Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Michael Thompson, Director

June 22, 2015

Closer to Home

A Review of Findings

Council of State Governments Justice Center  | ‹#›

States’ dramatic progress in 

reducing confinement rates

Estimated Out-of-School Suspensions Nationally

Estimated In-School Suspensions Nationally

Connecticut

Rhode Island

Mississippi

Tennessee

Georgia

Louisiana

Arizona

South Carolina

North Carolina

California

Wisconsin

New York

Alaska

Washington

New Jersey

Maryland

Texas

Montana

Delaware

United States

Minnesota

Ohio

Alabama

New Hampshire

Illinois

Massachusetts

Michigan

Kentucky

Virginia

Florida

Kansas

New Mexico

Oklahoma

Nevada

Hawaii

Maine

Indiana

Colorado

Iowa

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Wyoming

Missouri

Vermont

Utah

South Dakota

Arkansas

Nebraska

North Dakota

Idaho

West Virginia

PERCENT CHANGE IN STATE COMMITMENT RATES 

(1997-2011)

*Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement. 

Available at ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp

Council of State Governments Justice Center  | ‹#›

2

Texas juvenile justice system overhauled

2011 LEGISLATURE

Merged former Texas Youth Commission and Texas  Juvenile Probation Commission to form Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD)

2013 LEGISLATURE

Mandated TJJD to close one additional state-run secure facility; $25 million designated for community mental health services

REFORM HIGHLIGHTS and AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION 

IN STATE-SECURE JUVENILE FACILITIES

2009 LEGISLATURE

$45 million for Commitment Reduction Program, with incentive funding for counties and community supervision

2007 LEGISLATURE

Prohibited commitment to state-run secure facilities for misdemeanor offenses; age of state jurisdiction reduced from 21 to 19; $60 million in new funding for counties

Council of State Governments Justice Center  | ‹#›

3

High rearrest rates for youth under 

juvenile justice supervision in Texas

REARREST RATE FOR YOUTH ON PROBATION AND RELEASED FROM STATE-RUN SECURE FACILITIES, ONE, THREE AND FIVE YEAR RATE

Council of State Governments Justice Center  | ‹#›

4

Texas state leaders asked:   

“What impact did the reforms have?”

Funding: 

Partners: 

Request: 

Council of State Governments Justice Center  | ‹#›

5

Dramatic decrease in the number of youth in state-run juvenile correctional facilities after 2007 reforms
| % Change |         |
|----------|---------|
| FY04-06  | FY07-14 |

-2%

-70%

AVERAGE ADP

TOTAL ADMISSIONS

AVERAGE ADP

Council of State Governments Justice Center  | ‹#›

6

Proportionate decline in commitments cross white, Hispanic, and African-American youth

DISPOSITIONS RESULTING IN COMMITMENT TO STATE SECURE FACILITIES  BY RACE

Council of State Governments Justice Center  | ‹#›

7

 Juvenile arrests in Texas dropped

while number of youth incarcerated declined

JUVENILE ARREST RATE (PER 100,000 POPULATION) 2000-2012 

FOR TEXAS, FLORIDA, AND CALIFORNIA

Source for juvenile population: www.ojjdp.gov, Easy Access to Juvenile Populations: 1990-2013

Council of State Governments Justice Center  | ‹#›

8

Youth on probation less likely to be rearrested than youth with nearly identical characteristics released from state-run secure facilities 

One Year Probability of Rearrest

First Recidivism Offense a Felony

YOUTH RELEASED FROM STATE-RUN SECURE FACILITIES

41%

YOUTH SUPERVISED IN THE COMMUNITY

49%

34%

17%

Youth released from state-run secure  facilities were 21% more likely to rearrested

Youth released from state-run secure facilities were 3x more likely to commit a felony when recidivating

Council of State Governments Justice Center  | ‹#›

9

Per capita funding for juvenile probation 

increased significantly after reforms

FY2005

FY2012

% Change

Per capita expenditures  for local juvenile probation departments

$3,555

$7,023

98%

Council of State Governments Justice Center  | ‹#›

10

After reforms, rearrest rates did not improve and were comparable for all interventions 

PRE-REFORM

STUDY GROUP

One Year Probability 

of Rearrest

Treatment Program

State Incarceration

41%

Skill-Based Program

Surveillance Program

Secure County Placement

Non-Secure County Placement

No Intervention

29%

28%

31%

33%

35%

33%

POST-REFORM

STUDY GROUP

One Year Probability 

of Rearrest

41%

27%

30%

29%

34%

35%

32%

Council of State Governments Justice Center  | ‹#›

11

28%

32%

40%

30%

Expected recidivism rates compared to 

actual recidivism rates

EXPECTED

REARREST RATE

Victoria

Tarrant

36%

Travis

37%

ACTUAL

REARREST RATE

46%

44%

HIGHER

Harris

37%

Lubbock

33%

39%

33%

AS

EXPECTED

El Paso

Cameron

34%

Dallas

31%

28%

27%

LOWER

Council of State Governments Justice Center  | ‹#›

12

Key Takeaways for Texas

Texas has reduced the number of youth incarcerated in its state-run secure facilities without compromising public safety.

Youth supervised “closer to home” have lower rearrest rates than similar youth released from state-run secure facilities. 

The state has invested some of the hundreds of millions saved, which resulted from the closure of eight state-run secure facilities, in community-based supervision and services.

Recidivism rates for youth under community supervision have not improved since the reforms.  Texas is not realizing the full potential of its investment in community based supervision and services

Council of State Governments Justice Center  | ‹#›

Report released Jan. 29, 2015 at TX Supreme Court

Council of State Governments Justice Center  | ‹#›

Report Finding:

Youth released from state-run secure  facilities were 21% more likely to rearrested

Legislation passed in response to report findings

Texas SB 1630: 

Further limits the commitment of youth to state secure facilities

Requires juvenile departments to develop regionalization plans to keep youth “closer to home”

Council of State Governments Justice Center  | ‹#›

15

Report Finding:

Gaps in use of best practice have kept Texas from realizing the full potential of their investment in community interventions

Legislation passed in response to report findings

Texas SB 1630:

Requires the development of research- based programs for youth in the community and those committed

Establishes performance based goals and ties funding to these goals

Creates a new TJJD division responsible for monitoring program quality and accountability

Council of State Governments Justice Center  | ‹#›

16

DOJ can help states and counties to:

Take a hard look at impact of reforms they have enacted

Minimize incarceration of youth in state correctional facilities

Improve outcomes for youth under community-based supervision

Council of State Governments Justice Center  | ‹#›

Thank You

The presentation was developed by members of the Council of State Governments Justice Center staff. The statements made reflect the views of the authors, and should not be considered the official position of the Justice Center, the members of the Council of State Governments, or the funding agency supporting the work. Citations available for statistics presented in preceding slides available on CSG Justice Center web site.

FULL REPORT AT:

http://csgjusticecenter.org/youth/publications/closer-to-home/

HOME PAGE AT:

http://csgjusticecenter.org

Council of State Governments Justice Center  | ‹#›

18

# image2.png

# image3.emf

# Microsoft_Excel_Worksheet1.xlsx

# Microsoft_Excel_Worksheet2.xlsx

# Microsoft_Excel_Worksheet3.xlsx

# image9.jpeg

# image10.png

# image4.jpeg

# image5.png

# image6.png

# image7.png

# image8.jpeg

# Microsoft_Excel_Worksheet4.xlsx

# Microsoft_Excel_Worksheet5.xlsx

# image11.jpeg

# image12.jpg

# image13.jpg

# image14.jpeg