|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Executive Summary, Phase II
March 2000
» The challenge 
The Juvenile Justice Operational Master Plan is like an investment strategy. The choice is between spending a little more now or a lot more later. This is true both for criminal matters and Becca youth. Like many successful investment strategies, the best returns occur if initial savings are re-invested in new, promising options that reduce the cost of the juvenile justice system and, in particular, avoid the cost of expanding detention. The figure to the right illustrates the difference between continuing business as usual and investing in new initiatives. To avoid crowding 85% of the time, detention capacity must be about 10% greater than the average daily population. As this figure shows, additional detention capacity will be needed in the coming years unless we find new ways to reduce the need for detention.
It would be a mistake, however, to view all the choices relating to the JJOMP in purely economic terms. Ultimately, the way King County conducts business in its juvenile justice system affects lives as well as the bottom line. While the economic analysis demonstrates that many options save taxpayers money, some of them actually reduce crime and thereby reduce the number of crime victims. These things all help the juvenile justice system but they also have positive consequences for other social services and for the quality of life in King County. Quantifying the benefits of these initiatives outside the juvenile justice system was beyond the scope of work of the JJOMP. Nonetheless, policy makers may want to take these other benefits into account as they make their decisions.
MANY INITIATIVES HAVE ALREADY BEEN STARTED
While this summary begins with the stark contrast of either continuing the practices of most of the 1990's or following a different path, in reality the first steps to a new and different future have already been taken.
Phase I of the JJOMP ended with a vision and widespread commitment to make fundamental changes and improvements to the juvenile justice system. Because of this, some of the best ideas that emerged during Phase II were started or advanced to the planning stage before the completion of this report. Some of these ideas - such as the warrant reduction project or the new detention screening tool - are at least partially responsible for the significant decrease in detention population that occurred in 1999. Other initiatives underway - such as creating a day reporting center or starting truancy classes and promoting the use of stipulated agreements by community truancy boards - represent improvements over past practice but currently are funded through federal grants. King County is also the recipient of a federal grant which funds implementation of a community-based model similar to the prevention pilot project recommended in this report.
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
This project was directed by an Oversight Committee made up of elected officials and agency heads from county government, cities, the State of Washington, and schools. It also included citizens from organizations concerned about youth crime. The recommendations of the Oversight Committee primarily resulted from the work of four project teams consisting of nearly one hundred participants representing public safety and youth-serving organizations from across King County.
There are several ways that the many new ideas proposed in this report are analyzed and presented. For example, each option is evaluated as a stand-alone idea in the appendix to this report. However, since many proposals do not stand alone but interact and affect one another, the most promising ones are packaged into three different scenarios and compared to continuation of the status quo. This is done in Chapter 3, "Evaluation of Alternative Scenarios." It was through this process that it was found that the cumulative effect of many partial solutions can lead to dramatically different futures.
Of course, the scenarios presented in Chapter 3 are only illustrations of how different ideas can be put together. The JJOMP Oversight Committee selected options from all three scenarios to create a recommended strategy for implementation in Phase III.
In the next few paragraphs, the recommendations of the Oversight Committee are organized by the goals of the project as defined in Phase I. This is followed by a brief summary of recommended individual initiatives. It should be noted that some of the options included in these recommendations have already been started and require no additional commitment of funds. Others have not been started and will cost more money. The Committee further recognizes that the success of these options depends on developing partnerships with communities.
Goal: Reduce Over-Representation of Youth of Color in the Juvenile Justice System
The over-representation of youth of color in the juvenile justice system is a serious problem nationwide. The Oversight Committee finds that increasing participation in intensive intervention programs; expanding participation in diversion; and taking steps to increase access to, and appearance in, court will reduce disproportionality. To maximize the effectiveness of these and other initiatives, the Oversight Committee supports a comprehensive set of principles that promote culturally relevant training and tools, community involvement in the design and implementation of options, and developing performance measures specific to disproportionality.
While this project generated extensive data, better information is needed about a wider range of racial and ethnic groups. Additional work is needed to examine in greater detail the points in the process that affect disproportionality the most. An ongoing means to monitor the progress of the system in reducing disproportionality should also be implemented.
