Juvenile justice: followup and recommendations

This is a sequel to last meeting's presentation on the juvenile justice system.

The goals of this presentation:

• Answer followup questions
• Present recommendations

Last time, the committee saw racial disparities in system contact.

You asked:

• Are there disparities in sentencing?
• Are there specific judges who are associated with sentencing disparities?

PEER analyzed sentencing patterns for detention and drug court.

• Minority youth had increased odds (1.29x) of being sentenced to detention, given the same age, sex, and criminal history.

• Minority youth had decreased odds (0.22x) of being sentenced to drug court, under the same conditions.

PEER analyzed judges' propensities to assign detention and drug court.

• Individual judges do not exhibit significantly different treatment for minority and majority youth, factoring out the phenomena described above.
  • Referrals and referral history are the most important factors, in this analysis.
  • This applies to sentencing to drug court as well as detention.

This is not an assessment of the “fairness” of any given judge or courtroom, pro or con!

• Such a thing is beyond the scope of this investigation and isn’t entirely mathematical in nature.

Five broad categories of recommendation, with more specifics:

1. Improve data collection, analysis, and reporting
2. Reduce racial and ethnic disparities
3. Reduce detention of nonviolent youth
4. Ensure programs and services are backed by high-quality research
5. Ensure programs and services are implemented with fidelity

These are presented in much more detail on your handout!

The first category of recommendations involves improving:

• Data tracking (by improvements in data collection, recording, or analysis)
• Data accuracy (by automatic and manual error checks)

Improve data tracking of:

• Comprehensive recidivism measures, including into the adult system
• Service and program outcomes by individual
• Risk/needs assessment results
• Service and program participation by individual
• Racial/ethnic disparities at several stages of the process
• Administrative and direct-service expenditures on juvenile justice

Improve data accuracy:

• Include automated error checks
• Create and provide definitions of data elements
• Conduct and document random-sample manual error checks

Two specific recommendations:

• Annually report on the state’s three-year plan to reduce disparities
• Explore programs to reduce RED and apply for grant funding

Two specific recommendations:

• Universally implement validated risk/needs assessments and disposition matrices
• Fund community-based programs for justice-involved youth

Both relate to maximing our chances that interventions actually work:

1. Ensure programs and services are backed by high-quality research

2. Ensure programs and services are implemented with fidelity