Collective Impact Part III: Reforming the NYS Juvenile Justice System Through Collective Impact

THOMAS R. ANDRIOLA CHIEF OF POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION NYS DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES

May 30, 2017

Collective Impact

3

Collective Impact: The commitment of a group of actors from different sectors to a common agenda for solving a complex social problem

Common Agenda • Common understanding of the problem • Shared vision for change • Developed a Strategy and Action Plan

Shared Measurement

• Collecting data and measuring results • Focus on performance management • Shared accountability • Developed County Profiles and Statewide Metrics

Mutually Reinforcing Activities

• Differentiated approaches • Coordination through joint plan of action • Always Connecting the Dots!

Continuous Communication

• Consistent and open communication • Focus on building trust • Meetings, Correspondence, Interaction with Localities

Backbone Support • Separate organization(s) with staff • Resources and skills to convene and coordinate

participating organizations • Support from Governor’s Office, DCJS, and OCFS

Source: Channeling Change: Making Collective Impact Work, 2012; FSG Interviews and Analysis

1

2

3

4

5

4

BENEFITS OF COLLECTIVE IMPACT

Amplify Impact Increase Efficiency of Resources Drive Alignment

Involves multiple partners working towards long term, systemic change

Offers a holistic approach by channeling the energy of various stakeholders towards solving a problem

Provides opportunities to influence the system from within and outside by coupling advocacy with action

Allows more efficient use of funding, especially in times of scarce resources

Enables leveraging of public and private sources of funding

Opens channels for organizations to access additional funding in support of an issue

Reduces duplication of services

Increases coordination

Embeds the drive for sustained social change within the community

Source: FSG Interviews and Analysis

5

NEW YORK STATE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM

6

• September 2010: Steering Committee of key leaders in juvenile justice from across the state is convened

• Membership reflected all interested stakeholder groups

• Facilitation of the visioning process was critical; an early common vision set the stage for progress

• Improving outcomes for youth and communities requires a coordinated, strategic effort by multiple actors working toward a shared vision and common goals

NYS Juvenile Justice Collective Impact Case Study

“The juvenile justice system is a highly complex network of public and private agencies, organizations, courts, policies, and procedures at a state and local level, and also includes myriad connection points to other systems.” Safe Communities Successful Youth: A Shared Vision for the New York State Juvenile Justice System

Quantifiable Results in the New York State Juvenile Justice System

2010 2013 2016 2010-2016 Change

n % JD/JO Arrests 27,637 17,191 11,268 -16,369 -59% JD/JO Detention Admissions 8,317 5,621 4,206 -4,111 -49% JD Probation Intakes 22,760 15,044 10,349 -12,411 -55% JD Initial Petitions Filed 11,317 7,695 5,366 -5,951 -53%

Felony 4,970 3,657 2,665 -2,305 -46% Misdemeanor 6,347 4,038 2,701 -3,646 -57%

JD Placement Admissions 1,645 1,314 883 -762 -46%

Steering Committee

9

Cami Anderson (formerly of) New York City Department of Education Laurence Busching New York City Administration for Children’s Services Sean Byrne Division of Criminal Justice Services Gladys Carrion Office of Children and Family Services Hon. Michael Coccoma Courts Outside of New York City John Donohue New York City Police Department Elizabeth Glazer Deputy Secretary for Public Safety Jacquelyn Greene Division of Criminal Justice Services Jeremy Kohomban The Children’s Village Emily Tow Jackson The Tow Foundation

NYS Juvenile Justice Steering Committee

Timothy Lisante New York City Department of Education Robert Maccarone Office of Probation and Correctional Alternatives James Purcell Council of Family and Child Caring Agencies Gabrielle Prisco Correctional Association of New York Kristin Proud Deputy Secretary for Human Services Kelly Reed Monroe County Department of Human Services Honorable Edwina Richardson-Mendelson New York City Family Court Vincent Schiraldi New York City Department of Probation Tamara Steckler Legal Aid Society Michele Sviridoff New York City Criminal Justice Coordinator’s Office

Vision and Goals

11

Assure Quality System Governance, Accountability and Coordination: Create and support structures at the state and local level that ensure coordination and accountability for achieving system goals. 1. Ongoing Coordination: Evolve the Steering Committee into a Strategic Planning Action Committee (SPAC), with devoted staff time the Governor’s Office, DCJS and OCFS. 2. Multi-Stakeholder Input: Evolve the existing working groups to establish an ongoing role in providing regular feedback and guidance to the SPAC. Regularly convene the SPAC to oversee the implementation of the strategic plan. 3. Performance Measures: Finalize agreement on a set of high-level system outcomes and performance measures. 4. Ongoing Input from Localities: Develop a plan to implement local interagency advisory teams. 5. Feedback Mechanisms: Establish regular mechanisms to gather feedback where necessary, and share emerging plans and strategies for system reform with key stakeholders around the state.

Vision for the New York State Juvenile Justice System

Across New York State, the juvenile justice system promotes youth success and ensures public safety

Safe, Accountable, Fair and Effective

12

Implement an Effective Continuum of Services Based on Best Practices: Effectively assess, serve and treat youth in evidence-informed and appropriate services close to their homes, fostering family and community engagement and positive outcomes for youth.

