State of the Section

1. State of the Section WELCOME …Serving public safety and reducing delinquency by providing the right service, at the right time, in the right place

2. Feedback & Questions Index cards – available at registration desk In-session answers and feedback Include name and email address if you’d like to have someone talk to you. E-mail address DPS-SuggestionBox@ncdps.gov To be used for follow-up after the meeting We will try to review these in-session as time and resources allow

3. Simon Sinek: How great leaders inspire action License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/legalcode https://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action?language=en

4. Activity Why? Why did you choose and/or stay with juvenile justice?

5. Juvenile Justice Mission & Vision Mission: To reduce and prevent juvenile delinquency by effectively intervening, educating, and treating youth in order to strengthen families and increase public safety. Vision: A seamless, comprehensive juvenile justice system that provides the most effective services to youth and their families at the right time, in the most appropriate settings.

6. CLDP Group: Juvenile Justice Orientation Created by: Emily T. Coltrane Krista A. Hiatt Tangi P. Jordan Miguel B. Pitts Angela Wilson

7. JJ Organizational Structure: 5 Units • Administration (Catherine Anderson, Kimberly Quintus) • Community Programs (Cindy Porterfield) • Court Services (Michael Rieder) • Facility Operations (Dave Hardesty, Angie Smith) • Treatment and Intervention (Dr. Martin Pharr) Reference website for contact information: http://www.ncdps.gov/Index2.cfm?a=000003,002476,002478

8. Administration • Budget • Human Resources • Office of Policy, Training, and Strategic Planning

9. Policy, Training & Strategic Planning 5 Core Training Programs: New Employee Orientation Location Orientation FTO In-Service Certified Non-certified Unit specific in-service

10. NC’s Juvenile Reentry System Reform Initiative: An Overview State of the Juvenile Justice Section Regional Meetings

11. Goals of the FY 2014 Second Chance Act Comprehensive Juvenile Reentry System Reform Planning Program To develop a Comprehensive Juvenile Reentry System Reform Strategic Plan that includes the following: • Improved assessment policies and practices; • A more integrated approach to pre­‐release services and planning and post‐release services and supervision that reflects what research demonstrates as improving outcomes; • Enhanced program/policy monitoring, quality assessments, implementation supports, and accountability practices; and • Enhanced youth outcomes data collection, analysis, reporting, and decision-making. State of the Juvenile Justice Section Regional Meetings

12. What Works in Reducing Recidivism • RISK PRINCIPLE: Match the intensity of individual’s intervention to their risk of reoffending • NEED PRINCIPLE: Target criminogenic needs, such as antisocial behavior, substance abuse, antisocial attitudes, and criminogenicpeer • RESPONSIVITY PRINCIPLE: Tailor the intervention to the learning style, motivation, culture, demographics, and abilities of the offender. Address the issues that affect responsivity(e.g., mental illnesses) Reentry State of the Juvenile Justice Section Regional Meetings

13. CriminogenicNeeds (dynamic risk factors) • Antisocial thinking, attitudes, values and beliefs • Associating with delinquent and pro-criminal peers, and isolation from pro-social peers • Temperament and personality factors that contribute to delinquent activity • Impulsivity • Hostility • Substance abuse • Family factors, such as low levels of affection, caring, and cohesiveness; poor parental supervision and discipline; conflict, neglect, and abuse • Low levels of educational or vocational achievement • Few leisure or recreation activities State of the Juvenile Justice Section Regional Meetings

14. Closer to Home Key Findings

15. Commitments to State-Run Secure Facilities and Population Plummeted After 2007 Reforms in Texas TOTAL ADMISSIONS 0% -69% AVERAGE ADP -2% -70%

16. Rearrest Rates were Comparable Regardless of the Intervention and Did Not Improve After Reform PRE-REFORM STUDY GROUP One Year Probability of Rearrest POST-REFORM STUDY GROUP One Year Probability of Rearrest State Incarceration 41% 41% Skill-Based Program 29% 27% 28% 30% Treatment Program 31% 29% Surveillance Program 33% 34% Secure County Placement 35% 35% Non-Secure County Placement 32% 33% No Intervention

