Kids in Court: A Continuum

1. Kids in Court: A Continuum Moderator: Erin Davies, Children’s Law Center Speakers: Tim Arnold Kentucky Department of Public Advocacy Rebecca Ballard DiLoreto Children’s Law Center Stephanie Vetter Pretrial Justice Institute

2. Juvenile Court 101:Purpose of Juvenile Court Hold youth accountable and keep the public safe, while recognizing the fundamental developmental differences between youth and adults.

3. Juvenile Court 101:Goal of Juvenile Justice Reforms Moving toward a “right sized” system that ensures an individually tailored, evidence-based appropriate response for each youth.

4. Juvenile Justice Reform:National Research and Trends

5. Juvenile Justice Reform:Benefits • More cost-effective • Proven to work effectively to reduce recidivism, increase rehabilitation, and improve public safety • Community-based • More appropriate given youths’ unique developmental needs

6. Juvenile Court 101:Terminology

7. Kentucky: Impact of Systemic Reform and Litigation • Campbell County Detention Suit – 1991 • Civil Rights for Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA) – 1995 • Creation of Juvenile Post-Disposition Branch (JPDB) • M.K. v. Wallace • Establishing juvenile advocates • Connection with impact of disposition and sentencing • Creation of Juvenile Appeals Attorneys • Permitted DPA to create body of juvenile and youthful offender appellate caselaw

8. Part I: Pre-trial Detention

9. Pre-Trial Detention: National

10. no place for kids Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI)

11. Today we will provide an overview of JDAI, clarify why reform is important, what is involved and what both of us can expect • JDAI Overview • Why detention reform? • Core JDAI strategies • JDAI Results • The benefits and responsibilities of participation

12. JDAI is driven by a vision that seeks to change the odds for court-involved youth THE VISION: Youth involved in the juvenile justice system will have opportunities to develop into healthy, productive adults . . .

13. JDAI Overview • Why detention reform? • Core JDAI strategies • JDAI Results • The benefits and responsibilities of participation

14. Detention Reform WHY DETENTION REFORM? • “Hidden Closet of System”  Crowding Crisis/Poor Conditions  Entry Point for System Reform

15. Research shows that most juveniles engage in criminal behavior, but don’t continue into adulthood Youth Self Reporting Criminal Activity Total = 86% • Longitudinal studies begun in the 1950s show most juvenile offenders age out of criminal behavior • Researchers believe this is because the transition to young adulthood ‘cements’ bonds to society and deters most from continued criminality Most youth age out of criminal behavior on their own Arrested during adolescence Self-reported criminal activity, but not arrested SOURCE: Data from National Youth Survey analyzed by Hawkins, D., Smith, B. and Catalano, R. “Delinquent Behavior,” in Pediatrics in Review (2002: 23: 382-392); “Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency” (Glueck, 1963), with followup in “Crime in the Making” (Sampson and Laub, 1993)

16. Detention leads to worse outcomes. After release, detained youth are far more likely to drop out of school and use drugs and alcohol Likelihood of Behavior: Incarcerated vs. Non-incarcerated Youth Youth who are detained are more than three times as likely to be found guilty and incarcerated than similarly situated peers SOURCE: Office of State Courts Administrator, Florida Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment (2003); LeBlanc, (1991), “Unlocking Learning” in Correctional Facilities, Washington, D.C.; Substance use, abuse, and dependence among youths who have been in jail or a detention center: The NSDUH report, The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University, (2004); America’s Promise report on national rates of high school dropouts: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23889321/.

17. Nationally, about one quarter of detained youth are charged with violent crimes Offense Profiles: Detained Youth in the United States, 2010 Status Offenses and Technical Violations Violent Index Crimes Simple Assaults and Misdemeanor Person Offenses Property, Drugs, Public Order, and Other SOURCE: Sickmund, M., Sladky, T.J., Kang, W., & Puzzanchera, C. (2011). "Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement.“ http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/

