Background
When I was younger, much younger, growing up in Augusta, Georgia my father was the counselor (and later Director) of a state-run regional, juvenile detention facility. I must have been about 11 and I didn’t really understand what that meant at the time, only that if you did something really bad as a kid you ended up at the RYDC out on Highway 56.
What I do remember very clearly and it seemed to happen every other month or so, we would be out for a family dinner, or shopping at the mall, or going to see a movie and these teenagers would come around- teenagers that weren’t from our neighborhood. Sometimes they would lurk, stare at my dad, almost nervous, and he would motion for them to come over. Other times they would run straight up almost giddy.
“Mr. V! Hey Mr. V, I’m doing good!
Are you staying out of trouble?
Hoe’s your grandmother?
How’s school?
I haven’t seen you in a while (meaning at the detention center) so that’s positive.
Keep up the good work.
Always very brief.
Always ended with keep up the good work.
Keep up the good work.
That’s when I began to see my father differently. Here was a man offering encouragement to kids who really needed it. It made an impression and, without realizing it, led me on my path.
I began my professional career in juvenile justice in 1987 working on the children’s unit of a state psychiatric hospital in Georgia. Over the years my path has given me a wide variety of experiences in the field. I have worked as a Youth Development Worker at a juvenile detention facility. I spent several years as Juvenile Probation Officer in rural Georgia as well as suburban Atlanta supervising caseloads of delinquent youth. I was the Residential Placement Specialist for a 20 county area responsible for maintaining the waiting list of all adjudicated youth in need of mental health and substance abuse treatment. In 1999 I was named the first Expeditor for the Department of Juvenile Justice and was charged with securing alternatives to detention for children detained in Fulton and Dekalb counties (Atlanta). I came to the Governor’s Office in 2000 and have worked with the JJDP grant programs for the past 10 years as the Juvenile Justice Specialist for the state of Georgia.
All told, I’ve been in the juvenile justice field professionally 23 years,
not counting the 4 teenage years when I WAS a delinquent.
So, to be accurate, that gives me a grand total of 27 years in the field.
And I think, maybe to make a difference,
to be truly successful in this field,
you have to have been a delinquent,
or at the very least,
learn how to stretch your mind to think like one.
Georgia and JJDPA
You have heard from a number of experts today. While I am not an expert allow me to share my state’s experience.
Georgia has been participating in the Act since the late 70’s and was one of the first states to create legislation recognizing the need to treat status offenders differently (1979). In 1987 the state passed legislation making it illegal to place youth charged with juvenile offenses in secure adult facilities (O.C.G.A.15-11-48). Georgia has never been found to be out of compliance with the Act.
(OVERHEAD- See Compliance Trend Analysis past 6 years)
Note that Jail Separation and Jail Removal have not been as big an issue due to the legislation I referenced.
To be frank, most Sheriffs and law enforcement officers are afraid of being sued and over the past 20+ years their mindset has changed to one that mirrors the Act: juveniles are handled differently from adults in Georgia.
(OVERHEAD- See Detention of Juveniles wallet cards for law enforcement)
Over 100,000 of these cards have been distributed in the past 10 years.
The biggest challenges Georgia faces come from the other two protections: DSO and DMC. Specifically issues involving data collection and data integrity which I will discuss in a moment.
Compliance Monitor and DMC Coordinator/Promising State Initiative
Until recently I held the roles of Juvenile Justice Specialist, Compliance Monitor, and DMC Coordinator simultaneously. The JJ Specialist role is challenging enough without these other duties. It requires the ability to balance a number of competing interests and priorities- interests of your state and OJJDP requirements, the State Advisory Group and the Executive Agency, needs of the juvenile justice system and very real political and financial concerns.
We were fortunate to hire a dedicated DMC Coordinator 2 years ago and have hired the state’s first full time Compliance Monitor last month. Since you have already heard from other panel members I won’t go into great detail about the requirements of these positions.
However, one of the primary roles of both positions is the collection and verification of data-
arrest data, detention data, jail data.
This is a very time consuming, laborious task that requires great attention to detail and specialized training. It is a daily, year-round task.
In order to adequately address the protections and make improvements one has to have good data. Getting accurate data for Compliance and DMC is a challenge for our state and my colleagues in other states as well.
In Georgia, juvenile data comes from multiple sources, is fragmented, and there is often disagreement on what the data means and which agency’s data is accurate.
Because of this we have traditionally reported the best available data we have for DMC purposes at each decision point for the juvenile justice system.
