DMC Action Network Conference
“Effective
Effective Leadership
to
Change System Culture”
Rik Schmidt, Director
Pima County Juvenile Court Center
Tucson, Arizona
An Overview of Pima
County/Tucson, Arizona
Approximately one million citizens in Pima County.
850,000 people live in the greater Tucson area.
The sunshine capital of the continental United States!
110 miles from Phoenix.
A very diverse population – of our youth ages 8 to17
years - 46.2 % are Latino; 42.4 % are Anglo; 3.6% are
African American;; and 3.4 % are Native American.
Pima County has a common border with Mexico and
Tucson is 60 miles from the border.
1
The Pima County Juvenile Court
13 Judges and Commissioners.
Approximately 560 employees.
306 bed detention facility (reduced to 265).
150 Probation Officers.
32.7 million annual budget.
141,000 youth between ages 8 – 17.
694 average # of youth on Standard Probation
in 2009.
138 average # of youth on Juvenile Intensive
Probation in 2009.
DMC and JDAI Initiatives
May 2004 the juvenile court hosted a “Call
Call to Action
Action”..
June 2004 the DMC executive committee was
established.
October 2004 we joined the Annie E. Casey Foundation
in their JDAI.
October 2004 we engaged the W. Haywood Burns
Institute to help guide our DMC efforts.
2006 the PCJCC was designated a Model Delinquency
Court (MDC) by the National Council of Juvenile and
Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ).
2008 we blended the DMC, JDAI and MDC initiatives into
one strategic plan.
2
Pima County Youth Population (Aged 8-17)*
160,000
145,000
126,779
130,000
129,656
136,536
133,246
139,590
141,091
141,646
2007
2008
2009
+11 7%
+11.7%
2003 to 2009
115,000
100,000
2003
2004
2005
2006
Pima County Juvenile Court Referrrals
20,000
17,500
15946
15,233
16258
14835
15 000
15,000
14832
14568
2007
2008
13512
-11.3%
2003 to 2009
12,500
10,000
2003
*Arizona
2004
2005
2006
2009
Department of Economic Security population estimates for youth age 8-17 in Pima County
Pima County Juvenile Court
Average Daily Population
200
175
175
171
150
135
127
125
118
95
100
81
75
50
25
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
3
Daily Detention Average by Race and Ethnicity (Numbers)
175
150
1.3
1.5
18
17
17
17
Number
100
14
1.4
14
125
14
84
0.9
11
13
82
75
64
69
50
25
54
52
40
0.2
10
12
61
31
32
2006 (n= 127)
2007 (n= 118)
0.3
7
8
0
3
7
49
48
29
24
0
2003 (n= 175)
2004 (n= 171)
Anglos
Latinos
2005 (n= 135)
African Americans
2008 (n= 95)
Native Americans
2009 (n=81)
Asian/P.I.
Key Elements to an Effective
Approach to Reduction
Acknowledgment
Commitment
Collaboration
Data--driven
Data
Policy and Practice Reform
Persistence
Management Reports
Informing Stakeholders and the Public
DMC versus Issues of Disparity
Training
The Political World
No Mystery to the Concept
Responding to Challenges
4
Policy and Practice Reform
Purpose of Detention definition.
Presumption of Release at Intake.
Validated Risk Assessment Instrument (RAI).
Definitions for mitigating and aggravating
factors.
Detention Override Authority.
E pedited Case Processing.
Expedited
P ocessing
Graduated Response, Evaluation and
Assessment Tool (G.R.E.A.T.) by Probation.
Impacting the Culture.
DMC “Train the Trainer” curriculum.
Low--Risk Youth Study.
Low
Policy and Practice Reform –cont.
Alternatives to Detention (ATD)
(ATD).
Detention Resource Shifting.
Statewide Collaboration.
Presiding Judge Transition Planning.
5
Informing Stakeholders and the
Public
Understand the realities of your
community.
Dispel myths – “Do the time if you do the
crime” doesn’t hold up to inspection.
Recognize the community needs to
assume ownership of the initiative
initiative.
Provide a datadata-based analysis of the
community to help inform.
Anticipate skepticism and challenges.
DMC Versus Disparity
Inform educate,
Inform,
educate recognize the difference
difference.
