21
in a 3-Ring Binder, and indexed in a manner to allow ease of handling and review by

MDHS. All documentation submitted with the proposal must be bound in the 3-Ring Binder.

B. Required Proposal Contents

Responses to this RFP shall consist of the following components. Each of these components

must be separate from the others and uniquely identified. They also must conform to the

format and content specified below.

1. Transmittal Letter

Management and Technical Proposal

a. Statement of Understanding

b. Services Approach and Proposed Work Plan

c. Relevant Proposer [Lead or Key Staffs Experiences/Qualifications

d. Financial Stability of Proposer

e. Budget and Budget Narrative

3. Required Information and Statements

Proposals must be accompanied by the information or statements described below.

Failure by any Proposer to include the information or statements will result in its

being declared unacceptable or non-responsive, and the Proposer will receive no

further consideration for award of the Subgrant.

a. Examination of Records

(1) At the time a proposal is submitted, Proposer must include a

statement as to whether there is a reasonable expectation that it is or

would be associated with any parent, affiliate, or subsidiary

organization in order to supply any service, supplies or equipment to

comply with the performance requirements under the resulting

Subgrant of the REP. This statement is required whether the

association is a formal or infornial arrangement. If an association

may exist, the Proposer will also be required to submit with the

proposal written authorization from the parent, affiliate, or subsidiary

organization granting the right to MD}JS to examine directly,

pertinent books, documents, papers, and records involving such

transactions that are related to the resulting Subgrant.

(2) If, at any time after a proposal is submitted and a Subgrant has been

awarded, such an association arises as described in sub-paragraph

above, the Proposer will be required to obtain a similar certification

and authorization from the parent, affiliate, or subsidiary organization

within ten (10) working days after forming the relationship. Failure

to submit such certification and authorization will constitute grounds

for termination of the Subgrant at the option of the State. (Nothing

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-35 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 5 of 21
herein shall be construed to require MDHS to agree to services being

performed by such parent, affiliate, or subsidiary organization).

b. Single Audit Act

Proposers must include a statement that they agree to obtain a financial and

compliance audit made in accordance with the Single Audit Act Amendments

of 1996 (31 U.S.C. Sections 7501 - 7507) and, as applicable, revised United

States Office of Management and Budget (0MB) Circular A-122 or A-133.

c. Conflict of Interest

Proposer shall disclose any Subgrant or other contractual relationship with

any State personnel, Subgrantor or Subcontractor involved in the

development of the RFP or procurement of the Subgrant. Any real or

potential conflicts of interest shall, at the sole discretion of MDHS, be

grounds for rejection of the Proposer's proposal or termination of any

Subgrant awarded. All proposals must include the following:

(1) A statement identifying those individuals who were involved with the

preparation of the proposal andlor the procurement of the Subgrant.

(2) A statement identifying all Proposer personnel currently under

contract or Subgrant with MDHS who participated, either directly or

indirectly, in any activities related to the preparation of the Proposer's

proposal, and a statement identifying in detail the nature and extent of

such activities.

(3) A statement certifying that the Proposer's personnel have not had any

contacts with any MDHS personnel involved in the development of

the RFP, or, if such contacts have occurred, a statement identifying in

detail the nature and extent of such contacts and the personnel

involved.

d. Proposer shall furnish MDHS with certified copies of its Articles of

Incorporation, By-laws, Resolutions, and/or any other documentation,

acceptable to MDHS that would prove that the organization offering the

proposal is a legal entity. The Proposer must also furnish documentation that

evidence the authority of the signatory to execute a binding Subgrant on

behalf of the Proposer.

CERTIFICATIONS OF COMPLIANCE AND ASSURANCE. The Proposer

must sign and date the certification, assurances, and notification attached

hereto as Exhibit B.

C. Transmittal Letter

The transmittal letter must accompany the proposal. The letter must be in the form of a

standard business letter and be signed in ink by an individual authorized to legally bind the

8

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-35 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 6 of 21
Proposer. it must describe the Proposer's approach to the delivery of services required by

the RFP and provide MDHS with a broad understanding of the entire proposal. The letter

must list the name of the project and the name, telephone number and fax number of a

contact person with authority to answer questions concerning the proposal. The letter must

define the Proposer's approach for service delivery and riot just reiterate the RFP.

Additionally, it must include:

A statement identifjing all proposed contractors and Subcontractors and indicating

the exact amount of work to be done by the Proposer and each Subcontractor.

2. A statement of acceptance, without qualification, of all terms and conditions stated

in this RFP or clearly outline any exceptions.

A statement that the Proposer has sole and complete responsibility for the completion

of all services provided under the Subgrant, except for those items specifically

defined as State responsibilities.

4. A statement that the Proposer does not discriminate in its employment practices with

regard to race, color, religion, creed, age, marital status, national origin, sex, sexual

orientation, political beliefs, or mental or physical disability.

5. Certification that each person signing this proposal is the person in the Proposer's

organization responsible for, or authorized to make, decisions as to the prices quoted.

6. A statement from each Subcontractor, appended to the transmittal letter and signed

by an individual authorized to legally bind the Subcontractor, stating the general

scope of the work to be performed by the Subcontractor, the Subcontractor's

willingness to perform the work indicated, and that the subcontractor does not

discriminate in its employment practices with regard to race, color, religion, creed,

age, marital status, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, political beliefs, or mental

or physical disability.

D. Management and Technical Proposal

1. Statement of Understanding

This component of the proposal must demonstrate the Proposer's understanding of

the services requested in this RFP and any problems anticipated in accomplishing the

work.

2. Service Approach and Proposed Work Plan

This component of the proposal must present a description of the approach to

successfully provide the services requested in this RFP for the duration of the term of

the Subgrant. Proposers shall respond fully and directly to each criteria of the Scope

of Work (Section IV).

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-35 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 7 of 21
Staff to meet program requirements with organization chart, narrative

description of organizational structure, and work flow charts.

b. Description of how all mandatory requirements will be met.

c. Details as to how the Proposer plans to operate its program and applicable

timetable.

d. A description of the Proposer's training and development programs that will

assure that all personnel assigned to perform under any resultant Subgrant

shall be capable and qualified in the work assigned to them;

e. Internal controls that will be used by the Proposer in detecting deficiencies in

program operations and implementing corrective actions whenever such

deviations/deficiencies are discovered and documenting actions taken by the

Proposer.

Relevant Proposer and Lead or Key Staff's Experience and Qualifications

This segment of the proposal must include previous experiences that will

demonstrate the Proposer's ability to deliver the services requested in this RFP. It

also must describe the expertise of the Proposer's staff and information on current or

recent projects of a similar size and scope, and data relevant to the Proposer's

performance on such projects. For each of the aforesaid programs or projects, the

Proposer must include the name and contact person (including a current telephone

and address) of the entity for which the services were provided or the entity

providing funds for the project, time period of the project, and a detailed description

of the scope of services provided that relate to this RFP and resulting subgrant.