6. Analysis of Continuum: Conduct analysis of current continuum of providers across the state, and assess relative to juvenile delinquency. 7. Performance Contracting and Quality Standards: Establish the data infrastructure and analytical capacity necessary to improve outcomes. 8. Financing Models and Oversight Structures: Implement and effectively utilize uniform performance-based contracting and quality standards for public and private providers. 9. Support for What Works: Conduct analysis of potential financing models, oversight structures and case jurisdiction responsibilities. Establish an interactive, best practice clearinghouse to expand the capacity of the state to adopt both research-driven and evidence-informed practices.

Vision for the New York State Juvenile Justice System

Across New York State, the juvenile justice system promotes youth success and ensures public safety

Safe, Accountable, Fair and Effective

13

Collect and Share Data to Make Information-Driven Decisions and Policy: Share and analyze qualitative and quantitative data to guide service provision, decision making and system-level reform and policy. 10. Data Infrastructure and Analysis: Establish the data infrastructure and analytical capacity necessary to improve outcomes.

Vision for the New York State Juvenile Justice System

Across New York State, the juvenile justice system promotes youth success and ensures public safety

Safe, Accountable, Fair and Effective

14

• In September 2011, the Steering Committee was dissolved and a new juvenile justice Strategic Planning Action Committee (SPAC) was established

• Charged with providing policy guidance and recommendations on statewide juvenile justice issues, with the establishment of subcommittees to do in depth work on the issues

• Devoted staff time from the Governor’s Office, DCJS and OCFS, and initially facilitated by non-profit consulting group FSG

• First meeting held September 9, 2011, which included the establishment of two SPAC work groups to facilitate the implementation of four near-term action steps

Action Steps 1 and 2: Creation of the Strategic Planning Action Committee (SPAC), and a Work Group Structure to Address Key

Action Steps

15

Stephen Acquario New York State Association of Counties Deborah Benson Council on Children and Families Laurence Busching NYC Mayor’s Office of the Criminal Justice Coordinator Gladys Carrion Office of Children and Family Services Mark Ferrante NYC Department of Probation Brian Forte State of New York Police Juvenile Officers Association Elizabeth Glazer Deputy Secretary for Public Safety Jacquelyn Greene Division of Criminal Justice Services Steven Heider NYS Association of Chiefs of Police Emily Tow Jackson The Tow Foundation

NYS Strategic Planning Action Committee

David Jolly Orange County Department of Social Services Joseph Mancini Schenectady County Probation Office Pamela Neubeck Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo Gabrielle Prisco Correctional Association of New York Kristin Proud Deputy Secretary for Human Services James Purcell Council of Family and Child Caring Agencies Al Siegel Center for Court Innovation Michele Sviridoff New York City Criminal Justice Coordinators Office Honorable Sharon Townsend New York State Judicial Institute Lorraine Wilmot Broome County Probation Office

Work Groups

17

• Responsible for 2 of the 10 near-term action steps (Ongoing Input from Localities/Analysis of Continuum)

• Created a continuum of services database to help identify existing juvenile justice services at the county level and begin to analyze duplication and gaps in available services

• Established Regional Youth Justice Teams across New York State designed to work across counties and professions to develop effective juvenile justice reform solutions

Local Analysis and Coordination Structure Work Group

18

• Responsible for 2 of the 10 near-term action steps (Performance Measures/Data Infrastructure and Analysis)

• Developed a set of performance measures with the assistance of a consultant (Bennett Midland)

• Extensive in house work has been done to enhance data sharing and synthesis among state agencies, and county profiles have been developed to help inform the work of the Regional Youth Justice Teams

Data and Performance Measures Work Group

19

• Responsible for 1 of the 10 near-term action steps (Support for What Works)

• Developed a comprehensive set of recommendations with respect to the mission, goals, and key elements of a Best Practices Center in New York State – presented to and adopted by the SPAC in May 2013

• Substantial basis for the parameters being used for the new Youth Justice Institute

Best Practices Center Work Group

20

• Responsible for 2 of the 10 near-term action steps (Financing Models and Oversight Structures/Performance Contracting and Quality Standards)

• Developed seven key principles that would underpin a model juvenile justice fiscal structure, and made recommendations on an overall funding strategy – presented to and adopted by the SPAC in May 2013

• Many of the principles and recommendations were incorporated into the Final Report of the Governor’s Commission on Youth, Public Safety and Justice

Juvenile Justice Financing Work Group

21

• Responsible for 1 of the 10 near-term action steps (Feedback Mechanisms)

• Charged with establishing regular mechanisms to gather feedback where necessary, and share emerging plans and strategies for system reform with key stakeholders around the State

• Developed a feedback structure between the SPAC and RYJTs, between the RYJTs, and amongst other juvenile justice groups

• Specific goals and action steps were outlined and presented to and adopted by the SPAC in March 2015

Feedback Mechanisms Work Group

22

• Not related to a specific action step, but came about as a result of similar issues being raised by Regional Youth Justice Teams across the State