Success should not be exclusively about
numbers.
Evaluate each point in the justice
continuum to assess practices.
Equal justice for all youth is the key value
– improved numbers may not be a
reflection of an equitable system.
6
The Political World
Understand and utilize the local, state and
national
ti
l politics.
liti
Share credit, seek support and shift
resources.
Disarm costcost-cutting descriptions and focus
on long
long--term outcomes for the
community.
Be prepared for “bottom“bottom-line” analysis by
funding sources.
Anticipate budget reduction responses.
No Mystery to the Concept
DMC reduction is contingent upon:
Philosophical commitment
Development of sound policy and process
Organizational prioritization
Adequate resource identification and
allocation
Substantive interventions require adequate
resources, but this should not be the
justification for delay.
7
Responding to the Challenges
Mental strength is required.
required
Purpose must remain in focus.
Direction must be consistent.
Informed decisiondecision-making will improve
results.
results
Commitment to improved outcomes for all
youth must be relentless.
Engage each system partner.
Expect “soft on crime” critics.
CapacityCapacity
p
y-based funding
g process
p
=
disincentive.
System ego regarding authority and
accountability.
DMC is not “created equally” at all
d i i points.
decision
i
No number is too small to address.
8
Resource Materials
Sample Work Plan
Plan.
Representative Management Reports:
Daily Detention Report
Weekly Override Report
Monthlyy Delinquency
q
y Report
p
Pima County Data.
Contact Information.
9
Effective Leadership To
Change System Culture
Judge Frank Cuthbertson
Pierce County Superior Court
May 2010
Challenges and Successes
• Pierce County’s population is 750,000.
• African
Af i
American
A
i
youth
th comprise
i 11% off th
the 12
1217 population, yet comprise 35% of the
detention population.
• The Average Daily Census in detention has
been reduced from 150 in 2001 to 50 in 2009.
• Since
Si
MfC was initiated
i iti t d in
i 2007 th
the number
b off
African American youth held in detention has
been reduced by over 200 per year or 26%.
1
Changes In System Culture
1. Data Driven Decision Making, Disaggregating
Data by Ethnicity and Evaluating Court Policies
Through a DMC Lens.
2. Making DMC Reduction a Community Priority.
3. Longer Judicial Rotations with a Focus on
Improved Training.
4 A
4.
Accepting
ti Alt
Alternatives
ti
To
T Detention.
D t ti
5. Incorporating Cultural Competence in
Evidence Based Programs and Staff Training.
Data Driven Decisions
1. Overhauling Juvenile Court Detention
Ri k A
Risk
Assessmentt Instrument.
I t
t
2. Expanding Data Collection Through Burns
Data Set Including Arrest Data.
3. Incorporating Education Data including
Suspensions and Expulsions
Expulsions.
4. Drilling Down To Reduce DMC (Probation
Violations, Overrides and Assault 4°).
2
Promoting DMC Reduction To Key
Constituencies
1. Law Enforcement Agencies and
P
Prosecuting
ti Attorneys.
Att
2. Mental Health, Social Services and
Education Professionals.
3. Child Advocacy and Youth Serving
Agencies.
Agencies
4. Grassroots Minority Community Activists.
5. Public Officials and Legislators.
Cultural Shift for Judicial Officers
1. Longer Rotations.
2. Training As a Prerequisite to Juvenile
Court Rotations.
3. Viewing Policy Decisions Through a DMC
Lens.
4 Committing to Key Policy Changes
4.
Changes.
• A. Ending Double Bunking;
• B. Shutting Down Detention Beds
3
Committing Resources To
Detention Alternatives
1. Youth Assessment and Resource Center
(YARC).
(YARC)
2. Evening Reporting Center.
3. Community Based Mentoring.
4. Improving Cultural Competence of
Evidence Based Programs
Programs.
5. Community Detention (CDET) Monitors.
The Road Forward
• The juvenile court system is currently focused
on sustaining the core competencies of
detention and probation, particularly given the
current fiscal crisis.
• The challenge for Pierce County is changing the
culture of the court from being focused primarily
on internal sustainability to being part of a
dynamic juvenile justice system that includes
low-income minority communities as key
partners in reducing DMC.
4