31521 - final assessment report v14...
TRANSCRIPT
LCLE
LA
A
E – Disproport
LCLE DiAssess
April 29, 20
ionate Minorit
ispropoment S
011
y Contact Asse
ortionaStudy:
essment Study
ate MinFinal R
y: Final Report
nority CReport
t
Cover
Contact
r Page
t
Page | 1
LCLE
TEx
Ph
Ph
Ph
Ph
Ap
E - DMC Asses
Table of Cxecutive Summ
hase I: Synops
Suitability of
Other Data S
Where DMC
Recommenda
hase II: Synop
Research To
Recommende
Final Resear
hase III: Synop
Data Collecti
Data Analysi
hase IV: Discu
Recommende
Monitoring P
Conclusion .
ppendices .....
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
ssment Study:
Contents mary ..............
sis .................
f Existing Data
ources ..........
is Occurring ..
ations for Impr
sis ................
pic Workshop
ed Research T
ch Topics ......
psis ...............
ion ................
s ...................
ussion of Resul
ed Mitigation S
Plan ...............
.....................
.....................
References....
Tables ..........
Survey ..........
Final Report
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
roved Data .....
.....................
.....................
Topics ............
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
lts .................
Strategies ......
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
Table
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
.................... 2
.................... 2
.................... 3
.................... 3
.................... 3
.................... 3
.................... 3
.................... 5
of Contents
.. 3
.. 6
.. 6
.. 7
.. 8
.. 8
10
10
10
11
15
15
15
24
26
32
34
35
35
37
52
Page | 2
LCLE
ETCDCO
TdadaremonstbedeD
Tnedejuse
Tanpe
Tfoplm
Su
TdewStju
E - DMC Asses
Executive The Louisiana Criminal JusticDisproportionaCaddo, CalcasiOuachita, and
The first phase ata in the selecata as well as wecommendatio
management synly manage jutudy DMC. Teing collected eveloped to en
DMC in the sa
The second phaeeded to identeveloped by st
uvenile justice elected for furt
Topic Topic
Topic Topic
The third phasenalyzing the seerformed to d
The fourth phaor monitoring lan is included
mitigation strat
ummary of R
The results for ecision point i
where an objectate-wide deciustice system.
ssment Study:
SummarCommission
ce (LCLE) hasate Minority Cieu, East BatonRapides. The
established thcted parishes. ways to improon to come froystem that couuvenile cases, bThis phase also
properly and nsure that the ame manner.
ase of the studtify why DMCtakeholders insystem. The ther study are
1 - Discretion2 - DMC Acr
Making S3 - Examine L4 - Understan
e was the colleelected researc
develop strateg
ase reported ththe strategies
d in this docutegy and its ex
Results
Topic 1 indicis uncommontive tool is comision-making p
Final Assessm
y on Law Enfors undertaken aContact (DMCn Rouge, Jeffee study was div
he current stat It identified
ove DMC dataom Phase I wauld be used in but also to colo identified arrecommendeparishes acros
dy identified aC was occurrin
nvolved in the research topic:
n in the Juvenross Offense L
Stage Length of Cusnding School-
ection of data ch topics. Anagies to reduce D
he findings of listed in the t
ment and descxpected outcom
cate that the un. Detention Smmonly usedpolicy for each
ment Report
rcement and Aan assessment C) focusing onerson, Lafayettvided into fou
te of DMC anpotential altera collection. Aas the need forparishes acros
llect data that reas where DMd that a trainiss the State are
areas where resng. These resday-to-day op
cs identified in
nile Justice SysLevel in Each D
stody on PlaceBased Arrests
needed for stalysis of this dDMC.
the study andthird phase. Acribes steps tome.
use of objectiveScreening is th. This indicath decision poi
Administrationstudy of n the parisheste, Orleans,
ur phases.
nd DMC-relatrnate sources oA major r a juvenile cass the state to can be used to
MC data wereing program be interpreting
search was search topics wperations of thn this phase an
stem Decision-
ement
udying and data was
d provided a pA monitoring o monitor each
e criteria at eahe only area tes the need foint in the juve
Execu
n of
s of
ted of
ase not o not
be g
were he nd
plan
h
ach
or a enile
utive Summary
Page |
y
3
LCLE
TAalthpa
Tofinmprtoprbias
Taradprarbaidscinar
Su
Tst
StmwStcosyre
E - DMC Asses
The data availaArrest is the gatlarming and what there is a garishes, and d
The results for f probation benvestigation. G
misdemeanors, robation for tho account for trobation ordeias, and parenssess DMC in
The data availarrests should bdministrators rocedures andrrested versus ased arrests acdentifying the chool-based arn the developmrrests.
ummary of D
Three strategiestrategies are:
Strateg
Strateg
Strateg
trategy 1 invomeasurement stwide basis in thtate-wide infoollect, analyze ystem would eegular DMC a
ssment Study:
able for Topic teway to the ju
warrants furthegreat deal of vaecision points
Topic 3 indicetween White Given the nonthe length of
hese offenses ithe circumstanrs, new charge
ntal involvemethe length of
able for Topic be an area thatand juvenile j
d criteria used disciplined at
ccount for a sigschools that a
rrests are threement of interv
DMC Reductio
s were develop
gy 1 - Improv Monito
gy 2 - Using O Arrest
gy 3 - Develop Sanction
lves developintrategies, and
he juvenile jusormation syste
and report daease the burdeactivities.
Final Assessm
2 indicate thauvenile systemer examinationariation in DMs.
cate that the dand Black yo
n-serious natuf time that Blais alarming. Dnces of each ces while on prnt/recommen
f time on prob
4 indicate that is studied furustice agencieto determine school, exam
gnificant amoare responsiblee critical pieceventions to red
on Strategies
ped during thi
ing the Capacr DMC Data
Objective Dec
ping and Implns
ng a set of stanreporting guidtice system. Im would helpata are consistn on the local
ment Report
at DMC is higm, so this fact n. The availabMC across offe
differences in tuth require fu
ure of non-violack youth are hData also showase, such as farobation, probndation, when bation.
at DMC in scrther by both es. Understanwhen a child ining whether
ount of all juvee for the greats of informati
duce DMC in
is study to red
city to Collect ision-Making
lementing Gra
ndard definitiodelines to be uIn addition, thp ensure that ment. A State-wl agencies to p
ghest at arrestis somewhat ble data highl
fense levels,
the average lenurther lent held on w that it is critailure to meet bation officer
attempting to
chool-based school
nding the should be r or not schooenile arrests, atest number ofion that will aschool-based
duce DMC. T
t, Analyze and
g Criteria at
aduated
ons, used on a Stathe adoption ofmethods used wide informat
provide data
Execu.
ight
ngth
tical
o
ol-and f
assist
The
d
te-f a to
tion
utive Summary
Page |
y
4
LCLE
StpoAdiobpr
StadArefoco
E - DMC Asses
trategy 2 invooint. This stu
Arrest contact piscretion availbjective criterirocess.
trategy 3 invoddress reducin
Adoption of a gestrictive decisocusing on streommunity.
ssment Study:
lves developinudy showed thpoint, and resable to decisioia may assist in
lves the develong the numbergraduated sancsions are beingengthening th
Final Assessm
ng objective crhat there was aearch suggestson-makers man reducing bia
opment of a gr of Black youctions grid wog made while phe bonds betw
ment Report
riteria for the Aa high level of s that the highay contribute tas in the decis
graduated sancuth sent to secuould ensure thpromoting acc
ween the offend
Arrest contactf DMC at the h level of to DMC. Usision-making
ctions grid to ure confineme
hat the least countability ader and the
Execut
ing
ent.
and
utive Summary
Page |
y
5
LCL
PGda(DCanDwwde
F
SA(Oeaof
LE – Disproport
Phase I: SGCR & Associ
ata available foDMC) in the j
Calcasieu, East nd Rapides. S
DMC decisionworkflow graphwith a parish re
etermination o
Figure 1: The N
Suitability oA review of theOJJDP) definiach of the parif the OJJDP D
tionate Minori
Synopsis iates, Inc. (GCfor identificatiojuvenile popuBaton Rouge
Site visits occu/contact poinhic, Figure 1, bepresentative aof DMC.
Nine (9) DM
f Existing De Office of Juvition for each ishes to ensureDMC guidelin
ty Contact Ass
CR) and its teaon of Disprop
ulation of the ee, Jefferson, Laurred at each pts that are illubelow. Each pand reviewed f
MC Decision/Co
Data venile Justice adecision/conte participants nes. The asses
sessment Study
am members hportionate Mineight pilot parafayette, Orleaparish to discuustrated in the parish’s data wfor appropriat
ontact Points
and Delinquentact point was had a currentssment team t
y: Final Repor
have assessed tnority Contacrishes of Caddans, Ouachitauss the nine
juvenile justicwas discussed teness in
ncy Preventio performed wt understandinthen discussed
rt
Phase
the ct do, a,
ce
n’s with ng d
e I: Synopsis
Page | 6
LCL
thac
GthhodewdepothpaTsi
ODidSuEthOpo
TfoC
TchSuconuD
TAdaponoIsA
LE – Disproport
he parish’s datccording to th
Generally, the phat follows theowever, there ecision/contac
with data not becision/contacoints where dahis is that somarticular decis
This mistakenlyngle individua
Other Data SDuring Phase Identified at theupreme Courtnforcement (L
heir suitabilityOJJ identifies c
oints:
Cases R Cases R
Faciliti
Therefore, dataor the two dec
Caddo, Ouachi
The Louisiana harges from alupreme Courtounts by race. umber of case
DMC decision
The LCLE has ASRJ data. Th
ata parishes proint (point onot reported inslander race cl
ASRJ data was
tionate Minori
ta sources and he OJJDP guid
project team de OJJDP data are some inco
ct point by pabeing reportedct point. Theata was being
me parishes cousion/contact py inflates the cal at a particul
Sources I of the assessme Louisiana Ot (LASC), andLCLE). Thesey for use in DMcounts by race
Resulting in PResulting in Cies (point eigh
a from OJJ is scision/contact ita, and Rapid
Supreme Coull of the courtst’s Annual Rep Therefore, it
es against paris/contact poin
data for age, shis data was revrovide for the ne on Figure 1n the ASRJ datassifications afound to be a
ty Contact Ass
suitability fordelines.
determined thrules for the n
onsistencies inarish. For examd consistently fre were also a reported inco
unt the numbeoint instead ocount when mlar decision/co
ment study, adOffice of Juvend the Louisiane State-level dMC identificae for the follow
Probation (poiConfinement iht on Figure 1)
suitable to suppoints listed a
des.
urt compiles cos in Louisianaport. The datt is only suitabsh totals at thet (point three
sex, and race oviewed and is “Juvenile Arr). Hispanic ota, and countsre combined i
an acceptable q
sessment Study
r use in monit
hat there is datnine decision/
n how data is cmple, there arfor the “Casesfew other dec
orrectly by raceer of cases pas
of the number multiple cases aontact point.
dditional sournile Justice (OJna Commissiondata sources weation. Data avwing DMC de
int seven on Fin Secure Juve).
pplement otheabove for the p
ounts of juvena. This data ista collected doble for checkine “Referrals toon Figure 1).
of juveniles arsuitable to su
rest” DMC deor Latino race s for the Asianinto one race cquality check
y: Final Repor
toring DMC
ta in each pari/contact pointcounted at eacre some issues s Diverted” cision/contact e. An examplssing through
of individualare opened fo
rces of data weJJ), the Louisin on Law ere reviewed fvailable from tecision/contac
Figure 1). enile Correctio
er data collecteparishes of
nile cases and s published in oes not identifng the total o Juvenile Cou
rrested, knownupplement theecision/contacclassification
n and Pacific category. Theagainst parish
rt
Phase
ish ts, ch
le of a s. r a
ere iana
for the ct
onal
ed
the fy
urt”
n as e ct is
e h
e I: Synopsis
Page | 7
LCL
dasireth
WTocoffoIn
WdepideDfoDSe
RMthefjuqudewpa
LE – Disproport
ata totals in thnce the ASRJ epresentative. hat the data ar
Where DMC The latest data ccurring at sevf the decision/or analysis or tndex (RRI) ca
Where the dataecision/contacilot parishes. ecision/contac
DMC appears ocus on impro
DMC is occurrecure Detenti
RecommendMost of the pilhe occurrence ffort should beuvenile contacuality of the determine wher
will substantialarish:
Develoon howthe uni
For smcentralcollect
For lardevelopautom
Work that ar
tionate Minori
he “Juvenile Areport is volu Another facto
re not usually
is Occurrinavailable from
veral decision//contact pointthey are missinlculation.
a is available toct point contaHistorically, t
ct point has noto be occurrin
oving the qualiring. The secoon” decision/c
dations for Iot parishes areof DMC at ve made with tt data necessa
data is improvere DMC is ocly improve th
op a data dictiow to capture aniform collectio
maller parishes lized juvenile cion of necessarger parishes wpment of expoate providing with the distre diverted and
ty Contact Ass
Arrest” decisionuntary, the dator that limits compiled unt
ng m the pilot par/contact pointts either have ng data for a p
o calculate theains the most othe data reporot been of higng at this decisity of the dataond highest Rcontact point.
Improved De missing dataarious decisionhe parishes to
ary for DMC ded, a reliable a
ccurring. The e quality of th
onary to be usnd report DM
on of DMC idewith limited case managem
ary data elemewith resources ort routines anthe DMC datict attorney’s d transferred d
sessment Study
n/contact pointa may not be the use of the il 18 months
rishes indicatets. Unfortunaan insufficienportion of the
e RRI, the “Juoccurrences ofrted for the “Jugh quality. Resion/contact pa before focusi
RRI is for the “.
Data a that are criticn/contact poin
o improve the determinationanalysis can befollowing rec
he data collect
ed for trainingMC data. This
entification datresources, dev
ment system tonts. and a technol
nd data qualitta. office to gathe
directly to the
y: Final Repor
nt. Note thatfully ASRJ data is after submissi
es DMC is ately, the majot number of cRelative Rate
uvenile Arrest”f DMC in theuvenile Arrestesearch into wpoint should fiing on why “Cases Involvi
cal to identifynts. A rigorouquality of
n. Once the e performed tocommendationted from each
g data providerwill help ensuta across the St
velop a o facilitate
logy system, fty rules to
er data on caseadult court.
rt
Phaset
ion.
ority cases e
” e t”
why first
ing
ying us
o ns
rs ure tate.
fund
es
e I: Synopsis
Page | 8
LCL
LE – Disproport
Work provid
Work wbefore practic
Work is repo
tionate Minori
with the arrese technology swith parishes tit is submitted
ces on a State-wwith the parisrted by case a
ty Contact Ass
ting agencies solutions for tto set up qualid. Develop quwide basis for tshes to ensure nd not by cha
sessment Study
to assemble artracking arrestity assurance reuality assuranctraining data pthat DMC id
arge.
y: Final Repor
rrest data and ts. eviews of the d
ce procedures aproviders. dentification d
rt
Phase
data and
data
e I: Synopsis
Page | 9
LCL
P
RIntowVbaprtoprpast
RT
LE – Disproport
Phase II: S
Research Ton Phase II, a oopics for use in
with the techniVillarruel made
ased on his revresented with opics. The briroject along warishes. Thistakeholders in
RecommendThe recommen
Undercensus Louisiadoes nHispanidentifhow th
Underprison phenomjuvenilschool-
DMC Stage –level ofbreak tdiscret
Examiresearcon prothe sama high justice
Discredecisiomakingmaking
tionate Minori
Synopsis
opic Worksone-day worksn this study. Sical assistance e recommendaview of the Pha briefing booiefing book co
with other soci briefing bookdeveloping n
ded Researcnded research t
rstanding the data indicates
ana is growingot indicate a pnic/Latino youfy contact withhat is affectingrstanding Schopipeline start
menon has a sle justice syste-based arrests Across Offen
– Discretion df discretion cathe RRI downion is influencning Length o
ch indicates thobation for lonme offenses. Tlevel of DMCsystem.