Goal: Provide Effective Sanctions and Services for Juvenile Offenders
The Oversight Committee believes that accountability and an array of effective services are complementary. Each is stronger with the other. The Oversight Committee recommends expansion and strengthening of alternatives to secure detention to help accomplish this. Well-supervised programs outside of secure detention allow youth who do not require incarceration to attend school, go to work, live at home, and participate in community-based programs while still being appropriately supervised. For many youth, adding quality alternatives and improving the referral process is more cost-effective than expanding secure detention.
The Oversight Committee also recommends investing in programs that have been shown through solid research to reduce re-entry into the juvenile justice system. Not only are these programs a significant benefit to youth and families but they also save money in the long run. Many of these programs are currently funded by the State of Washington through a demonstration project. The Oversight Committee recommends expanding participation in these programs.
Another key recommendation is to develop guidelines to bring greater consistency in sentencing recommendations and sanctioning practices. This nationally recognized practice helps probation counselors and judges consider a full range of sanctions and programs when determining the appropriate disposition for adjudicated offenders and those who violate the conditions of their sentence.
Goal: Improve Prevention/Community Systems
The Oversight Committee strongly believes that the juvenile justice system can benefit from, and should support, community-based services and resources that serve high-risk youth and families before they are seriously involved with the justice system. It recommends finding better ways to identify high-risk youth early and to refer them to community-based services that are shown by solid research to reduce crime and delinquency. The prevention pilot project recommended in this report specifically addresses this goal.
Goal: Provide Intervention Strategies for Truants, At-Risk Youth, and Child in Need of Services
Truants and youth who are in conflict with their families are at greater risk of becoming involved with crime. King County is already working with school districts to pilot truancy classes and promote the use of stipulated agreements by community truancy boards. Based on the lessons learned from these experiences, it is recommended that these approaches be expanded.
The Oversight Committee also recommends that youth who are in conflict with their families have access to effective interventions. Multi-disciplinary approaches are appropriate for many youth and families with complex needs. The Oversight Committee also recommends closer review of several other programs, such as mediation and school-based mentoring, that show promise for effectively serving these youth and families and reducing the need for formal court intervention.
Goal: Redesign System Processes
A priority for this project has been to think about processes within the juvenile justice system from the perspective of the client. The Oversight Committee supports options that reduce the adversarial nature of the court process (so long as they continue to protect due process), help parents navigate the justice system, make processes more efficient, and promote working together on behalf of clients. In collaboration with a related project, many recommendations on court processes were made that promote these goals.
A revised assessment and referral process is recommended for development and testing. This revised process would provide police with more options for placing youth who are inappropriate for detention but who can benefit from stronger connections to community-based services.
Goal: Promote Community Partnerships
The Oversight Committee strongly supports the premise that partnerships among youth-serving agencies, families, and communities are essential to reducing juvenile crime and delinquency. Strong community partnerships are fundamental to achieve the goals of this plan and to successfully implement the recommendations described below. The county should continue and expand its efforts to improve communication and cooperation between community-based agencies, victims and victim advocates, the juvenile justice system, schools, and social service and health systems. In addition, families and community organizations should be involved in the design, implementation, and monitoring of programs and practices in the juvenile justice system.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PHASE III IMPLEMENTATION
While there are many options that deserve consideration for further review and possible implementation, the Oversight Committee recommends that implementation proceed (or continue) on the seventeen options listed below. Together these options move King County significantly closer to realizing the vision and accomplishing the goals of the Juvenile Justice Operational Master Plan. With experience and success on these initial recommendations, additional strategies should be reviewed and implemented as appropriate.
There is a significant amount of information on all of these options in other sections of this report. For example, all options are described and evaluated individually in Appendices A through D. The relationship of each option to Phase I goals is also discussed in those evaluations. In addition, options with sufficient research and data were combined into three scenarios that were evaluated as potential strategies. Most, but not all of the recommendations listed below are from Scenario One. The evaluations of these scenarios are discussed in Chapter 3.
(Recommendations are numbered for reference only; numbers do not imply priority.)
