Overview of Connecticut’s
Juvenile Justice System
Hector Glynn
Executive Director
Overview of the System
Connecticut's juvenile justice system is a
statewide system of juvenile courts,
detention centers, private residential
facilities and juvenile correctional facilities.
„
„
„
„
„
13 Juvenile Courts (Superior Court, Juvenile Matters)
3 Public Juvenile Detention Centers (Hartford,
Bridgeport, New Haven)
Private residential facilities
Community-based programs
Correctional facilities
System Philosophy and Goals
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, as defined in the Juvenile Justice
Act of 1995, include:
„
„
„
Individualized supervision, care, and treatment provided
pursuant to an individual case management (probation) plan that
involves the family of the juvenile.
School and community programs promoting prevention.
A statewide system of community-based services designed to
keep the juvenile in the home and community whenever
possible.
System Philosophy and Goals
„
„
„
Uniform intake procedures including “risk and needs” assessment
instruments and case classification plans to inform decision-making
relative to detention, residential placement and treatment plans.
Facilitated access to treatment programs addressing drug and
alcohol abuse, emotional and behavioral problems, sexual abuse,
health needs, and education.
A statewide network of high quality professional medical,
psychological, psychiatric and substance abuse testing and
evaluation.
„
Programming for anger management and nonviolent conflict
resolution.
„
A coordinated statewide system of secure residential facilities
and closely supervised nonresidential centers and programs.
„
Community centered programs involving restitution, community
service, mentoring, and intensive early intervention.
Law Enforcement
Issue a warning and release
the juvenile.
Confer with parents and
release the juvenile.
Initial Contact
Make a referral to a
community-based organization.
Make a referral to formal
diversion services, where
available (JRB, YSB, etc.).
Make an arrest.
Moving through the System
Police have contact with youth
Police decide to arrest or not
P olice t ake no
formal act ion may
warn or counsel
Yout h under 16 charged wit h non
SJO offense brought home or an
order of det ent ion can be sought
Yout h under 16 charged wit h an
SJO offense can be brought t o
det ent ion
Det ent ion
Release Hearing
Divers ion
programming
Juvenile Review
Boards
Referral to Superior court for juvenile
matters
Probation
Intake
Yout h under 16 charged wit h an
SJO offense can be released t o
home
Moving through the System
Probation
Intake
Handling
Judicial
handling
Non judicial
handling
Disposit ion
Dismiss
Assessed and
discharged
Disposit ion
Non judicial
supervision
Non
adjudication
Delinquency
Dismissed
Discharged
Nollied
P laced on
probat ion
CRT Process
Transferred to
adult court
Moving through the System
CRT Process
CP T placement
process
committed to
DCF
direct placement
t o resident ial
P lacement t o
CJT S
Parole
Decrease in Juvenile Crime
Arrest Rate of Persons Under Age 18 (per
100,000 persons age 10 to 17) in Fairfield County
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
7,841
7,379
7,111
6,460
5,713
4,784
4,865
4,037
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Decrease in Juvenile Crime
Arrest Rate of Persons Under Age 18 (per 100,000
persons age 10 to 17) in Hartford County
14,000
12,000
12,963
12,128
13,192
10,839
11,599
10,000
8,919
8,414
8,569
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Decrease in Juvenile Crime
Arrest Rate of Persons Under Age 18 (per 100,000 per
persons age 10 to 17) in New Haven County
16,000
14,000
14,369
12,787
13,487
12,000
11,741
12,164
10,000
9,155
8,332
8,000
7,922
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Juveniles Referred to Connecticut Superior
Court, Juvenile Matters: 1989 – 2003*
16000
14,612
13,656
14000
14,453
11,576
12000
12,064
9,925
10000
10,767
8000
8,145
6000
4000
2000
0
1989-90
1991-92
1993-94
1995-96
1997-98 1999-2000 2001-02
Source: Connecticut Judicial Branch, Court Support Services Division.
2003
2003 Referral and Disposed by Court
Location
Location
Total Referred
For Delinquency
Total Referred
for FWSN
Court Total
New Haven
1780
411
2365
Hartford
1606
327
2001
Waterbury
1173
368
1676
Bridgeport
1113
230
1400
New Britain
1001
263
1345
Waterford
765
216
1050
Middletown
565
194
844
Rockville
548
161
771
Willimantic
445
131
610
Torrington
369
138
558
Stamford
359
61
441
Norwalk
327
66
412
Danbury
311
70
399
TOTAL REFERRALS
10362
Source: Connecticut Judicial Branch, Court Support Services Division.