The Proposer must disclose the number and nature of queries, monitoring, and or

audit findings that have been made against it and/or any key or management staff by

any government (state and/or federal) authority or agency. The Proposer must

provide a list of any litigation, past or pending, against the Proposer.

The Proposer must disclose whether it has been a party to any subgrant or agreement

for any services within the scope of this RFP which has been terminated, rescinded,

or not renewed. The Proposer must provide complete information on the contracting

entities and a contact person (including names and addresses of the parties and a

summary of the circumstances).

The Proposer must also describe the number of personnel to be used on the project,

employee title, current position within the Proposer's organization, experience and

qualifications, and other information to show that personnel can successfully perform

the work required under this RFP.

4. Financial Stability of Proposer

Proposers, including the parent corporation of any subsidiary corporation submitting

a response, must include in their proposal evidence of financial responsibility and

10

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-35 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 8 of 21
stability for the performance of the contract. At a minimum, the proposal must

include an independent audit for Fiscal Year 2006; however, if the FY 2006 audit has

not been completed at the time the proposal is submitted, the FY 2005 audit may be

submitted along with a certified statement from the Proposer's Certified Public

Accounting (CPA) firm verifying that the FY 2005 audit will not be completed by

the proposal submission deadline and stating the projected date of its completion. A

compiled financial statement is unacceptable. The Proposer must obtain and submit

a letter from the Certified Public Accountant who conducted audit(s) stating the

Proposer's accounting system is adequate to safeguard funds received from MDI-IS.

MDHS reserves the right to request any additional information to assure itself of a

Proposer's financial status.

In the event a Proposer is either substantially or wholly owned by another corporate

entity, the proposal must also include an independent audit for Fiscal Year 2005 for

the parent organization. If the FY 2006 audit is not completed, refer to the

instructions above in providing the FY 2005 audit and CPA certification. A

compiled financial statement is unacceptable. There must also be a written guarantee

by the parent organization that it will unconditionally guarantee performance by the

Proposer of each and every term, covenant, and condition of such contract as may be

executed by the parties.

5. Budget and Budget Narrative

The Proposer must include an itemized list of expenditures for the services and

activities covered by the proposals. Further, the proposal must contain a written

justification (narrative) adequately explaining the Proposer's funding needs. This

narrative must relate funding needs to the operation of individual programs or

activities. Sufficient detail within each line item of expenditure and each activity

must be used to clearly explain the funding needs of the operation.

Administrative costs in connection with any of these activities are subject to a 15%

limitation.

SECTION IV. SCOPE OF WORK TO BE PERFORMED

A. Program Objectives

The purpose of the Individualized Assessment and Comprehensive Community intervention

Initiative (JACCII) is to provide comprehensive strength-based needs assessments,

individualized treatment plans and community-based services for eligible youth. The

comprehensive strength based assessment will include an individualized treatment plan

which addresses the supervision and programming needs of IACCII eligible youth. The

IACCII has the following objectives:

11

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-35 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 9 of 21
To prevent low-risk, low-need youth from entering the juvenile justice system and

then receiving high levels of supervision and services.

2. To prevent low-risk, high-need (IACCII eligible) youth from entering the training

school by providing them with individualized, strength-based assessments and

comprehensive community treatment plans.

3. To identify IACCII eligible youth who are committed to the training schools and to

divert them to the community by developing individualized, strength-based

assessments and comprehensive community treatment plans.

B. Cooperative Agreement

This program is based on an agreement between the participating courts and the Division of

Youth Services. Participating courts agree not to send youth who fit a specific low-risk

profile to the training schools. In the event that training school staff determines that a

participating court has committed an IACCII eligible youth to the training school, staff will

initiate the TAACI process at the training school. IACCII eligible youth will then be returned

to the community with a comprehensive plan within two weeks of arrival at the training

school. Participating courts agree to waive the twenty day notice requirement codified in

Miss. Code Ann. § 43-21-605 (g) (iii) for the sole the purpose of serving IAACI eligible

youth.

Participating courts shall make every effort to ensure that IACCII eligible youth are not

committed to the training school. The program is designed to divert both low-risk, low-need

and low-risk, high-need youth from the training schools. The program's effectiveness will

be reviewed on an annual basis. If a participating county continues to commit IACCII

eligible youth to the training school, that court's participation in the program may be

terminated.

Initially up to three courts will be selected to participate in the initial phase of program. The

program will be implemented in all youth courts by 2010, as long as funds remain available.

C. Program Eligibility

Two categories of youth are identified and impacted by this program - low-risk, low-need

youth and low risk, high need youth. Risk is defined as the likelihood that a youth will reoffend; and need is linked to the criminogenic factors linked to delinquent behavior Needs

are the clinical and non-clinical challenges facing a youth and his/her family. Needs include,

but are not limited to mental illness, special education eligibility, involvement with the

foster-care system, academic difficulty, substance abuse, and lack of effective

communication within the family unit.

12

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-35 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 10 of 21
Low-risk, low-need youth will be identified as early as possible and diverted to appropriate

programs and services. Low-risk, high-need youth will receive the specialized services

described in this program.

fl Assessments

The Youth Assessment Screening Instrument (YASI) is being used as the Division's primary

screening tool. It identifies criminogenic needs in eight categories:

I. family/environment,

2. school,

3. community/peers,

4. alcohol/drugs,

5. mental health,

6. attitudes/behaviors,

7. skills, and

8. use of free time.

Assessment, case planning, and interventions across the Division of Youth Services is being

based on a frame work which utilizes these eight categories and definitions for these terms

that are consistent with the YASI.

Youth will typically meet one or more of the following additional criteria:

Youth who have penetrated the juvenile justice system from the foster care/neglect

system;

Youth who have academic difficulties;

Youth with substance abuse problems;

Youth with developmental delays;

Youth with mental health diagnosis;

Youth from families that needs clinical and/or non-clinical support in order to

support the growth and development of the youth.

A screening assessment will be completed as soon after the youth is referred to the juvenile

justice system as possible. If the youth is determined to be a low-risk, low-need youth, the

youth will be handled non-judicially or placed on supervision with minimal services. If the

youth is determined to be a low-risk, high need youth, a fill assessment will be done and

they will be considered for services through this pilot project.

Participating courts will agree to identify youth who are low-risk, high-need and adjudicated

delinquent, and at imminent risk for training school commitment. Youth placed in the

IACCII should be youth who would otherwise be sent to the training school. Participating

courts agree that the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument 2 (MAYSI-2), the Youth

Assessment Screening Inventory (YASI), and the How I Think Questionnaire will be

13

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-35 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 11 of 21
administered on all adjudicated youth who meet preliminary IACCII eligibility. Based on

resuits of that screening, further testing may be completed and a level of risk and a level of

need will be established. Courts must identify youth who are viable candidates for this

program forty-eight hours before a scheduled disposition hearing.

