At the request of Senator Cravins, the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ) has conducted a review of publicly available data from the Department of Public Safety and Corrections relating to youthful offender characteristics and available programs within the Office of Youth Development. We are pleased to provide the following materials for your review and dissemination relating to your request and hope it is useful in the efforts of your committee to assess the wisdom of various funding decisions related to the Office of Youth Development.

By way of background, CJCJ is a private non-profit organization with offices in Washington, DC, San Francisco, Baltimore and Philadelphia, that for the past 11 years has provided technical assistance to government agencies interested in exploring safe and effective community-based alternatives to secure custody. As Deputy Director of CJCJ, I have advised government officials and policy makers in Georgia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia and several other jurisdictions on how to make their youth corrections systems more efficient and effective. In addition, personally, I have served as Deputy Receiver for the District of Columbia’s Child and Family Services Agency (1993 to 1995), as Monitor for the Federal Court over the District of Columbia Department of Corrections (1991 to 1993/1995 to 1997), and as deputy Special Master for the Baltimore City School System’s Special Education Program (1997 to 2000).

CJCJ also operates several direct service programs for youth who, absent the availability of these programs, would be confined in correctional settings. More than 2,500 youth have passed through CJCJ’s programs as alternatives to incarceration and more than 80% have done so successfully, with success defined as returning to court for all scheduled hearings and no re-arrests.

I am here today representing both CJCJ, and the Building Blocks for Youth initiative whose goal is to promote a fair and effective juvenile justice system. The partners in this national initiative include my agency, and leading juvenile justice research and policy organizations, including the Youth Law Center, the American Bar Association’s Juvenile Justice Center, Minorities in Law Enforcement, the Pretrial Services Resource Center, and the National Council on Crime and Delinquency. We believe that before government officials commit to spending millions of dollars refurbishing antiquated facilities or on the construction/purchase of new facilities, they must first look closely at who they currently incarcerate and determine how some number of those incarcerated youth might be managed safely, more productively and more cost effectively in community-based settings.

Our review of the Office of Youth Development’s (OYD) population and program data cannot be described as comprehensive. The analysis in this brief was limited to those data that are published on the Department of Public Safety and Corrections’ website, our knowledge of trends in juvenile justice systems, and national data published by the U.S. Justice Department. Although more questions may have been raised than were answered by the available data, we believe the data point to patterns and trends seen in many juvenile justice systems across the country - a scarcity of meaningful community-based programs, an over reliance on secure custody for non-violent offenders and wide disparity in the use of secure vs. non-secure programs for similarly situated youth. Though limited, these data provide an excellent starting point for a healthy and far more detailed review of both policy and practice within the OYD.

When one reviews the list of available placement options within the OYD, you are left with the unmistakable impression that little exists between probation and prison for Louisiana. Most juvenile justice practitioners agree that a mix of secure and non-secure options for youthful offenders is wise. Ideally, a rich continuum of programs and services are available ranging from supervised probation to safe and secure custody. Such a continuum provides the system with the necessary flexibility to assign youth to appropriate levels of supervision. Unfortunately, Louisiana appears to rely on extremely costly institutional placements and lacks an effective continuum of community-based services. This is illustrated in several areas:

As of 1999, the latest year for which we have comparable data, Louisiana had the second highest juvenile residential custody rate of any state in the nation (South Dakota was first, but the recent closure of the state’s largest secure custody facility has probably propelled Louisiana into first place). Louisiana’s residential custody rate (580 per 100,000) is fully 56% larger than the national average (371 per 100,000).

In 2002, Louisiana (population 4.4 million) has 1400 youth in secure confinement. By contrast, Missouri (population 5.5 million) has 750 youth in secure confinement with fewer than 30 youth per facility in all but two of the state’s secure facilities, with the largest holding 80 youth. Both states have generally same proportion of youth in their population (between 25% and 27%).

Like the rest of the nation, the number of youth arrested for violent crimes declined over the 1990s in both Louisiana and Missouri. However, it is not clear that incarcerating more youth has done very much to help bring down Louisiana’s crime rate. Between 1993 and 1999, Louisiana’s violent juvenile arrest rate dropped 5%. During the same period, Missouri’s violent juvenile arrest rate dropped 36%. Today, with almost half the youth in secure detention, Missouri’s violent crime rate is 38% lower than Louisiana’s.