2636
13872
CT Arrest Under 18
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Number of Arrests for Violent Crime Index
Offenses
Arrests per 100,000 youth, ages 10-17
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1980
1985
1990
1995
Year
Source: OJJDP Juvenile Violent Crime Index, August 2005
2000
2004 FWSN Cases
„
„
„
„
„
„
Four Categories: Runaway, Beyond Control,
Immoral Conduct & Truancy
4,161 referrals involving 3,850 unique juveniles
46% female, 54% male
49% Caucasian, 20% African-American, 26%
Hispanic, 0.6% Asian, 4.2% Other
65% Judicial handling, 35% non-judicial
handling
Dispositions: 23% get Supervision, 3% get
committed
Growth of FWSN Referrals
5,000
4,352
4,500
4,013
4,000
4,161
3,700
3,425
3,500
3,056
3,000
2,500
4,021
2,600
2,098
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02
2004
Truancy & Juvenile Justice
„
„
Truancy accounts for 40%-50% of all
FWSN referrals
A child is truant if they have 4 unexcused
absences from school in any one month or
10 unexcused absences in any school year
Mental Health
For children admitted to pre-trial detention
centers:
„ • 55% show signs of a mental health
disorder
„ • 20% require prompt psychiatric
intervention
„ • 22% of children were in the mental
health system when referred to court
supervision
Connecticut Mental Health Cabinet Report 2004
Adult System
The mission of Connecticut’s Department of
Correction is to:
“protect the public, protect staff, and
provide safe, secure and humane
supervision of offenders with opportunities
that support successful community
reintegration.”
Trying Youth as Adults Harms
Children
Children in adult prisons are:
„ 7.7 times as likely to commit suicide.
„ 5 times as likely to be sexually assaulted
„ Twice as likely to be beaten by staff and
„ 50% more likely to be attacked with a
weapon than children in juvenile
institutions.
Youth in the adult system…..
„
„
receive fewer rehabilitative supports including:
education, treatment and vocational training;
are at risk of “school of crime” training, with
unhealthy adult mentors.
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.
Trying Youth as Adults Jeopardizes
Public Safety
Youth in the adult system are more likely to
recidivate than youth in the juvenile
system -They will reoffend more quickly and more
often
„ And for more serious offenses
„
A Closer Look at the Research:
„
New Jersey/New York (Jeffrey Fagan)
1,600 15 & 16 year olds: half tried as adults in NY and half tried as
juveniles in NJ charged with burglary and robbery
„ No difference in re-offense rate for burglary offenders
„ Re-arrest rate for NJ robbery offenders was 29% lower than for NY
offenders who were in adult court
„ Pennsylvania (David Myers)
„ 557 youth matched for age, past criminal record, weapon used etc…
„ Re-offense rate was worse for youth tried in adult court
„ More likely to be rearrested and more likely to be charged with violent
felonies
„ Florida (Donna Bishop)
„ 1996 comparison of youth transferred to adult court and those who
remained in juvenile justice system for same offenses and similar prior
records
„ Youth in the adult system were a third more likely to re-offend than
those sent to the juvenile justice system
„ Of those youth who committed new crimes, those sent to adult court
re-offended at twice the rate of those sent to juvenile court
„
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.
Juveniles confined in a detention center and subsequently transferred
to the adult court may be placed in the custody of the Department of
Correction and held in an adult facility both pretrial and following
conviction.
FISCAL ARCHITECTURE OF
JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS
Pennsylvania—“Act 148”
• State pays 80 percent of the county cost of community-based juvenile
justice services. The county pays state 40 percent of the cost of state
juvenile confinement.
• Three years after Act 148 was enacted in the late 1970s, there was a 75
percent increase in state subsidies for county programs; by the early
1980s, secure placements for juveniles dropped 24 percent.
Wisconsin—“Youth Aids”
• Allocation for each county is based on the total county youth population
and the number of juvenile arrests and county secure placements.
• A year after Youth Aids” was enacted in 1980, 25 counties shared $26
million in funding plus state capacity-building money for community
alternative programs. Between 1995 and 2006, Milwaukee—the city
within the biggest county—experienced a 74 percent decline in
commitments to secure state facilities.
FISCAL ARCHITECTURE OF
JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS
Ohio—“RECLAIM Ohio”
• State provides counties with fixed financial support for community-based juvenile
justice services minus a fraction of the total for each youth sent to the state for
handling.
• Counties are allocated the savings based on their use (or lack) of commitments to state
facilities the previous year.
• Between RECLAIM Ohio’s enactment in 1992 and 2004, the number of youths
committed to secure state care in Ohio fell 31 percent.
Illinois—“Redeploy Illinois”
• County identifies target type of delinquent behavior or overall delinquent population
and commits to 25 percent reduction in corrections commitments from average
number during the previous three years.
• State provides funding for the county to deliver services related to the targeted
populations, particularly juveniles committed for court evaluations, and nonviolent
offenders.
• Since starting in mid-2004, Redeploy pilot sites include the 2nd Judicial District
(containing 12 rural counties) and in St. Clair, Peoria, and Macon. Preliminary
projections suggest the four pilot sites will have a 33 percent reduction in
commitments to the state by the end of year one, resulting in $2 million less being
spent on youth incarceration costs.