Once identified, the intake staff will notify the DYS program manager and the case worker in

the community. The DYS program manager will then decide whether to evaluate the youth

for inclusion in this program.

E. Supervision

One person will be hired by DYS to manage the program. This person will be located in

Jackson, and will report to the Community Services Director of the Division of Youth

Services. This manager will do the following:

1. Screen cases referred by community counselors and approve their referral to

the Proposer for assessment and case planning;

2. Review proposed individualized treatment plans and approve their

implementation; and

3. Audit case files.

F. Proposer Scope of Work

The Proposer will provide assessments of youth referred to the program, general supervision

of youth placed in the IACCII program, and specialized treatment services and interventions

needed by those youth. The successful vendor will have demonstrated, successful experience

providing wrap-round services to underserved rural and urban communities.

1. Policy and Procedure

The vendor will develop and submit a manual of policies and procedures which will

be the guide work to be done through the IACCII project within sixty (60) days of

the contract being awarded. DYS must approve those policies and procedures before

the vendor begins program implementation.

2. Staffing

The Proposer may initially hire one community case worker in each county where

the program is in operation. If case loads in a given county reach or exceed ten, the

Proposer may hire a second community case worker in that county. The Proposer

may not hire more than two case workers in any of the three pilot counties.

14

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-35 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 12 of 21
Case workers working in the program will function as supervising case managers

providing intensive supervision and treatment services, in addition to monitoring

services/interventions that will be purchased based on need in individual cases.

None will have a case load with more than ten cases. The case workers will be

trained and provide generalized evidence-based practices to include cognitive-based

counseling, education, and thinking interventions. Case workers will ensure

compliance with the treatment plans and will work with the youth and the family to

remove barriers to compliance. The case workers will also be responsible for

reporting non-compliance to the court and recommending appropriate sanctions,

given the specific needs of each youth. When a youth is having difficulty adjusting,

the case worker will convene a family and community support meeting to assess the

effectiveness of the community plan and to make any necessary adjustments to that

plan.

3. Secondary Assessment/Case Planning

The community case worker will complete a comprehensive community assessment.

This will include a home visit and an interview of primary family members and

related community contacts (e.g. extended family, teachers, ministers, etc.]. This

community assessment will be completed as soon as possible— in no case more than

3-5 days after a youth has been initially identified.

The Proposer may conduct additional assessments to further assess risk andlor define

the criminogenic needs which are to be addressed through the program, but they may

not introduce an alternative or contradictory classification matrix.

A service plan will be developed for each youth placed in the IACCII program. The

Proposer may develop its own service plan format, but it is expected that format will

be consistent with the service plan format being used by DYS. This plan, and any

proposed changes to the plan, must be submitted to the Program Manager, before

implementation.

4. Interventions

Youth who are accepted to the program will be placed in the community (either in

their home or foster home) with appropriate support and interventions as indicated in

their treatment plan. IACCII eligible youth shall not be placed in detention centers or

training schools. A limited number of IACCII eligible youth may require short-term

treatment in a therapeutic residential treatment facility. But no IACCII funds shall

support residential treatment for a period of longer than 60 days.

The case plan will define the interventions that will be used to manage risk and to

reduce or resolve the areas of need. These interventions must be supported by

15

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-35 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 13 of 21
empirical research, or be modeled after programs that have been validated. For

example, if family counseling is to be utilized as an intervention for resolving

family/conimunity needs, the program of family counseling must be one that is

empirically validated (for example multi-systemic family therapy).

The interventions that are utilized must be criminogenic need specific. A generic

program where all youth go through the same sequence of counseling or supervision

will not be accepted.

The Proposer will develop a specific list of the programs and/or interventions that

will be used to address areas of risk and need (for example, a list of programs or

interventions for skills, another for use of free time, etc.), and submit that list for

DYS review and approval. Once approved, the vendor may use those programs or

interventions when developing a case plan for a specific youth.

5. Specialized Individualized Services

The Proposer will develop contracts for specialized treatment services. These

services will be based on the needs of the youth being served in a given location. For

example, a contract may be issued with a treatment provider for a specific number of

hours of multi-systemic family therapy. Additional examples of services provided

for such youth may include therapeutic foster care, substance abuse treatment, anger

management, and family therapy. Non-clinical services may include assistance to

apply for and maintain public benefits, special education advocacy, counseling,

mentoring, remedial literacy services, parenting classes and other appropriate

supports as indicated in the individualized treatment plan.

The therapeutic modalities utilized in the IACCH may include, but is not limited to

day treatment, group counseling, individual counseling, recreational therapy, and

family intervention. All treatment is definitively designed to safely divert adolescent

offenders from having further contact with the Criminal Justice System, including

possible institutionalization, incarceration, or placement in another residential

setting. Programs must be evidence-based programs that have acquired relative

consistency in producing Positive outcomes with clients.

The Proposer will submit all proposed contracts for specialized services to DYS for

approval before contracts are implemented or services are utilized. DYS will approve

or reject proposed contracts within 48 hours of receiving the proposed contract.

DYS will also work with the successful Proposer to develop contract approval

procedures for emergency situations.

All other existing funding sources and resources will be exhausted before services will be funded

through this project.

16

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-35 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 14 of 21
The Proposer's proposal shall meet all requirements of this RFP including the provisions of Section

VII, the Subgrant Terms and Provisions.

G. Management Plan

1. Admission and Discharge Procedures

a. Youth may be referred for assessment during the informal or formal

probation stage. The initial assessment is to be conducted by DYS

counseling staff

b. The DYS counseling staff will then refer the completed assessment to the

Program Manager for review and approval to present to the youth court judge

for an order recommending placement in the IACCII.

The Program Manager will then contact the Proposer to notify him that a

youth has been approved for the program.

d. Upon notification by DYS, the Proposer will conduct further assessments and

develop a draft case plan for the youth. This plan will then be sent to the

Program Manager and then to the youth court.

e. All youth submitted to the program must comply with the rules and

regulations of any placement, or the Proposer must submit a recommendation

for gaining compliance.

2. Transportation Requirements

Proposer shall provide transportation to and from residential and day programs a

youth is placed in while under their supervision. They must maintain vehicle

liability insurance.

3. Records

A case record must be maintained for each client in the IACCII. Progress notes and

other daily documentation must be completed for every contact or service provided

to a program client. Notes will reflect progress or lack of progress related to problem

statements and defined goals in the treatment plan. Notes must be dated, signed, and

kept in chronological order. Program staff must review treatment plans no less than

every four weeks and this must be reflected in a "monthly progress note" in the client

case file.

17

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-35 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 15 of 21
4. Interviewing and Hiring Program Staff

Those individuals being considered for employment in the IACCII must undergo a

criminal background investigation as part of the interview process.