A juvenile justice system should reserve expensive and often unproductive secure custody for the most serious and repeat violent offenders. Based on current OYD data, however, 73.3% of all OYD youth held in secure facilities are incarcerated for non-violent offenses. Youth held for burglary, theft and drug crimes account for more than one-third of all youth in secure custody. While non-secure alternatives to locked custody might be suitable for nonviolent offenders, there are three times as many youth in secure custody for drugs (184) and burglary (330) as there are in non-secure custody (53 drug offenders, and 136 burglars are in non-secure custody).

In 2001, 88.6% of all youth placed in OYD secure custody were “Non-Recidivists.” By OYD definitions, non-recidivists are youth who had no previous institutional commitment nor had they ever been placed under the supervision of OYD.

Although OYD data reflect that as of 12-28-02 there were 184 youth in secure custody, and 848 youth in the OYD system for drug offenses (and no doubt many more for drug-related offenses), the yearly average number of OYD youth in substance abuse programs is 24.9. These figures relating to substance abuse program capacity are startlingly low.

Many states use Independent Living Programs, which are provide treatment and services to youth instead of secure custody. According to OYD data there are a yearly average of 10.4 youth placed in independent living programs statewide. Again, this figure is very low. Well-designed independent living programs can be tremendously valuable programmatic flexibility for juvenile justice officials and valuable tools to the youth who participate in them.

It is also noteworthy that nearly 40% of all youth in the secure custody of OYD are serving sentences of 0 to 1.9 years. Given the limited programming typically available in juvenile institutions, the apparent non-violent/first time offender status of many OYD youth, and the limited aftercare planning and support that characterizes juvenile justice systems across the country, it is reasonable to question the wisdom of OYD’s heavy reliance on institutional placements.

The percentage of youth in all OYD placements during 2001 that were non-recidivists varies little between secure and non-secure placements. In other words, about the same percentage of youth who had never been placed on probation or sentenced to secure custody are incarcerated (88.6%) as are not incarcerated (92.0%). This could be explained if all or most of the youth in non-secure custody were non-violent, and all or most of those in lock-up were violent or repeat offenders. The data, however, suggest that this is not the case. As noted above, large percentages of youth in locked custody are neither repeat offenders nor violent offenders. If we apply the standard FBI definition for defining violent crime to Louisiana’s secure custody population, of the 1,407 youth in locked custody:

• 238 (17%) were committed for assault & battery;
• 24 (1.7%) for homicide;
• 139 (9.8%) for robbery; and
• 107 (7.6%) for sex offenses.

Based on these OYD figures, the total number of juveniles committed to locked facilities in OYD for violent offenses is 505, or 36% of the total institutionalized population. This of course means that 902 OYD youth or 64% of the institutionalized population is incarcerated for non-violent behavior.

Although available data do not speak to the type or frequency of probation/parole violations, nationally, 12% of all youth in secure state residential custody are there due to parole or probation violations. The vast majority of these are technical violations. Technical violations involve no new criminal offenses but rather, a rule violation such as the failure to meet curfew requirements, missing a meeting with a probation officer, testing positive for drug or alcohol use, not maintaining employment, moving without notice to probation officials, failure to pay supervision fees (when applicable), and other infractions. Many states are currently wrestling with extremely high rates of youth being returned to secure custody as a result of technical violations of the conditions of their supervision. Given that probation officers across the country typically carry caseloads in excess of 50 youth, technical violations are commonly used as a case management tool. This is an issue that should be fully explored in Louisiana.

A cursory analysis of OYD data reveals large populations of young people in secure custody in Louisiana that might be treated and held accountable for their delinquency in some other less restrictive way. A through examination of data, and interviews with young people in these facilities is the only way to garner a clear picture of who is incarcerated on any given day. While not an exhaustive survey, to give this committee a sense of what kind of youth might not need to be incarcerated in Louisiana, we gleaned the following case studies of youth in secure custody from public defender offices around the state.