etion in the Juons in the juveg criteria. Thg criteria affec
ty Contact Ass
hop hop was held Stakeholders wprovided by Dations on besthase I report. ok and with seontained data ioeconomic dak was used as aew research to
ch Topics topics present
Hispanic/Lats that the Hispg, but the DMproportional inuth. This reseh Hispanic/Lag DMC. ool-Based Arrs with school-staggering numem. This reseaare affecting D
nse Level Withdecreases as ofan affect DMCn by offense lecing the rate oof Custody on
hat minorities nger periods oThis research tC in the placem
uvenile Justiceenile justice syhis research topct DMC in th
sessment Study
to develop powere brought Dr. Francisco -practices to aThe stakehold
everal recommcollected in Pata related to ta resource to aopics.
ted at this wor
ino Populatiopanic/Latino p
MC data collecncrease in conearch topic woatino youth an
rests – The na-based arrests. mber of youtharch topic wouDMC. hin Each Deciffense levels inC. This researvel to determi
of DMC. n Placement –will be placedf time than notopic will detement of youth
e System – Thystem lack cleapic will study e study parish
y: Final Repor
otential researctogether alongVillarruel. D
address DMCders were
mended researcPhase I of the the eight studyaid the
rk shop were:
on – The currepopulation in
cted in Phase Intact with ould attempt tnd determine
ational school The
hs entering theuld study how
ision-Makingncrease, and thrch topic wouine if the level
– A great deal d in detention on-minorities ermine if therehs in the juven
he majority of ar decision-how decision-
hes.
rt
Phase
ch g
Dr. C
ch
y
ent n I
to
to
e w
g he uld l of
of or for
e is nile
f
-
e II: Synopsis
Page | 10
LCL
Fi
Danwdere
DD
CwjuInacevadsethjuhadejurejurasi(U
Bsyarjuadsuvaanfr19inso20arpr
LE – Disproport
inal Research
During the wornd the topics w
were asked to revelop other tesearch topics
MC Assessmeiscretion in t
Consistent withwithin the stateuvenile justice ndex (RRI) amcross the Statevery stage of thdjudication deecure facilitieshese rates of diustice decisionave their casesetention, be a
uvenile facilityesearch showinuvenile justice ates in criminagnificantly dif
U.S. Departm
ias by decisionystem where thre processed thuvenile justice dministrative uggests that beariability existnd has been obrom arrest to d995). Police, n these decisioocial workers, 002). For there typically barevious offens
tionate Minori
h Topics rkshop, manywere ranked aeview the rese
topics. A followere finalized
ent Topic 1: he Juvenile J
h national date of Louisiana system. Avai
mong youth we. This overrehe juvenile jusetention, cases. Research suisproportional
n makers as mis handled formdjudicated de
y (Rivaux, 200ng that overrepsystem is not
al activity, as sfferent rates o
ment of Justice,
n makers is pahere is often mhan is the casesystem is to sguidelines, anecause of a lacts. This discrebserved in all disposition folprosecutors, a
ons, but other and probation
ese officials, deased on informes or role in th
ty Contact Ass
y potential reseat the workshoearch topics deow-up confered.
ustice System
ta, the overrepcan be foundlable data sho
who are arresteepresentation pstice system ins formally petiggests that onlity is bias andinority youth mally, be placelinquent, and
06). This explpresentation onecessarily re
self-report datf offending eit, 1999).
articularly promore discretioe for adults. Dome extent gu
nd operating pck of clear decietion is well dophases of the
llowing adjudiand juvenile cimportant pern officers also ecisions are of
mation about ahe offense. W
sessment Study
earch topics wop’s completioeveloped and tence call was h
m
presentation ofd at almost eveows that the Rd ranges frompersists amongncluding arresitioned, and c
ne possible expd discriminatioare more likel
ed in pre-adjube confined i
lanation is supof minority yolated to highea has failed tother by freque
blematic in thn available for
Decision-makiuided by staturocedures. Hision criteria, ocumented acjuvenile justicication (Johnsourt judges arrsonnel such aplay an impo
ften based on ja youth, such a
While it is clear
y: Final Repor
were discussed,on. Stakeholdto try and
held and the
f minority youery step of the
Relative Rate m 2.26 to 19.2
g youth at almt, pre-
commitment tplanation for on by juvenilely to be arrestedication in a secure pported by outh in the er participationo reveal ency or variety
he juvenile jusr how juvenileing within the
utes, However, evide
considerable cross the counce continuum son & Secret, re the key figuas psychologis
ortant role (Hojudgments whas history of r that some lev
rt
Phase
, ders
uth
5 most
to
e ed,
n
y
stice es e
ence
try
ures sts, oge, hich
vel
e II: Synopsis
Page | 11
LCL
ofthaninco
Tcldira
DD
TceofdoleDRofwofthwHmyodi
Aha(Btw
liklikad
DvaocmshcoofD
LE – Disproport
f discretion is his indeterminnd biases to opnconsistent wiontribute to u
The majority olear decision-miscretion. Theates of disprop
MC Assessmeecision-Maki
The level of DMertain characteffense. As a reown the RRI w
evel. This meaDMC at a giveRRI by offense ffense categori
within each staffense levels (ihe decision-ma
would not be aHowever, for nmisdemeanors)outh is commiversion).
A great deal of arshly than WBurns Institutwice as likely kely to receivekely to be prodmitted to adu
Data available iaries across offccurrence of D
misdemeanor ahow that DMCourt for non-sf breaking dow
DMC across th
tionate Minori
necessary, if tnacy in rules alperate and math the objectiv
unfairness.
f decisions mamaking criteriaerefore, it is n
portionality fo
ent Topic 2: ing Stage
MC can vary weristics. One iesult, researchwithin each stans that, althon stage of the level may hig
ies and a greatge. For certaii.e., violent felaking process.
an important fnon-serious off, discretion inon (e.g., refer
research indicWhite youth ev
e, 2010). Natas White yout
e probation foosecuted and ault prison for
in Louisiana sffense categorieDMC for felonand formal FINC occurred at serious offensewn the RRI a he most comm
ty Contact Ass
the needs of ealso provides roay contribute tves of the juve
ade within thea and are base
necessary to stuund within th
DMC across O
within each deimportant cha
hers and DMCtage of the juvough the RRI
juvenile justicghlight a low lter level of DMin offenses, typlony), there is . Therefore, tfactor in determfenses (i.e., stan which course
the child for
cates that minven when chartional data sugth to be sent t
or drug offenseare one and a hdrug-related o
how that the es. One parishny offenses, wNS offenses. Ha higher level
es. These examstep further to
mon offense ca
sessment Study
ach youth are oom for persoto decisions wenile justice sy
e juvenile justied on personaludy discretionhe juvenile jus
Offense Leve
ecision-makinaracteristic is t
C experts recomvenile justice smay suggest ace system, breevel of DMC MC for other pically the molittle discretio
the race/ethnicmining the ouatus offenses, ne of action to formal proces
ority youth arrged with the sggests that Blato secure facilies. Latino youhalf times moroffenses (NSD
level of DMCh may show a
when comparedHowever, anol when the youmples highligho include an aategories withi
y: Final Repor
to be fully meonal prejudiceswhich are ystem and may
ice system lackl judgment an
n’s impact on stice system.
l within Each
ng stage based the type of mmend breaksystem by offea low level of eaking down t
for certain offense catego
ore serious onary power incity of the youutcome. non-violent take against th
ssing or
re treated morsame offense(sack youth are ities and are leuth are also mre likely to be
DUH, 2005).
C in parishes a higher d to other parish muth is referredht the importaassessment of in each decisio
rt
Phaseet,
s
y
k nd
h
on
king ense
he
ories
n uth
he
re s)
ess more
may d to ance
on-
e II: Synopsis
Page | 12
LCL
mtoea
DEx
Inadralegralpotosi
ABthCwLAprcuco
UplinnugrjuprpotrcoFprcoorti
BeaL
LE – Disproport
making stage. o calculate theach decision-m
MC Assessmexamining Len
n addition to admissions to dacial/ethnic grength of placemroups. The lelso an importaotential to higo compare themilar offenses
A great deal of lack and Hisp
han White youCrime & Delinwere confined o
atino youth wAvailable Louis
rovided by theustody in somompared to W
Understandinglacements is a
nformation onumber of possroups. One reuvenile justice robation officossible reason reatment bias worrectional offinally, the behrobation or inontinuing to mr incarcerated me under cus
ased on nationach custody plouisiana's juve
tionate Minori
Therefore, ane RRI across thmaking stage.
ent Topic 3: ngth of Custod
assessing the ndetention, admroup, it is also ments under jength of time aant decision inghlight a high e length of tims.
research suggepanic youth aruth (CJJ, 200nquency (2007on average for
were confined siana data parae Office of Juv
me parishes is sWhite youth.
g disparity in tlso an importa
n the treatmensible reasons weason may be personnel, foer's decision tfor longer tim
while in custoficer or more shavior of the yncarcerated. Itmisbehave wh(e.g., fightingtody.
nal estimates, lacement is alsenile justice sy
ty Contact Ass
additional reshe most comm
dy on Placem
number of cusmissions to sec
important to uvenile justicea youth is on pn the juvenile level of DMC
me for a given p
ests that, for tre incarcerated1). For examp7) reported thr 61 days long112 days longallel these nativenile Justice, ignificantly hi
he average lenant element o
nt of youth whwhy length of bias in the senr instance, a ju
to release a chime in custody ody such as hastrict supervisiyouth also inflt is possible thile on probatig with other in
an assessmentso examined wystem.
sessment Study
search topic remon offense ca
ment
stody placemecure confinemexamine varia
e system custoprobation or ijustice system
C. In particulaplacement for
the same or simd for a longer pple, the Natio
hat African Amger than Whiteger than Whitional data. Bathe average d
igher for Black
ngth of time fof DMC becau
hile in custodystay varies acrntencing decisudge's sentencild from probafor minority g
arsher treatmenion by a probaluences the lenhat minority yon (e.g., violanmates) which
t of average lewhen assessing
y: Final Repor
ecommended ategories withi
ents (i.e., ment) for each
ations in the ody across thesincarcerated is
m and has the ar, it is imporr youth with
milar offense, period of time
onal Council omerican youth e youth, and e youth. ased on data
days in secure ck youth
or juvenile jususe it providesy. There are aross racial/ethnsions of key cing decision oation. Anothegroups is nt by a ation officer. ngth of time oyouth are ating probationh extends their
ength of time og DMC in
rt
Phaseis
in
se s
rtant
e on
care
stice s a nic
or a er
on
n) r
on
e II: Synopsis
Page | 13
LCL
DU
TuncoinththtotrthalemararP
ELpamwjumD
Tscocde
Tap
LE – Disproport
MC Assessmenderstanding
The Relative Rnderstand theommunity at ensight as to hohat youth are ehrough the scho prison pipelirend of criminhe growing uselternative schomotional disture even more vrrested, and haoverty Law C
xamples of thouisiana. Avaarish were sch
misdemeanor owere Black. Scustice system t
most harmful tDMC found w
This data demochool-based arccurring in juvesigned to red
These research pproved by th
tionate Minori
ent Topic 4: g School-Base
Rate Index (RRe rates of dispreach decision
ow these youthentering the juhool system, aine. The scho
nalizing youth e of zero-tolerools, and secururbances and ovulnerable as tave the lowestenter, 2007).
is phenomenoailable data shohool-based. Thoffense. Additchools, low onto handle in-sco minority yo
within the juve
onstrates the imrrests as a necevenile justice s
duce disparitie
topics were dhe JJDP Adviso
ty Contact Ass
ed Arrests
RI) data allowsroportionality point. Howe
h are entering uvenile justicea phenomenonool to prison p
within the schrance disciplinre detention (Aother disabilitthey are more t graduation ra
on can be founows that in 20he majority oftionally, 82%
n resources, arechool disciplinouth and contrenile justice co
mportance of essary step in usystem and ims.
eveloped into ory Board.
sessment Study
s juvenile justifound within
ever, this indexthe system. R
e system at stagn often referrepipeline refers hool system an
ne, school-baseACLU, 2008)ties, particularlikely to be su
ates in the cou
nd within the 008, 30% of af these arrests of youth arres
e now turningnary issues. Tribute to the h
ommunity.
f understandinunderstanding
mplementing i
a research pro
y: Final Repor
ice leaders to n their x fails to proviResearch suggeggering rates
ed to as the schto the nationand encompassed arrests, ). Children wrly those of coluspended, be untry (Southe
state of arrests in one occurred for asted in school
g to the juveniThese effects arhigh rates of
ng trends in g why DMC iinterventions
oposal which w
rt
Phase
ide ests
hool al ses
with lor,
rn
a l ile re
is
was
e II: Synopsis
Page | 14
LCL
P
DIntoofsiavphda
D
A
TeaoudesuTeiofcrTobInLofauprDdimelcom
Obeth
1 Ow2 Fsit
LE – Disproport
Phase III:
Data Collectn Phase III of opics agreed uf the issues annce organizativailable data whase to refine ata possible.
Data Analys
ssessment To
The goal of Assach decision put to represenecision-makinurvey is presen
Table 1.1.1 Thight parishes. f objective critriteria used inc
Tool to ensure bjective criterin Parish B, all ooking at diveffenses." Thatutomatically rrogram (e.g., f
D reported the iverted. In bo
misdemeanor oligibility in Paourt and diver
making these d
Objective critere sent to detenhe use of objec
Only survey reswere considered
Five of these pates. One of the
tionate Minori
Synopsis
tion the project, dpon in Phase ticipated fromions frequentl
was collected, adata collectio
is
opic 1: Discre
sessment Topipoint within thtatives in each
ng practices at nted in Appenhe results show
For example,teria when deccludes the usethe safety of tia when decidcases are refer
ersion, Parish t is, in Parish Geferred to Famfighting, shopuse of objecti
oth parishes, thoffender. Thearish D. In allrsion questiondecisions.
ria are most contion. Of thective criteria.2
sponses from revalid.
arishes are also Jmajor goals of
ty Contact Ass
s
ata was collecII. During th
m Phase I of thly did not havand GCR worn methodolog
etion in the J
ic 1 was to asshe juvenile jush of the eight peach of the de
ndix C. The suw that discretio only one pariciding to make of the OCS/Cthe child. Tw
ding whether rrred to the couG reports the
G, some misdmilies in Needplifting, and stive criteria to he youth mus MAYSI-2 is al parishes who
ns, the District
ommonly used seven parishe Five of these
epresentatives o
Juvenile Detenf this initiative i
sessment Study
ted to supporthe data collecthe project were the requisiterked with LCLgies in order to
uvenile Justic
sess the level ostice system. Sparishes inquiecision pointsurvey results aon is used quiish (Parish E)
ke an arrest. TChild Protecti
wo parishes repreferral to coururt for formal
e use of "mandemeanor offen
d of Services ortatus offenses)determine if at be a first-timalso used to de
o responded tot Attorney is r
d to determines who respone parishes repo
of that particula
tion Alternatives the implemen
y: Final Repor
t the research ion phase, ma
re confirmed e data. All LE during thio collect the m
ce System
of discretion atSurveys were siring about s. A copy of thare presented iite often in thereported the
The objective ion Assessmen
ported the use rt is necessaryl processing. datory diversionses are r a diversion . Parishes B aa youth is me, non-violenetermine
o the referral tresponsible for
ne if a youth wded, six repor
orted the use o
ar stage of the JJ
e Initiative (JDntation of a
rt
Phase
any
is most
t sent
he in ese use
nt of
y.
on
and
nt
to r
will rted of a
JS
DAI)
e III: Synopsis
Page | 1
s
5
LCL
stthmdeotco
NdecrmthseSAaloftoHseTofbi
Tobdededeju
AD
TofDoftyledeansecoch
depa
LE – Disproport
tandardized rishe offender's p
mitigation/aggretention staff ther three pariompletes the s
None of the suetermine if a priteria used to
must be met inhe use of objececure confinemAVRY as partll cases, the judf transfer to ado determine if
However, wheneverity of the c
These criteria cffenses that cait of latitude o
Taken togetherbjective criterietention) and ecision is evenecision-makin
ustice system.
ssessment Toecision-Maki
The goal of Assffense level at
DMC experts rffense level as ype of offense.evels (i.e., violeecision-makinn important faerious offensesourse of actionhild for forma
etention screenarishes across th
tionate Minori
sk assessment prior history, sravation factorare responsiblishes (Parishesscreening tool
rvey respondepetition is fileddetermine ad
n every parish. ctive criteria toment). Howev
of the pre-disdge makes thedult court, onf a youth shoun asked to descharge and thecannot be consan be consideron transfer dec
r, the results oia at each decithe use of scr
n less commonng policies in u
opic 2: DMC aing Stage
sessment Topieach stage of
recommend brDMC can va
. For certain oent felony), th
ng process. Thactor in determs (i.e., status on to take againal processing o
ing tool. Thus,he state.