Cost-Effective Interventions
for Juvenile Offenders
Dr. Peter W. Greenwood
Academy of Experimental Criminology
Association for the Advancement of Evidence-Based
Practice
University of California at Irvine
VisionQuest
Greenwood & Associates
The Good News
• There are proven program strategies and
models that consistently improve
outcomes, when implemented correctly
• They cover full range of child
development
• Several pay for themselves, many times
over, in reduced corrections costs
What Works
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Functional Family Therapy
(FFT)
Multi-systemic Therapy
(MST)
Treatment Foster Care
(TFC)
Nurse-Family Partnerships
(NFP)
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT)
Aggression Replacement Training (ART)
Program Accountability
(QA)
Costs & Taxpayer Benefits by Program
FFT
MST
MTFC
Taxpayer benefits/
savings
QOP
Cost per youth
BBBS
SSDP
PP
NFP
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
Costs and Savings
$40,000
2005 Legislative Direction (ESSB 6094):
9 “Study options to stabilize future prison populations.”
9 “Study the net short-run and long-run fiscal savings
to state and local governments of implementing…
ƒ evidence-based treatment human service and
corrections programs and policies, including
prevention and intervention programs,
ƒ sentencing alternatives,
ƒ and the use of risk factors in sentencing.”
9 “Project total fiscal impacts under alternative
implementation scenarios.”
WSIPP published report in October, 2006
2 of 7
Adult Prison Incarceration Rates:
1930 to 2005
*Incarceration Rate
12
11
United
States
10
9
8
7
6
Forecast
for WA
5
4
3
Washington
2
1
0
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
*The incarceration rate is defined as the number of inmates in state prisons per 1,000
18- to 49-year-olds in Washington or the United States.
3 of 7
Crime Rates and Taxpayer Costs
?
Percent Change Since 1980
+100%
+80%
Taxpayer Costs Are Up
(Inflation-Adjusted Criminal Justice
Dollars Per Household)
+60%
$$
+40%
+20%
0%
$$
$
$
-20%
-40%
1980
$$$$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$ $$
$
?
$
$
?
In 2005, crime
rates were 26%
lower than they
were in 1980.
Crime Rates Are Down
(Violent and Property Crimes
Reported to Police, Per 1,000 People)
1985
1990
In 1980, taxpayers
spent $589 per
household on the
Criminal Justice
System. Today
they spend $1,125:
a 91% increase.
1995
2000
2005
2010
?
2015
All Data are for Washington State: 1980 to 2005
4 of 7
Results for Three Example Portfolios of Evidence-Based Options
Prison Supply & Demand in Washington: 2008 to 2030
30,000 Prison Beds
28,000
26,000
Prison Bed
CFCCurrent
prison forecast
andForecast
WSIPP extension
Forecast
with
Current
Level Portfolio
Current
Level
Portfolio
Forecast
with Moderate
Implementation
Portfolio
“Moderate”
Expansion
Portfolio
Forecast with Aggressive Implementation Portfolio
“Aggressive” Expansion Portfolio
24,000
22,000
2 prison
shortfall
3
20,000
18,000
16,000
Existing Prison Supply
& Rented Jail Beds
0
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030
Taxpayer Summary Statistics
Current Level
Annual cost of portfolio
$41 million
Long-run benefits minus costs
$1.1 billion
$2.45
Benefit-to-cost ratio
Return on investment
24%
Crime Rate in 2020 (2005 rate = 52)
48
Moderate
$63 million
$1.7 billion
$2.55
27%
48
Aggressive
$85 million
$2.4 billion
$2.60
28%
49 6 of 7
Evidence-Based Programs, Crime Outcomes
Expected
Change
In Crime
Selected Results
Adult Offenders
(# of EB Studies)
Cog-Behavioral Treatment
Education Prms., Prison
Drug Tx in Prison (TC or out-patient)
Adult Drug Courts
ISP: surveillance
ISP: treatment
Benefits
minus Costs
(per-person,
life cycle)
-6.3% (25)
-7.0% (17)
-5.7% (20)
-8.0% (57)
-0.0% (23)
-17.1% (11)
$10,299
$10,669
$7,835
$4,767
-$3,747
$11,563
-15.9% (7)
-13.0% (1)
-7.3% (4)
-8.7% (21)
$31,821
$40,545
$14,660
$7,067
-14.2% (8)
-36.3% (2)
$12,196
$27,105
Juvenile Offenders
Functional Family Thpy.
Family Int. Transitions
Aggression Repl. Trng.
Restorative Justice (low risk)
Prevention
Pre-School* (low income)
Nurse Family Partnership*
How does a program get to be
considered “proven” or
“promising”?
•
•
•
•
Strong evaluation
Lasting effects on targeted outcomes
Replication of effects in other sites
Benefits exceed costs
For further information
• Greenwood, P.W., Changing Lives: Delinquency
Prevention as Crime Control Policy,, University of
Chicago Press (2006)
• Greenwood, P. W. Promising Solutions in Juvenile
Justice in Dishion, T. and K. Dodge (eds.) Deviant Peer
Influences in Programs for Youth, Guilford Press (2006)
• www.greenwoodassociates.org
• [email protected]
• www.wsipp.org