5. Fire and Natural Disaster Plan

Fire drills must be conducted at least quarterly. There must be documentation of

staff participation, time and efficiency of evacuation, and general perfonnance of

the drill. Disaster drills must be conducted annually and the same documentation

must be provided as with fire drills.

Staff must be trained in the use of alarm systems, notification of authorities, and

use of emergency equipment. This training should also be documented. Escape

routes and procedures must be specified and posted at highly visible locations.

6. Fiscal and Programmatic Compliance

a. The subgrantee must comply with all fiscal and programmatic reporting as

required by MDHS Subgrantee Manual. MDHS is also requiring that the

subgrantee submit a budget which meets the agency's standard for a

Modified Zero-Based Budget showing justification for all costs (See

Exhibit C).

b. A Modified Zero Based Budget (MZBB) is a financial management strategy

intended to achieve a more cost effective delivery of public services.

Planning and budgeting techniques endeavor to redirect effort and funds from

lower priority new programs to higher priority current programs, improve

efficiency and effectiveness and reduce spending. This concept matches

spending levels with services to be performed. A Modified ZBB starts at a

base that is higher than zero. An appropriate starting point for a budget

proposal would be 80 or 85 percent of the current spending levels. An

important element of this budgeting procedure is that it forces prioritization

of programs and activities. When this strategy is practiced, it allows us to

make decisions about programs when funding levels are reduced.

c. The Proposer must comply with all fiscal and programmatic reporting as

required by the MDHS Proposer/Contract Manual and submit monthly

reporting worksheets by the l0' calendar day of the following month. All

programmatic reporting required shall be submitted to MDHS by the 10th

calendar day of the following month. The IACCII "Enrollment Termination

Notification Form" must be submitted to MDHSIDYS office upon enrollment

and termination of participants.

d. The Proposer must meet at the request of MDHS to review the Proposer's

18

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-35 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 16 of 21
performance under the Subgrant. MDHS may also conduct periodic on-site

monitoring andlor auditing of Proposer's performance under the Subgrant.

MDHS shall provide the Proposer with written notice of any on-site

monitoring and/or auditing visit. Performance evaluation monitoring/reviews

will be conducted as determined by MDHS.

e. The fmdings of all performance evaluation reviews/visits shall be recorded

by MDHS and presented, in writing, to the Proposer. Should the Proposer

not concur with the findings, the Proposer shall be given an opportunity to

submit a written statement to MDHS to that effect. The Proposer's written

disagreement shall be considered by MDHS in its final report.

f. MDHS shall use the monthly reports and reviews as described under this

Section and such other reviews or reports as may be required by MDHS,

federal, and/or state agencies as a measure of the Proposer's performance.

g Further, Proposer shal:l cooperate fuliy with any data collection and

evaluation activities carried out by MDHS in connection with the services

performed under this Subgrant.

h. The Proposer shall submit and receive prior approval of any such subcontract for outside treatment or organization providing treatment from the

DYS program manager. Charges submitted for billing of specific services for

treatment must be submitted in a cost break-out report for services provided

by the vendor.

7 Fidelity Bond

A fidelity bond in the amount equal to twenty-five percent (25%) of the contract

amount must be obtained and placed in effect for the duration of the program in

which MDHS is providing funds, naming MDHS as the insured.

8. Administrative Expense

Proposer shall not report administration expenses in excess of 15% of counseling

services.

9. Work Facility

The Proposer shall be responsible for the acquisition of suitable space to house its

offices and documents relevant to the Subgrant. Such space shall be located in an

area that is readily accessible to MDHS, recipients of Subgrant services, and is

convenient to public transportation. The space shall comply with the provisions of

the American with Disabilities Act (P.L. 101 - 336) and all applicable state and local

19

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-35 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 17 of 21
building codes.

10. Public Assistance Fraud

The Proposer shall report/refer any cases of suspected fraud related to the receipt

of public assistance to the local Department of Human Services' office or the

Division of Youth Services. The Proposer shall not be responsible for

determining if action should be taken against the alleged perpetrator.

11. Licenses and Permits

Proposer shall obtain all permits, licenses, and registrations to undertake all activities

necessary to do business in Mississippi. If it fails to do so, Proposer shall be

considered in default of its obligation to MDHS and the State of Mississippi, and the

Subgrant shall be terminated.

12. State Forms

The Proposer shall use such forms as MDHS may require in the administration

and operation of Subgrant.

13. Service Delivery

The program will decrease criminal activity among its participants, as well as inspire

the adolescents to be more positive and effective individuals. Project Outcomes must

demonstrate the following:

a. Reduction of training school and detention center commitment rates.

b. Proven success rate in the decline of recidivism within the targeted youth

population.

Track the success of the project using statistical data.

14. Collaborations

The Proposer must work with local youth courts, school systems, mental health providers,

and other state agencies to assist families. The Proposer should also be prepared to work

closely with local community-based service providers and the faith-based community.

1. Detailed Timeline/Work Plan

Each client must receive supervision and counseling, including monitoring of employment

and educational status participation, compliance with set curfews and assigned public service

20

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-35 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 18 of 21
work, as well as compliance with established program rules and regulations. The Proposer

will be responsible for supervising youth under the jurisdiction of the court assigned to them

until court supervision is terminated, or until DYS transfers supervision of the youth to

another counselor thus removing the Proposer's responsibility for supervising the youth. The

duration of programming and intervention provided to each youth will be determined by the

youth's individual needs.

J. Evaluation Tool

To evaluate progress toward goals and objectives, all program staff who provides services to

the adolescents must meet weekly to review client cases. Phase placements shall be

evaluated and individual treatment plans must be reviewed and signed by program staff on a

monthly basis by program staff. Those involved in the evaluation must include the program

coordinator, therapists, and case manager.

MDHS/DYS will evaluate the program in four areas as follows:

1. Reduction of commitment rate by 30%;

2. Decrease positive drug screenings by 5%.

3. Increase the number of adolescents placed back into the regular school setting by

80%.

K. Performance Measures

Clients served each quarter: Determined by Judicial Order.

The specific target population for this initiative is: Adolescent offenders 10

through 17 years of age who possess high risk of returning or becoming further

involved in the criminal justice system.

All programmatic and fiscal reports should be completed and submitted on a

monthly basis and by the 10th of the month.

Services for sub-contracts are approved by DYS prior to providing services.

• A break-out of all services provided with cost will be submitted to DYS each month on the 10th•

L. Evidence-Based Practices

Each IACCII must incorporate evidence-based practices and positive behavioral

intervention that includes two (2) or more of the following elements (Referenced from

21

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-35 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 19 of 21
the 2006 Session-House Bill 199; pages 20 and 21; lines 662-670):

academic

tutoring/literacy

mentoring

vocational training

substance abuse treatment

family counseling

anger management

Programs may include, but shall not be limited to:

after school and weekend programming

job readiness programs

home detention programs

community service conflict resolution programs

restitution and community service

The following Blueprints Model (Evidence-Based) Programs were selected from a

review of over 600 programs. These programs have acquired relative consistency in

producing positive outcomes with clients.