• Charged with taking a look at youth with sexual behavior problems and developing a set of recommendations using evidence based practices to intervene and provide treatment to respond effectively to this population statewide

• Specific goals and action steps were outlined and presented to and adopted by the SPAC in March 2015

• Community based intervention is currently being rolled out to six sites across the State

Youth with Sexual Behavior Problems Work Group

Accomplishments

Regional Youth Justice Teams

25 Ongoing Input from Localities • Develop a plan to implement local interagency

advisory teams

• Local Coordination and Continuum Analysis work group

• Established nine Regional Youth Justice Teams, covering the entire State

• Lead entities committed to serve with no funding, but were working so well that we have been able to provide some support for implementing system change

26 Characteristics of Effective Local Interagency Advisory Teams • Community engagement is an essential piece in providing an

effective continuum of services, and local interagency advisory teams can drive ongoing input from localities

• Local interagency advisory teams provide a means of communication between localities and state policymakers

• These teams will increase the capacity of agencies, organizations, and courts across the state to adopt both NYS‐based and national innovative research‐driven and evidence‐informed practices

27 Regional Youth Justice Teams – County Breakdown

Capital Region: Albany, Columbia, Delaware, Greene, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, Warren, Washington

North Country: Clinton, Essex, Franklin, Hamilton, St. Lawrence, Jefferson, Lewis Central New York: Broome, Cayuga, Chenango, Cortland, Madison, Onondaga,

Oswego, Tompkins, Tioga Finger Lakes: Chemung, Livingston, Monroe, Ontario, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben,

Wayne, Yates, Genesee, Orleans, Wyoming Western New York: Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Erie, Niagara Mid-Hudson: Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Westchester, Sullivan, Ulster New York City: Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens, Richmond Long Island: Nassau, Suffolk Mohawk Valley: Herkimer, Oneida, Fulton, Montgomery, Otsego, Schoharie

28 Regional Youth Justice Teams – Lead Entities

Capital Region: The Schenectady County Department of Probation North Country: The Children’s Home of Jefferson County Central New York: The Onondaga County Probation Department Finger Lakes: The Monroe County Probation Department Western New York: The Erie County Probation Department Mid-Hudson: The Westchester County Department of Probation New York City: The New York City Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee Long Island: The Suffolk County Criminal Justice Coordinating Council Mohawk Valley: The Oneida County Probation Department and Kids Oneida

29 Regional Youth Justice Teams – Rosters

• Youth and families with experience in the juvenile justice system

• Advocates • Law enforcement • Crime victims • District and/or county attorneys • Attorneys for children • Family court judges • Local probation departments • Local departments of social services • Detention facilities and providers

• Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) regional offices

• County executives and other elected officials

• Youth bureaus • Boards of education and schools/

school districts • Social service providers • Mental health and other health care

providers • Faith-based organizations • Business/ labor organizations

Team membership should include members from some or all of the following at a minimum:

County Profiles

31 Measuring Progress! • Developed comprehensive county profiles to measure changes in

juvenile justice system points

• Multiple agencies involved in the effort (DCJS, OCFS, OCA)

• Data is broken down into 235 system points!

• It’s not perfect, but it’s a start – data definitions and technical notes help the various entities hone in on how they should be counting data

• http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/crimnet/ojsa/jj-profiles.htm

# % of Total # % of Total # % of Total # % of Total # % of Total # %

1 Juvenile Population (Ages 7-15) 30,566 100% 30,161 100% 29,644 100% 29,484 100%2 Female 14,910 49% 14,811 49% 14,533 49% 14,485 49%3 Age4 12 Years and Under 19,805 65% 19,533 65% 19,162 65% 19,035 65%5 13 Years 3,485 11% 3,459 11% 3,447 12% 3,374 11%6 14 Years or Older 7,276 24% 7,169 24% 7,035 24% 7,075 24%7 Race-Ethnicity8 White (non-Hispanic) 20,568 67% 20,011 66% 19,440 66% 18,987 64%9 Black (non-Hispanic) 5,622 18% 5,593 19% 5,546 19% 5,580 19%10 Hispanic (across all races) 2,396 8% 2,484 8% 2,509 8% 2,581 9%11 Asian or Pacific Islander (non-Hispanic) 1,932 6% 2,023 7% 2,099 7% 2,292 8%12 American Indian or Alaska Native (non-Hispanic) 48 < 1% 50 < 1% 50 < 1% 44 < 1%