(OVERHEAD-See DMC data points)
Recognizing this gap in knowledge last year we initiated a Juvenile Data Integrity project in order to improve the quality of our data and decision-making.
We contracted with the Carl Vinson Institute at the University of Georgia to conduct BEST PRACTICES RESEARCH in juvenile data practices- During this process we consulted/site visited a number of leading resources including:
- Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
- National Center for Juvenile Justice
- Washington State Institute for Public Policy
- Alabama Criminal Justice Information Center
- AZ Integrated Criminal Justice Information System
In June 2009 we convened a working group of juvenile data stakeholders (Georgia state agencies that have statutory authority over data) and came to the following conclusions:
- Agree that data needs to drive our decision-making.
- Agree on collective need of state to move from current situation to a renewed focus on outcomes for juvenile justice.
- We cannot move to a focus on outcomes without first coming to agreement about where we are as a state (thus the need for good, agreed-upon data).
- Continuing current practice does as disservice to the youth of our state.
How can we come together and create a culture of data sharing?
All the partners at our June 11th meeting agreed to move forward with project.
And here is where we are now-
(OVERHEAD-See website
https://alpha.itos.uga.edu/GAJuvenileJustice/gjjdrlogon.aspx )
Particularly effective: DMC dashboard
We have found that this visual representation to be a powerful way to convey a complex and often emotional issue.
Through our patient, consensus building efforts we have been able to achieve some measurable progress.
Role of OJJDP
When I began working with Georgia’s JJDPA efforts I was fortunate to have as my mentor Dr. Pete Colbenson, the long-time Juvenile Justice Specialist who is an expert on the system in Georgia and well-respected by his peers nationally.
One of the first things that Pete taught me is that the Act is a partnership between OJJDP and the states, working together to achieve the protections for the good of children throughout the country. When I became Georgia’s JJ Specialist I took this ideal, this spirit of partnership to my work. For several years this was my experience with OJJDP and, speaking for my colleagues, this was their experience as well.
Around 2007 the tenor of the relationship changed:
- Communications concerning compliance became more proscriptive and more of a directive role was taken by the Office
- The Compliance Monitoring universe was expanded and expectations were increased (Ex- inspecting shopping malls/adult psychiatric facilities/group homes)
- Issuance of guidance manuals for Compliance and DMC each numbering in the hundreds of pages
- Appearance that more states were having compliance issues than ever before
Question:
Was the problem that the Office did not enforce its rules previously and was now doing so?
-Or-
Were new interpretations of the Act being made?
Regardless, this new approach to compliance by the Office was not seen as an attempt to work with states in the cooperative partnership that was enjoyed in the past.
There have been rumblings over seemingly different standards of compliance applied to different states and the seemingly different interpretations of compliance depending on who you speak with and who conducted the audit. The Field might be left with the impression that the Office was not in agreement as to what constitutes the varying levels of a state’s compliance. The Administrators letter in February 2008, based on feedback from the Field, went a long way in clearing up some of these issues.
The Compliance Guidance Manual has since been removed from the OJJDP website and we understand that changes are being made and an updated manual will soon be promulgated to the Field.
It appears that when some states are found out of compliance there is not a standardized process for them to achieve compliance and receive their lost funds. Is this an all or nothing at all scenario for a state? It can give the appearance of a conflict of interest, that it is to the advantage of the Office to find states out of compliance since those forfeited funds can be used by the Office.
Another potential area concerns the timeliness of Compliance Monitoring Audit letters. There have been reports that it is not uncommon for states to not get their letter for 6, 9, or even 12 months after the Audit has been conducted.
If a state is truly out of compliance or needs to make improvements would it not stand to reason that the Office would want to protect the youth of a state and get this information back to that state as quickly as possible?
There have also been a number of positives with the Office.
Training and technical assistance- This is free and all reports state that the resources are superb and have been a great benefit to the states.
OJJDP conferences are consistently focused on the Act and provide great opportunity for increasing the field’s knowledge while still allowing for networking opportunities with colleagues from other states.
State Representatives are generally viewed as solid, helpful, and supportive resources for their respective states.
Standardization work on Performance Measures and Model Programs Guide
Performance Measures-Uniformity of objectives for each different grant program that we can pass down to our local projects has been especially helpful in focusing the work and reporting our progress.
The Model Guide is a huge help in educating communities about Evidenced-based practices.