Projram Titles

STJJ TV SSASSJL_'VSt1JAS S .JJ WS#L SV4J-J- P Pr,r.t iTAPP

J.

• Big Brothers Big Sisters of America (BBBS).

• Functional Family Therapy (FFT).

• Life Skills Training (LST).

• Multisystemic Therapy (MST).

• Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP).

• Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC).

• Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (BPP).

• Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS).

• The Incredible Years: Parent, Teacher and Child Training Series (IYS).

• Project Towards No Drug Abuse (Project TND).

* To acquire more information on evidence-based program models, go to

w1'wpocificlearnin. corn.

M. Evaluation Tool

To evaluate progress toward goals and objectives, all program staff who provide services to

the adolescents must meet weekly to review client cases. Phase placements shall be

evaluated and individual treatment plans must be reviewed and signed by program staff on a

monthly basis by program staff. Those involved in the evaluation must include the program

coordinator, therapists, and case manager.

MDHS/DYS will evaluate the program in three areas as follows:

• Reduction of commitment rate by 30%;

• Decrease positive drug screenings by 5%.

22

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-35 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 20 of 21
• Increase the number of adolescents placed back into the regular school setting by

80%.

N. Performance Measures

• Clients served during funding period: Non-Medicaid and Non-Billed

Medicaid.

• Clients served each quarter: Determined by Judicial Order.

• The specific target population for this initiative is: Adolescent offenders 10

through 17 years of age who possess high risk of returning or becoming

further involved in the criminal justice system.

• Placements, if appropriate, during funding period: Non- Medicaid and NonBilled Medicaid clients.

All equipment should be leased or purchased by December 31, 1007.

• All administrative and programmatic staff should be hired by 15 days within

the beginning date of the contract in SFY 2007.

• All programmatic and fiscal reports should be completed and submitted on a

monthly basis and by the 10th of the month.

V. MDHS' RESPONSIBILiTIES

A. Forms and Policies

MDHS will furnish the Proposer with a prototype of all required or recommended MDHS

forms to be used in the administration and operation of the program from which the Proposer

shall reproduce sufficient forms for their use.

MDHS will provide the Proposer with program manual and policy updates and changes.

B. Other Duties

MDHS will --

• Monitor work performed by the Proposer.

Provide information on MDHS' requirements relevant to the Subgrant.

Remit payment to the Proposer in accordance with the terms and

conditions of the Subgrant.

23

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-35 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 21 of 21
As appropriate, keep Federal and State officials apprized of the Proposer's

work under the Subgrant.

Intervene in any Proposer's operations for cause as determined by MDHS.

Vi. EVALUATiON AND AWARD CRITERIA

A. Overview of Evaluation Methodology

During the evaluation process, all Information concerning the proposals submitted,

including identity and number of Proposers, will remain private and will not be

disclosed to anyone whose official duties do not require such knowledge. At any

time during the evaluation, MDI-IS may request a Proposer to provide explicit written

clarification of any part of the Proposer's proposal.

2. At its discretion, MDHS may perform an appropriate cost and pricing analysis of

a Proposer's proposal.

3. If Subgrants are awarded, the awards will be made to that financially responsible and

technically responsive Proposer whose proposal conforms to the conditions and

requirements of this RFP, and which is most advantageous to MDHS with price and

other factors considered. MDHS will notify the successful Proposer in writing of the

award of the Subgrants. MDHS will notify the unsuccessful Proposers in writing that

their proposals have not been accepted.

4. The evaluation will be conducted in five phases:

a. Phase I - Selection of Responsive Proposals

b. Phase II - Evaluation of Management and Technical Proposal

c. Phase III - Evaluation of Financial Component

d. Phase IV - Recommendation of Proposer

e. Phase V - Award and Notification

B. Evaluation Committee

1. A committee will be selected to evaluate proposals. Members of the Evaluation

Committee will be from pertinent MDHS' programmatic and administrative

personnel.

2. Other professional staff and consultants may also assist in the evaluation process.

3. MDHS reserves the right to alter the composition of the Evaluation Committee and

their specific responsibilities.

24

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-36 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 16
D. RIGHTS AND REMEDiES UPON TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION. In the event of

termination or suspension as provided in this Section, Proposer shall be entitled to receive just and

equitable compensation for unreimbursed obligations or expenses that are reasonably and necessarily

incurred in the satisfactory performance, as determined by MDHS, of this Agreement, that were

incurred before the effective date of suspension or termination, and that are not in anticipation of

termination or suspension. Costs of the Proposer resulting from obligations incurred by the Proposer

during a suspension or after termination of this Sub grant are not allowable under this Agreement.

MDHS shall not be liable for any further claims of the Proposer. In no case, however, shall said

compensation or payment exceed the total amount of this Subgrant. Proposer shall be liable to

MDHS for damages sustained by MDHS by virtue of any breach of this Agreement by Proposer, and

MDHS may withhold any payments to Proposer for the purpose of set off until such times as the

exact amount of damages due to MDHS from Proposer are determined.

In case of termination or suspension as provided hereunder, all property, finished or unfinished

documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, photographs, manuals and reports or other materials

prepared by or for the Proposer under this Agreement shall, at the option of MDHS, become the

property of MDHS and shall be disposed of according to MDHS' directives.

The rights and remedies of MDHS provided in this Section shall not be exclusive and are in addition

to any other rights and remedies provided by law or in equity.

AGREEMENTS BY PROPOSER

A. SUBCONTRACTORS. it is understood and agreed that the Proposer may enter into

agreements or subcontracts with eligible entities (hereinafter sometimes referred to as Proposer's

Contractor/Subcontractor) for the provision of the services required under this Agreement. Any and

all such agreements or subcontracts shall include all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

The Proposer, however, shall be fully responsible for the performance of its Contractors/

Subcontractors. Copies of all subcontracts, agreements, and modifications thereto shall be

forwarded to MDHS' Division of Youth Services.

B. LIABILITY OF SUBCONTRACTORS. Proposer agrees that in any agreement or

subcontract for the provision of the services covered by this Agreement, it shall require that the

contractor or subcontractor release and hold harmless MDHS from and against all claims, demands,

liabilities, suits, damages and costs of every kind and nature whatsoever, including court costs and

attorneys' fees, arising out of or caused by the Contractor or Subcontractor and/or its officers, agents,

employees, and volunteers in the performance of such services.

RECORDS AM) AUDITS

A. MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS. Proposer shall establish and maintain financial and

programmatic records, supporting documents, statistical records and other records as may be

necessary to reflect the performances of the provisions of this Agreement.

