Connecticut Juvenile Justice Reform: Courageous, Intelligent, Persistent – and not finished

Remarks made by CTJJA Executive Director Abby Anderson
at U.S. Rep. Chris Murphy’s juvenile justice conference, March 23, 2012

Thank you Congressman Murphy, and thank you to Melodee Hanes and the team from OJJDP. We’re honored that you chose to come here today, to honor the progress we’ve made and help us think about what next steps we can take.

As Congressman Murphy said, I am the Executive Director of the Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance, a statewide public policy and advocacy organization with a mission to keep kids out of the juvenile and adult systems and to advocate for a safe, fair and effective system for those who need it. Those who NEED is the key phrase for us. We believe that if a child’s primary need is educational, they should stay in the education system and that if their primary need is mental health, they should stay in the mental health system.

We are grateful that philosophy is shared by the juvenile justice leaders in our state. And let me be clear, my remarks today do not reflect simply the work of the Alliance. Far from it. This is about the work of multiple state entities, especially the Judicial Branch and its Court Support Services Division (CSSD) the Department of Children and Families (DCF), community providers, families, legislators and other key advocacy organizations. I simply have the honor today to tell this reform story on all of our behalf.

The Connecticut juvenile justice reform story is courageous, intelligent, persistent – and unfinished. There is still much to do. And we can use federal help. But first, what have we done and where do we want to go? This story to date comes together around collaboration and diversion. Let’s all work together to keep kids out of the justice system. And for those who do come in, let’s make sure their involvement is as short, community-based and effective as possible.

Have we done that? We’re not done, but we’ve come a long way.

From when implementation of Raise the Age began in 2010 through today, just under 9,000 16-year-olds have been kept out of our adult courts. What has the impact been? Even with the addition of the 16-year-olds, the number of youth entering the juvenile court is significantly smaller than it was in the mid-2000s – 20% smaller. In fact, commitments to our training school in 2011, two years in to Raise the Age, were at their lowest level in years. And the outcomes? While Judicial Branch recidivism rates are falling across the board, the outcomes for the 16-year-olds are the best. Boding well for their 17-year-old peers.

Because, Raise the Age is unfinished. But more on that later.

Why is Raise the Age such a success – besides the incredible devotion and hard work of people inside this room? Collaboration and diversion. First a few comments about collaboration. In the middle of the last decade CSSD and DCF, the two agencies with juvenile justice specific mandates, came together with a multitude of other state agency, department, provider, advocacy and parent group stakeholders to create the state’s first joint juvenile justice strategic plan. A key recommendation in that plan was the creation of Local Interagency Services Teams, or LISTs. There are now 13 such LISTs operating across the state, epitomizing local collaboration, communication and understanding – so cross-community and system stakeholders are working together more efficiently and effectively than ever before.

The LISTs ensure that all of us as stakeholders know how the system is truly operating on the ground, because the people closest to the action are the ones who know. And they are all always talking about diversion.

One example of the success of diversion is the dramatic, sustained decline in detention admissions, leading to the closure of a 38-bed detention facility last year. One reason? The removal of status offenders. In 2006 CT had 496 status offenders who went to detention. Now, there are none.

What did Intelligent, Courageous status offender reform look like in CT?

In 2007, CT implemented a law that closed the valid court order exception loophole. Another one of those multi-stakeholders groups met to determine what to do instead. And the focus was on diversion, to ensure children whose primary issue was education- or mental health-related would not need to enter the justice system to get those services.

Now, when previously a FWSN petition would have been filed, FWSN youth and their families can access a statewide system of Family Support Centers, that provide assessment, crisis intervention, family mediation, educational advocacy, case management, cognitive behavioral groups and parent support groups – all without a formal FWSN petition being filed.

Another key diversion tool has been Juvenile Review Boards, 3 urban ones funded by DCF and an additional 61 run by Youth Service Bureaus across the state. Not every JRB is exactly the same, as they reflect the particular needs of their communities, but they all take a restorative justice approach. A community board reviews the case and offense with the child, finds way for the child to restore the harm caused to the community and provides access to services, programs and activities to avoid system involvement in the future. And the JRBs are a true diversion as youth who complete the JRB program have their records wiped clean.

The use of JRBs in general and their use by schools is on the rise. This is as a result of a courageous, intelligent piece of policy work done by Bill Carbone and his team at CCSD last summer, who instituted a new intake policy that diverts minor offenses “not serious enough to warrant court involvement.” Letters went to all police chiefs and school superintendents to let them know arrests for things like possession of cigarettes, running in the halls and simple fights would be “kicked back.” As part of the MacArthur Models for Change Mental Health Network, CSSD and the Center for Effective Practice developed a mental health/juvenile justice training curriculum for schools and the School Based Diversion Initiative (SBDI) to reduce school arrests and, when appropriate, divert them into the behavioral health system

The Branch also took the lead in collecting data around school-based arrests, which has been crucial to the efforts of several communities working to address the issue. Nine have received grants from our Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee, and signed the Model Memorandum of Agreement it developed to ensure that when police are in schools, there is clear delineation of the roles of police and school staff. Also two communities, Manchester and Windham implemented a new MOA and graduated sanctions model that has significantly reduced school based arrests – more than 80% in Manchester. These represent another great example of collaboration across systems as the LISTs, as police, schools, judges and community providers work together.

