Juvenile justice annual report |
Previous | 1 of 14 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
|
Juvenile Justice 2016 Annual Report NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY DIVISION OF ADULT CORRECTION AND JUVENILE JUSTICE 2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t Support from Secretary Hooks and Chief Deputy Secretary Guice 1 Letter from Deputy Secretary Lassiter 2 Juvenile Justice Overview 3-4 Strategic Plan in Action 5-6 Raise the Age Initiative 7-8 Juvenile Offenses in North Carolina 9 Best Practices and Trends 10 Reducing School-Based Complaints 11-12 Juvenile Court Services 13-14 Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) 15 Juvenile Gang Involvement 16 Motivating Juveniles and Their Families 17 Training and Collaboration: Mental Health 18 Diversion in North Carolina 19 Community Programs 20-22 Measuring Program Effectiveness 23-24 Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Program Statistics 25-26 Facility Capacities and Populations 27 Facility Operations Statistics 28 Clinical Services Programming 29-30 SPARCS Learning Collaborative 31-32 Managing the Model of Care 33-34 Juvenile Reentry Reform 35 Juvenile Health Services 36-38 Administration, Policy, Training and Strategic Planning 39 Instructors of the Year 40 Juvenile Justice Appropriations 41 Juvenile Justice Staffing 42 NC Comprehensive Map 43 TABLE OF CONTENTS North Carolina’s future lies in the hands and hearts of our children, and it is my great privilege to lead an agency that works to turn around the lives of the state’s population of at-risk and troubled youth. My background in law enforcement, coupled with the many years I have volunteered as a youth basketball coach, has shown me the critical importance of our Juvenile Justice teams to their communities. I look forward to the opportunities and challenges that Juvenile Justice will face in the coming years. I am confident our staff will continue to prevent and reduce juvenile delinquency, helping to keep our communities safe, while also strengthening our state’s families and children, ensuring the brightest of futures for North Carolina. Erik A. Hooks, Secretary N.C. Department of Public Safety As Chief Deputy Secretary of the Division of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice, I am proud to share with you in this Annual Report the successes accomplished over the past year by the dedicated public servants who make up our Juvenile Justice Section, in collaboration with our community partners. Though the mission of the Juvenile Justice Section is intentionally quite different than that of the Adult Correction system, since becoming a consolidated division three years ago we have found areas where working together enabled us to achieve better outcomes for all populations that we serve. For example, through this partnership we’ve been able to provide the juvenile justice system with long-needed resources. I am confident that as our state works to raise the age of juvenile jurisdiction that we will depend upon this partnership more than ever. Accomplishments have been many in 2016, but with historic and momentous change stirring for the juvenile justice system, we have much to do over the coming years in our continuing efforts to prevent juvenile delinquency; intervene so that children are not lost to a life of crime; and to make our communities safer places. W. David Guice, Chief Deputy Secretary Division of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice FROM THE SECRETARY FROM THE CHIEF DEPUTY SECRETARY 1 2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t will open in 2017; the Re-Entry Reform grant, that is specifically addressing better program-matching for juveniles’ risk and needs; training juvenile court staff on motivational interviewing; reducing school-based complaints with more effective alternatives; enhancing the therapeutic services provided in youth development centers; and providing community-based providers with program improvement plans based on quality reviews. You can read more about each of these initiatives and many more in the pages that follow. As I look to the future, the juvenile justice system is preparing to undergo its largest change – in the form of “raise the age” – since the passage of the 1999 juvenile reform act. I believe our employees are better trained, better equipped and more ready to make these changes than we have ever been in our history. The citizens of North Carolina can be proud of the work we do every day. Our employees continue to produce better outcomes, more efficiently, and I am humbled at the great opportunity to serve as their leader. William Lassiter, Deputy Secretary Division of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice important caveat that the proper resources be allocated to the juvenile justice system to implement this change appropriately. Many juvenile justice professionals, court system personnel, mental health system workers, law enforcement officers and community-based alternatives providers have dedicated countless hours over the last year to trying to ensure that the proper proposal is put forward for legislative consideration on this important issue. That bill has been introduced with the backing of these communities and with the knowledge that resources are necessary to achieve the goal we all seek: safer communities and better treatment of juveniles. I am more optimistic than ever that 2017 will be the year that North Carolina raises the age of juvenile jurisdiction. Beyond its work on “raise the age” the Juvenile Justice Section continued its progress toward providing more effective services for juveniles. This was accomplished through such initiatives as: continuing implementation of the Juvenile Justice Strategic Plan by opening Edgecombe Youth Development Center and beginning the renovation of Lenoir Youth Development Center, which I am proud to present to the citizens of North Carolina the Juvenile Justice Section’s 2016 Annual Report, which showcases the hard work of our dedicated employees and our partners. Reforms enacted in 1999 have led North Carolina’s juvenile justice system to be the envy of many in our country, as we continue to confine fewer juveniles and to witness an ever-declining juvenile crime rate. One factor has kept North Carolina from being perceived as the national leader that it is in juvenile justice: the age of juvenile jurisdiction, which currently ends at 16 for delinquent/ criminal offenses. North Carolina remains as the only state in the nation that no matter the crime, considers all 16 year olds as adults. During 2016, the Juvenile Justice Section dedicated time and energy to changing this remaining area of needed legislative reform. In my leadership capacity with Juvenile Justice, I served on two major commissions that studied this issue: the Mental Health and Substance Abuse Task Force and the N.C. Commission on the Administration of Law and Justice. Both of these commissions made “raising the age” a major priority, both with the FROM THE DEPUTY SECRETARY 2 The Juvenile Justice Section works diligently to provide North Carolinians with a comprehensive strategy to help prevent and reduce juvenile crime and delinquency. This strategy, modeled after the federal OJJDP Comprehensive Strategy, provides the framework for promoting these core principles: • strengthening families • promoting delinquency prevention • supporting core social institutions • intervening immediately and effectively when delinquent behavior occurs • identifying and controlling the small group of serious, violent and chronic juvenile offenders OUR VISION OUR MISSION A seamless, comprehensive juvenile justice system that provides the most effective services to youth and their families at the right time, in the most appropriate settings. To reduce and prevent juvenile delinquency by effectively intervening, educating and treating youth in order to strengthen families and increase public safety. JUVENILE JUSTICE OVERVIEW 3 2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t PREVENTION Target Population: At-Risk Youth GRADUATED SANCTIONS Target Population: Delinquent Youth Programs for All Youth Problem Behavior Noncriminal Misbehavior Serious, Violent, and Delinquency Chronic O ending Youth Development Goals: • Healthy and nurturing families • Safe communities • School attachment • Prosocial peer relations • Personal development and life skills • Healthy lifestyle choices Youth Habilitation Goals: • Healthy family participation • Community reintegration • Educational success and skills development • Healthy peer network development • Prosocial values development • Healthy lifestyle choices Programs for Youth at Greatest Risk Immediate Intervention Intermediate Sanctions Community Con nement Youth Development Centers Aftercare This comprehensive strategy offers a layered approach to responding to juvenile delinquency in North Carolina. First and foremost, the Juvenile Justice Section addresses prevention and early intervention programming to prevent and reduce youth at-risk from ever touching the juvenile justice system. Should these efforts fail, the system is poised to respond by employing structured decision-making tools, best-practice interventions and graduated sanctions to match juvenile offenders’ risks and treatment needs to the most appropriate services and supervision. The section responds by moving from least to most restrictive intervention programming and sanctions for youth in an effort to disrupt the progression of serious, violent and chronic offender pathways. Furthermore, Juvenile Justice promotes public safety by identifying and controlling the small population of serious, violent and chronic juvenile offenders within secure facilities or youth development centers. OUR COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY 4 STRATEGIC PLAN IN ACTION The Juvenile Justice strategic plan closes older, less secure facilities and reinvests the savings from closing these facilities into state-of-the-art, safer and more secure facilities, and into community-based programs. The strategic plan aims to: • Phase out outdated/unsafe/underutilized facilities • Renovate/expand facilities that are safer, more secure and more cost-efficient • Plan and be prepared for potential future changes to the juvenile justice system • Continue to provide treatment and education rooted in a cognitive-behavioral approach, targeting criminogenic needs • Reinvest cost savings into community-based programming • Enhance support operations, such as transportation 5 Edgecombe Youth Development Center in Rocky Mount Dobbs Youth Development Center will close, and Lenoir Youth Development Center will re-open in accordance with phasing out unsafe facilities. Here are some other future highlights of the strategic plan: Juvenile Justice continues to create online training resources, maximizing resources and minimizing travel costs. In 2016, Edgecombe Youth Development Center (YDC) opened, and C.A. Dillon YDC closed. Edgecombe YDC provides for safer, more secure housing of committed youth. Renovations at the McWhorter building at Stonewall Jackson Youth Development Center provided 30 additional YDC beds. Youth Counselor Technicians (who are criminal justice-certified employees) were assigned as transportation drivers. This revision in requirements for a transportation driver further enhances safety plans outlined in the strategic plan. Positions have been reallocated to the front end of the juvenile justice system because of the facility realignment. Juvenile Justice convened a Raise the Age planning committee to prepare for future recommendations and cost analysis related to raise the age within the framework of the Juvenile Justice strategic plan. Recommendations include: the provision of additional JCPC funds; the opening of transitional and residential homes; field service support staff to train and onboard new staff; quality assurance and information technology staff to implement new initiatives and reinforce through fidelity checks; the use of multi-functional campuses when possible; a robust vocational training program for 16 and 17 year olds; and appropriate staffing and resources to continue meeting juveniles’ needs with the same or better level of care. Re-entry planning efforts will allow for greater access to cross-system data-sharing and more strategically focused, individually targeted services (case planning and service matching). 2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t 6 North Carolina is the last remaining state that automatically charges individuals 16-years-old and above in the adult criminal justice system. In 2016, members of the leadership team of the Division of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice spent long hours of research, collaboration and discussion with a diverse array of special interest groups on the topic of raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction from 16 to18. It is believed that bipartisan support has been attained for the potential passage in 2017 of legislation that would ensure that children aged 16 and 17 would face any non-violent criminal charges in the juvenile justice system (excluding A-E Felonies). Though raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction carries a short-term price-tag, it promises a long-term economic benefit to North Carolina. Much of this comes from the 7.5 percent reduction in recidivism when teens are adjudicated in the juvenile vs. the adult system, with avoided future costs of imprisonment, and the ability of individuals with no criminal record to increase their earnings and career prospects. Two separate studies authorized by the North Carolina General Assembly indicate that raising the juvenile age will produce significant economic benefits for North Carolina and its citizens: Governor‘s Crime Commission Juvenile Age Study In 2009, the Governor’s Crime Commission Juvenile Age Study submitted to the General Assembly included a cost-benefit analysis of raising the age of juvenile court jurisdiction to 18. The analysis, done by ESTIS Group LLC, found that the age change would result in a net benefit to the state of $7.1 million. Youth Accountability Planning Task Force In 2011, the Youth Accountability Planning Task Force submitted its final report to the General Assembly. The Task Force’s report included a cost-benefit analysis, done by the Vera Institute of Justice, of prosecuting 16 and 17-year-old misdemeanants and low-level felons in juvenile court. That report estimated net benefits of $52.3 million. RAISE THE AGE INITIATIVE 7 2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t For more information about ‘Raise the Age’, visit the Raise the Age – NC Website at: http://www.ncdps.gov/our-organization/juvenile-justice/key-initiatives/raise-age-nc Per the Juvenile Reinvestment Report developed by the N.C. Commission on the Administration of Law and Justice, evidence-based research suggests that adolescents are less culpable than adults; the majority of young people who commit criminal acts age out of said behavior with full maturity; and that working to strengthen family support systems, academic performance and job skills (that occurs within the juvenile justice system) is more effective in reducing recidivism among young people. Nearly 100 years ago, the current age of juvenile jurisdiction was set to end at 16 years of age, and has remain unchanged ever since. Since that time, brain development research shows that the frontal cortex section of the brain, which helps with impulse control, is one of the last parts to develop. Research shows the brain is fully developed in males by age 25, or around age 22-23 for females. This means that all teens, including those aged 16-17, are more likely to: Officials with the N.C. Department of Public Safety, Division of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice, strongly favor raising the age under the following circumstances: • State and local juvenile justice staff must be given adequate funding to enable them to offer their continuum of services to 16- and 17-year-olds, as well as those juveniles already involved in the system. • Additionally, state officials must be given adequate time to plan and fully implement the initiative; it is believed that Juvenile Justice officials will need three years to plan how to implement the initiative; construct a new youth development center; train state and local officials; and phase implementation to appropriately and properly put this plan into place in North Carolina. Collaborative Partners who have endorsed ‘Raise the Age’ include: N.C. Division of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice, Conservatives for Criminal Justice Reform, John Locke Foundation, N.C. Association of Chiefs of Police, N.C. Chamber Legal Institute, N.C. Magistrates Association, N.C. Police Benevolent Association, N.C. Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, N.C. Sheriffs’ Association, Office of Indigent Defense Services • Act before thinking or act on impulse • Participate in sensation-seeking behavior • Seek out risky activities • Need approval of peers • Need instant gratification • Exclude thoughts of the future 8 JUVENILE OFFENSES IN NORTH CAROLINA 33,067 33,449 31,558 29,539 29,282 27,210 25,183 4,276 3,600 3,192 2,552 2,279 2,332 2,339 37,343 37,049 34,750 32,091 31,561 29,542 27,522 27.55 26.08 24.70 22.91 22.52 20.78 19.16 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Delinquent Complaints Status Complaints Delinquency Rate ComplaCinomtsp lRaienctse Rievceeidve adn andd DDeelilninquqeunceyn Rcayte R(CaYt 2e0 1(C0-Y20 2160)10-2016) Status 9% Minor 63% Serious 25% Infraction <1% Violent 3% Top 10 Juvenile Offenses of 2016 Offense Complaints Simple Assault (M) 2,733 Larceny (M) 2,118 Disorderly Conduct at School (M) 1,428 Simple Affray (M) 1,186 Breaking and/or Entering (F) 1,143 Breaking and/or Entering Motor Vehicle (F) 1,086 Communicating Threats (M) 891 Truant < 16 (Status) 888 Injury to Real Property (M) 829 Possess Stolen Goods/Property (M) 732 2016 Complaints by Charged Class Charged Class Complaints Violent (Class A-E Felonies) 836 Serious (Class F, G, H, & I Felonies/ Class A1 Misdemeanors) 6,895 Minor (Class 1, 2, & 3 Misdemeanors) 17,393 Status 2,336 Infraction 64 The majority of complaints received in 2016 were minor offenses (63%). * Rate is of delinquent complaints per 1,000 youth age 6-15 9 BEST PRACTICES AND TRENDS Structured assessment instruments and community resources are used to prevent unnecessary secure detention. Research has established that unnecessary detention of lower risk juveniles leads to poorer outcomes for those juveniles. Studies indicate that lower-risk juveniles can be better served through programs and resources in their local communities. Juvenile court counselors are securing evidence-based services through Juvenile Justice Community Programs, partnerships with mental health and other community-based agencies. Community-based services have been found to be more effective options for some juveniles who previously would have been committed to a youth development center. Youth development center commitments are reserved for the most serious, violent and chronic offenders. The number of juveniles placed in detention centers has decreased 56 percent The number of juveniles committed to youth development centers has decreased 48 percent 6,246 5,170 4,012 3,421 3,238 3,229 2,749 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Detention Center Admissions (CY 2010-2016) 357 307 216 219 202 217 187 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Youth Development Center Commitments (CY 2010-2016) 10 REDUCING SCHOOL-BASED COMPLAINTS Since 2010, the number of school-based complaints have dropped from 16,097 to 11,630 in 2016 (a nearly 28 percent decrease). While the number of school-based complaints has dropped, the percentage of the total amount of complaints received has remained steady at around the mid-40 percentages. The chart on the next page shows the number of school-based complaints for each calendar year along with the corresponding percentage of total complaints received each year. The primary strategy employed to address the goal of reducing school-based complaints has been the collaboration across the state by court staff with school officials and school resource officers. We educate them about the research and make them aware of the multiple alternatives that exist in their communities. Many of these resources are programs that Juvenile Justice funds through Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils. A second strategy has been the piloting of school-based court counselors to assist in diverting young people from court involvement. These pilots have been enthusiastically received by school staff and superintendents. 11 2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t In Forsyth County, for the schools participating in the project, juvenile complaints for the school year following implementation decreased 68.5 percent from the preceding three-year average. In Person County, as a result of the training, education and collaboration, in the two pilot schools complaints for school-based offenses decreased by 51 percent from July 1, 2016- Dec. 31, 2016, compared to the same period in 2015. In Brunswick County, the superintendent collaborated with the chief court counselor to start a school-based diversion program in their schools. As a result, Brunswick County Schools reduced school-based offenses by 45 percent from July 1, 2016 - Dec. 31, 2016 compared to this same period in 2015. An additional example of a local program is the Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department Juvenile Diversion Program, which receives JJ funding through the local Juvenile Crime Council to provide a school-based diversion program for lower risk juveniles who do not have a previous adjudication for delinquency. The program serves approximately 600 youth per year referred by school resource officers. As a part of the program, life skills classes are provided over a period of two weeks to three months. Seventy percent of participants in the program have been black, mostly ages 13 through 15. The program has experienced an 85 percent success rate and a 7 percent recidivism rate. Part of the impact of this program is, for Mecklenburg County, 26 percent of all complaints received are for school-based offenses compared to a state average of 42 percent! New Hanover County has created an Inter-Agency Governance Agreement on Handling School Offenses through an initiative that was spearheaded by the chief district court judge. This comprehensive agreement was signed by the chief judge, chief court counselor, sheriff, chiefs of police, district prosecutor, DSS director, schools superintendent and the CEO of the managed care organization for mental health and substance abuse services. The plan calls for the efficient use of support services as an alternative to involvement of law enforcement and court agencies for minor misconduct at school and school-related events. New Hanover had a 31 percent reduction in school-based complaints in 2016 as compared to 2015. 16,097 16,109 15,407 14,772 14,331 12,946 11,630 43% 43% 44% 46% 45% 44% 42% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 - - Number of School-Based Complaints - - Percentage of School-Based Complaints Percentage of School-Based Complaints * As a result of all of these strategies, there was a 10 percent drop in statewide school-based complaints from 2015 to 2016 12 JUVENILE COURT SERVICES Juvenile Court Services provides intake, supervision and case management services for undisciplined and delinquent juveniles within a continuum of services that address identified needs and holds the juvenile accountable. Court Services is the first point of contact with the juvenile justice system for a young person alleged to have committed a delinquent offense or to be undisciplined (truancy, runaway, ungovernable, etc.). Law enforcement officers or N.C. residents file complaints on juveniles for delinquent or undisciplined behavior. These complaints are received and evaluated by juvenile court counselors as a part of the intake process. Court counselors gather information from law enforcement, victims and community agencies. The juvenile and parents are then interviewed during an intake process where the risks and needs of the juvenile are assessed using validated instruments. Considering the results of the intake process, the juvenile court counselor will either: • Close the case because further court intervention is deemed unnecessary. • Divert the case from court because the juvenile does not pose a threat to society and is seen capable of proving themselves accountable for their actions. Diversion plans are created to meet their individual needs and are supported by the juvenile court counselor. Approximately three-fourths of juveniles successfully meet the terms of their diversion plan. Unsuccessful completion of plans may lead to previously diverted cases being approved for court. • Approve the case for a court hearing. If the juvenile presents a significant risk to the community, the juvenile court counselor may recommend that the judge issue a secure custody order to place the juvenile in detention until a court hearing can be scheduled. 13 2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t For cases approved for court, recommendations are prepared by court counselors and presented for consideration by the judge following an adjudication of delinquency. In cases where the juvenile is adjudicated delinquent, the judge relies on the recommendations from the court counselor to create the court order specifying terms of probation. Court counselors then provide case management services to the juveniles and their families, connecting them to and advocating for services identified as necessary by a variety of assessments. Court counselors also supervise the juveniles and their families to hold them accountable for complying with the terms of their probation to ensure community safety. Court Services delivers services in all 100 counties through 30 district offices. Each district is managed by a Chief Court Counselor and is staffed by Juvenile Court Counselors and Court Counselor Supervisors, with a total of 452 certified staff statewide. During calendar year 2016, 27,522 complaints were received involving 12,303 juveniles (some juveniles received multiple complaints). Of the 12,303 juveniles who participated in the intake process, 5,655 had one or more complaints approved for court; 4,692 were diverted from court with or without diversion plans/contracts; and 3,020 had complaints that were closed. Juveniles can enter, exit or be in multiple parts of the system at any given time. Intake Process (Review of Complaint) 12,303 Total Juveniles (27,522 Complaints) Approved for Court 5,655 Juveniles* (61% of Complaints) Diversion 4,692 Juveniles* (24% of Complaints) Closed 3,020 Juveniles* (15% of Complaints) * A juvenile can receive multiple outcomes (e.g., a complaint that was originally diverted could later result in being approved for court). These scenarios cause the juvenile count for approved for court, diversion and closed to total more than 12,303. 14 DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONTACT (DMC) Minority youth are engaged with the juvenile justice systems at a much higher rate than their proportion of the general population. This overrepresentation is evident in three distinct points in the system. The first point is at intake. Youth of color are more than two and a half times as likely to have complaints filed against them by law enforcement or other citizens than white youth. The second and third points are around the decisions leading to secure detention and commitment to a youth development center (YDC). While youth of color continue to be one and a half times more likely to be placed in secure custody, the likelihood of a minority being committed to a YDC dropped from three times as likely in FY14-15 to twice as likely in FY15-16. This disparity persists in spite of the fact that, due to reforms made in Juvenile Justice, thousands of juveniles have avoided secure detention and hundreds have avoiding commitment to YDCs due to decreased admission rates over the last seven years. A large majority of the youth who have benefited from these reforms are minority youth. These improvements were made possible by training staff, working collaboratively with stakeholders, implementing best practices and by the availability of quality community-based programs and services. Across North Carolina there are dozens of community-based initiatives to address DMC lead by a cross section of local leaders including judges, juvenile court staff, law enforcement, community programs and many others. These efforts have increased attention to the issue and brought about the use of best practices. The result has been a significant reduction in the number of youth of color coming into contact with the juvenile justice system, being placed in secure detention and being committed to a YDC. 15 2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t JUVENILE GANG INVOLVEMENT The number of gang-affiliated juveniles in our system has consistently dropped over the last seven years (pictured below). However, because of our efforts to divert lower-risk juveniles, the overall percentage of the youth we serve who are gang-affiliated has increased by half of a percent since 2015. Gang-involved youth are among the highest risk juveniles. Those who are gang-involved are most likely to become deeply entrenched in the juvenile justice system, including secure detention and commitment to a youth development center. While representing a small segment of the population we serve, gang-affiliated youth require higher levels of supervision from juvenile court counselors, and their supervision presents elevated risks to those staff members. Across North Carolina, juvenile court staff work in close collaboration with law enforcement to share information about local gang activity, and to develop and implement strategies and programs to reduce gang activity. Law enforcement also provides extra security for court counselors in instances where local conditions dictate special precautions. 1842 1573 1390 1323 1238 1229 1183 8.7% 7.3% 6.6% 6.8% 6.7% 7.1% 7.6% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0% 18.0% 20.0% 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2010 2011 2012 2014 2014 2015 2016 # of Gang-A liated Youth (Member or Associate) % of Gang-A liated Youth (Member or Associate) Since 2010, the number of gang-affiliated youth has decreased by 37 percent (from 1,842 to 1,183). 16 MOTIVATING JUVENILES AND THEIR FAMILIES In 2016, 425 certified juvenile court staff were trained in Motivational Interviewing. This evidence-supported approach has been shown to improve court counselors’ effectiveness in engaging juveniles and their families and to lead to better outcomes. Equally important to the initial training that has been provided are the strategies carried out in the districts to continue to raise the skill levels of the staff and to ensure that we maintain fidelity to the model in order to achieve expected results. Supervisors observe court counselors’ interaction with juveniles and families and score them using established Motivational Interviewing program tools. Using feedback from the observations and scoring, staff are able to refine their skills with the coaching of their supervisor. 17 2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t TRAINING AND COLLABORATION: MENTAL HEALTH It is well documented that a large majority of the juveniles we serve have mental health needs. District 27’s chief court counselor has collaborated with the Partners Behavioral Health Management Organization to secure a wide array of training regarding mental health for district staff. Our staff have been trained to recognize and respond effectively to mental health needs, sexual abuse and trauma; they have also been trained in I.C. Hope Mental Health Awareness (ICMHA) curriculum. This curriculum is evidence-based and helps to reduce the stigma associated with mental health and trains staff to identify appropriate resources they may turn to for assistance. The chief court counselor is a certified trainer in ICMHA and regularly conducts educational sessions in elementary schools using the curriculum to help young children better understand the needs they see in family members. Working with the elementary schools helps these identified young people deal with the feelings associated with having incarcerated family members. Chief court counselors across the state have also focused on improving ready access to mental health services as an appropriate response and alternative to approving a case for court. There has been an increasing need for this strategy for younger juveniles in recent years. Statistics from the Division of Mental Health shows that 37 percent of the juvenile justice youth served by our mental health partners received services while on a juvenile diversion plan. These youths were served without formal court involvement. 18 DIVERSION IN NORTH CAROLINA North Carolina’s juvenile justice system has made great gains in reducing the number of juveniles who go to court, detention and/or are committed to the Department of Public Safety, Juvenile Justice. A significant portion of these reductions are due, directly or indirectly, to diversion practices. A juvenile court counselor diverts a juvenile from a formal court hearing when the risk level is low, public safety can be assured, the needs of the juvenile can be addressed, and the young person and their family agree to abide by the terms of the diversion. Research has demonstrated that when appropriately implemented, diversion reduces recidivism, reduces costs to the state/communities, avoids the unintended negative consequences of being labeled a delinquent, allows for the provision of needed services, and prevents unnecessary confinement. By intervening early, most young people who are diverted have no further contact with the justice system. The idea of diversion is to intervene early and give the juvenile who has allegedly committed an illegal act an appropriate consequence and allow the juvenile to prove that he or she possesses the ability— given the opportunity and the resources—to develop into a stable and productive member of society. The flowchart below demonstrates where diversion plans/contracts are implemented within the juvenile justice process. In 2016, 24 percent of juvenile complaints were diverted from court. Intake Process (Review of Complaint) Diverted (not approved for court) Closed with no Diversion Plan Successful completion of Plan/Contract Diversion Plan or Diversion Contract Unsuccessful: Did NOT Approved for Court complete Plan/Contract 19 COMMUNITY PROGRAMS Juvenile Community Programs oversees the administration of a continuum of services designed to serve targeted youth populations along the juvenile justice continuum. Evidence-based programming models are identified within multiple program types and are funded through various revenue sources identified by North Carolina general statute: Juvenile Crime Prevention Council (JCPC) funds that support programs within all 100 counties via the collaborative work of Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils and local county partners; Level II Dispositional Alternative funds that support state-level Community-Based and Residential Contracts in addition to JCPC-Endorsed Level II programs at the local level; and Alternatives to Commitment funds that support programming for the juvenile justice system’s highest risk youth. These primary sources of funding support more than 500 programs that serve at-risk, diverted, court-involved, committed and post-release supervised (PRS) youth across the state. Each program type provides a linchpin into a relative portion of the workings of the Juvenile Justice Facilities Strategic Plan. Most notable are the connections to the components of 1) promoting public safety by avoiding the costs of youth development center commitment; and 2) planning and preparation for the future of juvenile justice. During fiscal year 15-16, 24,223 juveniles received services The section’s 23 staff support the oversight and management of all programming funded through the various revenue sources. Employees operate out of four area offices: Western Area office located in Swannanoa; Piedmont Area office located in Salisbury; Central Area Office that also doubles as the Central office for the Unit’s state operations, located in Raleigh; and the Eastern Area office located in Greenville. Funding Source Juveniles Served JCPC Funds 22,829 Community-Based Contractual Services 521 JCPC Alternatives to Commitment Programs 152 Residential Contractual Services 478 JCPC Level II Dispositional Alternative 243 20 JUVENILE CRIME PREVENTION COUNCIL (JCPC) PROGRAMS JCPC Programs are funded through a state and local partnership in all 100 counties. These partnerships between the state, local county stakeholders and nonprofit agencies produce more than 500 programs that establish a local continuum of needed sanctions and services to address the issues of delinquent juveniles and those youths most likely to become delinquent, along with their