B. FISCAL REQUIREMENTS AN]) AUDIT. Proposer shall establish such fiscal control and

fund accounting procedures, including internal auditing procedures, as may be necessary to assure

31

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-36 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 16
the proper disbursal of and accounting for funds in accordance with this Agreement, the Single

Audit Act Amendments of 1996 (31 U.S.C. Sections 7501 - 7507) and revised United States Office

of Management and Budget (0MB) Circular A- 133. The Proposer shall keep, maintain and present

to MDHS, as required, necessary and proper vouchers, documentation and such other reports as may

be required to support the expenditure of funds pursuant to this Agreement, and the Proposer shall

keep and maintain bookkeeping and accounting records and procedures as the same may be

established and approved by MDHS. The Proposer's records must be sufficient to allow MDHS to

audit and monitor the Proposer's operation of its program and sufficient to permit the preparation of

reports required by the Single Audit Act and the statutes authorizing this Subgrant. These records

shall be set up in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, MDHS' Fiscal

Accountability Guidelines, and 0MB Cost and Accounting Standards.

C. INDEPENDENT AUDIT. Audits shall be made by an indepeiident auditor in accordance

with the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996, revised 0MB Circular A-l33, and generally

accepted government standards covering financial audits.

D. AUDIT FINDINGS. Proposer shall receive, reply to and resolve any state and/or federal

programmatic, fiscal and administrative exceptions related to this Agreement and/or any of the

Proposer's Contractors/Subcontractors.

RECORD RETENTION AND ACCESS TO RECORDS

It is specifically understood and agreed that the Proposer shall provide MDHS with readily

accessible and full opportunity to conduct program and/or fiscal monitoring and auditing (including

through on-site visits to the Proposer's premises) of the Proposer's performance under this

Agreement. MDHS, any State agency authorized to audit MDHS, the federal grantor agency, and

the Comptroller General of the United States or any of their duly authorized representatives shall

have the right of access to any books, documents, papers or other records of the Proposer that are

pertinent to the services performed under this Agreement in order to make audit, examination,

excerpts and/or transcripts. These records shall be retained for at least three (3) years; however, if

any litigation or other legal action, by or on behalf of the State or Federal Government has begun

that is not completed at the end of the three (3) year period, or if audit finding, litigation or other

legal action has not been resolved at the end of the three (3) year period, the records shall be retained

until resolution.

MONTHLY REPORTING

Proposer shall furnish MDHS with written monthly reports of costs incurred, which shall contain

sufficient data to permit the tracing of funds to a level of expenditures adequate to establish that such

funds have been used in compliance with this Agreement. Such reports shall be due ten (10)

calendar days after the close of each month, shall be complete for the period covered and shall

contain financial details pertinent to the subgrant. Proposer shall review and discuss such reports

with MDHS at such time and in such manner as may be deemed appropriate by MDHS.

32

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-36 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 3 of 16
acknowledged in any advertising, print, brochures, flyers, etc. used to advertise services that

the Proposer and/or its Contractors/Subcontractors are providing with said agency's funding.

OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS AN]) WORK PRODUCTS

All documents, notes, programs, books, data bases (and all applications thereof), files, reports,

studies, unfinished documents, and/or other material collected or prepared by the Proposer and/or

any of its Contractors/Subcontractors in connection with this Agreement shall be owned by MDHS

during the term of this Agreement and upon completion or termination of this Agreement. MDHS

hereby reserves all rights to all systems, computer programs, data bases and all applications thereof

and to any and all information and/or material prepared in connection with this Agreement. The

Proposer is prohibited from use of the aforesaid information and/or material without the express

prior written approval of MDHS.

PROPERTY, EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES

Property, equipment and supplies purchased, in whole or in part, with funds provided by MDHS

shall be accounted for and disposed of in accordance with MDHS' directives, policies and

procedures. Proposer must adequately safeguard all such property and must assure that it is used

solely for purposes authorized by this Agreement. Nothing herein, however, shall be construed to

authorize the Proposer to purchase equipment with funds provided under this Subgrant unless such is

specifically allowed by Section JIl of this Agreement.

LIMITATION ON EXPENDITURE OF PROGRAM FUNDS

Expenses charged against funds granted herein shall not be incurred by the Proposer except during

the period of this Agreement as set forth above and may only be incurred and paid only as necessary

to the performance of the work and activities set forth in Exhibit A. All expenses obligated for the

approved program must be supported by approved signed contracts, bills, or other evidence of

liability consistent with MDHS established procurement procedures. Further, funds received under

this Agreement and any contract or subcontract hereunder shall be used only to supplement, not

supplant or duplicate, the amount of federal, state and/or local funds otherwise expended for services

provided by the Proposer or in the Proposer's service area.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Proposer shall ensure that there exists no direct or indirect conflict of interest in the performance of

this Subgrant and/or performance by any of the Proposer'slSubcontractors. Further, Proposer

warrants that no part of any federal or state money shall be paid directly or indirectly to an employee

or official of MDHS as wages, compensation or gifts in exchange for acting as an officer, agent,

employee, subcontractor, or consultant to the Proposer in connection with any work contemplated or

pertaining to this Subgrant or Agreement. Proposer shall strictly comply with all conflict of interest

provisions or standards of conduct provisions contained in the MDHS Proposer/Contract Manual or

any applicable state, federal, or local law, rule, or regulation.

34

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-36 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 4 of 16
GOVERNING LAWS AND LEGAL REMEDIES

This Agreement shall be construed and governed in accordance with the laws of the State of

Mississippi. Proposer expressly agrees that under no circumstances shall MDHS be obligated to pay

an attorney's fee or the cost of legal action to Proposer.

Any notice required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing, personally

delivered or sent by certified mail, to the party to whom the notice should be given at the address set

forth on the Mississippi Department of Human Services' (MDHS) SubgrantlContract Signature

Sheet or at such address as the party may provide in writing from time to time.

CERTIFICATIONS OF COMPLIANCE AND ASSURANCES

This Agreement is also subject to the Standard Assurances, Certifications Regarding Lobbying,

Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters; and Drug-Free Workplace Requirements,

MDHS' Certification Regarding Unresolved Monitoring Findings; Unresolved Audit Findings; and

Litigation Occurring Within the Last Three (3) Years; the Certification of Adequate Fidelity

Bonding; and the Board Member's Notification of Liability, attached hereto.

37

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-36 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 5 of 16
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

INDIVIDUALIZED ASSESSMENT AND COMPRERENSIVE

COMMUNITY INTERVENTION INITIATIVE (IACCI1)

PROGRAM

EXHIBIT A

Exhibit A includes:

• Cover Sheet

38

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-36 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 6 of 16
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

INDIVIDUALIZED ASSESSMENT AND COMPREHENSIVE

COMMUNITY iNTERVENTION INITIATIVE (IACCII)

EXHIBIT B

Exhibit B includes:

Board Member's Notification of Liability

Standard Assurances

40

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-36 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 7 of 16
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

BOARD MEMBERS NOTIFICATION OF LIABILITY

LIABILITY

MDHS assumes no liabflity for actions of the Proposer or its employees, agents or

representatives under this Subgrant. Proposer agrees to indemnify, defend, save and hold

harmless MDHS from and against all claims, liabilities, suits damages and cost of every

kind and nature whatsoever, including court cost and attorney's fees, arising out of or

caused by Proposer and/or its agents, employees, contractors, or subcontractors, in the

performance of this Subgrant. The Proposer acting through its Board of Directors assumes

liability in the event the Proposer misuses funds or fails to perform according to the

provisions of the Subgrant. The Proposer shall notify each Board member, in writing, within

15 days of receiving the executed SLlbgrant of this requirement, and the Proposer shall sign

a statement to this effect prior to receiving funds under this Subg rant.

