Abby Anderson, Executive Director

Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance

What We Learned

� Significant change is possible

� Collaboration is critical� Advocacy groups

� State agencies

� Legislators

� Everything is connected

� Investment in the services and “front end” paid off

2

Connecticut in Context

� Statewide juvenile justice system across 2 agencies/2 branches of government

� 169 towns

� Child population less than 800,000

� Juvenile court intake decreasing, despite inclusion of 16 and 17-year-olds

� Shifting investment in juvenile justice system

3

Connecticut:

Where we are now

4

Court Intake Reduction

5

The number of juveniles referred to the court is down 27% since 2007

Detention Reduction: Admissions

6

Inpatient Wait Reduction

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Average Detention Days Waiting

for Inpatient Evaluation

7

Commitment Reduction

(Cost Reduction)

8

Recidivism Reduction

9

What Did All This Cost?

When adjusted for inflation, Connecticut’s

total juvenile justice budget in 2011-2012

was slightly SMALLER

than the state’s juvenile justice

budget in 2001-2002

10

Chart taken from Juvenile Justice Reform in Connecticut: How Collaboration and Commitment Improved

Outcomes for Youth, written by Richard Mendel for the Justice Policy Institute and funded by The Tow

Foundation. Report to be released in January 2013.

Department of Children And Families – Juvenile Services

Community-Based Services $ 6.5 $ 8.1 $ 12.6

Out-of Home Services $ 23.1 $ 28.9 $ 16.0

State Facilities $ 32.0 $ 40.0 $ 30.1

Administration5 - - $ 0.8

DCF Total $ 61.6 $ 77.9 $ 59.6

Judicial Department - Court Support Services Division

Juvenile Services $ 11.8 $ 14.7 $ 15.5

Detention Services $ 13.3 $ 16.6 $ 21.8

Juvenile Alternatives to Incarceration $ 21.6 $ 27.0 $ 28.3

Juvenile Justice Centers $ 2.8 $ 3.5 $ 3.1

Youthful Offenders Services6 - $ 8.7

CSSD Total $ 49.5 $ 60.8 $ 77.4

Total Juvenile Justice Budget $111.1 $138.8 $137.0

FY 2001-2002 FY 2001-2002 FY 2011-20124

current dollars adjusted for inflation3

State of Connecticut Juvenile Justice Expenditures1

Change from FY2001-02 to FY 2011-12 (Adjusted for Inflation)

1 All figures reflect spending from the Connecticut General Fund, and exclude contributions from the federal

government or from private funders.

2 FY 02 actual expenditures are derived from the Connecticut General Assembly's Office of Fiscal Analysis,

Appropriations Committee Budget FY 04 and FY 05, available online at

http://www.cga.ct.gov/ofa/Documents/year/APPJF/2004APPJF-

20030325_Appropriations%20Committee%20Budget%20FY%2004%20-%20FY%2005.pdf. DCF budget figures found on

pp. 292 - 293; CSSD budget figures on pp. 376-377.

3 Inflation adjustment made using GDP deflator, which finds that $1 U.S. dollar in 2001 is worth same as 1.249 dollars

in 2011, due to inflation. Data from Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce (using a website

called Arrepim -- http://stats.areppim.com/calc/calc_usdlrxdeflator.php ).

4 FY 12 actual expenditures are derived from DCF's Current Services Budget (BR-1PB) Report for FY 14 & FY 15 and

Judicial Branch Current Services Budget (BR-1PB) Report for FY 14 & FY 15. Data provided via email by Rachel Welch

and Phoenix Ronan, Office of Fiscal Analysis, Connecticut General Assembly, September 2012.

5 Juvenile justice administrative expenditures at the Department of Children and Families were not accounted for in a

separate "administration" category in FY 02.

6 Youthful Offender Services represent a new line item in the CSSD budget to cover programs and services for 16- and

17-year-oldsadded to the juvenile caseload as a result of Connecticut’s Raise the Age law.

Footnotes from Chart on Previous Slide:

Chart taken from Juvenile Justice Reform in Connecticut: How Collaboration and Commitment Improved Outcomes for

Youth, written by Richard Mendel for the Justice Policy Institute and funded by The Tow Foundation. Report to be released

in January 2013.