13 Arrest/Criminal Activity 541 100% 432 100% 379 100% 423 100% 363 100% -60 -14%14 Felony Offense (available for NYC counties only)15 Top UCR Offense Type (available for counties outside NYC only)16 Person 79 15% 106 25% 128 34% 96 23% 96 26% 0 0%17 Simple Assault 35 6% 66 15% 46 12% 61 14% 47 13% -14 -23%18 Aggravated Assault 20 4% 18 4% 28 7% 10 2% 17 5% 7 -19 Robbery 17 3% 11 3% 40 11% 17 4% 18 5% 1 -20 Forcible Rape and Other Sex Offenses 5 < 1% 9 2% 13 3% 8 2% 14 4% 6 -21 Other Personal 2 < 1% 2 < 1% 1 < 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 -22 Property 401 74% 264 61% 193 51% 289 68% 229 63% -60 -21%23 Burglary 64 12% 41 9% 33 9% 82 19% 14 4% -68 -83%24 Criminal Mischief 65 12% 24 6% 46 12% 46 11% 35 10% -11 -24%25 Larceny 236 44% 169 39% 94 25% 135 32% 159 44% 24 18%26 Stolen Property 19 4% 19 4% 7 2% 12 3% 15 4% 3 -27 Other Property 17 3% 11 3% 13 3% 14 3% 6 2% -8 -28 Weapons 12 2% 8 2% 6 2% 10 2% 0 0% -10 -29 Drug 27 5% 28 6% 23 6% 8 2% 12 3% 4 -30 Other 22 4% 26 6% 29 8% 20 5% 26 7% 6 30%31 Female 147 27% 157 36% 109 29% 116 27% 159 44% 43 37%32 Age at Arrest33 12 Years and Under 47 9% 57 13% 22 6% 56 13% 39 11% -17 -30%34 13 Years 90 17% 60 14% 73 19% 55 13% 61 17% 6 11%35 14 Years or Older 404 75% 315 73% 284 75% 312 74% 263 72% -49 -16%36 Race-Ethnicity37 White (non-Hispanic) 247 46% 165 38% 165 44% 174 41% 149 41% -25 -14%38 Black (non-Hispanic) 252 47% 224 52% 182 48% 214 51% 185 51% -29 -14%39 Hispanic (across all races) 35 6% 37 9% 27 7% 30 7% 24 7% -6 -20%40 Asian or Pacific Islander (non-Hispanic) 7 1% 5 1% 5 1% 5 1% 5 1% 0 -41 American Indian or Alaska Native (non-Hispanic) 0 0% 1 < 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 -42 Not Reported43 Juvenile Offender (JO) Arrests 9 - 3 - 15 - 10 - 6 - -4 -

ALBANY COUNTY JUVENILE JUSTICE PROFILE

Processing Stages and Statistical Indicators 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2014-15 Change

Population

Notes. Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding. A 2014-2015 "percent" change is not reported when there are fewer than 20 cases for 2014. Population data for 2015 will be available late summer 2016. Data Sources. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Vital Statistics, National Center for Health Statistics.Arrest/Criminal Activity (JD and JO)

Notes. Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding. A 2014-2015 "percent" change is not reported when there are fewer than 20 cases for 2014. Data Sources. ■ Arrest/Criminal Activity - NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS), Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) and Incident-Based Reporting (IBR) systems; and the New York City Police Department (NYPD) Crime Data Warehouse ■ JO Arrests - DCJS Computerized Criminal History (CCH) System.

44 Detention Admissions 201 100% 153 100% 117 100% 128 100% 143 100% 15 12%45 JO Admissionsa 9 4% 1 < 1% 6 5% 9 7% 6 4% -3 -46 Admission Type47 Police Admissions 57 45% 66 46% 9 16%48 Court Admissions 69 54% 75 52% 6 9%49 Other Admissions 2 2% 2 1% 0 -50 Female 38 19% 39 25% 22 19% 24 19% 36 25% 12 50%51 Age at Detention Admission52 12 Years and Under 7 5% 6 4% -1 -53 13 Years 7 5% 15 10% 8 -54 14 Years or Older 114 89% 122 85% 8 7%55 Unknown 0 0% 0 0% 0 -56 Race-Ethnicityb

57 White (non-Hispanic) 21 16% 22 15% 1 5%58 Black (non-Hispanic) 90 70% 101 71% 11 12%59 Hispanic (across all races) 15 12% 18 13% 3 -60 Asian or Pacific Islander (non-Hispanic) 0 0% 0 0% 0 -61 American Indian or Alaska Native (non-Hispanic) 0 0% 0 0% 0 -62 Other (non-Hispanic) 1 < 1% 0 0% -1 -63 Not Reported 1 < 1% 2 1% 1 -64 Detention Releases 203 100% 152 100% 124 100% 126 100% 145 100% 19 15%65 JO Releasesa 9 4% 0 0% 8 6% 7 6% 9 6% 2 -66 Any Detention Time in a Secure Facility 77 61% 91 63% 14 18%67 Detention Stays68 3 days or less 53 26% 39 26% 31 25% 39 31% 46 32% 7 18%69 4-14 days (½ - 2 weeks) 73 36% 61 40% 42 34% 49 39% 49 34% 0 0%70 15-28 days (3-4 weeks) 45 22% 34 22% 25 20% 19 15% 25 17% 6 -71 29-44 days (5-6 weeks) 19 9% 10 7% 7 6% 11 9% 10 7% -1 -72 45 days or more (7+ weeks) 13 6% 8 5% 19 15% 8 6% 15 10% 7 -73 JO Releases (45 days or more) 4 2% 0 0% 7 6% 3 2% 3 2% 0 -74 JD Releases (45 days or more) 9 4% 8 5% 12 10% 5 4% 12 8% 7 -75 Average Length of Stay in Detention (days)c 18 - 16 - 24 - 15 - 21 - 6 -76 Median Length of Stay in Detention (days)c 9 - 9 - 12 - 7 - 7 - 0 -77 Average Daily Detention Population 9 - 7 - 7 - 5 - 7 - 2 -