When we talk about diversion and ensuring that kids don’t come into the juvenile justice system unless they need it, we have to talk about reducing the number of kids who come into the juvenile justice system because of the color of their skin. We believe that all of the diversion initiatives already discussed reduce the impact of DMC. But there are several programs specifically designed to address this problem.

In point of fact, the JJAC’s model Memorandum of Agreement for schools and police was developed as a DMC reduction tool. That same group created the “Effective Police Interactions with Youth” training, which has been shared with 14 other states. The group is currently looking to revise that training for school staff as well, looking to reduce the impact of race/ethnicity on school based referrals to court.

I mentioned earlier the significant reductions in detention admissions here in Connecticut. We anticipate the continuation of that trend, because, as of last October, every admission to juvenile detention requires a court order. In-depth research, done by the JJAC, spotlighted 7 decision points across our system that demonstrated DMC. One was admissions to detention that did NOT require a court order. So last year, the legislature made that important statutory change. And, also required the state agencies related to juvenile justice to report biannually on their DMC reduction efforts. The first of those reports was just released and I know Valerie LaMotte, (who is our state’s juvenile justice specialist, DMC coordinator and compliance monitor) has copies for those who are interested.

Another DMC-reduction focused effort sees the Center for Children’s Advocacy collaborating with the Center for Children’s Law and Policy and the Bridgeport and Hartford LISTs. This project focuses on local data collection to find and address local decision points that show evidence of disparities. Their work, along with CSSD, has created a local DMC reporting tool that will be available to all LISTs later this year.

That’s a quick overview of where we are. Where do we want to go?

Raise the Age … continued
17-year-olds will enter the juvenile system this summer. In preparation we need more and a wider array of educational, job and career readiness and independent living skill programs that will ensure the success of these older youth. And we can’t forget the 14 - 17 year olds transferred to adult court. The Department of Corrections, responsible for our youth tried as adults, recently reported that the 12-month re-arrest rates of those 17 and under as 67%. In the juvenile system the 12-month re-arrest rate is 48%, but when 16-year-olds are separated out? Their 12-month re-arrest rate is only 41%. These young people belong in juvenile court on the basis of public safety outcomes, even before you think about the lack of services, specially trained staff or appropriate facilities in the adult system.

Re-entry
We always talk about discharge and reentry planning starting at the moment of commitment. We need to do better implementing that philosophy. Youth should be in facilities for less time and supervised in their communities longer. If those running parole programs only have 3-6 months with a youth, how can they possibly get them and keep them on strong, stable educational, family and career paths that lead to success, not prison? And as the youth in our system get older through RTA, the breadth of re-entry services must be expanded to meet their education and job skill needs

Overall System Improvement
Connecticut currently has multi-disciplinary teams led by the Judicial Branch working with Georgetown University’s Center for Juvenile Justice Reform on two programs. One is focused on youth committed to under both child advocacy and juvenile justice to determine who they are, what kind of outcomes they achieve, and how we improve those outcomes. The other will evaluate multiple aspects of our system from assessment to aftercare. These two projects are a great manifestation of where we started, let’s make sure our system only serves those youth who really need it and let’s make sure the kids who do need our justice system get one that is safe, fair and effective.

I wouldn’t be an advocate if I didn’t have an “ask.” So here goes:

What can you do?

1. Support efforts to keep children under the age of 18 out of adult courts and facilities no matter how each state defines “child” and “adult”. More and more states are changing policies and practices to keep even youth tried as adults out of adult facilities before they turn 18. Federal leadership and guidance on this issue could be incredibly powerful.
2. Make it easier for agencies and departments to utilize funds in collaboration and across the defined silos that exist. Here’s an example, DMC exists in the child welfare system, it exists in the juvenile justice system, it exists in special education, in health and mental health and, as we learned last week, in school discipline. We know trauma and mental health issues affect kids’ educational achievement and behavior. Instead of putting out RFPs from within federal silos, we’d love to see Washington lead by example by putting out RFPs that acknowledge the interconnectedness of issues, blend federal dollars and encourage and incentivize the blending of state and local dollars as well.

Similarly, we need leadership and support from the federal level to demonstrate and emphasize the need for true prevention and diversion programs, perhaps through investment in research that could demonstrate the worth and effectiveness of such programs. In this world where everything is results-based and scientifically normed, which we support, legislators and budget writers need facts to justify appropriating funds for true prevention and diversion programs.

To date, the Connecticut reform story is one of courage, intelligence and persistence. But it’s not finished. Together, and with your support, we’re stand ready to go a lot farther on behalf of all of our kids.

Thank you.