MAJOR ISSUES REQUIRING SUSTAINED EFFORT The Oversight Committee recognizes the need for a sustained effort to address the issues of the disproportionate representation of minority youth in the juvenile justice system, the rights and needs of victims of crime, and the necessity to collaborate with citizens in our community to help solve the problem of juvenile crime and delinquency. While there are specific recommendations that address these issues, constant vigilance is needed to find new and better approaches and measure progress. Disproportionality: Every option examined in the JJOMP was reviewed for its likely effects on disproportionality. Everything we do in the future should be similarly evaluated so that creative solutions can be implemented and unintended consequences avoided. Benchmarks and performance measures should be established with community input so that we can head off problems and build on success. Victims: Protecting the rights of victims, improving their interactions with the juvenile justice system, supporting their interest to be involved in youth accountability programs (such as the Victim Inclusion Project), and better enforcement of court orders for restitution are all areas that need ongoing review and improvement. The input of victims' groups is critical to the success of these improvements. Community Involvement and Outreach: Collaboration with community-based services, community education about the justice system and related services, and creating accessible ways for communities to be involved in the design, implementation, and monitoring of new programs should be encouraged at all times. Other Areas in Need of Further Development In addition to the recommended options, the Oversight Committee has identified priority areas that require ongoing analysis, examination of alternatives, and close monitoring. These include several options where there was not sufficient time or research to support implementation now but which may become viable with further review and development. These priority areas and additional options include the following. Information Sharing: Interested parties should be brought together to develop a policy and legal framework for sharing information and to examine alternatives. The Juvenile Accountability Block Grant is expected to fund this effort. Parent/Victim Orientation and Court Lobby Support: Building on past reviews of this issue, a group with community and parent representation can develop strategies for supporting parents and victims as they navigate the court process. Treatment and Wrap-around Services for Juvenile Offenders: Treatment based on the wrap-around service approach is a promising model for offenders with complex needs. Further examination of this approach may show benefits in many areas and support a test project. Unified Family Court for ARY/CHINS: Unified Family Court currently serves some youth in King County. The non-adversarial and team-approach to court intervention is thought to be beneficial for ARY/CHINS youth and their families. Project team participants encourage the expansion of Unified Family Court to serve ARY/CHINS cases. Mediation for ARY/CHINS Youth: The project team was interested in mediation as a non-adversarial alternative to address family conflict. This concept requires further review and input from the Court, attorneys, and service providers to develop a viable and cost-effective program. School-Based Mentoring for ARY/CHINS: Mentoring is a promising intervention with cross-system benefits. However, this initiative requires additional work to identify and implement a cost-effective model. One alternative may be to expand the target population to include high-risk youth in addition to ARY/CHINS before they are formally involved with the justice system. THE IMPORTANCE OF ACTION AND OF MONITORING PROGRESS Implementing the recommendations in this report will be a major step toward achieving the goals of the JJOMP. However, eliminating the need to construct a new detention facility through reducing crime and delinquency and strengthening other parts of the juvenile justice system are outcomes that will require considerable dedication and much effort. Because many of the options will require several years to implement before their full benefits are realized, the time for action is now. Despite our best efforts to forecast the future, there is no guarantee that unforeseen changes to our laws, economy, institutions, and communities will not significantly affect workload in the juvenile justice system, including the demand for detention beds. In fact, it is likely that unanticipated changes will occur. Fortunately, the analysis contained in this document indicates that there is room for some error. For example, the need for more detention can be avoided without implementing all the options that were examined. Nonetheless, some course correction may be necessary. By closely monitoring progress, the need for such adjustments can be anticipated and made so that the overall goals of the JJOMP can be realized. Implementation and Next Steps Much effort has been expended to identify the best ways to improve the juvenile justice system and the outcomes that we get for the expenditure of public money. To ensure that what we do actually furthers our goals will require a continued focus on results. A commitment to results-driven management requires that attention and resources be spent on program design, training, implementation, and on-going monitoring and evaluation. A discussion of what this involves is included in Chapter 5: "Implementation, Monitoring, and Evaluation." This report is the end of Phase II and the beginning of Phase III of the JJOMP. Phase III will involve final selection and implementation of specific recommendations. Subject to approval by the Executive and Council, the Oversight Committee will continue to work during the next phase. Phase III includes:
Christopher Murray and Associates Sponsored by: King County Juvenile Justice Operational Master Plan Seattle SafeFutures Updated: May 2, 2000 Executive's schedule | Executive's e-mail By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The details. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||