1 / 11

Risk Assessment Instrument And the Development of Detention Alternatives

Risk Assessment Instrument And the Development of Detention Alternatives Primary resource: WWW.AECF.ORG. Decision Making Prior to the RAI.

sadah
Download Presentation

Risk Assessment Instrument And the Development of Detention Alternatives

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Risk Assessment Instrument And the Development of Detention Alternatives Primary resource: WWW.AECF.ORG Reproduction of these materials only by author's explicit permission.

  2. Decision Making Prior to the RAI Staff had been utilizing the Oregon Revised Statutes along with what they could gather from others about each situation, combined with experience, training, and intuition to make these decisions. The intake screening had been an individual type of assessment done differently by each staff member, which tends to lead to biases. Staff were supposed to use the least restrictive means possible for each youth, but there were few usable alternatives available between detention and unconditional release. Reproduction of these materials only by author's explicit permission.

  3. ORS 419C.145, paragraph 4: • “(4) In determining whether release is appropriate under subsection (2) of this section, the Court or its authorized representative shall consider the following: • - The nature and extent of the youth’s family relationships and the youth’s • relationships with other responsible adults in the community; • - The youth’s previous record of referrals to juvenile Court and recent • demonstrable conduct; • The youth’s past and present residence; • The youth’s education status and school attendance record; • The youth’s past and present employment; • The youth’s previous record regarding appearance in Court; • The nature of the charges against the youth and any mitigating or • aggravating factors; and • Any other facts relevant to the likelihood of the youth’s appearance in Court or • likelihood that the youth will comply with the law and other conditions of release.” Reproduction of these materials only by author's explicit permission.

  4. Guiding Principles for JDAI • Detention viewed as a legal status, not a building • Agreement is needed on the purpose of secure detention and of alternatives • Detention alternative should be planned , implemented, managed and monitored using accurate data. Reproduction of these materials only by author's explicit permission.

  5. Guiding Principles for JDAI • System should include a continuum of alternatives, matched to the risks of detained youth • Alternatives should be culturally competent, relevant and accessible • Design and operation on principle of least restrictive alternative possible • Detention alternatives should reduce secure detention and avoid widening the net Reproduction of these materials only by author's explicit permission.

  6. Developing the RAI • Collaborative / Inclusive Teams • Informed by Policy Makers • Examination of other jurisdictions, but customized for Multnomah County • Iterative process with much “field testing” • A “living document” – 3rd revision in place now • Monitoring and Evaluation built in from the start Reproduction of these materials only by author's explicit permission.

  7. Obstacles • Threat to judgment and professionalism • Maintaining collaboration • Developing (and using) alternatives • Public Safety concerns Reproduction of these materials only by author's explicit permission.

  8. Police or Other Referral Screening With Risk Assessment Instrument (RAI) at Intake RAI 7 – 11 Conditional Release or ShelterSummons RAI 12 or Over Hold In Secure Custody RAI 6 or Under Release – No Conditions DDA and/or Other Staff Review to Make Appropriate Recommendation (May include FAA) Placement Planning Meeting Preliminary Hearing Release With Conditions Release With No Conditions Hold In Secure Custody Numerous Options Include Any Combination of: Community Detention, Electronic Monitoring, House Arrest, Possible Staff Secure/Non-secure Shelter Possible Day Reporting Center for Youth onProbation To Self, Parents, Guardians, Shelter, Other Possible Pre-trial Release at Review Hearing With or Without Conditions of Release and/or Detention Alternatives Reproduction of these materials only by author's explicit permission.

  9. Possible Alternatives – a Continuum • Home or Community Detention (VOA) • Electronic Monitoring • Day Reporting Centers (NAFY) • Residential Programs / non-secure • Foster / Shelter Care (BGAS) Reproduction of these materials only by author's explicit permission.

  10. Applications Outside of Detention • Creation of Structured Decision Making for the Diversion Process • Development of a continuum of sanctions and decision guides for probation violation • Use of the APC (Alternative Placement Committee) prior to incarceration • Ongoing Commitment to Monitoring, System Modeling, and Intentionality • Examination of the Adult System Reproduction of these materials only by author's explicit permission.

  11. Reproduction of these materials only by author's explicit permission.

More Related