families. JCPCs are legislatively mandated bodies that annually release requests for proposals to inform funding decisions based on community demographics, risks, needs and gaps in services. Eckerd Kids operates two short-term residential programs for male juveniles who have received a Level II disposition— Candor, which has a capacity of 36 beds; and Boomer, which has 24 beds. The programs offer a social skills-building curriculum to juvenile offenders focusing on redirecting criminogenic behaviors in a therapeutic environment. The average length of stay is four to five months. Contract Type Programs Available Residential Services 3 Crisis and Assessment Centers 3 Short-Term Residential Facilities (Eckerd – 2 sites, Westcare – 1 site) 5 Multi-purpose Group Homes 2 Transitional Independent Living Homes (1 male and 1 female) Non-Residential Services Functional Family Therapy (FFT) based out of 5 regional offices – Statewide Service JCPC Endorsed Level II Dispositional Alternatives SAFE Systems (Dare County) Community Connections (Granville County) Multi-Systemic Therapy (Haywood County) TASK Level II (Haywood and Iredell counties) Community Intervention Program (Lenoir County) Community Service Restitution (New Hanover County) Pitt County Structured Day (Pitt County) Alternatives to Commitment Expansion (Rockingham County) Community Alternatives Programs (Wake County) JCPC Alternatives to Commitment Barium Springs Home Remedies: Juvenile Justice (Burke) Intensive Services Network (Cumberland) Family Services Mentoring and Counseling Program (Davidson) Parenting of Adolescents Program (Durham) Flying Changes (Hoke) Mecklenburg County CJS ASSET ATC Alternatives to Commitment: Family Preservation Program (New Hanover) 21 2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t COMMUNITY-BASED CONTRACTUAL FUNCTIONAL FAMILY THERAPY AMIkids North Carolina Family Services Inc., a subsidiary of AMIkids Inc. based in Tampa, Florida, has provided Functional Family Therapy (FFT) services in North Carolina since 2011. This short-term, family-based intervention statewide program serves an 89 county catchment area. FFT services guide juvenile offenders and their family members through five treatment phases known as Engagement, Motivation, Relational Assessment, Behavior Change Phase and Generalization. Therapists are certified to provide FFT services and participate in weekly clinical supervision with a certified FFT supervisor to ensure model fidelity. Bilingual services are provided to families in need of a Spanish-speaking therapist. FFT services are designed for Level II, Post Release Level III juveniles returning to their communities, and some high risk/needs Level I juvenile offenders. AMIkids North Carolina Family Services Inc., has been a trendsetter in the juvenile justice arena by utilizing a strength-based approach addressing the multi-faceted dynamics of the 21st century family unit and the complex needs of juveniles. RESIDENTIAL CONTRACTUAL PROGRAMS The Juvenile Justice Section also currently contracts with three providers to offer 10 residential programs. WestCare North Carolina Inc., a subsidiary of the WestCare Foundation based in Las Vegas, Nevada, operates the WestCare North Carolina Girl’s Program located in Vance County. The program is a 16-bed short-term residential facility for female juveniles who have received a Level II disposition. The program offers a gender-responsive therapeutic environment that focuses on trauma-informed care. The average length of stay is for female juveniles is four to five months. Methodist Home for Children Inc. operates five multipurpose group homes for male and female juveniles who have received a Level II disposition in juvenile court. The length of stay is approximately six months. Methodist Home for Children employs the Value Based Therapeutic Model to address a range of antisocial behaviors through individualized service planning and the implementation of a social and life skills curriculum. Methodist Home for Children also operates two transitional living homes (one for females and one for males) for youth exiting youth development centers or other residential care facilities. Independent living skills support youth as they navigate a four-level program based on the Teaching Family Model for a period of 6 to 12 months. 22 MEASURING PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS North Carolina is one of more than 10 states that have embraced the Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) as an evaluation tool to identify the most effective services with the highest potential to reduce juvenile recidivism. North Carolina General Statutes require that Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils (JCPCs) fund only effective programs and SPEP is the department’s response to complying with this mandate. It allows for an examination of how a specific program is performing compared to the effective practice for that service type in the research. This research-based process is being instituted to push programs to model best practices for their program type to have the greatest impact on the reduction of recidivism. Now, in its newly recalibrated and enhanced format, the SPEP has incorporated quality of service delivery into the scoring schematic. The four elements of the SPEP instrument are 1) Primary and Supplemental Service, 2) Quality of Service, 3) Service Dosage (frequency of the contact and duration within the program service) and 4) Risk level of youth served. Phase I of SPEP in North Carolina is now complete as evidenced by the extraction of SPEP scores on all Juvenile Crime Prevention Council (JCPC) programs. The following processes were completed and SPEP scores were determined for the JCPC programs: Classification of Primary and Supplemental Service Types, administration of a Quality of Service (QoS) assessments for programs, and standardized training across the state on administering the risk assessment instrument, Understanding SPEP Scores and Program Enhancement Planning (PEP). Evaluate/Program Enhancement Plans Repeat Scoring IDENTIFY services MATCH against research-based service categories DATA (level of risk, quality of service, quantity of service) SPEP score Æ Ï Ï Ï 23 2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t The findings from Phase I SPEP scoring revealed that the average SPEP score for JCPC funded programs was 49. SPEP research indicates that, to be effective in the reduction of recidivism, a program must generate a SPEP of 50 points or greater. In 2016 as part of the SPEP Phase II process, programs were offered technical assistance and Program Enhancement Plans (PEPs) were developed to address program improvement goals. PEPs are used by the local JCPC as an accountability tool to monitor and track program improvement and has been incorporated into annual tasks dictated by general statute. Moving forward, since SPEP serves as a valuable process for the development of evidence-based programs, Phase II of the SPEP will fully integrate SPEP across all DPS juvenile programs within the Community Programs Section. The Juvenile Community Programs Section incorporated two additional Juvenile Crisis and Assessment Centers to the service continuum in 2016. To-date there are three centers located in the Central, Piedmont and Western regions of the state. The Juvenile Crisis and Assessment Centers provide 24-hour, *non-secure, crisis care and comprehensive clinical assessments in a therapeutic residential setting. Services are designated for juvenile offenders ages 10-17 and the length of stay ranges from 14 to 30 days. There is a two-tier systematic evaluation and assessment process that includes the domains of education, behavior, personality, intelligence, substance abuse and trauma. A modified version of the Department’s Model of Care is the primary teaching motivational model utilized by staff. In a continued effort to provide additional resources to the children and families of North Carolina, Community Programs partnered with local stakeholders, contract providers, DPS staff and county officials to open two crisis and assessment centers, with locations in Winston- Salem and Asheville. The Western Area Multi- Purpose Crisis and Assessment Center is located at a former juvenile detention center and was totally transformed to what is now a state-of-the-art facility. The open house for the site of this new service was held in August 2016 and hosted more than 100 Juvenile Justice officials and community stakeholders. This renovation project involved completely gutting the building to the shell, converting an interior atrium to a new dayroom in the center of the building, as well as modernizing all bedrooms, restrooms, kitchen, staff offices and the family waiting room areas. This project, completed in partnership with DPS Central Engineering Inmate Construction Program, utilized inmate labor for a vast majority of the work on the facility. The project has also been nominated as a Honorable Mention by the State Construction Office at its Spring 2017 Conference. * The Western Area Multi-Purpose Juvenile Crisis and Assessment Center includes four secure custody beds. 24 11,642 11,187 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 No JJ Involvement JJ Involved/ Court Involved JUVENILE CRIME PREVENTION COUNCIL PROGRAM STATISTICS 2015-2016 5,682 25% 6,499 28% 6,997 31% 3,651 16% Eastern Central Piedmont Western 15,095 66% 7,734 34% Male Female 11,145 49% 2,613 11% 7,911 35% 1,160 5% Hispanic/Latino White Other African-American Juveniles Served by Area Juveniles Served (Male/Female) Juveniles Served by Race/Ethnicity Juveniles Served by Court Status Ages 10 1,958 9% 29% 6,600 11-13 yrs old 9,853 14-15 yrs old 4,418 Ages 16 yrs old 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 43% 19% Juveniles Served by Age 25 2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t Juveniles Served by Type Funding Source Juveniles Served Restitution/Community Service 5,578 Interpersonal Skill Building 4,399 Teen Court 3,592 Juvenile Structured Day 1,371 Individual Counseling 1,268 Tutoring/Academic Enhancement 1,225 Parent/Family Skill Building 920 Assessments 830 Mediation/Conflict Resolution 759 Experiential Skill Building 602 Mentoring 443 Runaway Shelter Care 303 Family Counseling 295 Vocational Skills 269 Home-Based Family Counseling 251 Substance Abuse Counseling 238 Temporary Shelter Care 232 Sexual Offender Treatment 114 Group Home Care 94 Group Counseling 16 Specialized Foster Care 15 Temporary Foster Care 15 26 365 304 262 229 221 212 199 223 201 164 161 143 157 151 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Youth Development Centers Detention Centers YDC vs. DC Average Daily Population (CY 2010-2016) FACILITY CAPACITIES AND POPULATIONS NOTE: McWhorter building renovation on Stonewall Jackson campus resulted in an increase of 16 beds (from the FY2013- 2014 112 beds) for a total of 128 Stonewall beds in August 2016. McWhorter is a 32-bed building. A list of North Carolina’s youth development centers (YDCs), juvenile detention centers (DCs) and county-operated juvenile detention centers (DCs) with the facility’s name, bed capacity and average daily population (ADP) for calendar year 2016. Below shows the trends in the ADP of YDCs and DCs across the state over the last seven calendar years. The average length of stay during CY 2016 for YDCs was 358 days, and 17 days for detention center stays. Facility Types Funding Source Capacity ADP Youth Development Centers C.A. Dillon (closed May, 2016) 90 41 Chatham 32 31 Dobbs 43 39 Edgecombe (opened April, 2016) 44 24 Stonewall Jackson 128 97 Juvenile Detention Centers Alexander 24 19 Cumberland 18 14 Cabarrus 30 26 New Hanover 18 12 Pitt 18 11 Wake 24 25 County-operated Juvenile Detention Centers Durham 14 7 Guilford 48 29 27 FACILITY OPERATIONS STATISTICS 1,720 63% 221 8% 667 24% 141 5% 135 76% 9 5% 30 17% 4 2% White Other African American Hispanic/ Latino 2,131 78% 618 22% 2 15 79 267 605 1,164 515 97 5 <10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18+ Detention Center Admissions by Age 0 9 27 75 60 7 0 <12 13 14 15 16 17 18+ Detention Center Admissions by Age 170 96% 8 4% Male Female Youth Development Center Commitments by Age Youth Development Center Commitments (Male/Female) Youth Development Center Commitments by Race/Ethnicity Detention Center Admissions by Age Detention Center Admissions (Male/Female) Detention Center Admissions by Race/Ethnicity 28 CLINICAL SERVICES AND PROGRAMMING Juveniles committed to North Carolina’s juvenile justice system in 2016 presented with multiple and complex behavioral health needs. A representative point-in-time survey of youth confined in youth development centers on Dec. 31, 2016, revealed that: • 99.5 percent (all but one) carried at least one mental health diagnosis, with 61 percent holding at least one substance use diagnosis; • 60 percent had co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders; • 70 percent had more than one mental health disorder; • 33 percent were taking prescribed psychotropic medication; and • youth committed to YDCs had an average of three distinct mental health and/or substance use disorder diagnoses. These findings are largely similar to diagnostic trends found over recent years in this population, with one distinction: the rate of substance use disorders fell nearly 15 percent since 2015 (74 percent in 2015 vs 60 percent currently). The most frequent diagnoses among YDC youth, found after completion of a comprehensive evaluation using standardized assessment tools by a psychologist, were within the category of Disruptive, Impulse-Control and Conduct Disorders. These diagnoses describe problems of self-control manifested in behaviors that violate the rights of others and/or bring an individual into conflict with rules, laws or authority figures, so it is not surprising that 85 percent of delinquent youth confined in YDCs carry at least one diagnosis within this class. Other common mental health and substance abuse diagnoses are listed below for both YDC youth and those placed in juvenile justice-funded community-based short-term residential facilities in 2016. High rates of behavioral health needs were found among both groups. In CY 2016, PTSD-related problems troubled 5 out of 10 boys and 7 out of 10 girls, with youth confined in YDCs reporting exposure to six traumatic events on average. Youth with histories of unresolved trauma exposure experience recurrent symptoms that can disrupt personality development, relationships, decision-making and success in school, including: • persistently re-experiencing the distressing event though nightmares, intrusive thoughts and images, • marked emotional and physical reactions to sights, sounds, smells and other reminders of the original traumatic event(s), • heightened levels of arousal and physical reactivity that make them react quickly and powerfully when irritated or startled, • difficulty with sleeping and concentration; and • pervasive negative thoughts or feelings resulting from the trauma, such as excessive self- blame, distorted or highly negative views of the world or other people, and feelings of isolation. 29 2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t Licensed mental health clinicians (LMHCs) at all YDCs have been trained via an intensive learning collaborative training methodology to offer an evidence-based intervention for trauma-related disorders, Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavior Therapy (TF-CBT). In 2016, nine of our 14 YDC-based LMHCs also completed the Advanced Training in Trauma- Focused CBT Fidelity curriculum offered by the North Carolina Child Treatment Program. In addition, a third cohort of YDC-based LMHCs participated in the NC Child Treatment Program’s training program for Structured Psychotherapy for Adolescents Responding to Chronic Stress (SPARCS), making that intervention available at all YDCs as well. SPARCS is an evidence-based group intervention designed for adolescents who have been exposed to chronic stress and/or trauma. During group sessions, members examine and address problems with regulating emotions, attention, self-perception, relationships, physical health, and life purpose. In 2016, LMHCs in YDCs completed eight rounds of the 16-session SPARCS group curriculum with a total of 72 youth. 0% 33% 13% 73% 47% 67% 4% 16% 31% 56% 54% 70% - BOYS GIRLS Percent of Youth Development Center Population Conduct Disorder Cannabis-Related Disorder Trauma- and Stressor- Related Disorders Attention De cit/Hyperactivity Disorder Depressive Disorders Intellectual Disability 9% 39% 22% 35% 65% 78% 14% 24% 40% 21% 50% 55% - Percent of Community Programs Population Conduct Disorder Cannabis-Related Disorder Trauma- and Stressor- Related Disorders Attention De cit/Hyperactivity Disorder Depressive Disorders Intellectual Disability BOYS GIRLS 30 SPARCS LEARNING COLLABORATIVE In the fall of 2016, a multidisciplinary team culled from two YDCs—Dobbs and Edgecombe—enrolled in a nine-month-long training program in an evidence-supported mental health group treatment called Structured Psychotherapy for Adolescents Responding to Chronic Stress (SPARCS). SPARCS is designed to address the problems that arise in youth following years of chronic exposure to traumatic and stressful life events. Many are surprised to learn that adolescents aged 12-15 are victims of crime more than any other age group, and that adolescents of any age are victims at a rate that is twice the national average. Dr. Jamaal Scott, psychologist, and Freddie Barnes, clinical chaplain, both from Edgecombe YDC; LaNeisha Brown, social worker, and Lisa Butler, contract substance abuse counselor, from Dobbs YDC; and the team’s senior leader, Dr. Janet Clarke-McLean, Regional Psychological Program Manager. 