The New York City Close to Home Story. Vincent N. Schiraldi, Commissioner

Transcription

1 1 The New York City Close to Home Story Vincent N. Schiraldi, Commissioner

2 Introduction 2 Background to Close to Home Story Key Elements of Close to Home Experiences Thus Far

3 A System in Turmoil 3 Bronx youth dies in custody at state facility in 2006 Scathing ACLU/Human Rights Watch study of girls in state facilities entitled Custody and Control released in 2006 DOJ/Legal Aid investigations and law suits Recidivism study shows 66% rearrests within 2 years Governor s task force report validated by Commissioner Carrion

4 4 Placement Population Decreasing without Cost Savings

5 Review of National Examples of Realignment 5 Team from New York visits Wayne County, MI Literature reviews and interviews with key stakeholders involved with: Reclaim Ohio Redeploy Illinois California Reinvestment

6 A Path to Realignment in New York 6 Formation of Dispositional Reform Steering Committee in October 2010 Inclusion of key Stakeholders (Judges, Defense Bar, Prosecutors, Police, Education, Mental Health, Probation, Children s Services, Mayor s Office, Researchers, Advocates, Family Members) Committee Issues Final Report in 2012

7 A Path to Realignment in New York 7 Governor signs Close to Home legislation in March 2012 Shifted 400 Family Court youth from state to city custody Once fully implemented expected to save state and city $12 million Non Secure Placement (NSP) Plan submitted to State in June 2012 Link to Limited Secure Draft Plan: March 2013: Link to Final Non Secure Placement Plan:

8 Benefits of a Realigned System 8 Connection to Community Safer Communities Better Family Engagement Access to Counsel Better Educational Outcomes Improved Oversight Ability to Re-allocate Savings

9 Probation s Role in CLOSE TO HOME 9 Created graduated levels of probation supervision and services Implemented objective/validated Pre- Dispositional RAI - YLS Created state-of-the-art Structured Decision Making (SDM) grid Expanded continuum of community-based programs

10 SDM Matrix 10 MOST SERIOUS CURRENT ARREST CHARGE CLASS I: A, B felonies (violent & non-violent), violent C felonies LIKELIHOOD OF RE-ARREST (PER YLS ASSESSMENT) HIGH OR VERY HIGH MODERATE LOW BOX #2 BOX #1 Out of Home Placement 1 Out of Home Placement or Alternative to Placement BOX #3 Alternative to Placement or Probation (To Be Specified) CLASS II: Non-violent C felonies, violent D felonies CLASS III: Non violent D, All E felonies, misd assault and misd weapons possession BOX #4 Out of Home Placement or Alternative to Placement BOX #7 Alternative to Placement or ESP (Level 3 Probation) CLASS IV: A misdemeanors BOX #10 except assault and weapons and all B misdemeanors 2 Level 1 or 2 Probation BOX #5 Alternative to Placement or ESP (Level 3 Probation) BOX #8 Level 1 or 2 Probation BOX #11 CD or ACD BOX #6 Level 1 or 2 Probation BOX #9 Level 1 Probation or CD BOX #12 ACD or short term one time consequence or Dismissal MANDATORY CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Must consider CD or ACD for youth with no unsealed priors. Decision is based on the circumstances of the case. 2. If case goes to trial, use finding offense DISCRETIONARY OVERRIDES: POs have discretion to recommend either a more or less restrictive option than the grid provides. However, all overrides - up or down - must be submitted with justification for approval to the PO s supervisor and Borough Director 1 All placement related processes will be handled by ACS 2 Many of these cases should be adjusted at intake Shaded boxes represent youth who are eligible for DOP s and ACS s ATP programs

11 11 New York City Continuum of Juvenile Justice Interventions

12 YLS Risk Levels by Final Disposition: 2013 Dispositions % 90% 80% 70% 62.6% 60% 50% 40% 55.0% 39.4% 50.3% Low (N=307) Moderate (N=791) High (N=203) 30% 20% 10% 22.0% 10.3% 27.1% 5.6% 27.6% 0% ACD/CD Probation ATP/Placement