ty Contact Ass
tool which caseverity of offers. In two parle for filling ous A, B, and E).
ents reported ud. Parish F in
djudication. C None of the
o determine thver, some parisposition recoe final dispositly Parish B inld face crimincribe the critee presence of vsidered object
red for juvenilecisions.
of Assessment Tision point is nreening/assessmn. Furthermouse at any deci
across Offens
ic 2 was to furthe juvenile jureaking downry based on ceoffenses, typichere is little diherefore, the rmining the ouoffenses, misdenst the youth ior diversion).
these results m
sessment Study
alculates a "riskense, and any rishes (Parisheut the screenin), local law enf
using objectivndicated burdeConstitutionall
survey responhe dispositionishes reported mmendation tion decision.dicated use of
nal court chargeria in use, Parviolence againtive as statute le transfer but
Topic 1 suggenot common ment tools to hre, there are nision point wi
se Level with
rther breakdowustice system. the RRI withertain charactecally the more scretionary po
race of the youutcome. Howemeanors), disis common (e
may not be repre
y: Final Repor
k score" basedadditional
es G and H), ng tool. In thforcement
ve criteria to en of proof as ly, this criteriondents reporten (i.e., probatiod the use of the
to the judge. Lastly, in ter
f objective critges for an offerish B indicate
nst a person. limits the typestill offers qu
est that the us(except for help guide the
no statewide ithin the juven
hin Each
wn the RRI b Researchers a
hin each stage eristics, such aserious offens
ower in the uth would not
wever, for non-scretion in whe.g., refer the
esentative of all
rt
Phased on
he
the on ed on, e In rms teria nse. ed
e of ite a
e of
e
nile
y and by
as se
t be -hich
l
e III: Synopsis
Page | 1
s
6
LCL
Uexobgiunprththexgito
A
TwSpTlikdoarwhathlikarwda4vieiW
3 TexraincabyTasregrpoca
LE – Disproport
Unfortunately xamination ofbtain the neceiven stage (e.gnavailable (e.groportion of chese calculatiohe rate of occuxploratory asseiven stage ando GCR for Ass
Arrest
The arrest RRIwell over the vapecifically, the
This indicates tkely to get arrown the RRI rrest RRI acro
were available, ad the highesthese four pariskely to be arrerrest RRI for v
was higher thanata were provi.37-8.14. Althiolent feloniesight times mo
White youth.
The RRI is a mxperienced by date), you need an creating the raaptures the deciy the numerato
Typically an arres the numeratoreferred to as theroup's rate for aoint, the relativalculated (OJJD
tionate Minori
the informatiof the RRI acroessary data. Ag., probation), g., adjudicatiocases at each stons do not prourrence across essment of rac
d offense level.sessment Top
for each of thalue of 1 (i.e., e arrest RRI rathat, in 2009, rested compareby offense lev
oss offense typeviolent feloniet RRI, rangingshes, in 2009, ested for violenviolent misdemn non-violent ided. Arrest Rhough these vs, they remain re likely to be
means of compardifferent groupsa numerator andates to be used iision making st
or or, in other west rate for a racr and a measuree "rate of occurra decision pointve rate (or the reDP, 2009).
ty Contact Ass
on provided bss offense leve
As a result, whebut the data t
on), we examintage in a givenovide a standar
race and offencial differences Below is a suic 2.
he five parishea value of 1 in
anges from 3.8Black youth w
ed to White yvel highlights ae. In four of tes (e.g., robbeg from 7.46-1Black youth wnt felonies, comeanors (e.g., felonies in fou
RRIs for violenvalues are som
high. In 200 arrested for v
ring the rates os of youth. To d a denominatoin an RRI is to age immediatel
words, the stage cial group uses ae of population rence" for this pt by another groelative size of on
sessment Study
by the parishesels because weere data were ato calculate thned racial diffen offense level.rdized methodnse type, they s in the propoummary of the
es where data wndicates racial84 - 7.22 (see were 3.8 to 7.
youth. Howeva great deal of the five parishery, aggravated8.83. This suwere 7.5 to 18ompared to W
battery, aggraur of the five pnt misdemeanewhat lower t
09, Black youtviolent misdem
f juvenile justiccalculate an arr
or (or base rate)select a denom
ly preceding thethat feeds the n
a measure of thas the denomin
particular groupoup's rate at thene rate to the o
y: Final Repor
s inhibited thee were unable tavailable at a he base rate weferences in the .3 Although d of comparin
y do allow for aortion of cases e data provide
were available l equality). Tables 2.1-2.2 times more
ver, breaking f variation in hes where datad battery, rapeuggests that in8 times more
White youth. Tavated assault)parishes where
nors ranged frothan the RRI fth were four tomeanors than
ce contact rest rate (or any). The general r
minator that e stage measurenumerator.
heir arrests in a ynator. This is p. By dividing e same decision
other) can be
rt
Phasee
to
ere
ng an at a
ed
is
.5).
a e) n
The ) e om for o
y rule
ed
year
one n
e III: Synopsis
Page | 1
s
7
LCL
R
Ojumvitodefune
Atoisaninimex
C
Siprdisucovainimex
C
PRdepepayonuRfo
4 Itoinra
LE – Disproport
Referrals to Juv
Only one parishuvenile court.
misdemeanors iolent misdemo court = 1.24ecision-makinurther exploratearly four tim
Across all offeno one and did important tond thus, additn this study is mportance of bxamining DM
Cases Diverted
imilar to referrovided data oiverted cases inuggesting that ompared to Blalid, and thus,ncluded in thismportance of bxamining DM
Cases Involvin
arish B was thRRI in Parish B
egree of disproercentages repatterns regardouth, placed inumber of peti
RRI in Parishesor a more stan
It is important o determine whnstrument standacial disparity d
tionate Minori
venile Court
h was able to In Parish B, t(e.g., battery,
meanors was lo4, arrest=4.03)ng process invotion to determ
mes higher than
nse levels, the Rnot reveal a gnote that con
tional informaneeded to mabreaking down
MC at this stag
d
rrals to juvenilon diverted can Parish B waWhite youth
lack youth. C, additional ins study is needbreaking down
MC at this stag
g Secure Dete
he only parish B is close to onoportionate m
ported in Tabling the propon secure detentions filed in es D, E, and F.
ndardized asses
to note that thich youth will b
dardizes the decduring this stage
ty Contact Ass
provide data othe RRI was tassault). How
ow compared t. This suggesolved in arrest
mine why DMn the rate of re
RRI for referrgreat deal of dinclusions basedation from theake any conclun referrals to c
ge.
le court, Parishases. As shownas below one a
in Parish B arConclusions banformation froded to make an diverted cas
ge.
ention
where the RRne across all o
minority contales 2.8 and 2.9
ortion of Blackntion for a giveach parish, w. The RRI calssment of the
is parish uses a be admitted to cision-making pe.
sessment Study
on the numbehe highest forwever, the RRto the RRI forts that, in Parting youth is a
MC is occurringeferral to cour
als to juvenileisparity acrossd on one paris
e other seven pusions regardincourt by offen
h B was the onn in the data, across all offenre more likelyased on one paom the other sany conclusiones by offense l
RI could be calffense levels, sct at local dete9 do not reveak youth, compven offense typwe were unablelculations woulevel of DMC
detention screedetention. The
process and redu
y: Final Repor
er of referrals tr violent
RI value for r arrest (referrarish B, the an area in needg at a rate thart.
e court was clos offense levelssh are not valiparishes includng the nse level when
nly parish thathe RRI for
nse levels, y to be divertedarish are not seven parishes ns regarding thlevel when
alculated. The suggesting a loention.4 The
al any consistepared to Whitepe. Without the to calculate tuld have allow
C occurring in
ening instrumene use of this uces the risk of
rt
Phase
to
als
d of at is
ose s. It id, ded
at
d,
he
ow
ent e he the
wed n
nt
f
e III: Synopsis
Page | 1
s
8
LCL
dene
C
PpeAcoPwhostwpasirele
C
PpeonofAfosl
C
PstboeqprprbeprBmofmonyo
C
Bcaoc
LE – Disproport
etention admieeded from th
Cases Petitione
arishes A and etitioned cases
A could not be ourt was not aarish A in 200
were petitionedowever, a largtatus offenses
was close to onarishes are notx parishes inclegarding the imevel when exam
Cases Resultin
arishes A and etitioned casesne. However,ffenses (Parish
A=1.57, Parish or adjudicationight variation
Cases Resultin
robation infortudy. Of theseoth of these siqual to one acrobation deparobation is useecause the numrovided. Howlack youth see
misdemeanors, f Black youth
misdemeanor on probation foouth, on the o
Cases Resultin
ased on parishalculated, secuccurring with
tionate Minori
issions across ohe other seven
ed
B were the ons. Unfortunatcalculated be
available. Of t09, 72% were d to court for nger proportion(36% vs. 21%e across all offt valid, and thluded in this smportance of mining DMC
g in Adjudica
B were the ons. In both par, in both parish A = 2.50, Pa
B=1.20). Thns remains relin the level of
g in Probatio
rmation was ae five parishesituations (Paricross all offensartment). For ed. The RRI mber of adjud
wever, based onem to be morecompared to in Parishes D
offense, whereor a misdemeaother hand, we
g in Secure C
hes where the ure confinemeRRIs ranging
ty Contact Ass
offense levels. parishes inclu
nly two parishtely, the RRI fcause the numthe 198 cases Black. A largnon-violent fe of White you
%). The RRI fffense levels. Chus, additionalstudy is needebreaking dowat this stage.
ation
nly two parishrishes, the RRshes, the RRI arish B = 1.13)his finding sugatively low acf DMC across
n
available in fivs, two have locish A and Parie levels (basedthe other threwas unable to
dications acrosn the proportie likely to be pWhite youth.
D and E were pas 28% to 52%anor. In 2009ere placed on
Confinement
RRI for securnt also seems
g from 1.46 (P
sessment Study
Thus, more uded in the stu
hes that providfor petitions t
mber of referrapetitioned to
ger proportionelonies (31% vuth were petitifor petitioned Conclusions bl information
ed to make anywn petitioned c
hes that providRI for adjudica
is highest for m) and violent f
ggests that, althross offense les offenses.
ve parishes inclcal probation dish B), the RRd on data provee parishes, on
o be calculatedss offense levelions reported placed on prob. For instanceplaced on prob% of White yo9, a larger propprobation for
re care was ablto be a stage w
Parish B) to 3.
y: Final Repor
information iudy.
ded data on to court in Parals to juvenile juvenile court
n of Black youvs. 43%), ioned to courtcases in Parishased on only tfrom the othey conclusions cases by offen
ded data on ations is close misdemeanor felonies (Parishough the RRevels, there is
luded in this departments.
RI is less than ovided by the lonly OJJ d in these parisl was not in Table 2.9, bation for e, over two-thbation for a outh were plaportion of Whr a status offen
le to be where DMC i37 (Parish A)
rt
Phaseis
rish
t in uth
t for h B two er
se
to r sh RI
In or ocal
shes
hirds
aced hite nse.
is .
e III: Synopsis
Page | 1
s
9
LCL
DalvaHinthwin10(U
TimdeiminD
BthgaanofarRun
TmbrcoplofwFseprth
Inthofhithac
LE – Disproport
Due to the lowll parishes repoalid conclusion
However, the lon general, highhe proportion
were Black rangn the study. H0-17) residingUS Census Bu
Taken togethermprovements ecision points
mportant datanformation lim
DMC and cont
ased on the dahe highest at aateway to the nd warrants fuf racial disparirrest varied by
RRIs than non-nderstand var
Third, the infomore detailed e
reakdown of oomparisons belaced in secureffense categori
were placed in urthermore, inecure confinemroportion of that was Black
n summary, mhis study is reqffense levels wighlight variathe patterns nocross offense le
tionate Minori
w number of Worted in Tablens about the low number ofhlights the neeof secure con
ged from 77%However, in 20g in each parisureau, 2010).
r, the results oin the availabi, the RRI cou
a. This inabilimits the capacitinually moni
ata that were aarrest. Given tjuvenile justic
urther examinity at this stagy offense level -violent feloniiations in the
rmation preseexamination ooffense categoecause, in mose residential cies. Across thsecure confinen all eight parment that was the general ado(see Tables 2.
more detailed iquired to obta
within each dections in DMCoted above, theevels, parishes
ty Contact Ass
White youth ples 2.11 and 2.evel of DMC f White youthed to study thifinement plac
% to 99% acro009, the proph that was Bla
of Topic 2 drawility of juvenil
uld not be calcty to access crity to obtain ator DMC wit
available, the that the stage ce system, thisation regardin
ge of the systemwith violent mies. This finddecision to ar
ented above unof DMC at secries did not prst parishes, theonfinement w
he eight parishement, comparishes, the propBlack was sub
olescent popu11 and 2.12 f
nformation frain a detailed ucision point.
C across offensere is a great ds, and decision
sessment Study
laced in secure12 it is difficuacross offense
h sent to securis stage furthecements to OJoss the eight paortion of the pack ranged fro
w attention tole justice data.
culated due to rucial juvenile a detailed undthin each paris
results suggestof arrest is con
s finding is somng the causes om. Furthermomisdemeanorsding highlightsrrest across off
nderscores thecure confinemrovide any mee number of W
was too low to es, a total of 4ared to 441 Blportion of youbstantially hig
ulation residingfor a comparis
rom the parishunderstandingThe data that
se levels. Howdeal of variation points.
y: Final Repor
e confinemenult to make ane levels. re confinemener. For exampJJ in 2009 thaarishes involvepopulation (a
om 31% to 85
o the need for . Across mostthe lack of justice
derstanding of sh.
t that DMC insidered the mewhat alarmof the high levore, the RRI fs having highes the need to fense levels.
e importance oment. The
eaningful White youth
breakdown in49 White youtlack youth. uth placed in gher than the g in the parishson).
hes included ing of DMC acrt are available
wever, apart froon in DMC
rt
Phaset in
ny
nt, ple, at ed
aged 5%
t
f
s
ming vel for er
of a
nto th
h
n ross do
om
e III: Synopsis
Page | 2
s
0
LCL
A
AofdecaPexlore
P
BticocafowWdaavPB
NTsumlocothserepe
Inpravm
TonischPmfe
LE – Disproport
ssessment To
Assessment Topf time for juveetention, and arry out this aarish A's Clerkxamined differocal detentionesults of this a
robation
ased on the inme on probatompared to Blan be made, thor White yout
was 29 to 77 daWhen broken d
ays on probativerage length arish A and 15lack youth.
