Youth with Developmental Disabilities
in the Juvenile Justice System
Survey of Probation Departments
Beyond the Bench 2006
Corene Kendrick
Staff Attorney
Youth Law Center
Survey Overview



Telephone Interviews with County Probation
Staff designated by Probation Chief
Fall 2006 – as of 12/13/06, 30 counties
surveyed – urban, suburban and rural
Designed to better understand the practices
in serving youth with developmental
disabilities and/or major mental health needs,
and who are incompetent or potentially
incompetent to stand trial
Overall Themes from Probation

Juvenile Hall is not the place for these youth
–
–



Halls are ill-equipped to deal with their needs
By virtue of their problems, these youth are in danger of
being harmed, taken advantage of, or pushed into other
criminal involvement while in the Hall
Lack of appropriate alternative placements and
programs means these youth end up spending the
most time in the Hall
Halls are used as dumping grounds for these youth
“They’re like hot potatoes, no one wants them.”
Judicial Competency Proceedings

Judicial process of determining competency
occurs rarely. Divergent reasons why:
–
–
–
Youth diverted early due to collaboration w/ DAs,
PDs, CMH and Regional Center
Some counties thought no one in the system
understands option enough to raise it
Some counties thought there aren’t many kids
who are incompetent but instead are high-needs
and need an alternative placement.
Judicial Proceedings, Cont’d

Handful of counties had higher rates of
competency proceedings in past year
–
–
–

Sacramento: 64 evaluations, 10 determinations
Los Angeles: approximately 35-50 determinations
Kern: 30 determinations
Frequency of proceedings up in counties
–
–
Meth, “huffing” solvents – severe brain damage
Increased awareness of process by players
Commonly Cited Problems
Lack of Placements



Every person interviewed mentioned this
Not enough placements for high needs / potentially incompetent
/ incompetent youth
Level 14 group homes – counties admit this is not the ideal
solution, but best option currently available to them
–


Long wait lists, homes refuse the highest needs youth, staff
inadequately trained to deal with these youth, youth may assault
staff or children
Community Treatment Facilities – same problems as Level 14
Result of failure in these placements – counties end up sending
youth to DJJ or out of state
Lack of Placements, Cont’d




Families are preferred placement, but
families may be unable or unwilling to accept
child’s return
Limited wrap-around services
Relatives are explored as an option – even
out of state
Few, if any, DD parents’ support groups are
actively partnered with Probation
Lack of Placements, Cont’d




Few state hospitals willing to work with
juvenile incompetent population, only a
handful of beds statewide for kids
No juvenile competency restoration
programs (Humboldt has contract to begin)
Emergency hospitalizations time-limited
Increasing out-of-state placements using AB
2726 “educational placements”
Lack of Placements, Cont’d

Out of county placements
–
–
Rural and small counties have no placements
nearby and also problems in having other
counties’ facilities to take their youth
Result: youth spend months at a time in juvenile
hall awaiting placement out-of-county
Lack of Interagency Collaboration

Cooperation and collaboration among
agencies varied wildly from county to county
–
–
–
Some RCs work together with Probation from
time of youth’s admission to Hall, with expedited
assessment timelines, in-Hall assessments
Some RCs would only evaluate youth post-JJ
involvement (both post-Hall and post-probation)
Some RCs ignored referrals and requests and
had to be joined by courts
Working With Regional Centers


All counties said the narrow eligibility
requirements under the Lanterman Act were
a barrier to getting RC resources and
services for low-functioning youth
Long timeline for RC assessments means
youth wait in juvenile hall
–
Some RCs and counties have agreed to shorter
timelines for evaluations of kids in custody
County MH and School Districts




Widely divergent levels of cooperation and
collaboration with CMH and School Districts
Some work closely with Probation from the
start
Some School Districts are ordered by court
to work with Probation and ignore orders
Youth falling in the cracks between Regional
Centers and County Mental Health
Impact of the Lack of Collaboration
When Probation, the Regional Center,
County Mental Health, and School District do
not collaborate together from the very onset,
this forces further penetration into the
criminal justice system because all nonProbation services are court-ordered.
County Probation’s Ideas of
Promising Practices
Interagency Collaboration


Regular (as frequently as twice a month)
collaborative strategy meetings of leaders of
all agencies to discuss an individual case
Process has been quite successful in small
counties
Clear Court Process
for Competency Determinations




Los Angeles – Mental health court
San Diego – protocol
Kern – close working relationship among Public
Defender, RC, Probation and court. Shorter timeline
for RC assessment
Caveat: some counties express concern that
developing a uniform court process could have
unintended consequences: lack of flexibility and
individualized response, net-widening
Alternative Placement Options

Counties expressed their interest in creating a local
(or nearby) secure facility, fully-staffed, and based on
a therapeutic model for
–
–
–

Short term competency restoration or
For youth with serious delinquencies, long term services
based on youth’s needs
Increased family involvement for successful stabilization
and re-entry to community
Orange County: separate wing of juvenile hall –
therapeutic model, no leather restraints used in 4
years
Increased Education & Training



Many county probation offices said that judges,
Public Defenders, and District Attorneys may not
have sufficient training or knowledge about this
population of youth or of the services that would best
address the youth’s individual needs
Probation Department staff may not know what
developmental disabilities are
Lack of understanding by many players in the
process about what Regional Centers can and
cannot offer for these youth
Model Staffing Practices

Counties with the most collaboration and success in
serving the youth also displayed model staffing:
–
–
–
–
Long term staff who have worked with incompetent youth
Staff teams who adopt a unified therapeutic approach
Experienced and knowledgeable PDs, Judges, DAs with
years of working with these youth
Higher staff-to-youth ratios in the alternative placements
with staff who are highly-trained in working with this
population of youth
For more information
Corene Kendrick
Youth Law Center
200 Pine St., Ste. 300
San Francisco, CA 94104
(415) 543-3379 ext. 3909
[email protected]
www.ylc.org