31 2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t Much of the violence experienced by youths is perpetrated by peers or someone they know well. Youths exposed to recurrent violence often struggle with the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder highlighted on the preceding page, More than five of every 10 boys and seven of every 10 girls committed to a YDC in 2016 experienced trauma- and stressor-related disorders, reporting exposure to six different traumatic events on average. The SPARCS intensive training program, offered by the North Carolina Child Treatment Program, follows a learning collaborative model that consists of three two-day-long in-person training sessions attended by multiple teams spread over a six-month period, interspersed by regular coaching calls while teams implement with fidelity the intervention with two cohorts of youth. In addition, trainees collect and submit process and outcome measures that help them and their coaches track the impact of their efforts on the youth participating in the group sessions. Because the intervention is designed to be offered by a licensed mental health clinician (LMHC) and a co-leader in a supportive role, training teams from juvenile justice typically include an LMHC and a direct care staff member from a YDC. In addition, because the learning collaborative model also trains agency leaders to support and sustain the program’s implementation during and after the training program has concluded, each training team typically also includes a senior leader from a YDC or our central office. Staff at the state’s YDCs are encouraged to participate in learning collaboratives to acquire training in evidence-based mental health treatment, but doing so is a significant commitment. Trainees commit to additional data collection and documentation requirements, regular coaching and conference calls, clinical group time, and in-person training sessions solely because they desire to be able to meet the mental health needs of the youth in our custody with the best treatment available. For this reason, we are especially proud of our SPARCS training cohort! 32 MANAGING THE MODEL OF CARE Overview of the Model The Model of Care (MOC) is a therapeutic approach to behavior management and pro-social skill acquisition introduced in the state’s youth development centers (YDCs) in 2008, after a three-year pilot study established its effectiveness. The MOC outlines the ways in which direct care staff are to interact with youth during their time in our custody. While we recognize the value that individual and group therapy offers the youth committed to a YDC, we believe that direct care staff, those with the most “face time” with youth, function as vital agents of change within the juvenile justice system. At the heart of the MOC are focused therapeutic interactions that structure the interactions between staff and youth in a way that involves the recognition and rewarding of prosocial behavior, and targeted structured role plays (skills rehearsal and practice) to teach youth the specific prosocial skills they have been assigned for mastery. Across shifts and settings within the YDC, staff engage youth in these focused therapeutic interactions throughout the day. These structured interactions are embedded within a cognitive-behavioral approach addressing the treatment needs associated with delinquency and recidivism. A skills curriculum listing the positive and negative behavior descriptions of 51 prosocial skills assists staff and youth by clearly defining the appropriate way to demonstrate each skill. A sample skill from the curriculum appears below. 33 2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t Monitoring Program Fidelity Beautifully designed evidence-based programs, if not monitored closely, can drift and change over time, leading them to become less effective, or worse still, harmful. To ensure that activities in our YDCs are faithful to the MOC as designed, implementation teams at each YDC work closely with a statewide fidelity programs manager to assess and maintain program integrity by means of reviews of daily records and regular observation and coaching of staff by supervisors. In addition, monitoring visits consisting of structured observation of housing unit activities and records reviews are undertaken monthly. Semi-annual YDC site monitoring visits are undertaken as well, and include testing of randomly selected staff and youth in elements of the MOC, records review and observation. In 2016, we conducted a total of 49 monthly treatment programming fidelity support and monitoring visits to YDCs and detention centers, and we completed four semi-annual fidelity evaluation visits with assistance from Methodist Homes for Children leadership. Another way to enhance program fidelity and effectiveness is to ensure that staff is well trained. Over the course of twelve 2.5-day-long training sessions, Implementation Team members worked with our programs fidelity manager to offer experiential training to 100 juvenile justice employees in 2016 in the high quality delivery of the MOC. We also developed and launched an online orientation to the model of care for inclusion in our interactive online learning management system. SKILL: Accepts “No” for an answer Positive Demonstration Negative Demonstration Looks at the person Looks away, rolls eyes Acknowledges Argues, asks why, complains, swears Maintains body posture Rolls eyes, turns away, sighs, punches objects, jumps up, waves arms Waits until neutral time to discuss concerns more fully Discusses concerns immediately, demands 34 JUVENILE REENTRY REFORM North Carolina was one of three states to be awarded a FY 2015 Second Chance Act Comprehensive Statewide Juvenile Reentry Reform Implementation Program grant. With a total program budget of $1.47 million, the implementation grant is working to accomplish four primary objectives tied to service planning and service matching, family engagement, education and workforce development, and the evaluation of our effort. The key tasks tied to the work of the Service Planning and Service Matching subcommittee are central to the reform effort. With the assistance of the NC Government Data Analytics Center (GDAC) and its corporate partner, SAS, the subcommittee aims to mine data derived from juvenile justice–involved youth dating back to 2011 to identify whether there are clusters of offense, demographic, risk and needs variables that tend to occur together in our population of youth. Once these “types” of youth are identified, our data tied to programs and services to which youth have been assigned will be analyzed to examine whether specific “types” of youth have tended to benefit differentially from specific interventions comprising the wide array of services and programs supported by Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils and Juvenile Justice support. Ultimately, we aim to use the results of these analyses to rapidly identify the best treatment and program recommendations for youth at the time that a case plan is being developed. Much of the effort directed toward this objective in 2016 centered on preparing the data on program assignments from our two primary databases for analysis. With the help of the NC GDAC and SAS, we have applied a combination of entity resolution software and manpower to ensure that program entries within our databases are accurate, listed only once, and accurately tied to juvenile records. Subcommittee members culled from all areas of the juvenile justice section have also worked tirelessly to develop a taxonomy of programs and services to be used for the uniform and consistent classification of programs and services available to meet the myriad of treatment needs of juvenile justice-involved youth and those at risk for involvement. By the end of the year, we were preparing to classify the program entries in our two databases dating back to 2011 within our new taxonomy. This painstaking work will enable us to begin mining our historical data, while also serving as the foundation for a statewide directory of current services and programs that will be matched with identified treatment needs during case planning in the future. In October 2016, we learned that North Carolina was the recipient of a $500,000 federal continuation grant for the reentry reform project. We plan to use this funding to continue the effort to integrate case planning with service matching fueled by sophisticated data analytics, with the ongoing assistance of SAS and the GDAC. In addition, we will be partnering with Communities in Schools of NC to pilot in four counties (Durham, Forsyth, Guilford and Wake) youth development specialist positions to improve the reentry outcomes of youth returning to their home communities from YDCs and community-based residential facilities run under contract with us. 35 JUVENILE HEALTH SERVICES 2016 launched another year for Juvenile Justice Health Care Services to provide preventive and acute health care to juveniles in residential centers. Care involves admission baseline health assessments and physicals as well as preventive health care, response to illness, care management and age-appropriate health education. Data available from the North Carolina Annual School Health Services Report 2014-2015 (NC Department of Public Instruction and NC Division of Public Health) highlights 17 percent of school-aged children in North Carolina Public Schools required care for chronic health conditions including asthma, ADHD, severe allergies and emotional/behavioral/psychiatric conditions. Juvenile Justice’s population is a subset of the NC Public School population and has seen a concurrent increase in the number of youth entering detention centers and youth development centers with complex chronic illness needs requiring immediate attention and on-going care management. The often urgent placement surrounding many admissions means that medication, health histories and community provider’s medical orders may not arrive with youth. Care in centers must be quickly coordinated to ensure safety and maintain health status. 2015-16 saw the development of new partnerships to provide all aspect of care including oral care to youth. Cabarrus Health Alliance partnered to provide mobile oral health services at Stonewall Jackson Youth Development Center in Concord. Edgecombe Youth Development Center’s youth were seen by Edgecombe County Health Department’s Dental Clinic in Tarboro, offering Medicaid rates and excellent care continuity. Communication and collaboration continues with Public Health, community initiatives and private providers to identify the most cost effective and productive oral health services for all youth in Juvenile Justice residential settings. Information in the Mental Health section of this report outlines the significant and driving mental health needs of the juvenile population served. The data and information provided should be viewed in an integrated context— juveniles have mental health conditions that impact overall health status and require greater health care management to assess potential medication interactions and side effects, poor self- care due to mental health conditions, and greater displays of aggression and risk-taking behaviors. Factors such as these increase the level of health services staff care required in Juvenile Justice residential settings. 36 EDUCATION SERVICES Education Services is charged with fulfilling all state and federal mandates of a traditional school system. The school system staff includes a superintendent, central office staff, principals, assistant principal, teachers and other support staff. Students enrolled in academic programs in youth development centers are provided instruction consistent with the North Carolina Essential Standards in four 90-minute blocks daily. Students’ academic abilities are assessed upon entering and leaving youth development centers, with each youth receiving a personal education plan. Students who are identified as exceptional (i.e., having a disability) receive an Individual Education Plan (IEP) developed according to the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) guidelines. While enrolled in the education services system, students may earn either a high school diploma or high school equivalency certificate. Staffing for health services in North Carolina Juvenile Justice has historically been limited as the primary purpose of the organization is not health care. However, the health care needs of juveniles and the health trends across the state and nation are driving higher costs and increased health resources required to address unmet health needs of youth. Regional Nurse Supervisors were hired to support nurses across the organization as we monitor trends of increased chronic conditions, significant juvenile medication administration burden and managing the implications of a juvenile’s health status on remediation/re-entry planning by the multi-disciplinary service planning team. As Juvenile Justice seeks to meet increasing health demands, we are pleased to highlight innovative approaches to provide care including: the launch of a telehealth pilot for psychiatric care at Stonewall Jackson Youth Development center and the development of an innovative partnership with Cabarrus Health Alliance in Cabarrus County. This unique organization has a range of services to offer youth onsite as well as leveraging community youth programming brought to the center. 37 2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t SCHOOL NUTRITION The Juvenile Justice School Nutrition Services section oversees the administration of providing and promoting healthy, nutritious meals and eating habits to the youth in our system. Youth development centers and juvenile detention centers participate in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National School Lunch, School Breakfast and Commodity Programs. Juvenile Nutrition Services‘ central office team provides oversight and ensures compliance with federal and state food safety guidelines and regulations, procurement processes, local wellness policies, nutrition standards and menu-planning approaches, and other areas of compliance measures. This team works jointly with center food service staff, center directors and other staff to ensure optimal nutritional outcomes for youth. Food service staff actively participates in several awards sponsored by the School Nutrition Services section of the N.C. Department of Public Instruction, U.S. Department of Agriculture and School Nutrition Association of North Carolina. At the 2015-2016 School Nutrition Association of North Carolina annual conference in Greensboro, Beverly Cash, cook supervisor at Alexander Juvenile Detention Center, received three awards in the Culinary/Creative Arts Competition and Lolita Perry, cook II at Chatham Youth Development Center, was awarded first place honor and a “Best in Show.” Cash also won first place for her Golden Key Achievement entry presented by the School Nutrition Services section of the N.C. Department of Public Instruction and received a “Partner in Education Award,” sponsored by the School Nutrition Association of North Carolina to recognize exceptional implementation of nutrition education activities in both the cafeteria and the classroom 38 ADMINISTRATION, POLICY, TRAINING, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING • Worked with Juvenile Justice partners to inform the Raise the Age initiative. • Implemented juvenile medical claims processing through PGBA. • Began implementing online in-service training courses to maximize resources and minimize travel costs. • Implemented Field Training Officer/onboarding checklists to promote on-the-job training. • Revised the basic training curriculum to maximize the effectiveness of the program and better prepare our new staff for the responsibilities of their roles. • Revised the in-service training RCDT curriculum in response to feedback from stakeholders to create a nimbler course that better ensures safety for participants and allows for flexible in-service training schedules. • Created annual in-service training plans for Facility Operations and Court Services to promote consistency in certified staff training. 392 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t INSTRUCTORS OF THE YEAR Outside of their normal duties, select employees throughout Juvenile Justice go above and beyond to become training instructors, who contribute to the betterment of their fellow employees. Employees in Court Services and Facility Operations who choose to become instructors are capable of teaching a wide variety of trainings. Such trainings can vary from RCDT to First Aid, to Fitness and Wellness. Thank you to all of our instructors! Top instructors for 2016! Tracy Stanley, 2016 Overall Juvenile Justice Instructor of the Year, with Peter Brown, director of Stonewall Jackson Youth Development Center. LaTonya Middleton, the 2016 Court Services instructor of the Year, receives flowers from her co-workers, including her supervisor, Chief Court Counselor Marsha Woodall, and District 11 Court Counselor Supervisor Patrick Doan. Deputy Secretary William Lassiter with 2016 Facility Operations Instructor of the Year Haley Jones, from New Hanover Juvenile Detention Center. 40 Like all state agencies, Juvenile Justice’s budget comes from appropriations established by the North Carolina General Assembly. During FY15-16, Juvenile Justice was appropriated $129,981,610 with $1,990,677 in grants and federal funding. JUVENILE JUSTICE APPROPRIATIONS Juvenile Court Services $34,428,515 Youth Education Services $6,465,248 Youth Treatment Services $15,986,600 Youth Development Services $16,348,032 Youth Detention Services $13,800,139 Community Programs Services $19,708,915 Juvenile Crime Prevention Council (JCPC) $23,244,161 , 41 2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t JUVENILE JUSTICE STAFFING Juvenile Justice offers services in every county within North Carolina through a combination of contracts, grants and direct service. The 1,290 Juvenile Justice staff members and numerous stakeholders integrate their combined expertise and efforts to provide an effective, seamless continuum of responses and services to the youth and families of North Carolina. * Job classifications involved in supervision or counseling of juveniles, as defined in Title 12, Chapter 9 of the NC Administrative Code, by the statutory authority of G.S. 17C, are subject to and must meet the hiring and training standards established by the North Carolina Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission. Section Juvenile Justice Emplyees Total Number of Staff Number of Criminal Justice Certified Staff* Community Programs 23 — Court Services 537 452 Facility Services (includes Education/Health/Clinical) 673 540 Transportation Services 45 16 Administration 12 — 42 JUVENILE JUSTICE COMPREHENSIVE MAP 43 For additional information, please visit our website at: https://www.ncdps.gov/juvenile-justice 3010 Hammond Business Place Raleigh, NC 27603 Mailing Address: 4212 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-4212 Main Phone: 919-733-3388 Juvenile Justice Central Office Director Juvenile Community Programs: Cindy Porterfield Director Juvenile Court Services: Michael Rieder Director Juvenile Facility Operations: Jim Speight Director Juvenile Clinical Services and Programs: Dr. Jean Steinberg Deputy Secretary for Juvenile Justice: William L. Lassiter
Object Description
Description
Title | Juvenile justice annual report |
Other Title | Calendar year... annual report; Annual report of the North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention |
Date | 2016 |
Description | 2016 |
Digital Characteristics-A | 15.0 MB; 46 p. |
Digital Format |
application/pdf |
Pres File Name-M | pubs_52608513_serial_juvenile2016 |
Full Text | Juvenile Justice 2016 Annual Report NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY DIVISION OF ADULT CORRECTION AND JUVENILE JUSTICE 2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t Support from Secretary Hooks and Chief Deputy Secretary Guice 1 Letter from Deputy Secretary Lassiter 2 Juvenile Justice Overview 3-4 Strategic Plan in Action 5-6 Raise the Age Initiative 7-8 Juvenile Offenses in North Carolina 9 Best Practices and Trends 10 Reducing School-Based Complaints 11-12 Juvenile Court Services 13-14 Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) 15 Juvenile Gang Involvement 16 Motivating Juveniles and Their Families 17 Training and Collaboration: Mental Health 18 Diversion in North Carolina 19 Community Programs 20-22 Measuring Program Effectiveness 23-24 Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Program Statistics 25-26 Facility Capacities and Populations 27 Facility Operations Statistics 28 Clinical Services Programming 29-30 SPARCS Learning Collaborative 31-32 Managing the Model of Care 33-34 Juvenile Reentry Reform 35 Juvenile Health Services 36-38 Administration, Policy, Training and Strategic Planning 39 Instructors of the Year 40 Juvenile Justice Appropriations 41 Juvenile Justice Staffing 42 NC Comprehensive Map 43 TABLE OF CONTENTS North Carolina’s future lies in the hands and hearts of our children, and it is my great privilege to lead an agency that works to turn around the lives of the state’s population of at-risk and troubled youth. My background in law enforcement, coupled with the many years I have volunteered as a youth basketball coach, has shown me the critical importance of our Juvenile Justice teams to their communities. I look forward to the opportunities and challenges that Juvenile Justice will face in the coming years. I am confident our staff will continue to prevent and reduce juvenile delinquency, helping to keep our communities safe, while also strengthening our state’s families and children, ensuring the brightest of futures for North Carolina. Erik A. Hooks, Secretary N.C. Department of Public Safety As Chief Deputy Secretary of the Division of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice, I am proud to share with you in this Annual Report the successes accomplished over the past year by the dedicated public servants who make up our Juvenile Justice Section, in collaboration with our community partners. Though the mission of the Juvenile Justice Section is intentionally quite different than that of the Adult Correction system, since becoming a consolidated division three years ago we have found areas where working together enabled us to achieve better outcomes for all populations that we serve. For example, through this partnership we’ve been able to provide the juvenile justice system with long-needed resources. I am confident that as our state works to raise the age of juvenile jurisdiction that we will depend upon this partnership more than ever. Accomplishments have been many in 2016, but with historic and momentous change stirring for the juvenile justice system, we have much to do over the coming years in our continuing efforts to prevent juvenile delinquency; intervene so that children are not lost to a life of crime; and to make our communities safer places. W. David Guice, Chief Deputy Secretary Division of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice FROM THE SECRETARY FROM THE CHIEF DEPUTY SECRETARY 1 2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t will open in 2017; the Re-Entry Reform grant, that is specifically addressing better program-matching for juveniles’ risk and needs; training juvenile court staff on motivational interviewing; reducing school-based complaints with more effective alternatives; enhancing the therapeutic services provided in youth development centers; and providing community-based providers with program improvement plans based on quality reviews. You can read more about each of these initiatives and many more in the pages that follow. As I look to the future, the juvenile justice system is preparing to undergo its largest change – in the form of “raise the age” – since the passage of the 1999 juvenile reform act. I believe our employees are better trained, better equipped and more ready to make these changes than we have ever been in our history. The citizens of North Carolina can be proud of the work we do every day. Our employees continue to produce better outcomes, more efficiently, and I am humbled at the great opportunity to serve as their leader. William Lassiter, Deputy Secretary Division of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice important caveat that the proper resources be allocated to the juvenile justice system to implement this change appropriately. Many juvenile justice professionals, court system personnel, mental health system workers, law enforcement officers and community-based alternatives providers have dedicated countless hours over the last year to trying to ensure that the proper proposal is put forward for legislative consideration on this important issue. That bill has been introduced with the backing of these communities and with the knowledge that resources are necessary to achieve the goal we all seek: safer communities and better treatment of juveniles. I am more optimistic than ever that 2017 will be the year that North Carolina raises the age of juvenile jurisdiction. Beyond its work on “raise the age” the Juvenile Justice Section continued its progress toward providing more effective services for juveniles. This was accomplished through such initiatives as: continuing implementation of the Juvenile Justice Strategic Plan by opening Edgecombe Youth Development Center and beginning the renovation of Lenoir Youth Development Center, which I am proud to present to the citizens of North Carolina the Juvenile Justice Section’s 2016 Annual Report, which showcases the hard work of our dedicated employees and our partners. Reforms enacted in 1999 have led North Carolina’s juvenile justice system to be the envy of many in our country, as we continue to confine fewer juveniles and to witness an ever-declining juvenile crime rate. One factor has kept North Carolina from being perceived as the national leader that it is in juvenile justice: the age of juvenile jurisdiction, which currently ends at 16 for delinquent/ criminal offenses. North Carolina remains as the only state in the nation that no matter the crime, considers all 16 year olds as adults. During 2016, the Juvenile Justice Section dedicated time and energy to changing this remaining area of needed legislative reform. In my leadership capacity with Juvenile Justice, I served on two major commissions that studied this issue: the Mental Health and Substance Abuse Task Force and the N.C. Commission on the Administration of Law and Justice. Both of these commissions made “raising the age” a major priority, both with the FROM THE DEPUTY SECRETARY 2 The Juvenile Justice Section works diligently to provide North Carolinians with a comprehensive strategy to help prevent and reduce juvenile crime and delinquency. This strategy, modeled after the federal OJJDP Comprehensive Strategy, provides the framework for promoting these core principles: • strengthening families • promoting delinquency prevention • supporting core social institutions • intervening immediately and effectively when delinquent behavior occurs • identifying and controlling the small group of serious, violent and chronic juvenile offenders OUR VISION OUR MISSION A seamless, comprehensive juvenile justice system that provides the most effective services to youth and their families at the right time, in the most appropriate settings. To reduce and prevent juvenile delinquency by effectively intervening, educating and treating youth in order to strengthen families and increase public safety. JUVENILE JUSTICE OVERVIEW 3 2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t PREVENTION Target Population: At-Risk Youth GRADUATED SANCTIONS Target Population: Delinquent Youth Programs for All Youth Problem Behavior Noncriminal Misbehavior Serious, Violent, and Delinquency Chronic O ending Youth Development Goals: • Healthy and nurturing families • Safe communities • School attachment • Prosocial peer relations • Personal development and life skills • Healthy lifestyle choices Youth Habilitation Goals: • Healthy family participation • Community reintegration • Educational success and skills development • Healthy peer network development • Prosocial values development • Healthy lifestyle choices Programs for Youth at Greatest Risk Immediate Intervention Intermediate Sanctions Community Con nement Youth Development Centers Aftercare This comprehensive strategy offers a layered approach to responding to juvenile delinquency in North Carolina. First and foremost, the Juvenile Justice Section addresses prevention and early intervention programming to prevent and reduce youth at-risk from ever touching the juvenile justice system. Should these efforts fail, the system is poised to respond by employing structured decision-making tools, best-practice interventions and graduated sanctions to match juvenile offenders’ risks and treatment needs to the most appropriate services and supervision. The section responds by moving from least to most restrictive intervention programming and sanctions for youth in an effort to disrupt the progression of serious, violent and chronic offender pathways. Furthermore, Juvenile Justice promotes public safety by identifying and controlling the small population of serious, violent and chronic juvenile offenders within secure facilities or youth development centers. OUR COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY 4 STRATEGIC PLAN IN ACTION The Juvenile Justice strategic plan closes older, less secure facilities and reinvests the savings from closing these facilities into state-of-the-art, safer and more secure facilities, and into community-based programs. The strategic plan aims to: • Phase out outdated/unsafe/underutilized facilities • Renovate/expand facilities that are safer, more secure and more cost-efficient • Plan and be prepared for potential future changes to the juvenile justice system • Continue to provide treatment and education rooted in a cognitive-behavioral approach, targeting criminogenic needs • Reinvest cost savings into community-based programming • Enhance support operations, such as transportation 5 Edgecombe Youth Development Center in Rocky Mount Dobbs Youth Development Center will close, and Lenoir Youth Development Center will re-open in accordance with phasing out unsafe facilities. Here are some other future highlights of the strategic plan: Juvenile Justice continues to create online training resources, maximizing resources and minimizing travel costs. In 2016, Edgecombe Youth Development Center (YDC) opened, and C.A. Dillon YDC closed. Edgecombe YDC provides for safer, more secure housing of committed youth. Renovations at the McWhorter building at Stonewall Jackson Youth Development Center provided 30 additional YDC beds. Youth Counselor Technicians (who are criminal justice-certified employees) were assigned as transportation drivers. This revision in requirements for a transportation driver further enhances safety plans outlined in the strategic plan. Positions have been reallocated to the front end of the juvenile justice system because of the facility realignment. Juvenile Justice convened a Raise the Age planning committee to prepare for future recommendations and cost analysis related to raise the age within the framework of the Juvenile Justice strategic plan. Recommendations include: the provision of additional JCPC funds; the opening of transitional and residential homes; field service support staff to train and onboard new staff; quality assurance and information technology staff to implement new initiatives and reinforce through fidelity checks; the use of multi-functional campuses when possible; a robust vocational training program for 16 and 17 year olds; and appropriate staffing and resources to continue meeting juveniles’ needs with the same or better level of care. Re-entry planning efforts will allow for greater access to cross-system data-sharing and more strategically focused, individually targeted services (case planning and service matching). 2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t 6 North Carolina is the last remaining state that automatically charges individuals 16-years-old and above in the adult criminal justice system. In 2016, members of the leadership team of the Division of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice spent long hours of research, collaboration and discussion with a diverse array of special interest groups on the topic of raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction from 16 to18. It is believed that bipartisan support has been attained for the potential passage in 2017 of legislation that would ensure that children aged 16 and 17 would face any non-violent criminal charges in the juvenile justice system (excluding A-E Felonies). Though raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction carries a short-term price-tag, it promises a long-term economic benefit to North Carolina. Much of this comes from the 7.5 percent reduction in recidivism when teens are adjudicated in the juvenile vs. the adult system, with avoided future costs of imprisonment, and the ability of individuals with no criminal record to increase their earnings and career prospects. Two separate studies authorized by the North Carolina General Assembly indicate that raising the juvenile age will produce significant economic benefits for North Carolina and its citizens: Governor‘s Crime Commission Juvenile Age Study In 2009, the Governor’s Crime Commission Juvenile Age Study submitted to the General Assembly included a cost-benefit analysis of raising the age of juvenile court jurisdiction to 18. The analysis, done by ESTIS Group LLC, found that the age change would result in a net benefit to the state of $7.1 million. Youth Accountability Planning Task Force In 2011, the Youth Accountability Planning Task Force submitted its final report to the General Assembly. The Task Force’s report included a cost-benefit analysis, done by the Vera Institute of Justice, of prosecuting 16 and 17-year-old misdemeanants and low-level felons in juvenile court. That report estimated net benefits of $52.3 million. RAISE THE AGE INITIATIVE 7 2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t For more information about ‘Raise the Age’, visit the Raise the Age – NC Website at: http://www.ncdps.gov/our-organization/juvenile-justice/key-initiatives/raise-age-nc Per the Juvenile Reinvestment Report developed by the N.C. Commission on the Administration of Law and Justice, evidence-based research suggests that adolescents are less culpable than adults; the majority of young people who commit criminal acts age out of said behavior with full maturity; and that working to strengthen family support systems, academic performance and job skills (that occurs within the juvenile justice system) is more effective in reducing recidivism among young people. Nearly 100 years ago, the current age of juvenile jurisdiction was set to end at 16 years of age, and has remain unchanged ever since. Since that time, brain development research shows that the frontal cortex section of the brain, which helps with impulse control, is one of the last parts to develop. Research shows the brain is fully developed in males by age 25, or around age 22-23 for females. This means that all teens, including those aged 16-17, are more likely to: Officials with the N.C. Department of Public Safety, Division of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice, strongly favor raising the age under the following circumstances: • State and local juvenile justice staff must be given adequate funding to enable them to offer their continuum of services to 16- and 17-year-olds, as well as those juveniles already involved in the system. • Additionally, state officials must be given adequate time to plan and fully implement the initiative; it is believed that Juvenile Justice officials will need three years to plan how to implement the initiative; construct a new youth development center; train state and local officials; and phase implementation to appropriately and properly put this plan into place in North Carolina. Collaborative Partners who have endorsed ‘Raise the Age’ include: N.C. Division of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice, Conservatives for Criminal Justice Reform, John Locke Foundation, N.C. Association of Chiefs of Police, N.C. Chamber Legal Institute, N.C. Magistrates Association, N.C. Police Benevolent Association, N.C. Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, N.C. Sheriffs’ Association, Office of Indigent Defense Services • Act before thinking or act on impulse • Participate in sensation-seeking behavior • Seek out risky activities • Need approval of peers • Need instant gratification • Exclude thoughts of the future 8 JUVENILE OFFENSES IN NORTH CAROLINA 33,067 33,449 31,558 29,539 29,282 27,210 25,183 4,276 3,600 3,192 2,552 2,279 2,332 2,339 37,343 37,049 34,750 32,091 31,561 29,542 27,522 27.55 26.08 24.70 22.91 22.52 20.78 19.16 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Delinquent Complaints Status Complaints Delinquency Rate ComplaCinomtsp lRaienctse Rievceeidve adn andd DDeelilninquqeunceyn Rcayte R(CaYt 2e0 1(C0-Y20 2160)10-2016) Status 9% Minor 63% Serious 25% Infraction <1% Violent 3% Top 10 Juvenile Offenses of 2016 Offense Complaints Simple Assault (M) 2,733 Larceny (M) 2,118 Disorderly Conduct at School (M) 1,428 Simple Affray (M) 1,186 Breaking and/or Entering (F) 1,143 Breaking and/or Entering Motor Vehicle (F) 1,086 Communicating Threats (M) 891 Truant < 16 (Status) 888 Injury to Real Property (M) 829 Possess Stolen Goods/Property (M) 732 2016 Complaints by Charged Class Charged Class Complaints Violent (Class A-E Felonies) 836 Serious (Class F, G, H, & I Felonies/ Class A1 Misdemeanors) 6,895 Minor (Class 1, 2, & 3 Misdemeanors) 17,393 Status 2,336 Infraction 64 The majority of complaints received in 2016 were minor offenses (63%). * Rate is of delinquent complaints per 1,000 youth age 6-15 9 BEST PRACTICES AND TRENDS Structured assessment instruments and community resources are used to prevent unnecessary secure detention. Research has established that unnecessary detention of lower risk juveniles leads to poorer outcomes for those juveniles. Studies indicate that lower-risk juveniles can be better served through programs and resources in their local communities. Juvenile court counselors are securing evidence-based services through Juvenile Justice Community Programs, partnerships with mental health and other community-based agencies. Community-based services have been found to be more effective options for some juveniles who previously would have been committed to a youth development center. Youth development center commitments are reserved for the most serious, violent and chronic offenders. The number of juveniles placed in detention centers has decreased 56 percent The number of juveniles committed to youth development centers has decreased 48 percent 6,246 5,170 4,012 3,421 3,238 3,229 2,749 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Detention Center Admissions (CY 2010-2016) 357 307 216 219 202 217 187 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Youth Development Center Commitments (CY 2010-2016) 10 REDUCING SCHOOL-BASED COMPLAINTS Since 2010, the number of school-based complaints have dropped from 16,097 to 11,630 in 2016 (a nearly 28 percent decrease). While the number of school-based complaints has dropped, the percentage of the total amount of complaints received has remained steady at around the mid-40 percentages. The chart on the next page shows the number of school-based complaints for each calendar year along with the corresponding percentage of total complaints received each year. The primary strategy employed to address the goal of reducing school-based complaints has been the collaboration across the state by court staff with school officials and school resource officers. We educate them about the research and make them aware of the multiple alternatives that exist in their communities. Many of these resources are programs that Juvenile Justice funds through Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils. A second strategy has been the piloting of school-based court counselors to assist in diverting young people from court involvement. These pilots have been enthusiastically received by school staff and superintendents. 11 2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t In Forsyth County, for the schools participating in the project, juvenile complaints for the school year following implementation decreased 68.5 percent from the preceding three-year average. In Person County, as a result of the training, education and collaboration, in the two pilot schools complaints for school-based offenses decreased by 51 percent from July 1, 2016- Dec. 31, 2016, compared to the same period in 2015. In Brunswick County, the superintendent collaborated with the chief court counselor to start a school-based diversion program in their schools. As a result, Brunswick County Schools reduced school-based offenses by 45 percent from July 1, 2016 - Dec. 31, 2016 compared to this same period in 2015. An additional example of a local program is the Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department Juvenile Diversion Program, which receives JJ funding through the local Juvenile Crime Council to provide a school-based diversion program for lower risk juveniles who do not have a previous adjudication for delinquency. The program serves approximately 600 youth per year referred by school resource officers. As a part of the program, life skills classes are provided over a period of two weeks to three months. Seventy percent of participants in the program have been black, mostly ages 13 through 15. The program has experienced an 85 percent success rate and a 7 percent recidivism rate. Part of the impact of this program is, for Mecklenburg County, 26 percent of all complaints received are for school-based offenses compared to a state average of 42 percent! New Hanover County has created an Inter-Agency Governance Agreement on Handling School Offenses through an initiative that was spearheaded by the chief district court judge. This comprehensive agreement was signed by the chief judge, chief court counselor, sheriff, chiefs of police, district prosecutor, DSS director, schools superintendent and the CEO of the managed care organization for mental health and substance abuse services. The plan calls for the efficient use of support services as an alternative to involvement of law enforcement and court agencies for minor misconduct at school and school-related events. New Hanover had a 31 percent reduction in school-based complaints in 2016 as compared to 2015. 16,097 16,109 15,407 14,772 14,331 12,946 11,630 43% 43% 44% 46% 45% 44% 42% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 - - Number of School-Based Complaints - - Percentage of School-Based Complaints Percentage of School-Based Complaints * As a result of all of these strategies, there was a 10 percent drop in statewide school-based complaints from 2015 to 2016 12 JUVENILE COURT SERVICES Juvenile Court Services provides intake, supervision and case management services for undisciplined and delinquent juveniles within a continuum of services that address identified needs and holds the juvenile accountable. Court Services is the first point of contact with the juvenile justice system for a young person alleged to have committed a delinquent offense or to be undisciplined (truancy, runaway, ungovernable, etc.). Law enforcement officers or N.C. residents file complaints on juveniles for delinquent or undisciplined behavior. These complaints are received and evaluated by juvenile court counselors as a part of the intake process. Court counselors gather information from law enforcement, victims and community agencies. The juvenile and parents are then interviewed during an intake process where the risks and needs of the juvenile are assessed using validated instruments. Considering the results of the intake process, the juvenile court counselor will either: • Close the case because further court intervention is deemed unnecessary. • Divert the case from court because the juvenile does not pose a threat to society and is seen capable of proving themselves accountable for their actions. Diversion plans are created to meet their individual needs and are supported by the juvenile court counselor. Approximately three-fourths of juveniles successfully meet the terms of their diversion plan. Unsuccessful completion of plans may lead to previously diverted cases being approved for court. • Approve the case for a court hearing. If the juvenile presents a significant risk to the community, the juvenile court counselor may recommend that the judge issue a secure custody order to place the juvenile in detention until a court hearing can be scheduled. 13 2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t For cases approved for court, recommendations are prepared by court counselors and presented for consideration by the judge following an adjudication of delinquency. In cases where the juvenile is adjudicated delinquent, the judge relies on the recommendations from the court counselor to create the court order specifying terms of probation. Court counselors then provide case management services to the juveniles and their families, connecting them to and advocating for services identified as necessary by a variety of assessments. Court counselors also supervise the juveniles and their families to hold them accountable for complying with the terms of their probation to ensure community safety. Court Services delivers services in all 100 counties through 30 district offices. Each district is managed by a Chief Court Counselor and is staffed by Juvenile Court Counselors and Court Counselor Supervisors, with a total of 452 certified staff statewide. During calendar year 2016, 27,522 complaints were received involving 12,303 juveniles (some juveniles received multiple complaints). Of the 12,303 juveniles who participated in the intake process, 5,655 had one or more complaints approved for court; 4,692 were diverted from court with or without diversion plans/contracts; and 3,020 had complaints that were closed. Juveniles can enter, exit or be in multiple parts of the system at any given time. Intake Process (Review of Complaint) 12,303 Total Juveniles (27,522 Complaints) Approved for Court 5,655 Juveniles* (61% of Complaints) Diversion 4,692 Juveniles* (24% of Complaints) Closed 3,020 Juveniles* (15% of Complaints) * A juvenile can receive multiple outcomes (e.g., a complaint that was originally diverted could later result in being approved for court). These scenarios cause the juvenile count for approved for court, diversion and closed to total more than 12,303. 14 DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONTACT (DMC) Minority youth are engaged with the juvenile justice systems at a much higher rate than their proportion of the general population. This overrepresentation is evident in three distinct points in the system. The first point is at intake. Youth of color are more than two and a half times as likely to have complaints filed against them by law enforcement or other citizens than white youth. The second and third points are around the decisions leading to secure detention and commitment to a youth development center (YDC). While youth of color continue to be one and a half times more likely to be placed in secure custody, the likelihood of a minority being committed to a YDC dropped from three times as likely in FY14-15 to twice as likely in FY15-16. This disparity persists in spite of the fact that, due to reforms made in Juvenile Justice, thousands of juveniles have avoided secure detention and hundreds have avoiding commitment to YDCs due to decreased admission rates over the last seven years. A large majority of the youth who have benefited from these reforms are minority youth. These improvements were made possible by training staff, working collaboratively with stakeholders, implementing best practices and by the availability of quality community-based programs and services. Across North Carolina there are dozens of community-based initiatives to address DMC lead by a cross section of local leaders including judges, juvenile court staff, law enforcement, community programs and many others. These efforts have increased attention to the issue and brought about the use of best practices. The result has been a significant reduction in the number of youth of color coming into contact with the juvenile justice system, being placed in secure detention and being committed to a YDC. 15 2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t JUVENILE GANG INVOLVEMENT The number of gang-affiliated juveniles in our system has consistently dropped over the last seven years (pictured below). However, because of our efforts to divert lower-risk juveniles, the overall percentage of the youth we serve who are gang-affiliated has increased by half of a percent since 2015. Gang-involved youth are among the highest risk juveniles. Those who are gang-involved are most likely to become deeply entrenched in the juvenile justice system, including secure detention and commitment to a youth development center. While representing a small segment of the population we serve, gang-affiliated youth require higher levels of supervision from juvenile court counselors, and their supervision presents elevated risks to those staff members. Across North Carolina, juvenile court staff work in close collaboration with law enforcement to share information about local gang activity, and to develop and implement strategies and programs to reduce gang activity. Law enforcement also provides extra security for court counselors in instances where local conditions dictate special precautions. 1842 1573 1390 1323 1238 1229 1183 8.7% 7.3% 6.6% 6.8% 6.7% 7.1% 7.6% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0% 18.0% 20.0% 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2010 2011 2012 2014 2014 2015 2016 # of Gang-A liated Youth (Member or Associate) % of Gang-A liated Youth (Member or Associate) Since 2010, the number of gang-affiliated youth has decreased by 37 percent (from 1,842 to 1,183). 16 MOTIVATING JUVENILES AND THEIR FAMILIES In 2016, 425 certified juvenile court staff were trained in Motivational Interviewing. This evidence-supported approach has been shown to improve court counselors’ effectiveness in engaging juveniles and their families and to lead to better outcomes. Equally important to the initial training that has been provided are the strategies carried out in the districts to continue to raise the skill levels of the staff and to ensure that we maintain fidelity to the model in order to achieve expected results. Supervisors observe court counselors’ interaction with juveniles and families and score them using established Motivational Interviewing program tools. Using feedback from the observations and scoring, staff are able to refine their skills with the coaching of their supervisor. 17 2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t TRAINING AND COLLABORATION: MENTAL HEALTH It is well documented that a large majority of the juveniles we serve have mental health needs. District 27’s chief court counselor has collaborated with the Partners Behavioral Health Management Organization to secure a wide array of training regarding mental health for district staff. Our staff have been trained to recognize and respond effectively to mental health needs, sexual abuse and trauma; they have also been trained in I.C. Hope Mental Health Awareness (ICMHA) curriculum. This curriculum is evidence-based and helps to reduce the stigma associated with mental health and trains staff to identify appropriate resources they may turn to for assistance. The chief court counselor is a certified trainer in ICMHA and regularly conducts educational sessions in elementary schools using the curriculum to help young children better understand the needs they see in family members. Working with the elementary schools helps these identified young people deal with the feelings associated with having incarcerated family members. Chief court counselors across the state have also focused on improving ready access to mental health services as an appropriate response and alternative to approving a case for court. There has been an increasing need for this strategy for younger juveniles in recent years. Statistics from the Division of Mental Health shows that 37 percent of the juvenile justice youth served by our mental health partners received services while on a juvenile diversion plan. These youths were served without formal court involvement. 18 DIVERSION IN NORTH CAROLINA North Carolina’s juvenile justice system has made great gains in reducing the number of juveniles who go to court, detention and/or are committed to the Department of Public Safety, Juvenile Justice. A significant portion of these reductions are due, directly or indirectly, to diversion practices. A juvenile court counselor diverts a juvenile from a formal court hearing when the risk level is low, public safety can be assured, the needs of the juvenile can be addressed, and the young person and their family agree to abide by the terms of the diversion. Research has demonstrated that when appropriately implemented, diversion reduces recidivism, reduces costs to the state/communities, avoids the unintended negative consequences of being labeled a delinquent, allows for the provision of needed services, and prevents unnecessary confinement. By intervening early, most young people who are diverted have no further contact with the justice system. The idea of diversion is to intervene early and give the juvenile who has allegedly committed an illegal act an appropriate consequence and allow the juvenile to prove that he or she possesses the ability— given the opportunity and the resources—to develop into a stable and productive member of society. The flowchart below demonstrates where diversion plans/contracts are implemented within the juvenile justice process. In 2016, 24 percent of juvenile complaints were diverted from court. Intake Process (Review of Complaint) Diverted (not approved for court) Closed with no Diversion Plan Successful completion of Plan/Contract Diversion Plan or Diversion Contract Unsuccessful: Did NOT Approved for Court complete Plan/Contract 19 COMMUNITY PROGRAMS Juvenile Community Programs oversees the administration of a continuum of services designed to serve targeted youth populations along the juvenile justice continuum. Evidence-based programming models are identified within multiple program types and are funded through various revenue sources identified by North Carolina general statute: Juvenile Crime Prevention Council (JCPC) funds that support programs within all 100 counties via the collaborative work of Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils and local county partners; Level II Dispositional Alternative funds that support state-level Community-Based and Residential Contracts in addition to JCPC-Endorsed Level II programs at the local level; and Alternatives to Commitment funds that support programming for the juvenile justice system’s highest risk youth. These primary sources of funding support more than 500 programs that serve at-risk, diverted, court-involved, committed and post-release supervised (PRS) youth across the state. Each program type provides a linchpin into a relative portion of the workings of the Juvenile Justice Facilities Strategic Plan. Most notable are the connections to the components of 1) promoting public safety by avoiding the costs of youth development center commitment; and 2) planning and preparation for the future of juvenile justice. During fiscal year 15-16, 24,223 juveniles received services The section’s 23 staff support the oversight and management of all programming funded through the various revenue sources. Employees operate out of four area offices: Western Area office located in Swannanoa; Piedmont Area office located in Salisbury; Central Area Office that also doubles as the Central office for the Unit’s state operations, located in Raleigh; and the Eastern Area office located in Greenville. Funding Source Juveniles Served JCPC Funds 22,829 Community-Based Contractual Services 521 JCPC Alternatives to Commitment Programs 152 Residential Contractual Services 478 JCPC Level II Dispositional Alternative 243 20 JUVENILE CRIME PREVENTION COUNCIL (JCPC) PROGRAMS JCPC Programs are funded through a state and local partnership in all 100 counties. These partnerships between the state, local county stakeholders and nonprofit agencies produce more than 500 programs that establish a local continuum of needed sanctions and