No consistent pTable 3.1. Howuggest that the
misdemeanor wow number of omparisons cohe White youterious, violent emained on preriod of time.
nterestingly, Wrobation for severage length
misdemeanor o
This is an impon probation fo similar to theharged with a arish E), the a
misdemeanor iselony.
tionate Minori
opic 3: Exam
pic 3 focuses oenile justice plsecure residenssessment wask of Court, anrences across r, and placed inssessment are
nformation prion in 2009 wlack youth. Inhe average lenh. For felonyays longer for down by violeion was for vioof probation f57 days greate
pattern of findwever, when be average timewas 60 to 144 f FINS cases pould not be mth included inoffense for a
robation for a
White youth herious, felony of time on pro
offenses.
ortant findingor Black youthe average lengtfelony. In tw
average lengths greater than
ty Contact Ass
ining Length
on examining lacements inclntial confinems provided by nd four local drace in the lenn secure residesummarized b
ovided in Tabwas significantn the three pa
ngth of probatiy offenses, the
White youth ence level, the olent felonies.for violent feloer in Parish E
dings for misdbroken down e on probationdays longer folaced on probade across the
n this study remlonger period non-serious m
had a higher avoffenses and B
obation for no
considering th charged withth of time on
wo of the four of time on prthe average le
sessment Study
of Custody o
disparity in thluding probati
ment. The infothe Office of J
detention centngth of time onential confinebelow.
ble 3.1, the avetly longer for Warishes where vion was 12 to average lengthcompared to largest discrep
. Referring toonies was 199for White you
demeanors wasby violence le
n for a non-vioor Black youth
bation, meanine four parishesmained on proof time while
misdemeanor
verage length oBlack youth hon-serious, no
that the averagh a non-violenprobation for parishes (i.e., robation for a ength of time
y: Final Repor
n Placement
he average lenion, local ormation usedJuvenile Justicters. We n probation, iment. The
erage length oWhite youth, valid comparis40 days longe
h of probationBlack youth. pancy in avera
o Table 3.2, th days greater iuth compared
s revealed in evel, the resultolent h. Due to thengful s. Thus, in 20obation for a e Black youth for a longer
of time on had a higher on-violent
ge length of timnt misdemeanr Black youth Parish A and non-violent for a violent
rt
Phase
ngth
d to ce,
in
of
sons er n
age he in
d to
ts
e
009,
me nor
e III: Synopsis
Page | 2
s
1
LCL
D
BinWdecolavidayodecole(eTsoPyo
Se
SiinOhiseB
Infunoonwprbiacleinprlitfoof
Sitinepaco
LE – Disproport
Detention
ased on informn local detenti
White youth. Wetention for a ompared to Wargest discrepaiolent feloniesays in detentioouth compareetention for a ompared to Wength of time ie.g., violation
The average nuomewhat similarishes B and outh for non-c
ecure Care
imilar to the rn secure confin
Overall, the aveigher for Blackecure residentilack youth co
n summary, thurther investigon-violent min probation fo
why youth are probation ordeias, and parenccount for theength of time onto why 1) Blarobation for attle risk to comor a similar lenffenses.
imilar to the rme in secure reed to study rarishes, the nuonfinement w
tionate Minori
mation providon was slightlWhen brokenfelony was 5
White youth. Aancy in the aves (see Table 3.4on for a violened to White yo
non-violent fWhite youth. N
in detention fof probation,
umber of days lar for Black aD, White youcriminal offen
results of Topinement limits erage number k youth. Theial confinemenmpared to W
he differences gation. Most isdemeanors, tor these offensplaced on prors, new charge
ntal involvemeese circumstanon probation.ack youth, coma longer periodmmunity safetngth of time fo
results of Topiresidential conracial differencumber of Whi
was too low to
ty Contact Ass
ded in Table 3y longer for B
n down by offeto 20 days lonAcross all parierage length o4). For exampnt felony is 17outh whereas tfelony is 5 to 8No clear pattefor misdemeancontempt of cin detention f
and White youuth averaged 2nses.
ic 2, the low nany valid conof days in sec
e difference in nt ranged from
White youth.
in the averageimportantly, gthe length of tses is alarming
obation longeres while on prnt/recommen
nces when atte This informmpared to Whd of time for nty and 2) Blacor non-serious
ic 2, the inabinfinement proces in secure cite youth placebreak down in
sessment Study
3.3, the averagBlack youth, coense level, the nger for Black shes that provf time in detenple, the averag
7 to 36 days lothe average len8 days greater ern of differennor, FINS, andcourt) offensefor a misdemeuth across the 2 to 6 days lon
number of Whnclusions fromcure confinemthe average n
m 1 day to 25
e length of progiven the non-time that Blacg. There are sr, including fairobation, probndation. It is cmpting to assation could prhite youth, arenon-serious ofck youth are hs misdemeano
lity to comparovides further ustody placemed in secure rento offense ca
y: Final Repor
ge length of timompared to average time
k youth, vided data, thention is for ge number of onger for Blackngth of time ifor Black you
nces in the averd non-crimina
es were observeeanor is parishes. In
nger than Blac
hite youth plam these analysement in 2009 wnumber of day1 days longer
obation requir-serious natur
ck youth are heveral reasonsilure to meet
bation officer critical to ess DMC in trovide insighte held on ffenses that poheld on probators and felony
re the length osupport for th
ment. In mostesidential
ategories. Acro
rt
Phase
me
in
e
k in uth rage al ed.
ck
aced es. was ys in
for
re re of eld s
the t
ose tion
of he t
oss
e III: Synopsis
Page | 2
s
2
LCL
alcodaBwthTrejugrbe
A
Tscatscbeocim
UdeFincoinprhiyobaadne"stharbaidscinar
LE – Disproport
ll of the parishonfinement plate and an idelack youth an
where valid comhe average leng
Thus, understaesidential confuvenile justice reat deal of vaetween parish
ssessment To
The goal of Asschool disciplint school is objechool-based areen consideredccurring in thmplementing i
Unfortunately, etermine if a curthermore, a
nformation onommon offensn each of the proportion of Bigher than theouth. Based oased arrests mdministrators eeded from otschool to prisohe procedures/rrested versus ased arrests acdentifying the chool-based arn the developmrrests.
tionate Minori
hes included inlacements in 2entifiable offennd 33 were Whmparisons wergth of time wa
anding the ovefinement shousystem. The
ariation in DMes.
opic 4: Under
sessment Topinary practices ective and to arrests. Undersd a necessary se juvenile justinterventions
information ochild is arresteas can be seen n school-basedses are non-vioparishes that pBlack youth are overall propoon these prelim
may be an area and juvenile jther parishes ton pipeline” in/criteria used tdisciplined at
ccount for a sigschools that a
rrests are threement of interv
ty Contact Ass
n this study, th2009 with valinse level). Of hite youth. Inre possible (i.eas greater for Berwhelming rauld become a tdata that are a
MC across offe
rstanding Sch
ic 4 was to exato determine assess the levestanding trendstep in understice system, padesigned to re
on the proceded at school win Table 4.1,
d arrests. As reolent misdem
provided schoorrested for theortion of schominary data, itthat deserves ustice agencie
to make any son Louisiana. Ato determine wschool, exam
gnificant amoare responsiblee critical pieceventions to red
sessment Study
here were 285id data (i.e., inf these placemen the 8 rows ine., more than 1Black youth inacial differencetop priority foavailable, how
ense levels, dec
hool-Based A
amine school if the decisionl of dispropords in school-bastanding why articularly at aeduce dispariti
dures that are twas unable to b
only three pareported in Tabeanor offensesol-based arrestese most commol arrests that t seems that Dattention by b
es. More inforolid conclusioAdditionally, when a child sining whether
ount of all juvee for the greats of informati
duce DMC in
y: Final Repor
5 secure ncluded a releents, 252 wern Table 3.5 1 White youthn 7 of the rowes in secure or Louisiana's wever, highlighcision points,
Arrests
based arrests an to arrest a chrtionality in ased arrests haDMC is
arrest, and ies.
taken to be collected. rishes provideble 4.2, the ms. Additionallt data, the mon offenses wt involved BlacDMC in schooboth school rmation is
ons regarding tunderstandingshould be r or not schooenile arrests, atest number ofion that will aschool-based
rt
Phase
ase e
h), ws.
ht a and
and hild
as
ed most
ly,
was ck ol-
the g
ol-and f
assist
e III: Synopsis
Page | 2
s
3
LCL
PTisdaorthradireanof
Idinasfothtoan
FinmofarDagsy
Fmatarsearjuavditoco
Sepo2 avw
LE – Disproport
Phase IV: Three general c
a need to impata in these pariginally propohat should be ace, current ofisposition), anegarding arrestnd periodicallyfficials, parent
deally, all juvenformation reqssessment topior a range of dhe decision-mao prison pipelind comparing
or example, On exploring DM
more detail, areffense type anre two differen
DMC. Withougencies are noystem.
urthermore, thmaking processt each stage anre being madeecure external re interested inustice system. vailable juveniisparity in theo juvenile justiontinually mo
econdly, for point that is in indicated tha
vailable data. with violent mi
tionate Minori
Discussiconclusions caprove the capaarishes. For exosed calculatiocollected on affense(s), decisnd length of tits occurring aty discussed wits, and commu
enile justice agquired to carryics on a regula
different purpoaking process ine, securing e
g each jurisdict
OJJDP points MC (OJJDP, eas where the d/or examininnt techniques ut this informt equipped to
his informatios at each stage nd offense typee at each stage.funding throu
n supporting eAs shown by
ile justice datae juvenile justiice data will g
onitor and dev
parishes where need of DMC
at the RRI for Furthermore,isdemeanors h
ty Contact Ass
on of Resan be drawn fracity to collectxample, the daons in Topic 2a routine basission made at eme in custodyt school shoulith school admunity member
gencies should y out all four ar basis. This oses includingacross offense
external fundintion's data to
out that calcu2009). The nRRI is high. B
ng disproportithat are comm
mation readily acarry out a de
on can also be of the system
e to ensure th. Finally, thisugh local, statefforts to reduthe results of
a inhibited a dce system. Ta
greatly increasevelop intervent
data were avaC reduction starrest was hig, the RRI for ahaving higher
sessment Study
sults rom these resut and report juata required to2 and Topic 3. This informeach stage (e.gy. Additionallld also be routministrators, lars.
be able to accof the originaltype of data c
g monitoring De types, examinng to support state and natio
ulating the RRnext step is to Breaking downionality in schmonly used to available, juveetailed DMC
used to informm by tracking t
at the least res information e, and nationa
uce DMC in thf this study, thdetailed undersaking steps to e each jurisdictions to reduc
ailable, arrest itrategies. Theghest in all pararrest varied bRRIs than no
y: Final Repor
ults. First, theuvenile justiceo perform the
3 is informatiomation includeg., adjudicationly, informatiotinely collectedaw enforceme
cess the lly proposed
could be utilizDMC, trackinning the schoo
t reform effortonal trends.
RI is the first st examine, in n the RRI by
hool-based arre further explo
enile justice monitoring
m the decisionthe flow of youstrictive decisican be used toal agencies whhe juvenile
he lack of standing of raimprove acce
ction's capacityce DMC.
is a decision e results of Torishes with by offense leveon-violent
rt
Phase
ere e e on es n,
on d nt
zed ng ol ts,
tep
ests ore
n-uth ions o ho
acial ess y to
opic
el
e IV: Discussio
Page | 2
on
4
LCL
fethremthmarmSh
OusplWnuthcrwpaev
Tdeprcoplofinyoco49tomB
ToualreofreWandiRfaplm
LE – Disproport
elonies. This fhe decision to esults of Topic
majority of schhat the level of
misdemeanor orrests. It is im
misdemeanor ohould these yo
One possible exsing objective lace. The surv
Without such oumber of circuhe offenders' ariteria across t
would be one sarticularly thevident in the d
Third, the resuetailed examinresented in Toomparisons belaced in secureffense categorinformation regouth, compareonfinement is 9 White youtho 441 Black yo
made, the averalack youth co
The disproportut of home setlso a critical preduce disparityffenders placeeintegrating th
Weitzer, 2005)n increased risifficulties with
Research also inacilities are sublaced on comm
major goal of th
tionate Minori
finding highliarrest across o
c 4. The data ool-based arref DMC is grea
offenses compamportant to exaoffenses. Do thouth be arreste
xplanation forcriteria for m
vey responses objectivity, theumstantial facattitude, or viche entire parisolution to red
e less serious odecision-maki
ults of this studnation of DMopics 2 and 3 ecause, in mose residential cies. Howevergarding DMCed to White yoverwhelmin
h were placed outh. Furtherage length of tmpared to W
tionately high tting (i.e., securoblem and rey at this decisid in secure co
hemselves back. As a result,
sk for poor schh securing empndicates that ybstantially momunity-based he juvenile jus
ty Contact Ass
ghts the need offense levels. provided by t
ests are for nonater for these sared to the totamine the levehey pose a seried or disciplin
r the high arremaking the dec
used in Topice decision to actors such as pctims' request.sh, inclusive o
duce disparity ffense types wng process.
dy highlight thC at secure codid not providst parishes, theonfinement w, this limitatio
C. Indeed, theyouth, placed ig high. Acrosin secure con
rmore, where vtime in secure
White youth.
number of Blure residentialequires the imion point. Re
onfinement hak into the comyouth placed
hool performaployment, andyouth who areore likely to re-
sanctions (i.estice system is
sessment Study
to understand This finding three parishes n-violent misdschool-based, tal number of el of seriousneious threat to ned by the sch
est RRI is that cision to arrestc 1 supports tharrest may be parental conce. Implementi
of all police deacross certain
where discretio
he importanceonfinement. Tde any meanine number of W
was too low to on is a critical e overall numbin secure residss the eight pa
nfinement in 2valid compari
e confinement
lack youth beil confinement
mplementation esearch suggestave a difficult tmmunity (Aus
in secure confance and schood a poor famile confined in s-offend comp., probation). to rely on the
y: Final Repor
d variations inis similar to tsuggests that
demeanors annon-violent
f school-based ess of these public safety?
hool?
t a policy for t a child is nothis claim. based on a
ern/availabilityng objective
epartments, n offense typeson is more
e of a more The data ngful White youth
breakdown inpiece of
ber of Black dential arishes, a total 2009, compareisons could be was greater fo
ing placed in at) in Louisiana of strategies tts that juveniltime stin, Johnson, finement are aol dropout, ly environmensecure residen
pared to youth As a result, a
e least restricti
rt
Phasen
the the
nd
d
?
t in
y,
s,
nto
of ed e or
an a is to le
& at
nt. ntial h a ive
e IV: Discussio
Page | 2
on
5
LCL
alofrenucorebechar
BD
RTdamdecominofeaofm
Man
Aavabcorefi
A(OinwgrjuRAT
LE – Disproport
lternative. Thffender is to bestriction to thumber of Whonclusions aboequired to inveeing used in chosen dispositre being used
ased on these DMC mitigatio
RecommendThe first mitiga
ata statewide. monitoring. T
evelopment ofonsistently acr
making an arrencluding schoof graduated saach jurisdictiof Black youth
more structured
Mitigation Strand Monitor D
A major barriervailable data above, the largeomplete analyesult, improvinrst, and most
According to thOJJDP, 2009)nto contact at
which decision roups" (pg. 2)ustice agencies
Reduction ActiAssessment andThe identificati
tionate Minori
he least restrictbe committed he juvenile andite youth sentout DMC acrestigate wheth
circumstances tion and whethconsistently ac
three general on strategies.
ded Mitigatiation strategy This step is a
The second mitf objective critross the state. st would helpol-based arrestanctions. The on would help
sent to secured decision-ma
ategy #1: ImpMC Data
r to accomplisacross the eighe amount of in
ysis of DMC ang the capacitimportant, m
he Office of Ju), "data are essdisproportionpoints, to wh. Without the
s are unable toivities Cycle." d Diagnosis, Inion stage invo
ty Contact Ass
tive alternativeto a dispositiod his/her famit to secure conoss offense lev
her or not the where secure her or not thecross race.
findings, the
ion Strateginvolves impr
a key compontigation strateteria for arrest The adoption reduce the Dts. The third implementatiotarget the dis
e confinementaking process.
proving the C
shing the goalsht parishes. Asnformation thacross each of tty to collect an
mitigation strat
uvenile Justicesential to detenate rates withhat extent, ande use of valid ao effectively en
This cycle inntervention, E
olves calculatin
sessment Study
e means that eon that providily. Without anfinement to mvel, additionalleast restrictivresidential con
ese decision-m
next section o
ies roving the avaent to DMC
egy recommenting a juvenilen of objective
DMC across allmitigation stron of graduateproportionate
t across the sta
apacity to Co
s of this studys shown in thehat was unavaithe assessmennd monitor Dtegy recommen
e Delinquencyrmine if mino
h the juvenile jd for which racand reliable dangage in OJJDnvolves IdentifEvaluation, anng the RRI at
y: Final Repor
each juvenile des the least a large enoughmake any validl resources areve alternative infinement is t
making process
outlines three
ailability of DMreduction and
nded is the e that can be ucriteria for l juvenile arrerategy is the ued sanctions iely high numbate and lead to
ollect, Analyz
y was a lack of e results sectioilable inhibited
nt topics. As aMC data is thnded.
y and Preventiority youth cojustice systemcial or ethnic ata, local juven
DP's "DMC fication,
nd Monitoringeach decision
rt
Phase
h d
e is the ses
MC d
used
sts se n
ber o a
ze,
fon d a
a he
ion me , at
nile
g.