18. Arrests for serious crimes do not explain detention use; local policies and practices are key Index arrests have declined by 50% … (with half the decrease occurring before 2000) …but detention has only declined by 31% (with half the decrease occurring after 2007) DETENTIONS PER 100K YOUTH INDEX ARRESTS PER 100K YOUTH NOTE: Index arrests are classified as more serious crimes including murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, and arson. Juvenile arrest figures based on annual count of arrests from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report (UCR) system; detention figures based on a one-day count through the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP). SOURCES: Puzzanchera, C., Adams, B., and Kang, W. (2012), "Easy Access to FBI Arrest Statistics 1994-2009 “ http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezaucr/ ; Sickmund, M., Sladky, T.J., Kang, W., & Puzzanchera, C. (2011). "Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement.“ http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/ ; Federal Bureau of Investigation (2011). “Crime in the United States 2010”, table 36. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/index-page; Puzzanchera, C., Sladky, A. and Kang, W. (2012). "Easy Access to Juvenile Populations: 1990-2011.“ http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop/

19. Youth of color are an increasing share of the total detained population Youth of Color as a Percentage of Total U.S. Detained Population SOURCE: Sickmund, M., Sladky, T.J., Kang, W., & Puzzanchera, C. (2011). "Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement.“ http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/

20. JDAI Overview • Why detention reform? • Core JDAI strategies • JDAI Results • The benefits and responsibilities of participation

21. JDAI uses eight interconnected strategies to enable jurisdictions to safely reduce reliance on secure detention CORE STRATEGIES: PURPOSE: Collaboration To demonstrate that jurisdictions can establish more effective and efficient systems to accomplish the purposes of juvenile detention. Use of accurate data Objective admissions criteria and instruments OBJECTIVES: 1) Eliminate inappropriate or unnecessary use of secure detention 2) Minimize failures to appear and incidence of delinquent behavior 3) Redirect public finances to successful reform strategies 4) Improve conditions in secure detention facilities 5) Reduce racial and ethnic disparities Alternative to detention Case processing reforms Reducing the use of secure confinement for ‘special’ cases Deliberate commitment to reducing racial disparities Improving conditions of confinement

22. JDAI Overview • Why detention reform? • Core JDAI strategies • JDAI Results • The benefits and responsibilities of participation

23. 3,173 fewer youth are being held in secure detention on an average day as compared to the grantees’ baseline years Change in Average Daily Population (ADP) by Grantee Baseline vs. 2012 N=38 grantees, comprising 112 sites (Grantees shown in ascending order by percentage change in ADP) As of 2012, JDAI sites had reduced detention populations by 43%

24. Changes in the Use of Confinement Across All JDAI Sites Baseline vs. 2012 N=38 grantees, comprising 112 sites As of 2012, JDAI sites as a whole had reduced their use of confinement by well over one third. -39% -43% -43% 24

25. Over comparable periods of time, JDAI sites have reduced secure detention of youth of color by much more than the nation as a whole Youth Of Color In Secure Detention: JDAI vs. National Trends N for JDAI = 89 sites 25

26. JDAI sites have significantly reduced detention for white youth and youth of color. However, large racial and ethnic disparities persist. Change in Average Daily Population (ADP) in JDAI Sites from Baseline to 2012 for Youth of Color and All Other Youth N=99 sites from which complete ADP and YOC ADP data were received & for which Baseline and 2012 population data could be obtained + 11% − 46% − 11% − 46%

27. 45% fewer Delinquency Petitions 43% fewer Felony Petitions Filed Aggregate Reductions in Juvenile Crime Indicator Type Baseline vs. 2012 N=109 sites Reductions in detention and commitments have not hurt public safety: JDAI sites report reductions in all four juvenile crime indicators • 29% fewer Juvenile Intake Cases • 33% fewer Juvenile Arrests

28. By the end of 2013 JDAI will be in 39 states plus the District of Columbia. ME WA MT NH MN MA NY OR WI RI SD ID PA WY NJ IA DE NE OH CA MD IN NV IL DC VA KS MO KY TN HI NM AZ AR AL GA MS TX LA FL Model Site County Site State Site State Site w/ Pending Tribal Launch

29. JDAI Overview • Why detention reform? • Core JDAI strategies • JDAI Results • The benefits and responsibilities of participation 29

30. JDAI provides sites with a variety of resources to support detention reform WHAT JDAI PARTICIPATION PROVIDES • Small cash grant (for travel & coordination) • Technical Assistance • JDAI Tools, Guides & Publications • JDAI Model Sites • JDAI Training Seminars • JDAI National Conferences • JDAI Network & Peers 30

31. However, there are specific expectations for all JDAI sites WHAT JDAI PARTICIPATION REQUIRES • Implementation of JDAI core strategies • Fidelity to the model • Determined leadership • Data reporting • Communication and Transparency with Foundation 31

