Juvenile Justice Planning and Oversight Coordinating Council:

1. Juvenile Justice Planning and Oversight Coordinating Council: How did we get here and where do we go now? A joint presentation by: Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance Judicial Branch Department of Children and Families September 6, 2007

2. History CT is currently one of only 3 states that tries ALL 16- & 17-year-olds as adults, regardless of the charges.

3. When youth are tried as adults, there are poor outcomes for youth and community. • receive fewer rehabilitative supports including: education, treatment and vocational training; • are at risk of “school of crime” training, with unhealthy adult mentors. When youth are tried as adults they… When they reenter, they… • are subject to increased stigma and labeling; • may have weakened ties to family and other support systems; • will have difficulty finding and keeping a job.

4. Trying Youth as Adults Does NOT Prevent Them from Future Offending Youth in the adult system are more likely to reoffend than youth in the juvenile system -- • They will reoffend more quickly and more often • And for more serious offenses “The weight of evidence shows that youth who are transferred from the juvenile court system to the adult criminal system are approximately 34% more likely than youth retained in the juvenile court system to be re-arrested for violent or other crime.” (2007). The Task Force on Community Preventive Services supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (see appendix a)

5. Community Support 350 community members filled the Capital Building in Hartford to show their support for RTA

6. Public Support “Gov. M. Jodi Rell vaulted Connecticut to the forefront of the juvenile justice reform movement when she signed a bill that removes 16- and 17-year-old offenders from the adult courts and puts them back into the juvenile justice system where they clearly belong.” “One of the highlights of the General Assembly’s recent session was passage of a bill…that raises the age of adult incarceration from 16 to 18, except in those very infrequent cases where 16- and 17-year olds commit violent crimes.”

7. Juvenile Justice System More Appropriate for Youth • Individualized and a greater amount of supervision, care, and treatment provided pursuant to an individual case management plan that involves the familyof the juvenile. • School and community programs promoting prevention and reentry. • A statewide system of community-based services designed to keep the juvenile in the home and community whenever possible. The juvenile justice system in Connecticut is grounded in the concepts of restorative justice, emphasizing protection of the community, offender accountability, and rehabilitation. The goals of the system include:

8. Legislatively Mandated Committee 2006-2007 History • The Juvenile Jurisdiction Planning and Implementation Committee(JJPIC) was created through legislation. • “Pursuant to Public Act 06-187, section 16, the committee shall plan for the implementation of any changes in the juvenile justice system that would be required in order to extend jurisdiction in delinquency matters and proceedings to include sixteen-year-old and seventeen-year-old children within the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters.”

9. Juvenile Jurisdictional Planning and Implementation Committee • http://www.cga.ct.gov/hdo/jjpic/ • Schedule of meetings • Meeting agendas and minutes • Copies of PowerPoint presentations

10. Role of Contracted Vendors • Vera Institute – Project Management • Co-led “Front-End” workgroup • Hornby Zeller Associates – Service Needs / Gap Analysis • Co-led “Services” workgroup • NCSC – Court Process and Staffing • Co-led “Court Issues” workgroup Three highly qualified, national groups provided consultation and co-led three workgroups:

11. JJPIC Recommendations • Pass legislation in the 2007 session to raise the age of juvenile jurisdiction from 16 to 18. • Improve court diversion and pre-trial detention practices.

12. JJPIC Recommendations • Establish Regional Youth Courts. (see appendix b) • Phase in an effective system of services and supports for 16- and 17-year-olds. • Establish a Policy and Operations Coordinating Council.

13. Lower re-arrest rates Fewer youth incarcerated, placed or hospitalized Reduced use of illicit substances Reduced minority representation More youth completing school Increased engagement in pro-social activities Better family functioning Improved community safety Projected Outcomes

14. Two Bills Resulted from JJPIC • S.B. 1196—An Act Concerning Children and Youth in Juvenile Matters • H.B. 6285—An Act Concerning Children and Youth in Juvenile Matters and the Recommendations of the Juvenile Jurisdiction Planning and Implementation Committee (see appendix c and d)

15. Legislative Process • Bipartisan support for both bills • Public hearings • Informational sessions

16. 2007 Legislation • What Happened: The language from the two bills was carried over into the special legislative session and became Sections 73 and following of the budget implementer bill, HB 1500.