e IV: Discussio
Page | 2
on
6
LCL
pocaeftr
Aasdipaaspaimun
Aofguprstovofwcova
WRfoincu(wdabyTDTra(Cus
AthdaenanresuT
LE – Disproport
oint. The asseauses of DMCffectiveness of rack the level o
Assessment/Diassessment topiiagnose exactlarishes. Howssessment. Tharishes is a sig
mportance of Dnderstanding
An effective strf a set of standuidelines that rocedures woutatewide, allowver certain timf DMC at the
would also ensuollected in evealidity of the d
We recommendRate Index (RRor a more detanclude offenseustody (when when applicabata collection y the W. Hayw
This template iDMC at each oThe BI methodace, ethnicity, CCLP, 2009).se of alternativ
Another optionhe adoption ofata and advannsures consistend reported. Feporting functummarizing th
Topics 2 throu
tionate Minori
essment stage C. Evaluation f the DMC intof DMC over
agnosis was thics outlined aby where and wever, the lack his inability tognificant findinDMC data coDMC withou
ategy for imprdard definitioncan be used st
uld enhance thw for valid comme periods, ane local level. Sure that the apery jurisdictiondata collected.
d that these daRI), as well as ailed understan information, applicable), g
ble). One optiis the adoptiowood Burns Iincludes a recoof the decisiond includes anngender, geogr
. This methodves to detentio
n for a standarf a statewide in
nced reporting ency in the waFor example, tionality wouldhe informationgh 4 of the cu
ty Contact Ass
involves usingentails the us
terventions antime.
he goal of the cbove served aswhy DMC is oof available da
o analyze DMCng of this stud
ollection and hut valid data.
roving DMC ns, measuremetatewide. Stanhe quality of Dmparisons of Dd provide a ba
Standardized dppropriate leven, while at the.
ata collection additional datnding of DMCrace and ethn
geographic locaion for a standon of the data Institute (BI) (ommended sen points (i.e., Bnual and quartraphy, referrald also includeon and detent
rdized procedunformation sycapabilities. T
ay juvenile jusan informatiod be able to qn that was neeurrent study. O
sessment Study
g data to dig de of data to tr
nd monitoring
current study. a starting poioccurring acroata prohibitedC data in eachdy, because it uhighlights the
data collectioent strategies, ndardized datDMC data thaDMC across paseline for ongdata collectionel of detail rege same time, im
guidelines incta elements thC. This informnicity, length oation and refedardized procecollection tem(www.burnsint of data elemBI-Level 1 expterly measuresl source, and os the collectio
tion overrides.
ure for DMC ystem that alloThe use of a ststice data is coon system withuickly developeded to analyzOne example
y: Final Repor
deeper into thrack the g requires data
. The four int to assess anoss the eight d a detailed h of the eight underscores thdifficulty of
n is the adoptand reporting
ta collection at are availableparishes as welgoing monitor
n procedures garding DMCmprove the
clude the Relahat would allowmation shouldof time in erral source edure for DM
mplate developnstitute.org).
ments to measupanded versios of disparitiesoffense severityon of data on t.
data collectioows easy accestatewide syste
ollected, analyzh advanced p a report ze Assessment of a possible
rt
Phasehe
a to
nd
he
tion g
e ll as ring
C is
ative w d
MC ped
ure n).
s by y the
on is s to
em zed,
e IV: Discussio
Page | 2
on
7
LCL
in(Ibeavjudacustwvaasac
ImdiArejudejutaef
MC
TunpacrsufaGarm
AjufosymjualcoracoT
LE – Disproport
nformation sysIJJIS) that is cenefits of this vailable for eacustice agenciesata that can beurrently in usetate. The state
with similar daast improvemessessment andcross the state
mproving the isproportionat
As evidenced byeliable juvenileurisdictions, anecision point c
urisdictions wiargeted DMC ffectiveness of
Mitigation Strariteria at Arre
The survey connderstand thearishes. Withriteria when duggests that thactor that may
Given the highrrests, the deve
mitigation strat
Assessment of rustice process. orm the basis oystem (Lodew
made through uudgments whicl., 2000; Hogeonsiderable vaacial, ethnic, aonsistency of t
That is, objecti
tionate Minori
stem is the Inturrently operasystem includch of the deciss, advanced repe downloadede in a small nuewide adoptiota collection aent in the avai diagnosis of D.
quality of avate minority coy the findingse justice data cn in-depth diacannot be achill not have crinterventions
f DMC reduct
ategy #2: Theest
nducted as pare prevalence ofh the exceptionecisions are m
he level of discy contribute toh levels of DMelopment of otegy recomme
risk is a critica Conclusions
of many of theijks et al., 200unstructured ach contribute e, 2002). In tariability oftenand gender disthe decision-mive criteria forc
ty Contact Ass
tegrated Juvenated by the Lode a detailed csion points, dporting functi
d for more advumber of juvenon of IJJIS, or and reporting ilability of DMDMC at each
ailable DMC dontact in Louis of this study,can be achieveagnosis of the hieved. Withouucial informats and will be ution technique
e Use of Obje
rt of Assessmenf objective critn of the detent
made about youcretion availabo DMC in the
MC revealed at objective criterended.
al and essentia about the leve decisions ma
08), particularassessment areto a lack of co
the absence of n exists. Objecsparities and bmaking procesces a structure
sessment Study
nile Justice Infouisiana Suprease managemeata sharing amions, and accevanced analysenile justice ageanother inforcapabilities, w
MC data and fparticular dec
data is the firstisiana's juvenil, until access ted in each of tcauses of DMut such diagnotion needed to
unable to evalues.
ective Decisio
nt Topic 1 souteria among thtion stage, theuth is not com
ble to decision-e juvenile justiarrest and sch
ria at arrest is
al component vel of risk of yoade in the juvly arrest. Suche typically basonsistency andf clear decisionctive criteria a
biases by increas (Schwalbe eted decision-m
y: Final Repor
formation Syseme Court. Tent system
mong juvenile ess to client-leves. This systemencies around
rmation systemwould lead to afacilitate furthcision point
t step in reducle justice systeto valid and the local
MC at each osis, local o implement uate the
on-Making
ught to he participatine use of objectmmon. Resear-makers is oneice system. hool-based the second
of the juvenileoung offender
venile justice ch conclusionsed on personad biases (Grovn criteria, are able to redasing the t al., 2006).
making process
rt
Phasestem
The
vel m is d the m a
her
cing em.
ng tive rch e
e rs
s al ve et
uce
e IV: Discussio
Page | 2
on
8
LCL
bath
OonTofseththsuto
Ca prsaobantofianpo
TreAdescDdashpotrscgefaob
Ithigeobununardi
LE – Disproport
ased legal mathe youth.
Of the seven panly one parish
Targeting DMCf this study reverious offenseshe juvenile jushis stage may bubsequent stago each subsequ
Currently, law youth or counractice of counaves valuable rbjective criterind which are eo influence derm policies whnd release willoint.
The adoption oeduce dispropo
Assessment Topecision to makchool for non-
DMC in schooata. Thus, thehould apply toolicy would hreated within tchool adminisetting law enfoactor. Such “ebjective criteri
t important toighlights the neneral, the resbjective criterincommon. Hnderscore the rrest, given theisproportionat
tionate Minori
tters, such as t
arishes for whh reported use C at arrests is veal high levels. Secondly, astice system. Abe an importages. Thus, DMuent stage.
enforcement insel and releasnsel and releasresources, theria which dictaeligible for coucision makinghich outline fal limit the sub
of objective crortionality in pic 4 highlighke an arrest at-serious offensol-based arrestse adoption of o all arrests, whelp reduce arrthe school systtrators to exha
forcement invoexhaustion proia.
o note that theneed for objecults of Assessmia at each of th
However, the rimportance oe high arrest Rte number of
ty Contact Ass
the facts of the
ich valid surveof objective ccritical for sevls of DMC at
arrest is typicalAs a result, theant contributinMC at arrest h
in several jurisse him back inse limits unnere typically areate which youtunsel and releg. Establishingfactors that majectivity that i
iteria for arresschool-based
ht two importa school: 1) yoses (i.e., non-vs is high in thobjective critehether they oc
rests for non-stem. Therefoaust all schoololved, particulocedures” shou
e information ctive criteria atment Topic 1 he decision poresults of Assesof adopting obRRIs across thBlack youth b
sessment Study
e case and prio
ey responses wcriteria when mveral reasons. arrest, particully the first poe decision-makng factor to Dhas the potent
sdictions may nto the commecessary arrestse no clear guidth should be f
ease, allowing sg a decision trake a youth eliis so prevalent
sting a youth warrests. The rant findings reuth are being
violent misdeme three parisheeria for makinccur at school erious behavio
ore, we recomml disciplinary plarly when viould be one com
provided by tt additional deindicate that
oints (except dssment Topic
bjective criteriahe parishes as wbeing arrested
y: Final Repor
or contact wit
were obtained making an arrFirst, the resuularly for non-oint of entry inking practices
DMC found intial to filter do
y choose to arrmunity. While
s of youth anddelines or formally arrestsubjective factree or institutiigible for count at this decisio
will also help results of egarding the arrested at
meanors), andes providing
ng an arrest or not. Such ors that shouldmend requirinpractices priorolence is not a mponent of th
the parishes alsecision pointsthe use of
detention) is 2 and 4
a at the point well as the at school.
rt
Phaseth
rest. ults -nto s at n own
rest e the d
ted tors ing nsel on
d 2)
a d be ng r to
a he
so . In
of
e IV: Discussio
Page | 2
on
9
LCL
MG
IninJusedicuofju
OsethcoofinVMgoInA
GhereTjupr(1trsaofre
LE – Disproport
Mitigation Straraduated San
n addition to tnvolved in theuvenile Justiceecure confinemisproportionatustody is alarmf strategies to ustice system.
One possible stecure confinemhe past decadeommon frameffenders. Thisnclusion as a k
Violent and ChMore recently, overnment’s Jnitiative (Nati
As defined in th
"an acc(includapplicasystemactionsjuvenilsanctioadjudicbehaviinvolve
Graduated sancelp the juveniesponses to eac
They refer to thuvenile justice robation offic1993) recommreatment and ranctions. Thuf care consistinecommendatio
immedviolent
tionate Minori
ategy #3: Thenctions
the secure concurrent study
e(OJJ) indicatment in LA aretely high num
ming and requmitigate DMC
trategy to redument is the ade, graduated saework for orgas framework f
key componenronic Juvenile it has served auvenile Accouonal Center fohe JJDP Act o
countability-bding incentiveable to juvenil
m to hold such s and to protele delinquencyons for every acated delinqueor, and by preement with th
ctions are a mle justice systech youth’s offhe range of disdecision-makers, and juven
mend that a mrehabilitation us, the goal of ng of diverse pons, a continu
diate sanctionst offenders;
ty Contact Ass
e Developmen
nfinement datay, recent data tes that, as of e Black (OJJ,
mber of Black yuires the develoC at the deep-
uce the numbeoption of a granctions have anizing systemfirst received wnt of the Comp
Offenders (Wias the foundatuntability Incefor Juvenile anof 2002, gradu
based graduatees, treatment, ales within thejuveniles accoct communitiy by providingact for which aent, by inducieventing their he juvenile just
ulti-tiered conem carefully mfense severity, spositional op
kers, includingnile court judgodel graduatewith reasonab
f graduated sanprograms. Ba
uum should in
s within the co
sessment Study
nt and Implem
a collected in released from March 2011, 2011). Thusyouth being seopment and im-end of Louisi
er of Black yoraduated sanctbecome an in
m interventionwidespread attprehensive Strailson and Howtion for the feentive Block Gnd Family Couuated sanction
ed series of sanand services) e juvenile justiountable for thies from the efg appropriate a juvenile is ing their law-asubsequent
tice system."
ntinuum of inmatch sanction
level of risk, aptions that are g intake staff, dges. Wilson and sanctions syble, fair, and anctions is to ofased on their nclude (at a mi
ommunity for
y: Final Repor
mentation of
the eight parithe Office of 77% of youth, the ent to secure mplementatioiana's juvenile
outh sent to tions grid. Ov
ncreasingly s for juvenile
tention due toategy for Seriouwell, 1993). deral
Grant (JAIBGurt Judges, 20ns are:
nctions
ice heir ffects of
abiding
nterventions thn and treatmenand service neavailable to
district attornnd Howell ystem combineappropriate ffer a continu
inimum):
r first-time, no
rt
Phase
shes fh in
on e
ver
o its us,
) 03).
hat nt eds.
neys,
es
uum
on-
e IV: Discussio
Page | 3
on
0
LCL
Justofofm(W
Gfothsamoranenthdesecosu
TefKgrdeavgrbemthanmgr
LE – Disproport
intermoffend
secure afterca
commu
uvenile offendtructured systef the communffending or m
more restrictiveWilson & How
Graduated sancocus on strenghe offender ananctions is bas
mentioned abordered to a disnd his/her famnsure that the hat comes intoecision-makinecure confinemommunity-basuccessful in red
The implementffective strateg
Krisberg, 1998rid used in eveecision-makinvailable to juvraduated sancteing sent to se
mitigation strathe juvenile jusnd implement
making processraduated sanct
tionate Minori
mediate sanctioers; care program
are programs thunity-based tr
ders should moem of phases tnity. Sanction
misbehavior. Ae sanctions if twell, 1993).
ctions promotgthening rathend the commused on the prinove, this princisposition that
mily. The adoleast restrictiv
o contact withng process woument is being sed sanctions ducing the be
tation of a gragy to reduce D). The use of aery juvenile cang process by svenile justice dtions grid mayecure confinemtegy recommestice system (i.tation of a gras. For a compltions, please s
ty Contact Ass
ons within the
s for the mosthat provide hireatment servi
ove along the that addresses ns should be esAt each level, othey continue
te accountabiler than severinunity. Thus, thnciple of the liple means thaprovides the lption of a grave decisions ar
h the juvenile juld become mused in only tare not an opthavior of the y
aduated sanctiDMC (Armoura locally standase can lead tostandardizing
decision-makery help to redument in Louisiended for redu.e., secure conaduated sanctiolete guide to thee http://www
sessment Study
community f
t violent offenigh levels of soces.
continuum thboth their neescalated in res
offenders shouin their delin
ity, while at thng the damagehe concept of east restrictiveat each juvenilleast restrictio
aduated sanctiore being madejustice system.
more objective the most severtion or have nyouth.
ions grid is conr & Hammon
dardized graduo a more fair athe dispositiors. Over time
uce the numbeiana. Thus, th
ucing DMC atnfinement) is tons grid to guhe implement
w.ncjfcj.org.
y: Final Repor
for more serio
nders; and ocial control a
hrough a well-eds and the sasponse to repeuld be subject nquent activiti
he same time,ed bonds betwf graduated e alternative. le offender is
on to the juvenons grid woule for every you. Thus, the and ensure th
re cases, when not proven
nsidered an nd, 2009; uated sanctionand equitable onal options e, the use of a er of Black youhe third t the deep endthe developmeuide the decisiotation of
rt
Phaseous
and
-afety eat to es
ween
As
nile ld uth
hat
ns
uth
d of ent on-
e IV: Discussio
Page | 3
on
1
LCL
MTacreimha
Go
M
1athinst
1bthDstco
1cstcocoap
1dco
1eavda
LE – Disproport
Monitoring PThe monitorinction steps, anecommended mportant sinceaving the desi
oal
itigation Strategy
a. Conduct an ashe data collection each jurisdictioate.
b. Based on the fhe above assessmMC committee wandardized methollecting DMC da
c. Guidelines for andardized DMCollection based oommittee's decispproved by LCLE
d. Consistent DMollection statewid
e. An increase invailability and deata statewide.
tionate Minori
Plan g plan in this
nd expected oumitigation stre it provides ared effects in
Ac
y #1: Improved D
sessment of n capabilities n across the
Cococo
a.da
b.
c.
d.re
e.av
findings of ment, the will develop a hod of ata statewide.
BacoDco
a.rem
b.pl
c.re
C data n the DMC ion and .
ThD
MC data de.
Uju
the tail of DMC
Uw
a.
b.co
c.
ty Contact Ass
section was dutcomes to morategies. Mona way to trackreducing DM
ction Step
DMC Data Collect
ollect informationollect DMC data aollected will desc
The current casata at each of the
. The ability to ac
The reporting fu
. A description ofeporting at each d
A description ofvailable or not ac
ased on the findiommittee will detMC data collectioollection include:
A standard list oeporting format th
management/data
. A statewide juvelatform).
A common tempegular basis (e.g.
he development oMC data collectio
sing the DMC daurisdiction will co
sing the data repill be:
An increase in t
. An improvemenollected.