I acknowledge and agree to notify all members of the Board of Directors, if applicable, in

writingof the assumption by ___________________________________________________ of

liabilityin the event that ______________________________________________ misuses

funds or fails to perform according to the provision of the Subgrant. Further, I will keep a

copy of said notification letter as a permanent part of the Subgrant file.

Authorized Official Signature:

Name:

Organization:

Date:

Witness:

Date:

41

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-36 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 8 of 16
MDHS Subgrantee Manual Section 4

Revised 3/01/2005 Page 1

STANDARD ASSURANCES AN]) CERTIFICATIONS

OVERVIEW

Each Subgrantee and any lower-tier subrecipient must assure that it will comply with the

regulations, policies, guidelines, and requirements imposed by the Federal grantor agency and

MDHS. The MDHS Subgrantee must also ensure that any lower-tier subgrants it issues through

funds received from MDHS will require the lower-tier subrecipient to comply with these same

regulations. The assurances listed in this section may not be applicable to a particular project or

program, and there may be additional assurances required by certain Federal awarding agencies.

In addition, each subgrantee must certify in writing that it will comply with the

following regulations:

• Lobbying

• Suspension and Debarment

• Drug-Free Workplace

• Unresolved Monitoring and Audit Findings

• Fidelity Bond Coverage

STANDARD ASSURANCES

The Subgrantee assures that it:

has the legal authority to apply for and receive the subgrant; that a resolution, motion, or similar

action has been duly adopted or passed as an official act of the subgrantee's governing body,

authorizing the subgrant, including all understandings and assurances contained therein, and

directing and authorizing the person identified as the official representative of the Subgrantee to

act in connection with the subgrant and to provide such additional information as may be

required.

2. will give MDHS, the State Auditors Office, the Federal grantor agency, and the Comptroller

General, or any of their authorized representatives, access to and the right to examine all

records, books, papers, documents, or items related to the subgrant.

3. will establish and maintain both fiscal and program controls and accounting procedures in

accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and Federal grantor agency and

MDHS directives; and will keep and maintain such books and records for audit by MDHS, by

the Federal grantor agency, by the State Auditor, or by their authorized representatives; and will

maintain all such records, books, papers, documents, or items for a period of at least three

years from the date of submission of the final reporting worksheet, or, if any litigation, claims,

audit, or action has begun before the expiration of the three-year period, will retain all such

42

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-36 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 9 of 16
MDHS Subgrantee Manual Section 4

Revised 3/01/2005 Page 2

STANDARD ASSURANCES AN]) CERTIFICATIONS

items until the completion of the action and resolution of all issues involved or until the end of

the regular three-year period, whichever is later.

4. will comply with the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996.

5. will establish safeguards to prohibit employees from using their positions for a purpose that

constitutes, or presents the appearance of, personal or organizational conflict of interest, or

personal gain.

6. will comply with all Federal and State statutes relating to discrimination, including, but not

limited to:

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color,

or national origin;

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, relating to non-discrimination in matters of

recruitment, hiring, promotion, and other employment practices;

Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended, relating to non-discrimination in the

sale, rental, or financing of housing;

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended, prohibiting discrimination on

the basis of sex in federally assisted education programs and activities;

the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age;

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of

handicaps;

Subtitle A, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (1990);

the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color,

religion, sex, national origin, age, and handicap;

the Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972, as amended, relating to non-discrimination

on the basis of drug abuse;

the Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment, and Rehabilitation

Act of 1970, as amended, relating to non-discrimination on the basis of alcohol abuse or

alcoholism; and,

Act of 1970, as amended, relating to non-discrimination on the basis of a]cohol abuse or

alcoholism; and,

Sections 523 and 527 of the Public Health Service Act of 1912, as amended, relating to

confidentiality of alcohol and drug abuse patient records; and any other non-discrimination

provisions in the specific statute(s) under which these monies will be granted or awarded and

the requirements of any other non-discrimination statute(s) which may apply to this subgrant or

award.

43

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-36 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 10 of 16
MDHS Subgrantee Manual Section 4

Revised 3/01/2005 Page 3

STANDARD ASSUTRANCES AN]) CERTIFICATIONS

7. will ensure that buildings and facilities owned, occupied, or financed by the United States

government are accessible to and usable by physically handicapped persons in accordance

with the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968.

8. will comply with the requirements of the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and

Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970, which provide for fair and equitable treatment of

persons displaced or whose property is acquired as a result of Federal and federally assisted

programs. These provisions apply to all interests in real property acquired for project purposes

regardless of Federal participation in purchases.

9. will comply with the provisions of the Hatch Act, as amended, which limit the political

activities of employees whose principal employment activities are funded in whole or in

part with Federal funds.

10. will comply, as applicable, with the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act, the Copeland Act,and

the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act, regarding labor standards for federally

assisted construction subagreements.

11. will conform with Executive Order (EO) 11246, entitled "Equal Employment Opportunity," as

amended by EO 11375, and as supplemented in Department of Labor regulations (41 CFR Part

60) and will incorporate an equal opportunity clause in federally assisted construction contracts

and subcontracts.

12. will comply with the minimum wage and maximum hours provisions of the Federal Fair Labor

Standards Act.

13. will comply with the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970 relating to prescribed standards

for merit systems for programs funded under one of the 19 statutes or regulations specified in

Appendix A of OPM's Standards for a Merit System of Personnel Administration.

14. will comply, if applicable, with Section 102(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973,

which requires recipients in a special flood hazard area to participate in the program and to

purchase flood insurance if the total cost of insurable construction and acquisition is $10,000 or

more.

15. will comply with the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act, which prohibits the use of

lead-based paint in construction or rehabilitation of residence structures.

16. will assist the Federal grantor agency in assuring compliance with Section 106 of the National

Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; EU 11593; and the Archaeological and Historic

Preservation Act of 1974.