78 Probation Intake - JD Cases Opened 618 100% 455 100% 343 100% 393 100% 412 100% 19 5%79 Race-Ethnicity (available 2014)*80 White (non-Hispanic) 147 37% 130 32% -17 -12%81 Black (non-Hispanic) 218 55% 246 60% 28 13%82 Hispanic (across all races) 20 5% 29 7% 9 45%83 Asian or Pacific Islander (non-Hispanic) 2 < 1% 0 0% -2 -84 American Indian or Alaska Native (non-Hispanic) 0 0% 0 0% 0 -85 Other (non-Hispanic) 5 1% 7 2% 2 -86 Not Reported 1 < 1% 0 0% -1 -87 Probation Intake - JD Cases Closed 588 100% 522 100% 362 100% 382 100% 300 100% -82 -21%88 Successfully Adjusted 295 50% 268 51% 177 49% 184 48% 140 47% -44 -24%89 Referred to Presentment Agency (Petition) 293 50% 254 49% 185 51% 198 52% 160 53% -38 -19%90 Immediately 196 33% 175 34% 136 38% 153 40% 106 35% -47 -31%91 Adjustment Terminated 97 16% 79 15% 49 14% 45 12% 54 18% 9 20%92 Successful Adjustment Rate Excluding Immediate Referrals 75% 77% 78% 80% 72%

Detention (JD and JO)

Notes. Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding. A 2013-2014 “percent” change is not reported when there are fewer than 20 cases for 2013. A small number of cases with missing JD/JO status were counted as JD cases.aIn 2014, data elements utilized for JD/JO classification changed. Prior to 2014, a number of related elements were combined to identify the applicable adjudication category. In 2014, a direct element that identified the applicable adjudication category was implemented in the database and utilized. Given the methodology differences, JD/JO comparisons between 2014 and the previous years will not be meaningful.bStatistics are not reported for race-ethnicity categories when the percentage of detention admissions with race-ethnicity “Not Reported” exceeds 10%.cAverage and median statistics are not reported when there are fewer than 20 detention releases for a given year.Data Sources (Detention). NYS Office of Children and Family Services, Juvenile Detention Automated System (JDAS); and the NYC Administration for Children’s Services, Comprehensive Justice Information System (CJIS).Probation Intake (JD only)

Notes. Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding. A 2014-2015 "percent" change is not reported when there are fewer than 20 cases for 2014.*Statistics are not reported for race-ethnicity categories when the percentage of detention admissions with race-ethnicity “Not Reported” exceeds 10%. Data Source (Probation Intake). NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services, Probation Workload System (PWS).

93 Initial Petitions Filed 246 100% 220 100% 160 100% 174 100% 147 100% -27 -16%94 Felony Offense 74 30% 66 30% 90 56% 96 55% 75 51% -21 -22%95 Top Charge Offense Type (based on Penal Law articles)96 Person 58 24% 63 29% 59 37% 48 28% 50 34% 2 4%97 Assault (PL §120) 44 18% 47 21% 28 18% 28 16% 22 15% -6 -21%98 Robbery (PL §160) 11 4% 6 3% 17 11% 12 7% 11 7% -1 -99 Sex Offenses (PL §130) 3 1% 7 3% 9 6% 5 3% 12 8% 7 -100 Other Personal 0 0% 3 1% 5 3% 3 2% 5 3% 2 -101 Property 172 70% 138 63% 82 51% 103 59% 80 54% -23 -22%102 Burglary (PL §140) 39 16% 35 16% 18 11% 31 18% 11 7% -20 -65%103 Criminal Mischief (PL §145) 20 8% 12 5% 15 9% 21 12% 18 12% -3 -14%104 Larceny (PL §155) 89 36% 69 31% 33 21% 26 15% 35 24% 9 35%105 Other Theft-Related Offenses (PL §165) 18 7% 17 8% 15 9% 18 10% 9 6% -9 -106 Other Property 6 2% 5 2% 1 < 1% 7 4% 7 5% 0 -107 Weapons (PL §265) 7 3% 13 6% 6 4% 7 4% 6 4% -1 -108 Drug (PL §220 and PL §221) 1 < 1% 1 < 1% 1 < 1% 2 1% 1 < 1% -1 -109 Other/Unknown 8 3% 5 2% 12 8% 14 8% 10 7% -4 -110 Female 57 23% 63 29% 48 30% 31 18% 38 26% 7 23%111 Age at Initial Petition Filing112 12 Years and Under 9 4% 18 8% 10 6% 18 10% 12 8% -6 -113 13 Years 37 15% 38 17% 30 19% 26 15% 24 16% -2 -8%114 14 Years or Older 199 81% 164 75% 120 75% 130 75% 111 76% -19 -15%115 Unknowns 1 < 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 -116 Race-Ethnicitya