services to address the issues of delinquent juveniles and those youths most likely to become delinquent, along with their families. JCPCs are legislatively mandated bodies that annually release requests for proposals to inform funding decisions based on community demographics, risks, needs and gaps in services. Eckerd Kids operates two short-term residential programs for male juveniles who have received a Level II disposition— Candor, which has a capacity of 36 beds; and Boomer, which has 24 beds. The programs offer a social skills-building curriculum to juvenile offenders focusing on redirecting criminogenic behaviors in a therapeutic environment. The average length of stay is four to five months. Contract Type Programs Available Residential Services 3 Crisis and Assessment Centers 3 Short-Term Residential Facilities (Eckerd – 2 sites, Westcare – 1 site) 5 Multi-purpose Group Homes 2 Transitional Independent Living Homes (1 male and 1 female) Non-Residential Services Functional Family Therapy (FFT) based out of 5 regional offices – Statewide Service JCPC Endorsed Level II Dispositional Alternatives SAFE Systems (Dare County) Community Connections (Granville County) Multi-Systemic Therapy (Haywood County) TASK Level II (Haywood and Iredell counties) Community Intervention Program (Lenoir County) Community Service Restitution (New Hanover County) Pitt County Structured Day (Pitt County) Alternatives to Commitment Expansion (Rockingham County) Community Alternatives Programs (Wake County) JCPC Alternatives to Commitment Barium Springs Home Remedies: Juvenile Justice (Burke) Intensive Services Network (Cumberland) Family Services Mentoring and Counseling Program (Davidson) Parenting of Adolescents Program (Durham) Flying Changes (Hoke) Mecklenburg County CJS ASSET ATC Alternatives to Commitment: Family Preservation Program (New Hanover) 21 2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t COMMUNITY-BASED CONTRACTUAL FUNCTIONAL FAMILY THERAPY AMIkids North Carolina Family Services Inc., a subsidiary of AMIkids Inc. based in Tampa, Florida, has provided Functional Family Therapy (FFT) services in North Carolina since 2011. This short-term, family-based intervention statewide program serves an 89 county catchment area. FFT services guide juvenile offenders and their family members through five treatment phases known as Engagement, Motivation, Relational Assessment, Behavior Change Phase and Generalization. Therapists are certified to provide FFT services and participate in weekly clinical supervision with a certified FFT supervisor to ensure model fidelity. Bilingual services are provided to families in need of a Spanish-speaking therapist. FFT services are designed for Level II, Post Release Level III juveniles returning to their communities, and some high risk/needs Level I juvenile offenders. AMIkids North Carolina Family Services Inc., has been a trendsetter in the juvenile justice arena by utilizing a strength-based approach addressing the multi-faceted dynamics of the 21st century family unit and the complex needs of juveniles. RESIDENTIAL CONTRACTUAL PROGRAMS The Juvenile Justice Section also currently contracts with three providers to offer 10 residential programs. WestCare North Carolina Inc., a subsidiary of the WestCare Foundation based in Las Vegas, Nevada, operates the WestCare North Carolina Girl’s Program located in Vance County. The program is a 16-bed short-term residential facility for female juveniles who have received a Level II disposition. The program offers a gender-responsive therapeutic environment that focuses on trauma-informed care. The average length of stay is for female juveniles is four to five months. Methodist Home for Children Inc. operates five multipurpose group homes for male and female juveniles who have received a Level II disposition in juvenile court. The length of stay is approximately six months. Methodist Home for Children employs the Value Based Therapeutic Model to address a range of antisocial behaviors through individualized service planning and the implementation of a social and life skills curriculum. Methodist Home for Children also operates two transitional living homes (one for females and one for males) for youth exiting youth development centers or other residential care facilities. Independent living skills support youth as they navigate a four-level program based on the Teaching Family Model for a period of 6 to 12 months. 22 MEASURING PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS North Carolina is one of more than 10 states that have embraced the Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) as an evaluation tool to identify the most effective services with the highest potential to reduce juvenile recidivism. North Carolina General Statutes require that Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils (JCPCs) fund only effective programs and SPEP is the department’s response to complying with this mandate. It allows for an examination of how a specific program is performing compared to the effective practice for that service type in the research. This research-based process is being instituted to push programs to model best practices for their program type to have the greatest impact on the reduction of recidivism. Now, in its newly recalibrated and enhanced format, the SPEP has incorporated quality of service delivery into the scoring schematic. The four elements of the SPEP instrument are 1) Primary and Supplemental Service, 2) Quality of Service, 3) Service Dosage (frequency of the contact and duration within the program service) and 4) Risk level of youth served. Phase I of SPEP in North Carolina is now complete as evidenced by the extraction of SPEP scores on all Juvenile Crime Prevention Council (JCPC) programs. The following processes were completed and SPEP scores were determined for the JCPC programs: Classification of Primary and Supplemental Service Types, administration of a Quality of Service (QoS) assessments for programs, and standardized training across the state on administering the risk assessment instrument, Understanding SPEP Scores and Program Enhancement Planning (PEP). Evaluate/Program Enhancement Plans Repeat Scoring IDENTIFY services MATCH against research-based service categories DATA (level of risk, quality of service, quantity of service) SPEP score Æ Ï Ï Ï 23 2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t The findings from Phase I SPEP scoring revealed that the average SPEP score for JCPC funded programs was 49. SPEP research indicates that, to be effective in the reduction of recidivism, a program must generate a SPEP of 50 points or greater. In 2016 as part of the SPEP Phase II process, programs were offered technical assistance and Program Enhancement Plans (PEPs) were developed to address program improvement goals. PEPs are used by the local JCPC as an accountability tool to monitor and track program improvement and has been incorporated into annual tasks dictated by general statute. Moving forward, since SPEP serves as a valuable process for the development of evidence-based programs, Phase II of the SPEP will fully integrate SPEP across all DPS juvenile programs within the Community Programs Section. The Juvenile Community Programs Section incorporated two additional Juvenile Crisis and Assessment Centers to the service continuum in 2016. To-date there are three centers located in the Central, Piedmont and Western regions of the state. The Juvenile Crisis and Assessment Centers provide 24-hour, *non-secure, crisis care and comprehensive clinical assessments in a therapeutic residential setting. Services are designated for juvenile offenders ages 10-17 and the length of stay ranges from 14 to 30 days. There is a two-tier systematic evaluation and assessment process that includes the domains of education, behavior, personality, intelligence, substance abuse and trauma. A modified version of the Department’s Model of Care is the primary teaching motivational model utilized by staff. In a continued effort to provide additional resources to the children and families of North Carolina, Community Programs partnered with local stakeholders, contract providers, DPS staff and county officials to open two crisis and assessment centers, with locations in Winston- Salem and Asheville. The Western Area Multi- Purpose Crisis and Assessment Center is located at a former juvenile detention center and was totally transformed to what is now a state-of-the-art facility. The open house for the site of this new service was held in August 2016 and hosted more than 100 Juvenile Justice officials and community stakeholders. This renovation project involved completely gutting the building to the shell, converting an interior atrium to a new dayroom in the center of the building, as well as modernizing all bedrooms, restrooms, kitchen, staff offices and the family waiting room areas. This project, completed in partnership with DPS Central Engineering Inmate Construction Program, utilized inmate labor for a vast majority of the work on the facility. The project has also been nominated as a Honorable Mention by the State Construction Office at its Spring 2017 Conference. * The Western Area Multi-Purpose Juvenile Crisis and Assessment Center includes four secure custody beds. 24 11,642 11,187 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 No JJ Involvement JJ Involved/ Court Involved JUVENILE CRIME PREVENTION COUNCIL PROGRAM STATISTICS 2015-2016 5,682 25% 6,499 28% 6,997 31% 3,651 16% Eastern Central Piedmont Western 15,095 66% 7,734 34% Male Female 11,145 49% 2,613 11% 7,911 35% 1,160 5% Hispanic/Latino White Other African-American Juveniles Served by Area Juveniles Served (Male/Female) Juveniles Served by Race/Ethnicity Juveniles Served by Court Status Ages 10 1,958 9% 29% 6,600 11-13 yrs old 9,853 14-15 yrs old 4,418 Ages 16 yrs old 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 43% 19% Juveniles Served by Age 25 2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t Juveniles Served by Type Funding Source Juveniles Served Restitution/Community Service 5,578 Interpersonal Skill Building 4,399 Teen Court 3,592 Juvenile Structured Day 1,371 Individual Counseling 1,268 Tutoring/Academic Enhancement 1,225 Parent/Family Skill Building 920 Assessments 830 Mediation/Conflict Resolution 759 Experiential Skill Building 602 Mentoring 443 Runaway Shelter Care 303 Family Counseling 295 Vocational Skills 269 Home-Based Family Counseling 251 Substance Abuse Counseling 238 Temporary Shelter Care 232 Sexual Offender Treatment 114 Group Home Care 94 Group Counseling 16 Specialized Foster Care 15 Temporary Foster Care 15 26 365 304 262 229 221 212 199 223 201 164 161 143 157 151 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Youth Development Centers Detention Centers YDC vs. DC Average Daily Population (CY 2010-2016) FACILITY CAPACITIES AND POPULATIONS NOTE: McWhorter building renovation on Stonewall Jackson campus resulted in an increase of 16 beds (from the FY2013- 2014 112 beds) for a total of 128 Stonewall beds in August 2016. McWhorter is a 32-bed building. A list of North Carolina’s youth development centers (YDCs), juvenile detention centers (DCs) and county-operated juvenile detention centers (DCs) with the facility’s name, bed capacity and average daily population (ADP) for calendar year 2016. Below shows the trends in the ADP of YDCs and DCs across the state over the last seven calendar years. The average length of stay during CY 2016 for YDCs was 358 days, and 17 days for detention center stays. Facility Types Funding Source Capacity ADP Youth Development Centers C.A. Dillon (closed May, 2016) 90 41 Chatham 32 31 Dobbs 43 39 Edgecombe (opened April, 2016) 44 24 Stonewall Jackson 128 97 Juvenile Detention Centers Alexander 24 19 Cumberland 18 14 Cabarrus 30 26 New Hanover 18 12 Pitt 18 11 Wake 24 25 County-operated Juvenile Detention Centers Durham 14 7 Guilford 48 29 27 FACILITY OPERATIONS STATISTICS 1,720 63% 221 8% 667 24% 141 5% 135 76% 9 5% 30 17% 4 2% White Other African American Hispanic/ Latino 2,131 78% 618 22% 2 15 79 267 605 1,164 515 97 5 <10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18+ Detention Center Admissions by Age 0 9 27 75 60 7 0 <12 13 14 15 16 17 18+ Detention Center Admissions by Age 170 96% 8 4% Male Female Youth Development Center Commitments by Age Youth Development Center Commitments (Male/Female) Youth Development Center Commitments by Race/Ethnicity Detention Center Admissions by Age Detention Center Admissions (Male/Female) Detention Center Admissions by Race/Ethnicity 28 CLINICAL SERVICES AND PROGRAMMING Juveniles committed to North Carolina’s juvenile justice system in 2016 presented with multiple and complex behavioral health needs. A representative point-in-time survey of youth confined in youth development centers on Dec. 31, 2016, revealed that: • 99.5 percent (all but one) carried at least one mental health diagnosis, with 61 percent holding at least one substance use diagnosis; • 60 percent had co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders; • 70 percent had more than one mental health disorder; • 33 percent were taking prescribed psychotropic medication; and • youth committed to YDCs had an average of three distinct mental health and/or substance use disorder diagnoses. These findings are largely similar to diagnostic trends found over recent years in this population, with one distinction: the rate of substance use disorders fell nearly 15 percent since 2015 (74 percent in 2015 vs 60 percent currently). The most frequent diagnoses among YDC youth, found after completion of a comprehensive evaluation using standardized assessment tools by a psychologist, were within the category of Disruptive, Impulse-Control and Conduct Disorders. These diagnoses describe problems of self-control manifested in behaviors that violate the rights of others and/or bring an individual into conflict with rules, laws or authority figures, so it is not surprising that 85 percent of delinquent youth confined in YDCs carry at least one diagnosis within this class. Other common mental health and substance abuse diagnoses are listed below for both YDC youth and those placed in juvenile justice-funded community-based short-term residential facilities in 2016. High rates of behavioral health needs were found among both groups. In CY 2016, PTSD-related problems troubled 5 out of 10 boys and 7 out of 10 girls, with youth confined in YDCs reporting exposure to six traumatic events on average. Youth with histories of unresolved trauma exposure experience recurrent symptoms that can disrupt personality development, relationships, decision-making and success in school, including: • persistently re-experiencing the distressing event though nightmares, intrusive thoughts and images, • marked emotional and physical reactions to sights, sounds, smells and other reminders of the original traumatic event(s), • heightened levels of arousal and physical reactivity that make them react quickly and powerfully when irritated or startled, • difficulty with sleeping and concentration; and • pervasive negative thoughts or feelings resulting from the trauma, such as excessive self- blame, distorted or highly negative views of the world or other people, and feelings of isolation. 29 2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t Licensed mental health clinicians (LMHCs) at all YDCs have been trained via an intensive learning collaborative training methodology to offer an evidence-based intervention for trauma-related disorders, Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavior Therapy (TF-CBT). In 2016, nine of our 14 YDC-based LMHCs also completed the Advanced Training in Trauma- Focused CBT Fidelity curriculum offered by the North Carolina Child Treatment Program. In addition, a third cohort of YDC-based LMHCs participated in the NC Child Treatment Program’s training program for Structured Psychotherapy for Adolescents Responding to Chronic Stress (SPARCS), making that intervention available at all YDCs as well. SPARCS is an evidence-based group intervention designed for adolescents who have been exposed to chronic stress and/or trauma. During group sessions, members examine and address problems with regulating emotions, attention, self-perception, relationships, physical health, and life purpose. In 2016, LMHCs in YDCs completed eight rounds of the 16-session SPARCS group curriculum with a total of 72 youth. 0% 33% 13% 73% 47% 67% 4% 16% 31% 56% 54% 70% - BOYS GIRLS Percent of Youth Development Center Population Conduct Disorder Cannabis-Related Disorder Trauma- and Stressor- Related Disorders Attention De cit/Hyperactivity Disorder Depressive Disorders Intellectual Disability 9% 39% 22% 35% 65% 78% 14% 24% 40% 21% 50% 55% - Percent of Community Programs Population Conduct Disorder Cannabis-Related Disorder Trauma- and Stressor- Related Disorders Attention De cit/Hyperactivity Disorder Depressive Disorders Intellectual Disability BOYS GIRLS 30 SPARCS LEARNING COLLABORATIVE In the fall of 2016, a multidisciplinary team culled from two YDCs—Dobbs and Edgecombe—enrolled in a nine-month-long training program in an evidence-supported mental health group treatment called Structured Psychotherapy for Adolescents Responding to Chronic Stress (SPARCS). SPARCS is designed to address the problems that arise in youth following years of chronic exposure to traumatic and stressful life events. Many are surprised to learn that adolescents aged 12-15 are victims of crime more than any other age group, and that adolescents of any age are victims at a rate that is twice the national average. Dr. Jamaal Scott, psychologist, and Freddie Barnes, clinical chaplain, both from Edgecombe YDC; LaNeisha Brown, social worker, and Lisa Butler, contract substance abuse counselor, from Dobbs YDC; and the team’s senior leader, Dr. Janet Clarke-McLean, Regional Psychological Program Manager. 