The ability to co
sessment Study
eveloped to pronitor the effeitoring mitigaif the mitigati
MC.
tion
n describing eachat each of the decribe:
e management se decision points
ccess the data fo
unctionality of th
f exactly what is decision point.
f the decision poccessible and the
ings of the assesstermine the moston. Options for st:
of definitions, mehat can be adoptcollection system
enile justice data
plate that data ca, BI-Level One te
of a document thon guidelines tha
ata collection guidollect data in 201
ported in the curr
the amount of av
nt in the validity a
ompare DMC data
y: Final Repor
rovide goals, ectiveness of thation strategiesion strategy is
h jurisdiction's cecision points. Th
system/platform us.
or reporting purpo
e systems curren
collected and av
ints where data ae reasons why.
sment above, thet feasible methodtandardizing DM
easurement stratted by any/all casms.
abase (e.g., IJJIS
an be easily enteemplate).
hat outlines the nat will be distribu
delines develope12 based on thes
rent study as a b
ailable DMC data
and reliability of
a across jurisdict
rt
Phase
he s is
s
apacity to he information
used to collect
oses.
ntly in place.
vailable for
are not
e DMC d for improving C data
tegies, and se
S or another
ered on a
newly adopted uted statewide.
ed in 1c, each se guidelines.
aseline, there
a.
the data
tions.
e IV: Discussio
Outcome/Produ
A report compardata collection management syacross the state
A standardized data collection finalized by the
DMC data collecdeveloped and fend of 2011.
A summary of thcollected in 20
A summary of thin each of the ju2012. The amoavailable will bedata available inreport.
Page | 3
on
ct
ring the differentmethods/case
ystems used e.
method for DMCdeveloped and end of 2011.
ction guidelines finalized by the
he DMC data 12.
he data collectedurisdictions for
ount of data e compared to thn the current
2
t
d
e
LCL
Go
M
2ade
2bobju
2cob
2dar
2ear
2far
M
3atreea
3bgr
3ccoBl
LE – Disproport
oal
itigation Strategy
a. Form a commievelop objective c
b. The developmebjective criteria fovenile.
c. The implementbjective criteria a
d. Improved collerest data.
e. A reduction in rest.
f. A reduction in rest occurring at
itigation Strategy
a. Identify the diseatment options ach jurisdiction.
b. Develop of a loaduated sanction
c. Reduction in sonfinement placeack youth.
tionate Minori
Ac
y #2: The Use of
ttee to criteria.
Deena
ent of or arresting a
Thbyremco
tation of t arrest.
Al
ection of Ondacom
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
DMC at Trbaob
DMC at school.
TrfroDM
y #3: Graduated
sposition and available in
Eadi
ocalized ns grid.
UslorisgrW
1.vio
2.of
3.
4.co
ecure ments for
UsRR20po
ty Contact Ass
ction Step
f Objective Decis
evelop a committnforcement agencstandard set of c
he committee wily all arresting agequire school admaking an arrest a
ollect data on all
l arresting agenc
ne component ofata collection. Alollect data on eacinimum):
Demographic In
Location of arre
Prior arrest histo
Current offense
Reason for arres
rack the RRI for aaseline to compabjective criteria.
rack the demograom 2010-2013. MC before and af
Sanctions
ach jurisdiction wsposition and tre
sing information calized graduatesk to the commuaduated sanctionilson and Howell
Immediate sancolent offenders.
Intermediate safenders.
Secure care pro
Aftercare prograommunity-based
sing data provideRI for Black and 013. 2010 data ost-implementati
sessment Study
ion-Making Crite
tee with represencies, LCLE, and tcriteria to be used
l develop objectiencies statewide.ministrators to “eand require all lawjuvenile arrests.
cies will adopt th
f the objective crl law enforcemench arrest. This in
formation (race,
st
ory
st (i.e., show that
arrest from 2010re DMC before an
aphic characterist2010 will be usefter the impleme
will conduct an aeatment options.
collected in 3a, d sanctions grid nity, and treatmens will adhere to (1993):
ctions within the
anctions within t
ograms for the mo
ams that provide treatment service
ed by OJJ and theWhite youth for swill be used as aon of graduated s
y: Final Repor
ria at Arrest
ntatives from varithe DMC commitd when arresting
ive criteria to be . These guidelinexhaust” all resouw enforcement a
e criteria in 201
iteria policy will nt agencies will bformation will in
ethnicity, gende
t he/she meets c
0-2013. 2010 wnd after the impl
tics of school-baed as a baseline
entation of object
assessment of ava
each jurisdictionbased on the offent need. At a mthe levels recom
community for f
the community fo
ost violent offend
high levels of soes.
e local jurisdictiosecure confinema baseline to comsanctions.
rt
Phase
ious law ttee to develop a child.
implemented es will also urces before gencies to
2.
be improved be required to clude (at a
er)
riteria)
ill be used as a lementation of
sed arrests to compare
tive criteria.
ailable
n will develop a fense severity, inimum, the
mmended by
irst-time, non-
or more serious
ders.
ocial control and
ons, track the ent from 2010-
mpare pre- and
e IV: Discussio
Outcome/Produ
Formation of the
Statewide guidejuvenile arrest fend of 2011.
Statewide use obeginning in 20
Improved juvenibeginning in 20
A report summatrends.
A report summatrends.
The developmenimplementation sanctions.
A summary of thRRI for secure c(broken down byethnicity).
Page | 3
on
ct
e committee.
elines for making inalized by the
of criteria 012.
ile arrest data 012.
arizing these
arizing these
nt and of graduated
he trends in the confinement y race and
3
a
LCL
CTsedacrdeat
IninthDjuinmyothteyoa covaDjustDD
LE – Disproport
Conclusion The results of tecure confinemata. The adopriteria when aretermining tht these particu
n addition, thenconsistency ahat DMC may
DMC seems toustice system mn local detenti
more from focuouth to court his study differerminating or outh, and the youth should
onfinement. Aary by parish a
DMC. Thus, iurisdiction’s sytage. The first
DMC data in eDMC can occu
tionate Minori
this study highment, and impption of policirresting a juve
he outcome of ular decision p
e results of thiacross parishesy not manifesto be case or jurmay need to foon for serioususing on implefor non-seriours on importaextending projudges' perspebe released fr
All of these cirand stage of thit is importantystem and howt step in this eeach specific pur at the local
ty Contact Ass
hlight three crproving the quies that requirenile, and 2) ga case are feasoints.
is study also reand offense ty
t itself similarlrisdiction-specocus their atte offenses, anoementing objeus offenses. Ent factors suchobation terms,ectives on comrom detentionrcumstances inhe system, wht to understanw these influenendeavor is imparish, so that level.
sessment Study
ritical areas of uality and avaie the use of 1)
graduated sancsible strategies
eveal a great dypes. These rly across jurisdcific. Thus, w
ention on highther jurisdictiective criteria
Each jurisdictioh as agency po, criteria used
mmunity safetn or placed in snteract in diffich results in v
nd the intricacnce DMC at e
mproving the ava more detaile
y: Final Repor
focus: arrest, ilability of DM) objective ctions when s to reduce DM
deal of results suggestdictions. Inste
while one juvenh rates of DMion may beneffor referring on included inolicy for to detain a
ty and when/wsecure ferent ways thavarying levels
cies of each each specific
availability of ed assessment
rt
Phase
MC
MC
t ead, nile C fit
n
why
at of
t of
e IV: Discussio
Page | 3
on
4
LCL
A
A
A
A
C
C
G
H
K
L
N
O
O
R
LE – Disproport
Appendice
Appendix A:
Armour, J., & Minorhttp://
Austin, J., JohnJuvenilDelinq
Center for ChilNewsleat: http
Coalition for Ju
http://
Grove,W.M., Z
predict
Hoge, R.D. (20
Justice DisproPreven
Krisberg, M. (1Juvenil
odewijks, H.P
adolesc
National CenteA progOffice
Office of JuvenTechnJustice
Office of JuvenJustice
Rivaux, S.L., Sp
abusinoutcom
tionate Minori
es
Reference
Hammond, Sity Contact. Nwww.ncsl.org
nson, K.D., &le Offenders. J
quency and Pr
ldren's Law anetter, 3, Februap://www.mod
uvenile Justice
www.juvjustic
Zald, D.H., L
tion: A meta-a
002). Standard
and Behavior,oportionate Mntion, Office o
1998). Intervele Justice Deli
P.B., Doreleije
cents: Relation
er for Juvenilegram model anof Justice Pro
nile Justice Deical Assistance
e Programs: W
nile Justice (20e, Department
pringer, D.W
g Latino, Angme. Journal of
ty Contact Ass
s
. (2009). MinNational Coung..
& Weitzer, R. (Juvenile Justic
revention, Off
nd Policy (200ary 2009. Cen
delsforchange.n
e (2001). Espe
ce.org/media/
ebow, B.S., Sn
analysis. Psych
dized instrum
29, 380-396Minority Contaof Justice Prog
ention and Juvinquency and
ers, T.A.H., &
n to sentencin
e and Family Cnd planning gograms: Washi
elinquency ande Manual. Off
Washington, D
011). Demogrt of Public Saf
W., Bohman, T
glo, and Africaf Social Work P
sessment Study
nority Youth inncil of State L
(2005). Alternce Bulletin, Sefice of Justice
09). Using Bunter for Childrnet/publicatio
eranza: Awaken
resources/pub
nitz, B.E., & N
hological Assessm
ments for assess
.Hsia, H.M., act: 2002 Updgrams: Washin
venile Justice SPrevention, O
& DeRuiter, C
ng and recidivi
Court Judges (uide. Office oington, DC. A
d Prevention (fice of Juvenil
DC.
raphic profiles fety and Corre
T., Wagner, E.
an American oPractice in the A
y: Final Repor
n the JuvenileLegislatures, IS
natives to the September 200Programs: Wa
urns Institute dren's Law and
ons/190.
ning to the Str
blic/resource_
Nelson, C. (2
ment, 12, 19-3
sing risk and n
Bridges, G.S.date. Office ofngton, DC.
System RespoOffice of Justic
C. (2008). Savr
ism. Crimina
(2002). Graduof Juvenile JusAvailable at: h
(2009). Dispre Justice Delin
of the secure ections. Availa
F., & Gil, A.G
offenders in prAddictions, 6,
rt
Appe
e Justice SystemSBN 978-1-58
Secure Detent05. Office of Juashington DC
data methodsd Policy: Wash
rength of Latin
136.pdf
000). Clinica
30.
need in youthf
, & McHale, f Juvenile Just
onses. Juvenilece Programs: W
ry risk assessm
al Justice and B
uated sanctionstice Delinquehttp://www.nc
roportionate Mnquency and
youth populaable at http://o
G. (2006). Di
redictors of re 5-29.
ndix A
m: Dispropor8024-538-8. A
tion and Confuvenile Justice
C.
. DMC Actionhington, DC.
no Youth. Ava
al vs. mechani
ful offenders.
R. (2004). tice Delinquen
e Justice, 4(1).Washington,
ment in violen
Behavior, 35, 6
ns for juvenileency and Prevecjfcj.org.
Minority ContPrevention, O
ation. Office oojj.la.gov/.
ifferences amo
ecidivism and
Page | 3
rtionate Available at:
finement of e
n Network Available
ilable at:
ical
Criminal
ncy and
Office of DC.
t Dutch
696, 709.
offenders: ention,
tact: Office of
of Juvenile
ong substance
treatment
5
LCL
U
W
LE – Disproport
US Census Bur
Wilson, J. and
OffendWashin
tionate Minori
reau (2010). A
Howell, J. C.
ders. Office ofngton, DC.
ty Contact Ass
American Com
1993. Compr
f Juvenile Justi
sessment Study
mmunity Surv
rehensive Strate
ice Delinquen
y: Final Repor
vey. Available
tegy for Serious,
ncy and Preven
rt
Appe
at: http://factf
s, Violent and
ntion, Office o
ndix A
finder.census.
Chronic Juven
of Justice Prog
Page | 3
gov.
nile
grams:
6
LC
A T
A
R
D
D
P
A
P
S
T
**d-
CLE – Disproportion
Appendix B: Ta
Table 1.1 Survey R
Arrest
Referral to Juvenile
Diversion
Detention
Petition
Adjudication
Probation**
Secure Confinemen
Transfer to Adult Co
* Only survey responses f** Parishes C and F repodetermine disposition, bu-- Indicates missing or in
nate Minority Conta
ables
Results Measuring
Pa
Court
Y
nt
ourt
from a representative of trted the use of the Strucut is used as a tool to guvalid survey responses
act Assessment St
the Use of Objecti
arish Pa
A
No N
No Y
No Y
Yes Y
No N
No N
No N
No N
No Y
that particular decision pctured Assessment of Vioide the decision.
tudy: Final Report
ive Measures*
arish Pa
B
No N
es -
es -
es Ye
No -
No -
No N
No -
es -
point were considered valence Risk in Youth (SAV
rish Par
C D
No --
-- N
-- Ye
es N
-- N
-- --
No --
-- --
-- N
lid. VRY) as part of the pre-d
rish Pari
D E
- Yes
o --
s --
o --
o --
- --
- --
- --
o --
isposition report. In both
ish Pari
E F
s No
- --
- --
- No
- --
- Yes
- No
- No
- --
h parishes, it was noted t
Appendix B
sh Paris
F G
o No
Yes
No
o Yes
No
s No
No
o No
No
that the results of the SA
Page | 37
B
sh Paris
H
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
AVRY does not
h
LC
T
A
R
C
C
C
C
C
C
***o
T
A
R
C
C
C
C
C
C
***Tc
CLE – Disproportion
Table 2.1: 2009 R
Arrest*
Referrals to Juvenile C
Cases Diverted*
Cases Involving Secur
Cases Petitioned
Cases Resulting in Ad
Cases Resulting in Loc
Cases Resulting in Se
* Valid data summarizing** A RRI for detention co***Confinement rates cooccurrence for misdemea
Table 2.2: 2009 R
Arrest*
Referrals to Juvenile C
Cases Diverted
Cases Involving Secur
Cases Petitioned
Cases Resulting in Ad
Cases Resulting in Lo
Cases Resulting in Se
* Valid data summarizing** The RRI for detention ***Confinement rates coThe rate of occurrence foconfinement in 2009.
nate Minority Conta
RI Comparisons fo
Court
e Detention**
judication
cal Probation
cure Confinement***
g juvenile arrests, referraould not be estimated beuld not be estimated for anors for black youth = 1
RI Comparisons fo
Court
re Detention**
djudication
cal Probation
ecure Confinement***
g juvenile arrests, referracould not be estimated
uld not be estimated for or violent felonies for blac
act Assessment St
r Black and White
ls to juvenile court, and cause the arrest rate is nmisdemeanor offenses b3.33). FINS cases were
r Black and White
ls to juvenile court, and because the arrest rate isviolent felonies and misd
ck youth = 12.50 and vio
tudy: Final Report
Youth across Offe
Total
--
--
--
--
--
1.26
0.83
3.37
cases diverted are not avnot available. In 2009, 9because the rate of occurnot placed in secure con
Youth across Viol
Total Vi
--
--
--
--
--
1.26
0.83
3.37
cases diverted are not avs not available. demeanors because the olent misdemeanors=2.0
ense Level (Parish
Felony
--
--
--
--
--
1.33
0.85
2.09
vailable for 2009. 90% of felony and 84% orrence for white youth eqnfinement in 2009.
lence Level (Parish
iolent Felony N
--
--
--
--
--
1.57
0.45
--
vailable for 2009.
rate of occurrence for wh0. No youth were sent to
A)
of misdemeanor admissioualed zero (i.e., no white
h A)
Non Violent Felony
--
--
--
--
--
1.11
1.00
10.00
hite youth equaled zero (secure care for non viole
Misdemeanor
--
--
--
--
--
2.50
0.80
--****
ons were black. e youth were sent to secu
Violent Misdemea
--
--
--
--
--
1.65
0.71
--
i.e., no white youth wereent misdemeanors. FINS
Appendix B
FI
1.