Connecticut:

How did we get here?

“Insiders” “Outsiders” and

Legislators all play key roles

13

Three Issues to Illustrate

Connecticut’s Evolution

� Status Offenders

� Litigation/legislation/legislatively mandated

"inside/outside" partnership

� Raise the Age (youth out of adult court)

� Legislation/legislatively mandated "inside/outside"

partnership

� School-based arrests

� Self-directed and led "inside/outside" partnership

– leading to legislation?

14

Status Offenders - Timeline

� Emily J. Lawsuit (1993-2007)

� Conditions of Pre-trial Confinement and Access to

Community-based Mental Health Treatment

� Force the system to change, Emily J. lawsuit a first

step; conditions of confinement; lead to focus on

status offenders. Center for Children’s Advocacy

the lead.

15

Status Offenders – More Timeline

� 2005 legislation creates prohibition against

detaining Status Offenders as of Oct. 1, 2007

� Violation of Court Order no longer valid

� Stronger requirements on schools

� Created FWSN advisory board to recommend how

to implement the policy change

▪ Reluctant "inside/outside" partnership

▪ Advocates pushing change, agencies still resistant

16

Status Offenders – System and

Advocate Response to Legislation

� Advisory Board works to redesign system;

Family Support Centers

� Agencies do statewide roadshow explaining

changes to those on the ground

� Advocates target both agencies and

legislature to fight for appropriate funding

and service roll-out

17

Status Offenders – System Response

to Lawsuit and Legislation

� Effective Community Based Services� Intensive in-home services

� Center-based cognitive behavioral therapy and

psychoeducational groups

� Educational supports

� Respite and stabilization services

� Data Driven Management

18

Status Offenders – Advocacy Role &

Tactics

� Litigate

� Use data gained

� Get a voice at the table

� Become agency's

"proxy" fighting for

funding to expand

FWSN services

statewide

19

YearSent to

detention

2006 493

2010 0

FWSN Cases

Status Offenders – Legislative

Champions

� Help advocates understand what colleagues

do and don’t know

� Champion and shepherd the legislation

� Creation of the Advisory Board – forces

everyone to the same table; legislative

reporting ensures oversight of the process

and that the changes will actually happen

20

Raise the Age – Timeline of Change

� Movement existed before CTJJA;

CTJJA’s Raise the Age CT campaign starts

in 2005

� 2006 legislation creates an inside/

outside partnership

� Juvenile Jurisdiction Planning and Implementation Committee;

legislative co-chairs

� Intensive 6-7 months: everyone at the table examining

information, sharing thoughts

� Recommended CT include 16- and 17-year-olds in its juvenile

system

21

Raise the Age – Timeline of Change

� 2007 legislation says “Raise the Age” will happen in 2010

� Creates 2nd inside/outside partnership to plan for the implementation (Juvenile Jurisdiction Policy and Operations Coordinating Council; legislative co-chairs)

� 2 ½ -year process becomes 5-year process as change for 17-year-olds is delayed

� System not resistant, partnership more two-way

22

Raise the Age – System Response

Improving Probation Practices

� Budget phase in over 5 years, 3 budget cycles

� Probation Case Practice� Manageable Caseloads

� Risk and Need Assessments

� Case Review Teams (166 of 209 diverted in 2012)

� Gender-responsive Probation Units

� Client Engagement and Motivational Interviewing

� Strengths-based Case Planning and Management

� Graduated Sanctions and Incentives for Violations of Probation

23

24

Raise the Age – System Response

� Juvenile Court Clinic

� Mental Health Screening in Detention and

Probation

� Clinical Coordinators

� Streamline referrals for evaluation, treatment and

hospitalization

Key Points

� Previous two slides not just about Raise the Age – whole system needs to improve/respond to absorb new cadres effectively

� All systemic changes and improvements build upon each other

� Just because one issue becomes the “face,” that isn’t the only part of the system impacted

� Changes related to status offenders “allow” RTA changes. Whole system improved by elements introduced as a result of RTA requirements