These are a few examples of the type of leadership in which the Office excels.
The key to note here is that all the above examples solicit/solicited substantive input from the field.
I would be remiss if I did not also mention the Working Group on Compliance that was formed last year at the conference in Austin. The open forum between the Office and the field allowed for the free and frank discussion. This is the type of interaction that the states are looking for and the openness of the Office in this matter has been much appreciated.
As this Committee looks at the issues of system reform I feel it only appropriate to point out the following. There has been a lack of leadership among juvenile justice advocates, workers in the field, and researchers. The juvenile justice system has lost a great deal of allocated funding, even before the current economic decline hit. This can be traced in large part to the lack of unity in the field and this is a failure we must all share. Have we learned our lesson? Are we doing anything differently or clinging to the same roles and actions that have led us to this point?
Now, more than ever, facing ever shrinking resources and the possible Reauthorization of the Act, it is time for us to focus. There are a number of states that are minimum allocation states. Some of these states are at a point, given all the new expectations from the Office, that it may not be worth their effort to continue to participate in the Act. That is very troubling to me and it should be a concern for the entire panel.
Successes/Challenges/Reform
Georgia
Successes
- 15-11-48 1987 law making it illegal to place juveniles in adult facilities in Georgia.
In FFY 2009, out of approximately 56,000 juvenile arrests only 23 juveniles were held in adult facilities in excess of 6 hours, an outcome that occurred only 0.0005% times, a less than significant number.
- Juvenile Data Integrity Project has real promise to impact CM and DMC
- DMC work in local counties gaining traction (4-Dekalb, Fulton, Chatham, Clayton)
Challenges
- DSO continues to be an issue for Georgia
- Transfer/waiver of youth to adult court.
Currently have 89-14, 15, 16 year old youth in adult facilities.
This is a failure of my state’s juvenile justice system. It is my office’s duty to find out what happened and why.
Reform Efforts
- For the past two years SB 100 has been attempting to institute a new model juvenile proceedings code based on the CHINS model. One of the major provisions of the proposed legislation would be the elimination of detention for status offenders in Georgia. This legislation will be re-introduced in January. This has the potential to do for our state in DSO what the jail legislation did in the late 80’s.
- Our office has instituted a System of Care approach to our grant making process- focusing on projects that integrate and wrap needed services around youth and their families for specific populations of focus ( Ex. truants, alternative school youth)
Nationally
Successes
- Increase in development and usage of research based models
- Washington State Cost-Benefit Analysis of juvenile justice programming
- Missouri experience (hear more about tomorrow)
Challenges
- Juvenile Justice “family” needs to find common ground (not necessarily even agreement), develop consensus on that common ground, and till the soil together.
- Until we can overcome the ingrained thought process of the general public that punishment works (what I call the myth of the switch), Juvenile Justice will continue to get the short branch on the money tree because of the misperception “bad kids don’t deserve anything better”.
- Juvenile Justice Specialists- the worker bees for the Act across the country are leaving in droves. While it used to be typical that Specialists would stay 5, 10, 15 years, now half the state’s Specialists have les than 2 years experience. Some states are averaging a new Specialist every year. It is almost impossible to affect real change in the states and ensure the core protections under this scenario.
Reform Efforts
Recommendations/Opportunities for Leadership
- 1. States need support
Standardize practices for CM and DMC
Establish defined processes and definite time limits.
- 2. Simplify
Guidance manuals over 200+ pages are overly complex.
If can’t explain the nuances of the work succinctly it makes it difficult to justify efforts and secure cooperation and funding.
- 3. Initiate customer service approach with states as it pertains to core protections
If the field knows you truly care about compliance AND their efforts to comply and you demonstrate that compassion, they will follow. The work is highly technical (see #2) but in addition to having technical people states will most benefit by working with those who possess exceptional interpersonal skills and can communicate effectively.
- 4. Increase efforts/$/resources/TA to assist states in improving juvenile data collection. Help make this important task easier for states.
- 5. Juvenile justice benefits when the Office and advocacy organizations work cooperatively.
It has been very encouraging to see this develop over the past year and it is much appreciated. It benefits kids and we thank you.
- 6. Compliance Monitoring should focus on areas that are truly problems for states
How effective and efficient is it for Georgia to devote massive amounts of manpower and energy to jail removal when this occurs .00005 times a year? Does it make sense?
In times of scarcity we need to focus.
Thank you for the honor to address the committee and in closing I leave you the words of my father-
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!