117 White (non-Hispanic) 39 16% 30 14% 35 22% 40 23% 36 24% -4 -10%118 Black (non-Hispanic) 176 72% 162 74% 92 58% 111 64% 91 62% -20 -18%119 Hispanic (across all races) 12 5% 12 5% 16 10% 16 9% 18 12% 2 -120 Asian or Pacific Islander (non-Hispanic) 0 0% 0 0% 1 < 1% 3 2% 0 0% -3 -121 American Indian or Alaska Native (non-Hispanic) 0 0% 2 < 1% 0 0% 1 < 1% 0 0% -1 -122 Other (non-Hispanic) 2 < 1% 7 3% 3 2% 2 1% 2 1% 0 -123 Not Reported 17 7% 7 3% 13 8% 1 < 1% 0 0% -1 -124 Initial Petitions Disposed (Outcomes) 238 100% 200 100% 173 100% 151 100% 166 100% 15 10%125 JD Findings 106 45% 96 48% 100 58% 79 52% 88 53% 9 11%126 Conditional Discharge 1 < 1% 1 < 1% 5 3% 6 4% 7 4% 1 -127 Probation 70 29% 63 32% 76 44% 41 27% 59 36% 18 44%128 Placement 35 15% 32 16% 19 11% 32 21% 22 13% -10 -31%129 OCFS Custody: Placement Type Not Specified by Court 3 1% 5 3% 0 0% 3 2% 3 2% 0 -130 OCFS Custody: Voluntary Agencies Specified by Court 3 1% 2 0.01 0 0% 0 0% 3 2% 3 -131 Local DSS Custody to Voluntary Agencies 29 12% 25 13% 19 11% 29 19% 16 10% -13 -45%132 Unknown 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 -133 Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal (ACD) 49 21% 47 24% 25 14% 28 19% 22 13% -6 -21%134 Dismissed 30 13% 19 10% 11 6% 12 8% 15 9% 3 -135 Withdrawn 40 17% 25 13% 9 5% 9 6% 20 12% 11 -136 Other Favorable Outcome 13 5% 13 7% 28 16% 23 15% 21 13% -2 -9%137 Days from Initial Filing to Dispositionb

138 Average Days 56 - 56 - 75 - 72 - 70 - -3 -4%139 Median Days 44 - 46 - 53 - 51 - 60 - 9 18%140 3 Months or Less 186 78% 164 82% 129 75% 115 76% 120 72% 5 4%141 6 Months or Greater 10 4% 8 4% 16 9% 14 9% 6 4% -8 -

Family Court: Initial Actions (JD only)

Notes. Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding. A 2013-2014 "percent" change is not reported when there are fewer than 20 cases for 2013.a Statistics are not reported for race-ethnicity categories when the percentage of petitions with race-ethnicity "Not Reported" exceeds 10%.b Average and median statistics are not reported when there are fewer than 20 petitions disposed for a given year. Data Source (Family Court Initial Actions). NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) and NYS Office of Court Administration (OCA), DCJS-OCA Juvenile Delinquent Family Court Database.

142 Supplemental Petitions Filed: Most Serious Action 184 100% 147 100% 120 100% 109 100% 119 100% 10 9%143 Violation of Disposition 97 53% 79 54% 46 38% 42 39% 61 51% 19 45%144 Extension of Placement 55 30% 34 23% 49 41% 30 28% 31 26% 1 3%145 Modify Disposition 17 9% 14 10% 18 15% 26 24% 13 11% -13 -50%146 Terminate Disposition 6 3% 8 5% 3 3% 4 4% 8 7% 4 -147 Permanency Planning (only supplemental filing) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 -148 Other Type of Petition (e.g., motion, transfer) 9 5% 12 8% 4 3% 7 6% 6 5% -1 -149 Female 39 21% 30 20% 36 30% 30 28% 29 24% -1 -3%150 Age at Supplemental Petition Filing151 12 Years and Under 6 3% 4 3% 5 4% 0 0% 3 3% 3 -152 13 Years 19 10% 10 7% 7 6% 6 6% 7 6% 1 -153 14 Years or Older 159 86% 133 90% 108 90% 103 94% 109 92% 6 6%154 Unknowns 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 -155 Race-Ethnicitya