17. Key Takeaways • States and counties can implement policies and practices that have a significant impact on youth outcomes. • Policies and practices may be “evidenced-based” but will have minimal impact, regardless of resource investments, if not implemented with fidelity and high quality. • While community-based programming is associated with lower recidivism rates, results would improve if we manage to identify criminogenic needs better, then match those needs to services designed to address them. • It’s not just enough to collect data and report on outcomes—the ongoing evaluation of key performance measures and use of this data to improve policy and practice is key to the success of any large-scale reform. State of the Juvenile Justice Section Regional Meetings

18. Planning Grant Requirements • Establish a task force or committee to develop a juvenile reentry system reform strategic plan and guide and oversee its implementation. • Develop an outcome and evaluation plan. • Develop a juvenile system reform strategic plan that includes a description of actions designed to achieve key reforms. • Develop an implementation plan. • Establish a sustainability plan. State of the Juvenile Justice Section Regional Meetings

19. Core Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Youth Outcomes Principle 2 Adopt and effectively implement programs and services demonstrated to reduce recidivism and improve other youth outcomes, and use data to evaluate the results and direct system improvements. Principle 1 Base supervision, service, and resource allocation decisions on the results of validated risk and needs assessments. Principle 3 Employ a coordinated approach across service systems to address youth’s needs. Principle 4 Tailor system policies, programs, and supervision to reflect the distinct developmental needs of adolescents.

20. NC’s Juvenile Reentry System Reform Implementation Plan

22. Objective 1: The Juvenile Justice Section (JJS) will deliver risk and needs-driven case planning and service linkage, and employ effective supervision practices. • Key Task 1: Increase the reliable use of North Carolina’s risk and criminogenic needs assessment. • Key Task 2 : Implement a comprehensive service plan. • Key Task 3: Implement a service matching tool. Subcommittee Co-chairpersons: Mike Rieder and Dave Hardesty Key Task Co-leaders: Jean Steinberg and Candice Moore State of the Juvenile Justice Section Regional Meetings

23. State of the Juvenile Justice Section Regional Meetings

24. NC’s Government Data Analytics Center

25. NC’s Government Data Analytics Center

26. Oregon Youth AuthorityUse of Data Analytics Typologies: • Factors based on the OYA Risk/Needs • Assessment conducted at intake or prior to commitment • Six Typology Groups (males only) • ◦ Identified as A through F

27. Type A • Few or no protective factors present • High history of and current AOD use • Poor relationships and relationship skills • High level of aggression and attitude issues • Education issues are very prominent • High need of mental health follow-up

29. Type B • Moderate protective factors present • High history of AOD use and moderate current AOD use • Poor relationships and relationship skills • Moderate level of aggression and attitude issues • Education issues are very prominent • Low need of immediate mental health follow-up

30. State of the Juvenile Justice Section Regional Meetings

32. State of the Juvenile Justice Section Regional Meetings

33. Back to our Implementation Plan… Objective 2: The JJS will deliver effective and developmentally appropriate programming, including education and workforce development services, that target criminogenic needs. • KeyTask 4: Implement a workforce development and education strategy. Subcommittee Chairperson: Martin Pharr Key Task Leader: Duane Cogdell State of the Juvenile Justice Section Regional Meetings

34. Objective 3. The JJS will engage and strengthen families of youth involved along the juvenile justice continuum, including reentry. • Key Task 5. Implement a family engagement and strengthening strategy. Subcommittee Chairperson: Cindy Porterfield Key Task Leader: Angela Taylor State of the Juvenile Justice Section Regional Meetings

35. Objective 4. The JJS will document the effect of its reentry reform strategy on recidivism, education, employment and behavioral health outcomes. • Key Task 6. Evaluate North Carolina’s statewide juvenile reentry reform initiative. Subcommittee Chairperson: Megan Howell Key Task Leader: Debbie Dawes (RTI, INC.) State of the Juvenile Justice Section Regional Meetings