31 2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t Much of the violence experienced by youths is perpetrated by peers or someone they know well. Youths exposed to recurrent violence often struggle with the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder highlighted on the preceding page, More than five of every 10 boys and seven of every 10 girls committed to a YDC in 2016 experienced trauma- and stressor-related disorders, reporting exposure to six different traumatic events on average. The SPARCS intensive training program, offered by the North Carolina Child Treatment Program, follows a learning collaborative model that consists of three two-day-long in-person training sessions attended by multiple teams spread over a six-month period, interspersed by regular coaching calls while teams implement with fidelity the intervention with two cohorts of youth. In addition, trainees collect and submit process and outcome measures that help them and their coaches track the impact of their efforts on the youth participating in the group sessions. Because the intervention is designed to be offered by a licensed mental health clinician (LMHC) and a co-leader in a supportive role, training teams from juvenile justice typically include an LMHC and a direct care staff member from a YDC. In addition, because the learning collaborative model also trains agency leaders to support and sustain the program’s implementation during and after the training program has concluded, each training team typically also includes a senior leader from a YDC or our central office. Staff at the state’s YDCs are encouraged to participate in learning collaboratives to acquire training in evidence-based mental health treatment, but doing so is a significant commitment. Trainees commit to additional data collection and documentation requirements, regular coaching and conference calls, clinical group time, and in-person training sessions solely because they desire to be able to meet the mental health needs of the youth in our custody with the best treatment available. For this reason, we are especially proud of our SPARCS training cohort! 32 MANAGING THE MODEL OF CARE Overview of the Model The Model of Care (MOC) is a therapeutic approach to behavior management and pro-social skill acquisition introduced in the state’s youth development centers (YDCs) in 2008, after a three-year pilot study established its effectiveness. The MOC outlines the ways in which direct care staff are to interact with youth during their time in our custody. While we recognize the value that individual and group therapy offers the youth committed to a YDC, we believe that direct care staff, those with the most “face time” with youth, function as vital agents of change within the juvenile justice system. At the heart of the MOC are focused therapeutic interactions that structure the interactions between staff and youth in a way that involves the recognition and rewarding of prosocial behavior, and targeted structured role plays (skills rehearsal and practice) to teach youth the specific prosocial skills they have been assigned for mastery. Across shifts and settings within the YDC, staff engage youth in these focused therapeutic interactions throughout the day. These structured interactions are embedded within a cognitive-behavioral approach addressing the treatment needs associated with delinquency and recidivism. A skills curriculum listing the positive and negative behavior descriptions of 51 prosocial skills assists staff and youth by clearly defining the appropriate way to demonstrate each skill. A sample skill from the curriculum appears below. 33 2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t Monitoring Program Fidelity Beautifully designed evidence-based programs, if not monitored closely, can drift and change over time, leading them to become less effective, or worse still, harmful. To ensure that activities in our YDCs are faithful to the MOC as designed, implementation teams at each YDC work closely with a statewide fidelity programs manager to assess and maintain program integrity by means of reviews of daily records and regular observation and coaching of staff by supervisors. In addition, monitoring visits consisting of structured observation of housing unit activities and records reviews are undertaken monthly. Semi-annual YDC site monitoring visits are undertaken as well, and include testing of randomly selected staff and youth in elements of the MOC, records review and observation. In 2016, we conducted a total of 49 monthly treatment programming fidelity support and monitoring visits to YDCs and detention centers, and we completed four semi-annual fidelity evaluation visits with assistance from Methodist Homes for Children leadership. Another way to enhance program fidelity and effectiveness is to ensure that staff is well trained. Over the course of twelve 2.5-day-long training sessions, Implementation Team members worked with our programs fidelity manager to offer experiential training to 100 juvenile justice employees in 2016 in the high quality delivery of the MOC. We also developed and launched an online orientation to the model of care for inclusion in our interactive online learning management system. SKILL: Accepts “No” for an answer Positive Demonstration Negative Demonstration Looks at the person Looks away, rolls eyes Acknowledges Argues, asks why, complains, swears Maintains body posture Rolls eyes, turns away, sighs, punches objects, jumps up, waves arms Waits until neutral time to discuss concerns more fully Discusses concerns immediately, demands 34 JUVENILE REENTRY REFORM North Carolina was one of three states to be awarded a FY 2015 Second Chance Act Comprehensive Statewide Juvenile Reentry Reform Implementation Program grant. With a total program budget of $1.47 million, the implementation grant is working to accomplish four primary objectives tied to service planning and service matching, family engagement, education and workforce development, and the evaluation of our effort. The key tasks tied to the work of the Service Planning and Service Matching subcommittee are central to the reform effort. With the assistance of the NC Government Data Analytics Center (GDAC) and its corporate partner, SAS, the subcommittee aims to mine data derived from juvenile justice–involved youth dating back to 2011 to identify whether there are clusters of offense, demographic, risk and needs variables that tend to occur together in our population of youth. Once these “types” of youth are identified, our data tied to programs and services to which youth have been assigned will be analyzed to examine whether specific “types” of youth have tended to benefit differentially from specific interventions comprising the wide array of services and programs supported by Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils and Juvenile Justice support. Ultimately, we aim to use the results of these analyses to rapidly identify the best treatment and program recommendations for youth at the time that a case plan is being developed. Much of the effort directed toward this objective in 2016 centered on preparing the data on program assignments from our two primary databases for analysis. With the help of the NC GDAC and SAS, we have applied a combination of entity resolution software and manpower to ensure that program entries within our databases are accurate, listed only once, and accurately tied to juvenile records. Subcommittee members culled from all areas of the juvenile justice section have also worked tirelessly to develop a taxonomy of programs and services to be used for the uniform and consistent classification of programs and services available to meet the myriad of treatment needs of juvenile justice-involved youth and those at risk for involvement. By the end of the year, we were preparing to classify the program entries in our two databases dating back to 2011 within our new taxonomy. This painstaking work will enable us to begin mining our historical data, while also serving as the foundation for a statewide directory of current services and programs that will be matched with identified treatment needs during case planning in the future. In October 2016, we learned that North Carolina was the recipient of a $500,000 federal continuation grant for the reentry reform project. We plan to use this funding to continue the effort to integrate case planning with service matching fueled by sophisticated data analytics, with the ongoing assistance of SAS and the GDAC. In addition, we will be partnering with Communities in Schools of NC to pilot in four counties (Durham, Forsyth, Guilford and Wake) youth development specialist positions to improve the reentry outcomes of youth returning to their home communities from YDCs and community-based residential facilities run under contract with us. 35 JUVENILE HEALTH SERVICES 2016 launched another year for Juvenile Justice Health Care Services to provide preventive and acute health care to juveniles in residential centers. Care involves admission baseline health assessments and physicals as well as preventive health care, response to illness, care management and age-appropriate health education. Data available from the North Carolina Annual School Health Services Report 2014-2015 (NC Department of Public Instruction and NC Division of Public Health) highlights 17 percent of school-aged children in North Carolina Public Schools required care for chronic health conditions including asthma, ADHD, severe allergies and emotional/behavioral/psychiatric conditions. Juvenile Justice’s population is a subset of the NC Public School population and has seen a concurrent increase in the number of youth entering detention centers and youth development centers with complex chronic illness needs requiring immediate attention and on-going care management. The often urgent placement surrounding many admissions means that medication, health histories and community provider’s medical orders may not arrive with youth. Care in centers must be quickly coordinated to ensure safety and maintain health status. 2015-16 saw the development of new partnerships to provide all aspect of care including oral care to youth. Cabarrus Health Alliance partnered to provide mobile oral health services at Stonewall Jackson Youth Development Center in Concord. Edgecombe Youth Development Center’s youth were seen by Edgecombe County Health Department’s Dental Clinic in Tarboro, offering Medicaid rates and excellent care continuity. Communication and collaboration continues with Public Health, community initiatives and private providers to identify the most cost effective and productive oral health services for all youth in Juvenile Justice residential settings. Information in the Mental Health section of this report outlines the significant and driving mental health needs of the juvenile population served. The data and information provided should be viewed in an integrated context— juveniles have mental health conditions that impact overall health status and require greater health care management to assess potential medication interactions and side effects, poor self- care due to mental health conditions, and greater displays of aggression and risk-taking behaviors. Factors such as these increase the level of health services staff care required in Juvenile Justice residential settings. 36 EDUCATION SERVICES Education Services is charged with fulfilling all state and federal mandates of a traditional school system. The school system staff includes a superintendent, central office staff, principals, assistant principal, teachers and other support staff. Students enrolled in academic programs in youth development centers are provided instruction consistent with the North Carolina Essential Standards in four 90-minute blocks daily. Students’ academic abilities are assessed upon entering and leaving youth development centers, with each youth receiving a personal education plan. Students who are identified as exceptional (i.e., having a disability) receive an Individual Education Plan (IEP) developed according to the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) guidelines. While enrolled in the education services system, students may earn either a high school diploma or high school equivalency certificate. Staffing for health services in North Carolina Juvenile Justice has historically been limited as the primary purpose of the organization is not health care. However, the health care needs of juveniles and the health trends across the state and nation are driving higher costs and increased health resources required to address unmet health needs of youth. Regional Nurse Supervisors were hired to support nurses across the organization as we monitor trends of increased chronic conditions, significant juvenile medication administration burden and managing the implications of a juvenile’s health status on remediation/re-entry planning by the multi-disciplinary service planning team. As Juvenile Justice seeks to meet increasing health demands, we are pleased to highlight innovative approaches to provide care including: the launch of a telehealth pilot for psychiatric care at Stonewall Jackson Youth Development center and the development of an innovative partnership with Cabarrus Health Alliance in Cabarrus County. This unique organization has a range of services to offer youth onsite as well as leveraging community youth programming brought to the center. 37 2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t SCHOOL NUTRITION The Juvenile Justice School Nutrition Services section oversees the administration of providing and promoting healthy, nutritious meals and eating habits to the youth in our system. Youth development centers and juvenile detention centers participate in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National School Lunch, School Breakfast and Commodity Programs. Juvenile Nutrition Services‘ central office team provides oversight and ensures compliance with federal and state food safety guidelines and regulations, procurement processes, local wellness policies, nutrition standards and menu-planning approaches, and other areas of compliance measures. This team works jointly with center food service staff, center directors and other staff to ensure optimal nutritional outcomes for youth. Food service staff actively participates in several awards sponsored by the School Nutrition Services section of the N.C. Department of Public Instruction, U.S. Department of Agriculture and School Nutrition Association of North Carolina. At the 2015-2016 School Nutrition Association of North Carolina annual conference in Greensboro, Beverly Cash, cook supervisor at Alexander Juvenile Detention Center, received three awards in the Culinary/Creative Arts Competition and Lolita Perry, cook II at Chatham Youth Development Center, was awarded first place honor and a “Best in Show.” Cash also won first place for her Golden Key Achievement entry presented by the School Nutrition Services section of the N.C. Department of Public Instruction and received a “Partner in Education Award,” sponsored by the School Nutrition Association of North Carolina to recognize exceptional implementation of nutrition education activities in both the cafeteria and the classroom 38 ADMINISTRATION, POLICY, TRAINING, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING • Worked with Juvenile Justice partners to inform the Raise the Age initiative. • Implemented juvenile medical claims processing through PGBA. • Began implementing online in-service training courses to maximize resources and minimize travel costs. • Implemented Field Training Officer/onboarding checklists to promote on-the-job training. • Revised the basic training curriculum to maximize the effectiveness of the program and better prepare our new staff for the responsibilities of their roles. • Revised the in-service training RCDT curriculum in response to feedback from stakeholders to create a nimbler course that better ensures safety for participants and allows for flexible in-service training schedules. • Created annual in-service training plans for Facility Operations and Court Services to promote consistency in certified staff training. 392 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t INSTRUCTORS OF THE YEAR Outside of their normal duties, select employees throughout Juvenile Justice go above and beyond to become training instructors, who contribute to the betterment of their fellow employees. Employees in Court Services and Facility Operations who choose to become instructors are capable of teaching a wide variety of trainings. Such trainings can vary from RCDT to First Aid, to Fitness and Wellness. Thank you to all of our instructors! Top instructors for 2016! Tracy Stanley, 2016 Overall Juvenile Justice Instructor of the Year, with Peter Brown, director of Stonewall Jackson Youth Development Center. LaTonya Middleton, the 2016 Court Services instructor of the Year, receives flowers from her co-workers, including her supervisor, Chief Court Counselor Marsha Woodall, and District 11 Court Counselor Supervisor Patrick Doan. Deputy Secretary William Lassiter with 2016 Facility Operations Instructor of the Year Haley Jones, from New Hanover Juvenile Detention Center. 40 Like all state agencies, Juvenile Justice’s budget comes from appropriations established by the North Carolina General Assembly. During FY15-16, Juvenile Justice was appropriated $129,981,610 with $1,990,677 in grants and federal funding. JUVENILE JUSTICE APPROPRIATIONS Juvenile Court Services $34,428,515 Youth Education Services $6,465,248 Youth Treatment Services $15,986,600 Youth Development Services $16,348,032 Youth Detention Services $13,800,139 Community Programs Services $19,708,915 Juvenile Crime Prevention Council (JCPC) $23,244,161 , 41 2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t JUVENILE JUSTICE STAFFING Juvenile Justice offers services in every county within North Carolina through a combination of contracts, grants and direct service. The 1,290 Juvenile Justice staff members and numerous stakeholders integrate their combined expertise and efforts to provide an effective, seamless continuum of responses and services to the youth and families of North Carolina. * Job classifications involved in supervision or counseling of juveniles, as defined in Title 12, Chapter 9 of the NC Administrative Code, by the statutory authority of G.S. 17C, are subject to and must meet the hiring and training standards established by the North Carolina Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission. Section Juvenile Justice Emplyees Total Number of Staff Number of Criminal Justice Certified Staff* Community Programs 23 — Court Services 537 452 Facility Services (includes Education/Health/Clinical) 673 540 Transportation Services 45 16 Administration 12 — 42 JUVENILE JUSTICE COMPREHENSIVE MAP 43 For additional information, please visit our website at: https://www.ncdps.gov/juvenile-justice 3010 Hammond Business Place Raleigh, NC 27603 Mailing Address: 4212 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-4212 Main Phone: 919-733-3388 Juvenile Justice Central Office Director Juvenile Community Programs: Cindy Porterfield Director Juvenile Court Services: Michael Rieder Director Juvenile Facility Operations: Jim Speight Director Juvenile Clinical Services and Programs: Dr. Jean Steinberg Deputy Secretary for Juvenile Justice: William L. Lassiter |
OCLC number | 52608513 |