156 White (non-Hispanic) 30 16% 24 16% 10 8% 24 22% 25 21% 1 4%157 Black (non-Hispanic) 127 69% 100 68% 87 73% 72 66% 76 64% 4 6%158 Hispanic (across all races) 15 8% 10 7% 12 10% 9 8% 15 13% 6 -159 Asian or Pacific Islander (non-Hispanic) 0 0% 0 0% 2 2% 1 < 1% 1 < 1% 0 -160 American Indian or Alaska Native (non-Hispanic) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 -161 Other (non-Hispanic) 6 3% 8 5% 6 5% 2 2% 2 2% 0 -162 Not Reported 6 3% 5 3% 3 3% 1 < 1% 0 0% -1 -163 Supplemental Petitions Disposed: Most Serious Outcome 182 100% 156 100% 108 100% 117 100% 115 100% -2 -2%164 Different Disposition Ordered/Initial Disposition Modified 33 18% 47 30% 20 19% 20 17% 13 11% -7 -35%165 Different Disposition Ordered (differed from initial disposition) 21 12% 26 17% 14 13% 10 9% 10 9% 0 -166 CD (initial disposition not CD) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 < 1% 1 < 1% 0 -167 Probation (initial disposition not Probation) 2 1% 5 3% 2 2% 2 2% 1 < 1% -1 -168 Placement (initial disposition not Placement) 19 10% 21 13% 12 11% 7 6% 8 7% 1 -169 OCFS Custody: Placement Type Not Specified by Court 0 0% 1 < 1% 0 0% 0 0% 2 2% 2 -170 OCFS Custody: Voluntary Agencies Specified by Court 1 < 1% 5 3% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 -171 Local DSS Custody to Voluntary Agencies 18 10% 15 10% 12 11% 7 6% 6 5% -1 -172 Unknown 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 -173 Initial Disposition Modified 12 7% 21 13% 6 6% 10 9% 3 3% -7 -174 Extended Disposition 56 31% 46 29% 45 42% 53 45% 39 34% -14 -26%175 Probation (initial disposition was Probation) 18 10% 13 8% 14 13% 23 20% 16 14% -7 -30%176 Placement (initial disposition was Placement) 38 21% 33 21% 31 29% 30 26% 23 20% -7 -23%177 Order Continued 10 5% 4 3% 2 2% 3 3% 6 5% 3 -178 Probation Terminated 2 1% 0 0% 4 4% 1 < 1% 0 0% -1 -179 Return From Placement/Placement Terminated 18 10% 13 8% 8 7% 7 6% 20 17% 13 -180 Permanency Planning (only supplemental outcome) 1 < 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 -181 Petition Granted/Settled 32 18% 16 10% 13 12% 13 11% 23 20% 10 -182 Other Outcome 3 2% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 -183 Dismissed 5 3% 3 2% 6 6% 6 5% 1 < 1% -5 -184 Withdrawn 22 12% 27 17% 10 9% 14 12% 13 11% -1 -185 Days from Supplemental Filing to Dispositionb

186 Average Days 49 - 40 - 34 - 53 - 56 - 3 6%187 Median Days 33 - 28 - 28 - 33 - 41 - 8 24%188 3 Months or Less 159 87% 141 90% 104 96% 100 85% 88 77% -12 -12%189 6 Months or Greater 7 4% 3 2% 1 < 1% 7 6% 3 3% -4 -

Family Court: Post-Disposition Supplemental Actions (JD only)

Notes. Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding. A 2013-2014 "percent" change is not reported when there are fewer than 20 cases for 2013. a Statistics are not reported for race-ethnicity categories when the percentage of petitions with race-ethnicity "Not Reported" exceeds 10%.b Average and median statistics are not reported when there are fewer than 20 supplemental petitions disposed for a given year.Data Source (Family Court Post-Disposition Supplemental Actions). NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) and NYS Office of Court Administration (OCA), DCJS-OCA Juvenile Delinquent Family Court Database.

190 Probation Supervision Cases Opened 90 100% 87 100% 95 100% 59 100% 77 100% 18 31%191 Transferred in from Other Jurisdiction 10 11% 3 3% 3 3% 4 7% 4 5% 0 -192 Received from this Jurisdiction 80 89% 84 97% 92 97% 55 93% 73 95% 18 33%193 Race-Ethnicity (available 2014)*194 White (non-Hispanic) 15 27% 16 22% 1 -195 Black (non-Hispanic) 32 58% 46 63% 14 44%196 Hispanic (across all races) 5 9% 8 11% 3 -197 Asian or Pacific Islander (non-Hispanic) 1 2% 0 0% -1 -198 American Indian or Alaska Native (non-Hispanic) 0 0% 0 0% 0 -199 Other (non-Hispanic) 2 4% 1 1% -1 -200 Not Reported 0 0% 2 3% 2 -201 Probation Supervision Cases Closed 26 100% 13 100% 58 100% 20 100% 82 100% 62 310%202 Probation Completed - Maximum Expiration 12 46% 4 31% 28 48% 16 80% 48 59% 32 -203 Probation Completed - Early Discharge 0 0% 1 8% 4 7% 0 0% 10 12% 10 -204 Discharge (New Adjudication or Violation) or Revocation 8 31% 4 31% 19 33% 1 5% 19 23% 18 -205 Transferred Out to Other Jurisdiction 6 23% 4 31% 7 12% 3 15% 5 6% 2 -