0.
ure care for misdemeano
anor Non Violent
1
0
e sent to secure care for tcases were not placed in
Page | 38
B
INS
--
--
--
--
--
.26
.88
--
ors). The rate of
t Misdemeanor
--
--
--
--
--
1.14
0.75
--
these offenses). n secure
LC
A
R
C
C
C
C
C
C
*t***
T
A
R
C
C
C
C
C
C
**
CLE – Disproportion
Table 2.3: 2009 R
Arrest
Referrals to Juvenile C
Cases Diverted
Cases Involving Secur
Cases Petitioned
Cases Resulting in Ad
Cases Resulting in Loc
Cases Resulting in Se
* The arrest data that wato juvenile court for a FIN** One white youth was d*** Cases where the offe**** FINS cases were no
Table 2.4: 2009 R
Arrest
Referrals to Juvenile C
Cases Diverted*
Cases Involving Secur
Cases Petitioned
Cases Resulting in Ad
Cases Resulting in Lo
Cases Resulting in Se
* Violent felonies were no** Cases where the offen
nate Minority Conta
RRI Comparisons fo
Court
e Detention***
judication
cal Probation
cure Confinement
s provided did not includNS offense and 268 blacdiverted for a felony offennse level could not be de
ot placed in secure confin
RI Comparisons fo
Court
re Detention**
djudication
cal Probation
ecure Confinement
ot diverted in 2009. Onese level could not be det
act Assessment St
or Black and White
de arrests for FINS-relateck youth referred to juvennse; no black youth wereetermined (e.g., theft of nement in 2009.
r Black and White
Total
4.37
0.89
0.51
0.93
1.02
1.04
0.96
1.46
e white youth was divertetermined (e.g., theft of g
tudy: Final Report
e Youth across Offe
Total
4.37
0.89
0.51
0.93
1.02
1.04
0.96
1.46
ed offenses. Therefore, renile court for a FINS offee diverted for a felony offegoods, possession of sto
Youth across Viol
Violent Felony
7.46
0.66
--*
0.94
0.94
1.20
0.84
1.70
d for a felony offense; nooods, possession of stole
ense Level (Parish
Felony
4.11
0.82
--**
0.94
1.01
1.05
0.92
1.43
eferrals to juvenile court nse. ense. FINS cases were nlen property) are not incl
lence Level (Parish
Non Violent Fe
3.36
0.91
--*
0.79
1.02
0.96
0.96
1.62
o black youth were diverten property) are not inclu
h B)
for FINS offenses could
ot diverted in 2009. luded (n=213, 14% of a
h B)
lony Violent
6
9
2
6
6
2
ted for a felony offense.uded (n=213, 14% of ad
Misdemeanor
4.28
1.04
0.45
0.80
1.01
1.13
0.90
1.65
not be estimated. In 20
admissions).
Misdemeanor
4.03
1.24
1.00
0.84
1.03
1.12
0.93
1.56
dmissions).
Appendix B
FI
-
-
--
1.
1.
1.
1.
--*
09, there were 127 whit
Non Violent Misdem
4.37
0.97
0.43
0.78
1.00
1.13
0.88
1.07
Page | 39
B
INS
--*
--*
-**
.66
.12
.01
.10
****
te youth referred
meanor
7
7
3
8
0
3
8
7
LC
*R
T
P
P
P
P
CLE – Disproportion
Table 2.5: RRI Com
Paris
Paris
Paris
Paris
* Other offenses include Receiving, Possessing)..
Table 2.6: RRI Com
Parish C
Parish D
Parish E
Parish G
nate Minority Conta
mparisons for Blac
sh C
sh D
sh E
sh G
offenses labeled "All oth
mparisons for Blac
act Assessment St
ck and White Youth
Total Arrests
7.22
6.22
5.66
3.84
her Offenses (Except Traf
k and White Youth
Total Arrests
7.22
6.22
5.66
3.84
tudy: Final Report
h across Level of A
Felony
12.27
6.72
3.45
4.25
ffic)" and offense where a
h across Violence L
Violent Felony
18.83
9.22
10.61
0.85
Arrest Offense (200
Mis
an offense level could no
Level of Arrest Offe
Non Violent
9.57
6.27
2.98
1.94
09)
sdemeanor
7.31
6.79
6.79
4.12
ot be identified in the dat
ense (2009)
Felony Viole
7
7
8
4
FINS
--
--
1.82
6.66
ta file provided to GCR (
ent Misdemeanor
5.67
8.14
6.63
6.12
Appendix B
O
i.e., Theft, Stolen Proper
Non Violent Mi
7.84
4.13
6.87
3.35
Page | 40
B
Other*
4.93
5.77
5.88
3.30
rty; Buying,
isdemeanor
4
3
7
5
LC
T
P
P
P
***"
CLE – Disproportion
Table 2.7: Local D
Parish A (2009)
Black Youth
White Youth
Parish D (2010)**
Black Youth
White Youth
Parish F (2010)***
Black Youth
White Youth
*Non Criminal refers to c**137 cases were missin*** The data provided byother" race is not reporte
nate Minority Conta
etention Admission
# of Yo
# of Yo
contempt of court, probatng offense information or y Parish F did not break ted.
act Assessment St
ns across Offense
outh
135
19
619
119
outh
380
5
tion violation, and house the offense level was un
the offense down by felon
tudy: Final Report
Level*
% Felony
49.6
42.1
27.5
31.9
% Violent
49.5
--
arrest violation. nable to be identified (e.gny or misdemeanor, but o
% Misde
15
21
54
45
% Non
28
20
g., theft of goods). only indicated whether th
emeanor
5.6
1.1
4.8
5.4
Violent
8.2
0.0
he offense was violent, n
% FINS
1.5
--
7.6
12.6
% Status
22.4
80.0
non violent, or a status of
Appendix B
% Non
3
3
1
ffense. Due to the low nu
Page | 41
B
Criminal*
33.3
36.8
10.2
10.1
umbers (n=5),
LC
T
Pa
Pa
**
N
T
P
P
P
**
CLE – Disproportion
Table 2.8: Local D
Parish A (2009)
Black Youth
White Youth
Parish D (2010)**
Black Youth
White Youth
*Non Criminal refers to c** 137 cases were missin
Note: The proportion of y
Table 2.9: 2009 OJ
Parish D
Black Youth
White Youth
Parish E
Black Youth
White Youth
Parish F
Black Youth
White Youth
* OJJ probation data cou** 58 cases were missing
nate Minority Conta
etention Admission
# of Youth %
135
19
619
119
contempt of court, probatng offense information o
youth ages 10-17 residin
JJ Probation Place
# of Youth
264
67
197
40
156
1
ld not be used in Caddo,g offense information. Du
act Assessment St
ns across Violence
% Violent Felony %
21.5
15.8
6.0
3.4
tion violation, and house r the offense level was u
g in each parish in 2009
ements across Offe
h**
, Calcasieu, and East Batue to the low numbers, "o
tudy: Final Report
e Level*
% Non Violent Felony
28.1
26.3
21.5
28.6
arrest violation. nable to be identified (e.
9 are as follows: Parish A
nse Level (Data ob
% Felony
31.1
44.8
22.3
15.0
59.0
100.0
ton Rouge because theseother" race are not report
% Violent Misdem
7.4
10.5
26.3
24.4
.g., theft of goods, posse
A: 35% Black, Parish D:
btained from JETS)
e jurisdictions have a locted (Lafayette: n=13, Ou
meanor % Non Vio
ession of stolen property)
45% Black, Parish F: 85
*
% Misdemean
68.6
52.2
72.6
27.5
32.7
--
al probation departmentuachita: n=2, Orleans: n=
olent Misdemeanor
8.1
10.5
28.4
21.0
.
5%, Black.
nor
. Data from the local pro=1).
Appendix B
% FINS %
1.5
--
7.6
12.6
% FINS
0.4
3.0
5.1
57.5
8.3
--
obation department was u
Page | 42
B
Non Criminal*
33.3
36.8
10.2
10.1
S
unavailable.
LC
T
Pa
Pa
Pa
**
N
CLE – Disproportion
Table 2.10: 2009
#
Parish D
Black Youth
White Youth
Parish E
Black Youth
White Youth
Parish F
Black Youth
White Youth
* OJJ probation data cou** 58 cases were missing
Note: The proportion of y
nate Minority Conta
OJJ Probation Plac
# of Youth** %
264
67
197
40
156
1
ld not be used in Caddo,g offense information. Du
youth ages 10-17 residin
act Assessment St
cements across Vio
% Violent Felony
8.3
7.5
5.6
--
12.2
--
, Calcasieu, and East Batue to the low numbers, "o
g in each parish in 2009
tudy: Final Report
olence Level (Data
% Non Violent Felo
22.7
37.3
16.8
15.0
46.8
100.0
ton Rouge because theseother" race is not reporte
9 are as follows: Parish D
obtained from JET
ny % Violent
e jurisdictions have a loced (Lafayette: n=13, Oua
D: 45% Black, Parish E: 3
TS)*
t Misdemeanor
21.2
7.5
14.7
12.5
5.1
--
al probation departmentchita: n=2, Orleans: n=1
31% Black, Parish F: 85
% Non Violent M
4
4
5
1
2
. Data from the local pro1).
5% Black.
Appendix B
isdemeanor
47.3
44.8
57.9
15.0
27.6
--
obation department was u
Page | 43
B
% FINS
0.4
3.0
5.1
57.5
8.3
--
unavailable.
LC
P
P
P
P
P
P
* N
2
CLE – Disproportion
Table 2.11: 2009
Parish C
Black Youth
White Youth
Parish D
Black Youth
White Youth
Parish E
Black Youth
White Youth
Parish F
Black Youth
White Youth
Parish G
Black Youth
White Youth
Parish H
Black Youth
White Youth
* 22 cases were missing
Note: The proportion of y26% Black.
nate Minority Conta
Secure Custody P
# of Youth
61
3
43
5
13
0
107
1
53
2
19
6
offense information. Due
youth ages 10-17 residin
act Assessment St
Placements across
h* % F
88
33
6
20
6
5
10
6
50
7
10
e to the low number (n=6
g in each parish in 2009
tudy: Final Report
Offense Level (Dat
Felony
8.5
3.3
2.8
0.0
1.5
--
57.9
00.0
2.3
0.0
78.9
00.0
6), "other" race is not inc
9 are as follows: Parish C
ta obtained from JE
% Misdemeano
11.5
66.7
37.2
80.0
38.5
--
42.1
--
37.7
50.0
21.1
--
cluded.
C: 56% Black, Parish D:
ETS)
r
45% Black, Parish E: 31
1% Black, Parish F: 85%
Appendix B
% Black, Parish G: 58%
Page | 44
B
Black, Parish H:
LC
T
*
P
P
P
P
P
P
N
2
CLE – Disproportion
Table 2.12: 2009 * 22 cases were missing
Parish C
Black Youth
White Youth
Parish D
Black Youth
White Youth
Parish E
Black Youth
White Youth
Parish F
Black Youth
White Youth
Parish G
Black Youth
White Youth
Parish H
Black Youth
White Youth
Note: The proportion of y26% Black.
nate Minority Conta
Secure Custody Pl
offense information. Due
# of Youth*
61
3
5
43
13
0
107
1
53
2
19
6
youth ages 10-17 residin
act Assessment St
lacements across V
e to the low number (n=6
% Violent
39.3
--
--
23.3
23.1
--
14.0
100.
22.6
50.0
31.6
50.0
g in each parish in 2009
tudy: Final Report
Violence Level (Da
6), "other" race is not inc
Felony %
3
3
1
0
0
6
0
6
0
9 are as follows: Parish C
ata obtained from J
cluded.
% Non Violent Felony
49.2
33.3
20.0
37.5
38.5
--
43.0
--
39.6
--
42.1
50.0
C: 56% Black, Parish D:
JETS)
% Violent
3
2
1
1
1
1
45% Black, Parish E: 31
Misdemeanor
8.2
33.3
20.0
18.8
15.4
--
9.3
--
11.3
--
10.5
--
1% Black, Parish F: 85%
Appendix B
% Non Violent Mi
33.3
3.3
33.3
60.0
18.6
23.1
--
33.6
--
26.4
50.0
15.8
--
% Black, Parish G: 58%
Page | 45
B
isdemeanor
Black, Parish H:
LC
T
P
P
P
P
*a
CLE – Disproportion
Table 3.1: Racial D
Parish A
Total
Felony
Misdemeanor
FINS
Parish D
Total
Felony
Misdemeanor
FINS
Parish E
Total
Felony
Misdemeanor
FINS
Parish F
Total
Felony
Misdemeanor
FINS
* This table only includesan identifiable offense le
nate Minority Conta
Differences in Aver
# of closed pcases
20
9
3
8
174
31
133
10
213
66
147
--
126
72
44
10
s closed probation casesvel. Due to the low numb
act Assessment St
rage Length of Tim
Black
probation s
Average
. Forty-six probation caseber of cases (n=14), "oth
tudy: Final Report
me on Probation by
Probation Cases
Days on Probation
168.90
159.44
203.00
166.75
319.33
354.39
308.71
351.90
323.05
297.18
335.56
--
292.36
313.18
276.36
212.80
es (59%) in Parish A, 29her" race is not included.
Offense Level (20
Standard Deviation
93.40
86.93
25.24
125.64
107.50
109.10
108.46
53.56
143.93
127.34
149.67
--
169.20
177.78
156.48
139.81
9 (11%) cases in Parish D
009)*
n # of closed pcases
12
6
3
3
37
4
10
23
63
28
33
2
1
1
--
--
D, 59 cases (16%) in Pa
White Prob
probation s
AverP
arish E, and 31 (19%) in
Appendix B
ation Cases
rage Days on Probation
Sta
191.50
236.17
44.00
249.67
331.05
383.25
306.60
332.61
363.05
337.50
379.73
445.50
200.00
200.00
--
--
n Parish F were still open
Page | 46
B
ndard Deviation
118.44
106.54
40.45
58.71
92.21
21.69
85.35
100.49
143.57
121.06
148.85
364.16
--
--
--
--
or did not have
LC
T
P
P
P
P
*a
CLE – Disproportion
Table 2: Racial Dif
Parish A
Total
Violent Felony
Non Violent Felony
Violent Misdemeano
Non Violent Misdem
Parish D
Total
Violent Felony
Non Violent Felony
Violent Misdemeano
Non Violent Misdem
Parish E
Total
Violent Felony
Non Violent Felony
Violent Misdemeano
Non Violent Misdem
Parish F
Total
Violent Felony
Non Violent Felony
Violent Misdemeano
Non Violent Misdem
* This table only includesan identifiable offense le
nate Minority Conta
fferences in Averag
#
or
meanor
or
meanor
or
meanor
or
meanor
s closed probation casesvel. Due to the low numb
act Assessment St
ge Length of Time
# of closed probation cases
20
1
8
2
1
174
7
24
28
105
213
20
46
45
102
126
15
57
7
37
. Forty-six probation caseber of cases (n=14), "oth
tudy: Final Report
on Probation by V
Black Probation Case
Average Days oProbation
168.90
161.00
159.25
206.50
196.00
319.33
331.57
361.04
310.86
308.13
323.05
280.30
304.52
349.18
391.52
292.36
348.07
304.00
331.71
265.89
es (59%) in Parish A, 29her" race is not included.
iolence Level (200
es
on Standard Devia
93.40
--
92.93
34.65
--
107.50
66.16
119.07
96.57
111.83
143.93
163.78
109.17
169.99
148.27
169.20
143.30
185.81
207.56
146.15
9 (11%) cases in Parish D
09)*
ation # of closedcas
12
1
5
1
2
37
--
4
5
5
63
5
23
4
29
1
--
1
--
--
D, 59 cases (16%) in Pa
White Pro
d probation ses
Ave
2
1
5
1
2
7
-
4
5
5
3
5
3
4
9
1
-
1
-
-
arish E, and 31 (19%) in
Appendix B
bation Cases
rage Days on Probation
Sta
191.50
360.00
211.40
28.00
52.00
331.05
--
383.25
366.00
247.20
363.05
437.40
315.78
294.25
329.56
200.00
--
200.00
--
--
n Parish F were still open
Page | 47
B
ndard Deviation
118.44
--
97.92
--
53.74
92.21
--
21.69
00.00
87.01
143.57
136.04
108.83
137.06
140.27
--
--
--
--
--
or did not have
LC
T
P
P
P
**
CLE – Disproportion
Table 3.3: Racial D
Parish A (2009)
Total
Felony
Misdemeanor
FINS
Non Criminal**
Parish B (2009)
Total
Felony
Misdemeanor
FINS
Non Criminal**
Parish D (2010)
Total
Felony
Misdemeanor
FINS
Non Criminal**
*Cases in which an offen** Non criminal refers to
nate Minority Conta
Differences in Aver
# of adm
se level could not be idecontempt of court, viola
act Assessment St
rage Length of Sta
Black
detention missions*
132
65
21
2
44
943
315
289
63
276
610
168
336
46
60
entified (e.g., theft, posseation of probation, and vi
tudy: Final Report
y in Local Detentio
k Detention Admission
Average Days in Detention
25.99
31.54
17.05
18.50
22.41
13.16
21.59
8.33
9.05
9.52
11.78
14.46
9.29
11.48
18.38
ession of stolen drugs) anolation of house arrest.
on by Offense Leve
ns
Standard Deviati
26.27
30.61
23.20
23.34
18.55
20.89
29.20
14.36
6.74
13.14
15.81
16.89
13.99
15.48
19.44
nd/or did not have a relea
el*
ion # of detadmiss
19
8
4
--
7
35
12
128
18
79
119
38
54
15
12
ase date were excluded:
White Detent
tention sions
AverD
9
-
2
7
8
8
9
9
8
4
5
2
Parish A: NA; %; Parish
Appendix B
tion Admissions
rage Days in Detention
Sta
16.11
11.87
22.00
--
17.57
8.82
10.34
5.73
8.39
11.47
11.23
9.53
8.20
17.60
22.25
B: n=213, 14%; Parish
Page | 48
B
ndard Deviation
19.12
15.87
24.04
--
21.54
14.50
17.90
11.35
9.07
13.20
15.41
17.72
9.43
22.71
12.73
D: n=146, 17%.