17. 2007 Legislation • Implementer signed June 30, 2007 • Public Act 7-4 “…for purposes of delinquency matters and proceedings, ‘child’ means any person (A) under eighteen years of age, or (B) eighteen years of age or older who, prior to attaining eighteen years of age, has committed a delinquent act …” • Goes into effect January 1, 2010 (see appendix e)

18. Not ALL 16- and 17-year-olds will return to juvenile system 16 and 17 year olds legally considered juveniles in all delinquency proceedings, with the following exceptions • Motor vehicle infractions and violations • Class A and B felonies • Prosecutorial discretion in all felony cases

19. Transfer to Adult Court • Juveniles age 14 or 15 charged with a Class A or B felony are automatically transferred to the adult criminal court. • Additionally, juveniles age 14 or 15 charged with a Class C or D felony or with an unclassified felony may be transferred to the adult criminal court upon a motion by the juvenile prosecutor and order of a Juvenile Matters Judge (discretionary transfers). • Juveniles charged with a Class B felony and the “discretionary transfers” can be returned to the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters upon order of a judge in the adult court.

20. Juvenile Justice Policy and Operation Coordinating Committee Sec. 88. (Effective from passage) (a) There is established a Juvenile Jurisdiction Policy and Operations Coordinating Council. The council shall monitor the implementation of the central components of the implementation plan developed by the Juvenile Jurisdiction Planning and Implementation Committee, as set forth in subsection (f) of this section, and resolve issues identified by the committee, as set forth in subsection (g) of this section, concerning changes required in the juvenile justice system to expand jurisdiction to include persons sixteen and seventeen years of age.

21. Recent Successes The Connecticut Juvenile Justice System has undertaken significant reform efforts and achieved important gains in recent years, resulting in better outcomes for children and the community.

22. Success in Recent years Significant reduction in delinquency commitments

23. Success in Recent years • Joint work between DCF and Judicial: • Joint Juvenile Justice Strategic Plan • Emily J. Settlement Agreement • Joint Case Planning and Service Provision • FWSN Reform • Joint Investment in Evidence-Based and Promising Practices

24. Successes Two examples of these joint programs: • Flex Funding for Court-Involved Children • Work/Learn

25. Flex funding for court-involved children Flex Funding is used to purchase a variety of services or goods, not otherwise contracted, but important for children’s and families’ success DCF contracts for Flex funding, through a fiduciary agency, for: Detention-involved children at risk for residential treatment Court-involved children supervised in the community (through a joint project with CSSD)

26. Flex funding for court-involved children • Services purchased with flex funding include: • Mentoring and Therapeutic Mentoring • Social and recreational programming • Educational Consultation, Advocacy & Tutoring • Assistance with food, clothing and furnishings • Transportation • Individual, family, and specialized therapies

27. Work/Learn Programming • Skills and Interests Inventories • Academic Assessments • Tutoring • Post-secondary Educational Planning • In-House Youth Business and Training • Employment Assistance • Life Skills and Financial Literacy Training • Community Engagement

28. Current Reforms Underway • Who are the 16- and 17-year-olds in the system? • What reforms are already happening to ease their transition into the juvenile justice system?