206 Placement Admissions 35 100% 30 100% 25 100% 26 100% 26 100% 0 0%207 OCFS Custody, Admitted to OCFS-Run Facilities 5 14% 4 13% 0 0% 1 4% 6 23% 5 -208 Initial Placement in Secure Facility 0 0% 0 0% 0 -209 Initial Placement in Limited Secure Facility 3 9% 3 10% 0 0% 0 0% 5 19% 5 -210 Initial Placement in Non-Secure Facility 1 4% 1 4% 0 -211 OCFS Custody, Admitted to Voluntary Agencies 0 0% 2 7% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 -212 Local DSS Custody, Admitted to Voluntary Agencies 30 86% 24 80% 25 100% 25 96% 20 77% -5 -20%213 Female 7 20% 7 23% 5 20% 6 23% 3 12% -3 -214 Age at Placement Admission215 12 Years and Under 0 0% 3 12% 3 -216 13 Years 3 12% 2 8% -1 -217 14 Years or Older 23 88% 21 81% -2 -9%218 Race-Ethnicity*219 White (non-Hispanic) 5 19% 6 23% 1 -220 Black (non-Hispanic) 17 65% 18 69% 1 -221 Hispanic (across all races) 2 8% 2 8% 0 -222 Asian or Pacific Islander (non-Hispanic) 0 0% 0 0% 0 -223 American Indian or Alaska Native (non-Hispanic) 0 0% 0 0% 0 -224 Other (non-Hispanic) 0 0% 0 0% 0 -225 Not Reported 2 8% 0 0% -2 -226 Released from OCFS-Run Facilities to Community Supervision 6 - 6 - 2 - 0 - 2 - 2 -227 Direct Discharges from OCFS-Run Facilities 0 - 1 - 3 - 0 - 0 - 0 -228 OCFS Custody in Care (OCFS-Run/Voluntary) on 12/31 9 - 7 - 3 - 3 - 6 - 3 -

Probation Supervision (JD only)

Notes. Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding. A 2014-2015 "percent" change is not reported when there are fewer than 20 cases for 2014. *Statistics are not reported for race-ethnicity categories when the percentage of detention admissions with race-ethnicity “Not Reported” exceeds 10%. Data Source (Probation Supervision). NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services, Probation Workload System (PWS).Placement Admissions/Releases (JD only)

Notes. Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding. A 2014-2015 "percent" change is not reported when there are fewer than 20 cases for 2014. LDSS 2010-2012 admission counts were not available by county for NYC; the annual LDSS counts reported for NYC counties during this period were estimated by combining the petition counts for Family Court “initial” and post-disposition “supplemental” LDSS placements (lines 131 and 171). *Statistics are not reported for race-ethnicity categories when the percentage of placements with race-ethnicity "Not Reported" exceeds 10%. Data Sources (Placement Admissions/Releases). NYS Office of Children and Family Services, Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) and Child Care Review Service (CCRS); the NYC Administration for Children's Services, OCFS' CONNECTIONS and CCRS databases (NYC LDSS 2013 admissions); and NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) and NYS Office of Court Administration (OCA), DCJS-OCA Juvenile Delinquent Family Court Database (NYC LDSS 2010-2012 admissions).

Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio229 Relative Rate Index - Arrests/Criminal Activity (Relative to non-Hisp Whites)230 All Minorities 2.45 3.19 2.47 2.59 2.60231 Black (non-Hispanic) 3.73 4.86 3.87 4.18 4.22232 Hispanic (across all races) 1.22 1.81 1.27 1.27 1.18233 Disparity Rates for JD/JO Detention Admissions (Relative to non-Hisp Whites)234 Black (non-Hispanic) 23.20 24.14 16.46 13.06 15.06235 Hispanic (across all races) 4.29 3.86 5.39 5.43 5.89

Disproportionate Minority Contact (JD and JO)

Notes. The annual Relative Rate Index is not reported for a race-ethnicity category when there are five or less arrest/criminal activity events and/or 50 or less juveniles ages 7-15 in the population for that category. The annual Detention Disparity Rate is not reported for a race-ethnicity category when there are five or less detained juveniles and/or 50 or less juveniles ages 10-15 in the population for that category.Data Sources. ■ Arrest/Criminal Activity Relative Rate Index – NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS), Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) and Incident-Based Reporting (IBR) systems; the New York City Police Department (NYPD) Crime Data Warehouse; and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Vital Statistics, National Center for Health Statistics. ■ Detention Disparity Rate – NYS Office of Children and Family Services, Juvenile Detention Automated System (JDAS); and Woods and Poole (population data).

Youth Justice Institute

39 Parameters of the Youth Justice Institute

• Located at the University at Albany School of Criminal Justice

• Overarching goal is to improve the practice of youth justice through technical assistance, education, training, and research: • Conduct training and educational events for practitioners, state and

local officials and other stakeholders; • Provide information to practitioners on evidence based practices; • Provide technical assistance to practitioners who are implementing or

seeking to improve youth justice programs and systems; • Assist stakeholders in developing data collection systems to allow

programs to be assessed and monitored; • Evaluate local youth justice systems, programs, policies and practices; • Conduct research that supports the goals of the Institute; and • Develop future juvenile justice practitioners and policymakers.

Questions?

Thomas R. Andriola Chief of Policy and Implementation NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services

(518) 485-1833 OR THOMAS.ANDRIOLA@DCJS.NY.GOV

May 30, 2017

Upcoming Events Part 2: Group Processes

When: Wednesday, June 7, 2017, 12-1pm Summary: Providers learn about the group process model

developed by Bruce Tuckman (Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, and Adjourning). This is the second segment of a

four-part series about Creating Successful Group Experiences.

Shattering Walls Series: Best Practices When: Thursday, June 8 - 12:00 PM

Summary: This webinar will provide an overview of best practices for those who work with survivors of sexual violence and/or

assault.

Thank you!