• W.R. is a 17-year-old African American boy incarcerated at Jetson Correctional Center for Youth. W.R. was found guilty of 2 counts of possession of drugs in 1999, and was placed on probation. He did quite well on probation, and was participating in drug court. Before he was imprisoned, he was working two jobs and attending school regularly. He progressed to level 3 in drug court. After an incident occurred on a school bus, W.R.’s parents called police to report that he. had been harassed by his peers at school. When the youth told police that W.R. had threatened them with a gun, he was re-arrested, and re-incarcerated at the juvenile detention center-despite the fact that no gun was ever found on the premises or in his possession. W.R.'s judge revoked his probation and placed him in secure care at Jetson in October of 2001. On October 31, 2001, the assistant district attorney sent a letter to W.R. stating that charges were being dismissed against him. In February of 2002, a motion to reconsider revocation of parole was submitted to W.R.'s judge; but the judge denied the motion. W.R. remains at Jetson.
• A.T. 18-year-old African American male who has been in custody since his arrest on May 18, 1999 for distribution of cocaine. A.T. reports that his public defender told him not to talk at his trial and to just take the plea that the prosecutor was offering. Both A.T.’s older and younger brothers have faced similar charges. A.T. enjoyed school before he was incarcerated and was the star of his junior varsity basketball team. He has received his GED while incarcerated and is very anxious to attend college and make a good life for himself. At a recent court hearing, the facility told the judge that, while A.T. has expressed an interest in learning to weld, the vocational opportunities at the facility are limited and unable to provide such opportunities to A.T.

 

These data, and the case studies that illustrate them, suggest a lack of consistency in how cases are handled and point to the need for an objective analysis of the risk to public safety that is posed by those youth for whom OYD’s harshest and costliest sanction is used. These data also suggest the possibility that the custodial population is being driven in part by the lack of reliable community-based program options throughout the state.

Based on our review of available OYD data and the issues raised above which grew out of OYD statistics, CJCJ offers the following suggestions:

Prior to making any additional large fiscal commitments to expanding secure institutional bed space, OYD should look to an objective expert capable of conducting a thorough analysis of custodial capacity needs based on the level of risk presented by the OYD population. Such an analysis should be able to guide decision makers as to the approximate number of youth in need of secure custody versus those who can and should be managed in a community-based setting. Given huge expenses associated with incarcerating youth, such an analysis could potentially save state taxpayers tens of millions of dollars on institutional construction and maintenance costs for facilities that do not necessarily need to exist.

OYD should consider establishing, with guidance from the analysis suggested above, a full continuum of care for the juvenile justice system. Beginning with the least restrictive alternative consistent with public safety to the most restrictive, a good continuum of care provides a healthy array of program and supervision options to maximize the treatment and therapeutic aspects of community supervision.

The “Missouri model” might present one course that Louisiana could pursue. In the 1980s, Missouri brought in several national consultants to evaluate their juvenile justice system (including the Center for the Study of Youth Policy, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, and the American Correctional Association). Through careful planning, the state was able to construct a continuum of programs and services that judges can commit youth to, including intensive case monitoring, jobs programs, alternative and independent living, day treatment and family therapy. Rather than commit youth to distant facilities, these programs exist in communities where these youth live. By developing this continuum, Missouri’s juvenile courts have a wide variety of options to hold non-violent youth offenders accountable for their actions, and provide them with meaningful services.

On the other hand, when a youth is placed in secure custody for committing a serious offense in Missouri, they are sent to locked residential homes that generally have no more than 30 youth, and more resemble a college dormitory than a large “juvenile prison.” The states’ secure residential homes are also sited so youth are close to home. Non-violent, repeat youth offenders are sent to even less restrictive facilities that generally house 10-12 youth, and whose mission is to provide GED, life skills and vocational training.

Drawing on local resources and service providers from the communities in which OYD youth live, a wide array of supports, services and supervision can be added to the list of options available to juvenile justice officials in dealing thoughtfully with challenging youth. In addition to limiting the unnecessary exposure of youth to correctional settings, high quality community-based services are typically available at a fraction of the cost of institutional beds. By establishing such programs in the neighborhoods where the OYD youth and families live and drawing on local residents to staff the various programs, OYD can contribute to improving the quality of services to troubled youth, while encouraging a form of economic development that can benefit an entire community.

I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact me or representatives of my organization if we can be of further assistance.