32. Additional Resources www.jdaihelpdesk.org OR www.aecf.org/MajorInitiatives/JuvenileDetentionAlternativesInitiative.aspx 32

33. These areOur Children

34. Pre-Trial Detention: Kentucky

35. Pre-Trial Detention: Basic Rules • KRS 610.200(6) – The minimum age for detention is 11, unless charged with a Class A or B felony. • KRS 610.200(5) – Pre-hearing detention not permitted without approval of CDW. • KRS 610.265(1) – Status offenders in detention must have detention hearing within 24 hours; public offenders must have detention hearing within 48 hours.

36. Pre-Trial Detention: Basic Rules KRS 610.280 – The court is required to make two findings prior to authorizing detention. • Probable cause that the offense was committed. • Detention is warranted in light of the seriousness of the alleged offense, the possibility that the child would commit and offense dangerous to himself or the community, the child’s prior record, and whether there are other charges pending against the child.

37. Pre-Trial Detention: Basic Rules • KRS 610.265(5) – If the court fails to hold a hearing in the timeframe provided by the statute, the child “shall be released.” • KRS 610.290(2) – Child is entitled to counsel at the detention hearing, and may challenge the results of detention hearing through writ of habeas corpus.

38. Pre-Trial Detention: Status Offenders KRS 610.265(3)(c) – Maximum time in secure detention after detention hearing is 48 hours. • If not accused of violating a valid court order, must be placed in non-secure detention. • If accused of violating a valid court order, then must have adjudication hearing (more on this in discussion of status offenders)

39. Pre-Trial Detention: Public Offenders • Detention (secure or non-secure) never required, but can occur for almost any public offender. • KRS 610.265(3)(a) – If ordered detained, child accused of a capital offense or Class A or B felony must be securely detained. • KRS 610.265(3)(b) – All other public offenders may be approved to go to a non-secure detention alternative.

40. Part II: Status Offenders

41. Status Offenders: National

42. Status Offenders: National Research- or Evidence- Based Trends

43. Status Offenders: Kentucky

44. Status Offenders: Right to Counsel • Pre-2001: Many status offenders not appointed counsel • 2001: Ky Court of Appeals rules that status offender could not waive counsel without first talking with counsel. D.R. v. Commonwealth, 64 S.W.3d 292 (Ky.App., 2001) • 2002: KRS 610.060 amended to require appointment of counsel in all cases where detention is possible outcome.

45. Status Offenders: Requirements for All Cases • Admission of guilt must comply with requirements for guilty pleas under Boykin v. Alabama. D.G. v. Commonwealth, 355 S.W.3d 476 (Ky.App.,2011.) • Child can be committed to cabinet if the evidence shows that that less restrictive alternatives were attempted or are not feasible. J.S. v. Commonwealth, 304 S.W.3d 67 (Ky. App. 2009) • Court may not impose disposition which lasts past 18th birthday. J.K.B. v. Commonwealth, 336 S.W.3d 917 (Ky.App.,2011.)

46. Status Offenders: Truancy Cases • Truancy case cannot be heard without DPP report. T.D. v. Commonwealth, 165 S.W.3d 480 (Ky. App. 2005). • Report generally must include home visit. N.K. v. Commonwealth, 324 S.W.3d 438, (Ky.App.,2010.) • Compliance with this requirement is jurisdictional. S.B. v. Commonwealth, 396 S.W.3d 928 (Ky. App. 2013).

47. Status Offenders: Contempt • Order entered pre-adjudication not a “valid court order” for contempt purposes. M.A.M. v. Commonwealth, 402 S.W.3d 546 (Ky.App. 2013). • Juvenile is entitled to notice of violations prior to contempt proceedings, and an opportunity to respond. K.F. v. Commonwealth, 274 S.W.3d 457 (Ky. App. 2008).

48. Status Offenders: Contempt Ctnd. • KRS 610.265(3)(d) – If accused of violating valid court order court must have an adjudication hearing where the court . . . • affirms that the order is a valid court order, • finds the child to have violated the order (beyond a reasonable doubt). • If findings made, child may be detained 48 more hours for court to receive and review a report prepared by appropriate state agency and must find that all other options have been exhausted or are not feasible before ordering continued detention.

49. Part III: Public Offenders

50. Public Offenders: National