44

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-36 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 11 of 16
MDHS Subgrantee Manual Section 4

Revised 3/01/2005 Page 4

STANDARD ASSURANCES AN]) CERTIFICATIONS

17. will comply with environmental standards which may be prescribed pursuant to the following:

(a) institution of environmenta] quality control measures under the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969 and EO 11514; (b) notification of violating facilities pursuant to EU 11738;

(c) protection of wetlands pursuant to EO 11990; (d) evaluation of flood hazards in flood plains

in accordance with EO 11988; (e) assurance of project consistency with the approved State

management program developed under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972; (0

conformity of Federal actions to State (Clean Air) Implementation Plans under Section 176 of

the Clean Air Act of 1955, as amended; (g) protection of underground sources of drinking water

under the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended; (h) protection of endangered species

under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended; (I) Section 6002 of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act; and (j) the Coastal Barriers Resources Act.

18. will comply with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 related to protecting components or

potential components of the national wild and scenic rivers system.

19. will coinp]y with Public Law (PL) 93 -348 regarding the protection of human subjects involved

in research, development and related activities supported by this subgrant.

20. will comply with the Laboratory Animal Act of 1966 pertaining to the care, handling, and

treatment of warm blooded anima]s held for research, teaching, or other activities supported by

this subgrant.

21. will comply with Federal regulations regarding criteria for cost sharing or matching

contributions.

22. will assure all funds received shall be used only to supplement services and activities that

promote the purposes for which the grant is awarded, and not supplant, unless specifically

authorized by the program regulations and the appropriate MDHS Division.

23. will provide certification regarding lobbying to comply with Section 319, PL 101-121 (31 USC

1352).

24. will provide the required certification regarding their exclusion status and that of their

principals prior to the award in accordance with BOs 12549 and 12689 Debarment and

Suspension.

25. wil] provide certification to comply with the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988.

26. will comply with all applicable requirements of all other Federal and State laws, Executive

Orders, regulations, and policies governing the program(s) for which these monies are provided

and with the terms and conditions of the Subgrant Agreement.

45

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-36 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 12 of 16
MDHS Subgrantee Manual Section 4

Revised 3/01/2005 Page 7

STANDARD ASSURANCES AND CERT1flCAT1ONS

III. DRUG KEE WORKPLACE IPHUPOSEKS UFHLK THAN INDIVIDUALSI - Continued

(f) Taking one of the following actions, within 30 calendar days of receiving notice under

subparagraph (d)(2), with respect to any employee who is so convicted --

(1) Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including

termination, consistent with the requirement of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; or

(2) Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or

rehabilitation program approved for such purposed by Federal, State, or local health, law

enforcement, or other appropriate agency.

(g} Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace through implementation

of paragraphs ia), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f).

The Proposer may insert in the space provided below the sitels) for the performance of work done

in connection with the specific subgrant. Check if there are workplaces on file that are not

identified here:

Place of Performance (Street address, city, county, state, zip code)

IV. UNRESOLVED MONITORING FINDINGS;

UNRESOLVED AUDIT FINDINGS;

AND LITIGATION OCCURRING WITHIN THE LAST THREE (3)YEARS

Identify any unresolved monitoring findings related to any programs that have been received by the

Proposer during the last three (3) years and the status of each finding:

Identify any unresolved audit findings related to any programs received by the Proposer during the

last three (3) years and the status of each finding:

Identify any litigation and/or administrative hearings that the Proposer, the Proposer's Senior

Management, or Proposer's Directors have been involved in during the last three (3) years,

including the outcome or disposition of the case:

48

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-36 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 13 of 16
MDHS Subgrantee Manual Section 4

Revised 3/01/2005 Page 8

STANDARD ASSURANCES AND CERTIFICATIONS

REQUIRED CERTIFICATIONS (Continued)

RTIFICATION OF ADEQUATE FIDELITY BONDING

Identify any and all types of bond coverage currently in force. Include the types of bond coverage;

the officers or owners and employees covered; the period covered by the bond; and the limits of

coverage assigned to each officer, owner, or employee and the total limit of the bond as applicable.

Proposers/Contractors that have been unable to obtain fidelity bond coverage, describe in detail the

efforts made to obtain fidelity bond coverage and the reason coverage has not been obtained.

As the authorized representative of the Proposer, I hereby certify that the Proposer will comply with the

above certifications in items I, II, and III; the information provided items Ill, IV and V is true and complete

to the best of my knowledge, and that the coverage and amounts specified shall be maintained

throughout the effective period of the subgrant.

PROPOSER NAME AND ANY OTHER NAMES UNDER WHICH THE PROPOSER HAS DONE BUSINESS:

PROPOSER ADDRESS AND ANY OTHER ADDRESSES THE PROPOSER HAS USED:

TYPED NAME AND TITLE OF THE PROPOSER'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE

SIGNATURE OF PROPOSER'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND DATE:

49

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-36 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 14 of 16
EXAMPLE

MODIFIED ZERO-BASED BUDGET NARRATIVE

PROPOSER NAME

IACCII PROGRAM

ZERO-BASE BUDGET NARRATIVE

ADMINISTRATION (Must not exceed 15% of grant award.)

Salaries

1 Program Coordinator $0,000 mo. 50% $0,000. mo.

x 7 months = $0,000.

This position handles all functions required to manage grant funds.

1 Payroll Clerk @ 25% of $0,000. annual = $O,000.

This position handles all functions required to

meet payroll responsibilities of staff.

Total Salaries $__________

Fringe Benefits

FICA @ 7.65% of Gross Salaries ($0,000) = $0,000.

Workmen's Compensation - 3% of Gross Salaries ($0,000) $000.

Total Fringe Benefits $_________

Travel - Not to exceed State Approved Rates.

Staff to attend mandatory programmatic and fiscal training.

000.00 estimated miles @ $.485 per mile = $000.00

In- Service Training $O,000.O0

Estimated Meals and Lodging

Total Travel $

Commodities

Office Supplies - Paper, pens, calculator tape, etc. $000.

Estimated monthly $O,000 x 7 mo.'s = 0,000.00

Total Commodities

Contractual Services

Postage estimated $000.

Rental or Lease

Total Contractual Services $

Equipment

I Computer

Total Equipment $

Indirect Cost - (COPY OF INDIRECT PLAN MUST BE SUBMITTED)

The approved indirect cost plan distributes the office

cost (i.e. Executive Director's and staff salaries and

fringe benefits, building rental and utilities) based upon the percentage

of space occupied by the program's administration. This program's rate is

1 %. This year's office budget is $100,000.

Program share: $100,000 x 1 % $1,000

Total indirect Cost

TOTAL ADMINISTRATION $

54

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-36 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 15 of 16
Mississippi MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

Form MDHS-CSSS-1007 COST SUMMARY SUPPORT SHEET

Effective 3-01-2005 Page of Pages

1. Applicant Agency

Subgrant Number 3. Grant ID 4. Beginning 5. Ending

SFY 2007 December 1, 2007 June 30, 2008

Activity

COUNSELING SERVICES

7. For Line Item Descriptioil of Item andfor Basis for Cost 10. Budget ____________________

MDHS

Use 01117 Federal All Other Total

Totals

58

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 72-36 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 16 of 16