Georgia's Juvenile Justice Reform: Achieving Less Crime at Lower Costs

1. Less Crime at Lower Costs Special Council on Criminal Justice Reform for Georgians Public Safety Performance Project October 2, 2012

2. Agenda • Background • State Examples: Less Crime at Lower Costs • GA Juvenile Corrections: High Cost, Low Returns

3. Public Safety Performance Project • Protect public safety • Hold offenders accountable • Control corrections costs • Goal: • Help states get a better public safety return on their corrections dollars

4. Special Council : 2011 - 2012 Special Council on Criminal Justice Reform for Georgians created by General Assembly Council undertook: data-driven analysis of the adult system development of policy options and recommendations HB 1176 passed the General Assembly unanimously Gov. Nathan Deal signed legislation into law Gov. Deal: “a model of how the legislative process should work.”

5. HB 1176 • Passed General Assembly unanimously. • Averts projected 8 percent increase in prison population and associated cumulative cost of $264 million over five years. • Budget reinvests more than $17 million of the prison savings in into measures designed to reduce reoffending. • Focus of HB 1176: • Focus Prison Space on Serious Offenders • Reduce Recidivism by Strengthening Probation and Alternative Sentencing Options • Relieve Local Jail Crowding • Improve Performance Measurement

6. Special Council: 2012-2013 • Governor extends the Special Council through Executive Order and expands the membership. • The state requests technical assistance from the Pew Center on the States and the Annie E. Casey Foundation. • State leaders charge the Special Council with identifying ways to: • improve outcomes in the juvenile system • develop fiscally sound, data-driven juvenile justice policies • ensure Georgia’s tax dollars are used effectively and efficiently

7. Phase I: Bipartisan, Inter-branch Process • Data Analysis / System Assessment • Policy Development • Consensus Building 1 2 Stakeholder Engagement 3

8. State Examples: Less Crime at Lower Costs

9. Case Study: Ohio 40% increase in the state’s juvenile custody population spanning the 13 years leading up to 1992 State’s juvenile institutions operated at 180% of capacity Many counties did not have the resources to supervise juveniles locally Challenges:

10. Case Study: Ohio • Solution: RECLAIM Ohio • Provides incentives to counties to develop and utilize community-based alternatives • Counties receive a formula based allotment, which is reduced for each juvenile committed to an institution • Counties receive the remaining funds to use in the community on a monthly basis • Targeted RECLAIM provides additional incentives for the six counties that commit the most youth to the state

11. Case Study: Ohio 1992 2011 2,600+ 650 Total average daily facility population 12% 21% Commitment rate for felony adjudicated youth

12. Case Study: Ohio $50M+ 4 facility closures save in operational expenses $330M+ in RECLAIM funds provided to local counties As of 2009 $30.6M allocated to counties in FY2012 plus $16.7M through Youth Services Grant 610+ funded programs in 88 counties in FY2011

13. Case Study: Ohio Cost Benefit Analysis $1 $11-$45 spent on a RECLAIM-funded local program instead of placement saves the state

14. Case Study: Ohio Lowenkamp & Latessa (2005). Evaluation of Ohio’s RECLAIM Funded Programs

15. Case Study: Texas $84.5 M New funding to counties (2009-2012) 60% Total average daily facility population (2007-2011) 14% Juvenile arrests (2007-2010)

16. Georgia Juvenile Corrections: High Cost, Low Returns

17. Georgia's Historical Juvenile Disposed Population: Out-of-Home Youth

18. High Cost

19. Low Return on Investment All Committed Youth = Recidivism Rate: 53% 65% • Youth Development Campuses = GA Department of Juvenile Justice

20. Key Findings • Trends in Out-of-Home Youth • Greater concentration of felons • Increase in number of juveniles awaiting a long-term bed • High percentage of low risk juveniles • Non-Secure Residential: majority non-felony and non-violent, nearly half are low risk • Recidivism remains high, half are re-adjudicated within three years • Regardless of setting, public safety outcomes for out-of-home not improving • Community-based options vary across the state • DJJ spends more than 60% of its budget on out‐of-home • Community‐based options are dependent upon location and funding

21. Youth Out-of-Home: Offense Class n = 2,652 n = 1,870

22. Who is in the YDC? n = 1,236 n = 619

23. Youth Out-of-Home: Legal Status

24. Youth in YDC: Offense Types 2002 2011 Violent (30.8%) Violent (49.3%) Property (29.8%) Property (26.2%) Public Order (10.0%) Violent Sex (11.5%) Violent Sex (8.4%) Public Order (6.9%) VOP/VOAC/VOAP (8.2%) Weapons (3.1%) Drug Use (4.7%) VOP/VOAC/VOAP (1.9%) Weapons (3.4%) Drug Use (0.5%) Drug Selling (2.0%) Drug Selling (0.5%) Status (1.6%) Traffic (0.2%) Sex Non-Violent (0.6%) Traffic (0.5%)

25. Georgia's Juvenile Population: Youth Out-of-Home on June 30

26. Youth Out-of-Home: Risk Level n = 2,367 n = 1,777

27. Youth in YDC: Risk Levels

28. Designated Felons in the YDC: Risk Levels

29. Who is in the Non-Secure Residential Placements? n = 863 n = 584

30. Non-Secure Residential: Risk Levels

31. Recidivism for all Released Youth Percent

32. Recidivism: Youth at the YDCs 6 percentage point increase since 2003 Percent

33. System Assessment: Key Finding on Community-Based Options • Community-based options vary across the state • DJJ spends more than 60% of its budget on out‐of-home. • Community‐based options are dependent upon location and funding

34. Less Crime at Lower Costs Special Council on Criminal Justice Reform for Georgians Public Safety Performance Project October 2, 2012