29. Profile of 16- & 17-year-old Offenders • 12,633 total criminal cases1 • (10,075 unique youth) • 2,256 youth sentenced to probation2 • 1,725 youth currently on probation2 • (as of 9/14/2006) 1 Source: Judicial Branch Court Operations 2 Source: Court Support Services Division FY 2006 Data on Court-Involved 16- and 17-year-olds

30. 16- & 17-year-olds Sentenced to Probation

32. Judicial Branch’s Tenets for Program and System Development • Community Safety • Developmentally Appropriate • Strength Based • Family Inclusive • Trauma Sensitive • Community Based • Culturally Competent & Gender Responsive • Based on Juvenile Need/Risk Level

33. Judicial Branch’s Four-Point Plan • Modify Probation Workforce (1/08) • Adapt Juvenile Service Delivery System (1/08) • Create New Programs for Youth (1/09) • Establish Infrastructure to Ensure Positive Outcomes (On-Going)

34. Continuum of Services for New Haven Pilot Program • Clinical Evaluations • Psychiatric • Psychological • Substance Abuse • Sex Offender • Mental Health Services • Intensive In-Home Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Services (IICAPS) • 8 slots available at any given time

35. Continuum of Services for New Haven Pilot Program • In-patient Substance Abuse Treatment • 4 dedicated slots for New Haven youth to add to the statewide capacity • Educational / Vocational Services • Work / Learn Model • 20 slots available at any given time

36. Continuum of Services for New Haven Pilot Program • Youth Risk Reduction Center • Aggression Replacement Therapy • MET/CBT/FSN • VOICES and Girls Circle • (Gun) Violence Prevention • TARGET • Family Violence Education Program • Brief Strategic Family Therapy

37. Continuum of Services for New Haven Pilot Program • Outcomes Research • Central CT State University won competitive bidding process to evaluate NH YPI. • CCSU will be reporting quarterly on the progress of the New Haven Pilot Program, with a final outcome report expected in Spring 2009.

38. DCF Development Plan • Internal inter-bureau group to analyze: • potential caseload and service needs • Nationally recognized best and promising practices • Impact of PA07-4 on other DCF bureaus • Child Welfare • Behavioral Health • Adolescent Services

39. DCF Development Plan • Review of current DCF risk/needs data • Strategies for behavioral health services • Strategies to address impact on DCF area offices • Study of 16 and 17 year olds at DoC • Program and service needs • Housing needs • Community Safety

40. Role of JJPOCC Public Act 7-4 section 16 (g) lists some questions for the JJPOCC to consider:

41. What’s Left? • Disproportionate Minority Contact • How does DMC affect who is in the juvenile justice system? • How do we build a system that will eliminate DMC?

42. What’s Left? • DCF/CSSD: Placement & Treatment • What is the need for out-of-home care? • Placement Capacity • Short term/long term • Specialization/Type of facility/care • Current/projected

43. What’s Left? • Development of Diversion Programs • What already exists? • What needs to be created? • Whose responsibility?

44. What’s Left? • CSSD/Judicial: Court Diversion and Pre-trial Detention Practices • Serious Juvenile Offenses • Should list of SJOs be reconsidered? • Are there youth who enter detention now that might not have to? Are there related policies/procedures that should be reviewed?

45. What’s Left? Impact of 16 & 17 yr olds on state agencies such as: • Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services • State Department of Education • Public Defenders • Prosecutors • Department of Labor • Department of Social Services • DCF (Child Protective Services, Adolescent Behavioral Health System) • Judicial Branch (CSSD, Court Operations) Impact on Local/Municipal agencies such as police departments

46. What’s Left? Now that 16 & 17 year olds are being treated as juveniles in the justice system, what other laws need to be reconsidered? • Mandatory school attendance (signing out of school at 16 years) • Custodial interrogation

47. What’s Left? DCF/CSSD: Assessment Tool • What are the pros/cons of current assessment tools at different decision-making points in the system?

48. What’s Left? Judicial: Regional Youth Courts What will be the needs of the Judicial Branch regarding the following issues? • Staffing • Facilities • Equipment • Automation • Operational • Legal

49. What’s Left? Judicial/Legislative: Adult court elements imported to JJ system • Does Connecticut want to incorporate certain aspects of the adult court system (i.e. bond, jury trial, fines, expungement, probationary sentences, etc.) to the juvenile justice system?