25

Raise the Age – Advocacy Role &

Tactics

� Community organizing

� Legislative breakfasts statewide - annually

� Video

� Email/Phone/Postcard campaigns

� Rallies at Capitol

� Legislative Education

� National experts

� Video/breakfasts

26

Raise the Age – Legislative

Champions

� Advise advocates on how to reach colleagues

� “Can’t just be the legislators from the cities”

� Go to their districts, don’t expect them to come to you

� Facilitate an “educational hearing” for Educate the Legislature

Day

� Champion the legislation

� Keep advocates aware of what they need to do to help you

� Create Advisory and Oversight Committees and co-chair them –

creates accountability, sense of urgency and “reality”

� Fight to ensure that the delay in implementation is actually to

allow time for system to prepare, not a way to put off saying,

“no”

27

Student Arrests – Issue Origins

� Advocates raise awareness about the issue

� CSSD starts to examine their own data� Notice a "problem" on their end

� Dig deeper into data

� Shares data with advocates

� Pulls together stakeholders addressing similar issues

� Investigates statutory ability to refuse arrest referrals to court

� Sends letter to all districts and police chiefs announcing CSSD will newly enforce ability to return referrals

28

Changing Step by Step:

Diverting from Court

� School-based Arrest Reduction Partnership

� School-Police MOA, Training and EMPS Diversion

▪ 20 school districts

� Probation Intake Return Referral Policy

▪ 478 returned referrals

� Expansion of Juvenile Review Boards,

including mental health screening and EBP

treatment access

29

Outcomes of Efforts

� Issue taken seriously, quickly

� Data available for the first time – statewide

and locally

� Real movement to reduce student arrests

30

Legislative Change Coming?

� Proposed legislation:

� If districts are going to have police in schools, then they

must have a MOU outlining the role of police and the role

of school officials in the building, especially as it pertains to

discipline

� Data collection and reporting around student arrests

� Flew through committees, died on floor in 2012

� Got through House, died in Senate on last day of

session.

31

Notice: OPPOSITE of how change happened with status

offenders

Advocacy Role & Tactics

� Communities identify student arrests as an issue

� Advocates look for data – little exists

� Raise awareness “make a stink”

� Discuss issue at meetings with “insiders”

� Host series of public forums and community discussions;

Education vs. Incarceration CPTV

� Bring in national experts (Teske and Huff)

� Provide TA to communities inspired by that model

� Use data collected by CSSD as tool/leverage

32

Student Arrests: Legislative

Champions

� Provide credibility that this is an issue worth caring

about

� Encourage local leaders (school, police) to take the

issue seriously and begin addressing it

� Work with advocates to determine appropriate

statewide policy initiatives

� Push state and local agencies to collect and report

data on this issue

33

Evolution of the “Inside” “Outside”

Relationship

34

To: Advocates/System

Folks are partners

� See each other as different parts of the same body

� All want to go in the same direction – have different

strengths, capabilities and roles to play regarding

how we get there

� Respect and trust for each other’s role

From:

Advocates/System

Folks are

adversaries

So It’s All Perfect All the Time?

� Of course not!

� Roadblocks:� Turnover in leadership, establish new relationships,

different visions for what "best for children and communities" looks like

� Might be going in the same direction regarding two initiatives, different on another

� Enduring partnership regardless of roadblocks: � Understand that we can be each other's best partners,

cheerleaders and advocates

� Know that if we aren’t in agreement on one issue, we can still work together on others

35

Legislative Role?� Encourage collaboration whenever possible

� Intra and Inter agencies

� “Insiders” and “Outsiders”

� Legislative subcommittees of committees were incredibly helpful as they pre-vetted legislative proposals, worked out kinks and found consensus before legislative session began

� Task Forces with legislative charge and reporting can be useful –if members know their work will be taken seriously and utilized

� Use the platform that you have to talk about these issues

� You control the budget – these initiatives are strong investments, strengthen families, strengthen the workforce, improve community safety

36

Contact Information

Abby Anderson

Executive Director, Connecticut Juvenile Justice

Alliance

abby@ctjja.org

203-579-2727

37