36. Want to help? jean.steinberg@ncdps.gov 919-324-6386 State of the Juvenile Justice Section Regional Meetings

37. Break

38. Sentencing Commission Reports William Lassiter Deputy Commissioner for Juvenile Justice

40. Further JCPC Analysis • Key findings from JCPC Effectiveness Report • Low risk juveniles admitted to JCPC programs had a higher rate of adult arrests compared to low risk juveniles not admitted to JCPC programs • Medium and high risk JCPC participants recidivated at lower rates compared to their non-JCPC counterparts • Continued analysis • Created new admission sample to allow for examination of overall recidivism • JCPC status determined based on whether a juvenile had a JCPC admission during two years following entry into juvenile recidivism sample • Most juveniles with a JCPC admission had a full two-year follow-up available to determine recidivist activity (i.e., subsequent complaint and/or adult arrest) • Equal two-year follow-up period • Preliminary results presented

41. Recidivism by JCPC Status and Risk LevelJCPC Admission Sample (two-year follow-up period) Note: Juveniles had to have a completed risk and needs assessment to be included in this table. SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2010/11 Juvenile Recidivism Sample; JCPC Admission Sample (two-year follow-up period)

42. Recidivism by JCPC Status and Risk ScoreJCPC Admission Sample (two-year follow-up period) Low (0-7) Medium (8-14) Risk Score SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2010/11 Juvenile Recidivism Sample; JCPC Admission Sample (two-year follow-up period)

43. Recidivism by JCPC Status and Level of InvolvementJCPC Admission Sample (two-year follow-up period) SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2010/11 Juvenile Recidivism Sample; JCPC Admission Sample (two-year follow-up period)

44. Overall Recidivism RatesJCPC Admission Sample (two-year follow-up period) SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2010/11 Juvenile Recidivism Sample; JCPC Admission Sample (two-year follow-up period)

45. Multivariate Results: Significant Factors Affecting RecidivismJCPC Admission Sample (two-year follow-up period) • See Handout (Table 2) • Average overall recidivism probability of 33.1% • Significant variables • Age • Misdemeanor Offense • Prior Complaint • JCPC Status at Admission • Risk Score • Individual Risk/Needs Items (Mental Health, Substance Abuse, Negative Peers, School Problems)

46. Recidivism for JCPC Programs by Risk Level*JCPC Admission Sample (two-year follow-up period) SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2010/11 Juvenile Recidivism Sample; JCPC Admission Sample (two-year follow-up period)

47. From Research Findings to Policy Implications Policy Framework: What works and for whom? • Assessment • Reliable assessment of juveniles is critical • Reliable assessment of programs is critical • Targeting • Resources may be used more effectively with certain juveniles (i.e., prioritize medium and high risk juveniles; low risk juveniles may not need intervention) • Matching • Possible to improve matching of juvenile risk/needs with programs on a backdrop of complete assessments and targeting decisions

48. Recommendations from the SPAC • Revisit and adjust the risk levels using available data • Use the same risk assessment tool for at-risk and court-involved youth • Administer a needs assessment for at-risk youth • Assess Programs • Continuously evaluate an improve the process of assessing, targeting and matching youth and services

49. Revisit and adjust the risk levels using available data • Reasons to review risk assessments • Assessment drift (unintended counselor bias) • Repeated system contact (juveniles/families learn how to answer) • Empirical directive (outcome data do not match assessment results) • Common to review every 5 to 7 years • Compare outcome data to assessment results (e.g., levels) • Scores are normally distributed (e.g., no bunching within levels) • Risk instrument still predictive of outcome • Use of the tool is meaningful to operations

50. Lessons from the SPAC analysis • Scores were bunched into the “low risk” category • 75% of court involved youth scoring 0-7 points • “Medium” and “high” risk youth potentially served in low risk programs • Less program efficacy • Different outcomes between youth in “low risk” category • Recidivism increased as score increased • However, statistically significant differences in recidivism within score range • Recidivism rates and assessment scores on the next slide illustrate both of these issues