LC
T
P
P
P
P
*P N
CLE – Disproportion
Table 3.4: Racial D
Parish A (2009)
Total
Violent Felony
Non Violent Felony
Violent Misdemeano
Non Violent Misdem
Parish B (2009)
Total
Violent Felony
Non Violent Felony
Violent Misdemeano
Non Violent Misdem
Parish D (2010)
Total
Violent Felony
Non Violent Felony
Violent Misdemeano
Non Violent Misdem
Parish F (2010)
Total
Violent Offense
Non Violent Offense
FINS Offense
*Cases in which an offenParish F: NA.
NOTE: Parish F did not b
nate Minority Conta
Differences in Aver
or
meanor
or
meanor
or
meanor
e
se level could not be ide
break the offense down b
act Assessment St
rage Length of Tim
Bl
# of detention admissions*
132
28
37
10
11
943
148
167
144
145
610
36
132
160
176
380
107
188
85
entified (e.g., theft, posse
y felony or misdemeanor
tudy: Final Report
me in Local Detenti
ack Detention Admiss
Average Days iDetention
25.99
46.00
20.59
15.00
18.91
13.16
28.60
15.38
10.30
6.38
11.78
14.89
14.35
8.39
10.11
16.44
23.50
14.53
11.78
ession of stolen drugs) an
r or provide the specific o
on by Violence Lev
sions
n # of detentioadmissions
26.27
37.08
18.66
19.25
27.12
20.89
34.93
21.20
15.33
13.08
15.81
17.86
16.68
12.79
15.01
22.75
32.92
17.88
12.75
nd/or did not have a relea
offense.
vel*
on s*
Average Deten
19
3
5
2
2
35
32
95
64
64
11
4
34
29
25
5
1
--
4
ase date were excluded:
White Detent
Days in ntion
# oad
9
3
5
2
2
52
2
5
4
4
19
4
4
9
5
5
1
-
4
Parish A: NA; Parish B:
Appendix B
tion Admissions
of detention dmissions*
Av
16.11
11.00
12.40
15.50
28.50
8.82
11.63
9.91
6.52
4.95
11.23
14.89
6.53
6.52
10.16
7.00
7.00
--
7.00
n=213, 14%; Parish D:
Page | 49
B
verage Days in Detention
19.12
8.89
20.01
16.26
36.06
14.50
21.21
16.73
13.61
8.56
15.41
17.86
8.72
6.40
11.88
1.87
--
--
2.16
n=146, 17%;
LC
T
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
**
N
CLE – Disproportion
Table 3.5: Racial D
Parish A
Felony
Misdemeanor
Parish B
Felony
Misdemeanor
Parish C
Felony
Misdemeanor
Parish D
Felony
Misdemeanor
Parish E
Felony
Misdemeanor
Parish F
Felony
Misdemeanor
Parish G
Felony
Misdemeanor
Parish H
Felony
Misdemeanor
* Cases with an offense l** Of the cases that did n
Note: Due to the low num
nate Minority Conta
Differences in Aver
# oConAdm
evel could not be identifnot have a release date,
mbers in each category, b
act Assessment St
rage Length of Sta
Black Secu
of Secure nfinement missions
Ave
9
7
2
59
34
25
31
25
6
12
7
5
23
12
11
88
48
40
25
9
16
5
5
--
fied (e.g., theft, possessio7% were White, 90% we
breaking the offenses dow
tudy: Final Report
y in Secure Reside
ure Confinement Adm
erage Days in Secure Confinement
391.00
361.43
494.50
364.32
377.88
345.88
409.52
434.04
307.33
428.83
373.00
507.00
287.22
324.67
246.36
320.38
374.44
255.50
292.08
403.56
229.38
659.80
659.80
--
on of stolen property) anere Black, and 3% were "
wn by violence level did n
ential Confinement
issions
Standard Deviati
176.70
186.76
113.84
147.92
156.37
136.55
178.15
167.44
200.11
159.74
153.85
146.89
140.62
179.47
67.47
163.21
157.09
147.55
210.72
224.35
180.41
107.78
107.78
--
d/or did not have a relea"Other."
not provide meaningful c
t by Offense Level
ion # of SeConfineAdmissi
--
--
--
22
15
7
3
1
2
--
--
--
5
1
4
--
--
--
1
--
1
2
2
--
se date were excluded (n
comparisons across race.
(2009)*
White Secure Conf
ecure ement ions**
AverSecure
-
-
-
2
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
n=212, 42.7%).
Appendix B
finement Admissions
rage Days in e Confinement
Sta
--
--
--
333.91
328.80
344.86
409.00
356.00
435.50
--
--
--
179.80
423.00
119.00
--
--
--
181.00
--
181.00
409.00
409.00
--
Page | 50
B
ndard Deviation
--
--
--
171.22
159.47
207.52
91.80
--
112.43
--
--
--
164.04
--
106.00
--
--
--
--
--
--
42.43
42.43
--
LC
ab
P
P
P
T
Pa
Pa
Pa
N
CLE – Disproportion
ble 4.1 School Arre
Parish A
Parish B
Parish G
Table 4.2 Most Co
Parish A
Disturbing the Peace
Parish B
Interfering with an Ed
Parish G
Disturbing the Peace
Note: The proportion
nate Minority Conta
ests during the 20
mmon Offense for
e
ducation Institution
e
of youth attending pu
act Assessment St
009-2010 School Y
Number
School-Based Arre
# of
34
173
173
ublic schools in each o
tudy: Final Report
Year
r of School Arrests
64
708
344
ests during the 200
School Arrests
of the parishes is: Par
09-2010 School Y
% of Total Schoo
53%
24%
50%
rish A = 43% Black, P
% Black
78%
76%
97%
Year
ol Arrests %
100
84
96
Parish B = 49% Black
Black
0%
4%
6%
k, and Parish G = 64%
Appendix B
% Black.
Page | 51
B
LCL
ATjuwintopa
Oadtc
LE – Disproport
Appendix C: The purpose ofuvenile justice
where objectivenclude, and c) o compare thearishes, and to
Once we receivdditional quescurry@gcrcons
tionate Minori
Survey f this questionsystem. More
e screening criwho is respon
e decision-mako correlate the
ve your complstions. If you sulting.com. T
ty Contact Ass
nnaire is to une specifically, titeria are mostnsible for makking processes e RRI at each s
eted questionnhave any ques
Thank you for
sessment Study
derstand the dthe goal of thit commonly uking the decisi
across the JJSstage with the
naire, we will stions or commr taking the tim
y: Final Repor
decision-makiis survey is to
used to make dion at each staS stages in a gie decision-mak
contact you vments, please me to provide
rt
Appen
ing process at identify a) the
decisions, b) wage. This infoiven parish, asking process.
via email if wecontact Tobie
e this informat
ndix C
each stage of e stages of the
what these critormation will us well across
e have any e Curry by emtion.
Page | 5
the e JJS teria used
mail at
2
LCL
Bth
1
W__
Is
If__________
H
DN
If__
Is__
H
LE – Disproport
elow is a list ohe decision-ma
. Juvenile A
Who is respon___________
s this decision
f yes, please de_______________________________________________________
How often are Every C
Does the decisiNo
f yes, please pr___________
s the screen/as___________
How often is thEvery C
tionate Minori
of the RRI Coaking process
Arrests
nsible for deter___________
based on obje
escribe these c_______________________________________________________
these criteria Case
ion-making pr
rovide the nam___________
sessment tool ___________
his screening/aCase
ty Contact Ass
ontact Points. that occurs at
rmining if a ch____________
ective criteria?
criteria. ____________________________________________________________
used to make Most Ca
rocess involve
me of the scree__________
evidence-base______
assessment tooMost Ca
sessment Study
Please providet each stage in
hild is arrested______
? Yes No
_______________________________________________________
decisions? ases
the use of a sc
ening/assessme
ed (ie: based o
ol used to makases
y: Final Repor
e the most upn your parish.
d?
____________________________________________________________
Some Cas
creening/asses
ent tool.
on research)?
ke decisions? Some Cas
rt
Appen
-to-date infor
_______________________________________________________
ses
ssment tool?
ses
ndix C
rmation regard
_______________________________________________________
Rare Cases
Y
Rare Cases
Page | 5
ding
_________________________
Yes
3
LCL
2
W__
Is
If____________
H
DN
If__
Is__
H
LE – Disproport
. Refer to Ju
Who is respons___________
s this decision
f yes, please de__________________________________________________________________
How often are Every C
Does the decisiNo
f yes, please pr___________
s the screen/as___________
How often is thEvery C
tionate Minori
uvenile Cou
sible for determ___________
based on obje
escribe these c__________________________________________________________________
these criteria Case
ion-making pr
rovide the nam___________
sessment tool ___________
his screening/aCase
ty Contact Ass
urt
mining if a ch____
ective criteria?
criteria. ___________________________________________________________________
used to make Most Ca
rocess involve
me of the scree__________
evidence-base______
assessment tooMost Ca
sessment Study
hild is referred
? Yes No
_______________________________________________________
decisions? ases
the use of a sc
ening/assessme
ed (ie: based o
ol used to makases
y: Final Repor
d to juvenile co
____________________________________________________________
Some Cas
creening/asses
ent tool.
on research)?
ke decisions? Some Cas
rt
Appen
ourt?
__ ____________________________________________
ses
ssment tool?
ses
ndix C
____________________________________________
Rare Cases
Y
Rare Cases
Page | 5
____________________
Yes
4
LCL
3
W__
Is
If__________
H
DN
If__
Is__
H
LE – Disproport
. Cases Div
Who is respons___________
s this decision
f yes, please de_______________________________________________________
How often are Every C
Does the decisiNo
f yes, please pr___________
s the screen/as___________
How often is thEvery C
tionate Minori
verted
sible for determ_________
based on obje
escribe these c_______________________________________________________
these criteria Case
ion-making pr
rovide the nam___________
sessment tool ___________
his screening/aCase
ty Contact Ass
mining if a ch
ective criteria?
criteria. ____________________________________________________________
used to make Most Ca
rocess involve
me of the scree__________
evidence-base______
assessment tooMost Ca
sessment Study
hild is referred
? Yes No
_______________________________________________________
decisions? ases
the use of a sc
ening/assessme
ed (ie: based o
ol used to makases
y: Final Repor
d to a diversion
____________________________________________________________
Some Cas
creening/asses
ent tool.
on research)?
ke decisions? Some Cas
rt
Appen
n program?
_______________________________________________________
ses
ssment tool?
ses
ndix C
_______________________________________________________
Rare Cases
Y
Rare Cases
Page | 5
_________________________
Yes
5
LCL
4
W__
Is
If__________
H
DN
If__
Is__
H
LE – Disproport
. Cases Invo
Who is respons___________
s this decision
f yes, please de_______________________________________________________
How often are Every C
Does the decisiNo
f yes, please pr___________
s the screen/as___________
How often is thEvery C
tionate Minori
olving Secu
sible for determ___________
based on obje
escribe these c_______________________________________________________
these criteria Case
ion-making pr
rovide the nam___________
sessment tool ___________
his screening/aCase
ty Contact Ass
ure Detentio
mining if a ch____
ective criteria?
criteria. ____________________________________________________________
used to make Most Ca
rocess involve
me of the scree__________
evidence-base______
assessment tooMost Ca
sessment Study
on
hild is sent to s
? Yes No
_______________________________________________________
decisions? ases
the use of a sc
ening/assessme
ed (ie: based o
ol used to makases
y: Final Repor
secure detenti
____________________________________________________________
Some Cas
creening/asses
ent tool.
on research)?
ke decisions? Some Cas
rt
Appen
on?
_______________________________________________________
ses
ssment tool?
ses
ndix C
_______________________________________________________
Rare Cases
Y
Rare Cases
Page | 5
_________________________
Yes
6
LCL
5
W
Is
If__________
H
DN
If__
Is__
H
LE – Disproport
. Cases Peti
Who is respons
s this decision
f yes, please de_______________________________________________________
How often are Every C
Does the decisiNo
f yes, please pr___________
s the screen/as___________
How often is thEvery C
tionate Minori
itioned (Ch
sible for determ
based on obje
escribe these c_______________________________________________________
these criteria Case
ion-making pr
rovide the nam___________
sessment tool ___________
his screening/aCase
ty Contact Ass
harges Filed)
mining if a pe
ective criteria?
criteria. ____________________________________________________________
used to make Most Ca
rocess involve
me of the scree__________
evidence-base______
assessment tooMost Ca
sessment Study
)
etition is filed?
? Yes No
_______________________________________________________
decisions? ases
the use of a sc
ening/assessme
ed (ie: based o
ol used to makases
y: Final Repor
? __________
____________________________________________________________
Some Cas
creening/asses
ent tool.
on research)?
ke decisions? Some Cas
rt
Appen
___________
_______________________________________________________
ses
ssment tool?
ses
ndix C
______
_______________________________________________________
Rare Cases
Y
Rare Cases
Page | 5
_________________________
Yes
7
LCL
6
W
Is
If__________
H
DN
If__
Is__
H
LE – Disproport
. Cases Res
Who is respons
s this decision
f yes, please de_______________________________________________________
How often are Every C
Does the decisiNo
f yes, please pr___________
s the screen/as___________
How often is thEvery C
tionate Minori
ulting in D
sible for determ
based on obje
escribe these c_______________________________________________________
these criteria Case
ion-making pr
rovide the nam___________
sessment tool ___________
his screening/aCase
ty Contact Ass
elinquent F
mining if a ch
ective criteria?
criteria. ____________________________________________________________
used to make Most Ca
rocess involve
me of the scree__________
evidence-base______
assessment tooMost Ca
sessment Study
Findings
hild is adjudica
? Yes No
_______________________________________________________
decisions? ases
the use of a sc
ening/assessme
ed (ie: based o
ol used to makases
y: Final Repor
ated? _______
____________________________________________________________
Some Cas
creening/asses
ent tool.
on research)?
ke decisions? Some Cas
rt
Appen
___________
_______________________________________________________
ses
ssment tool?
ses
ndix C
_________
_______________________________________________________
Rare Cases
Y
Rare Cases
Page | 5
_________________________
Yes
8
LCL
7
W
Is
If__________
H
DN
If__
Is__
H
LE – Disproport
7. Cases Res
Who is respons
s this decision
f yes, please de_______________________________________________________
How often are Every C
Does the decisiNo
f yes, please pr___________
s the screen/as___________
How often is thEvery C
tionate Minori
ulting in Pr
sible for determ
based on obje
escribe these c_______________________________________________________
these criteria Case
ion-making pr
rovide the nam___________
sessment tool ___________
his screening/aCase
ty Contact Ass
robation Pla
mining if a ch
ective criteria?
criteria. ____________________________________________________________
used to make Most Ca
rocess involve
me of the scree__________
evidence-base______
assessment tooMost Ca
sessment Study
acement
hild is placed o
? Yes No
_______________________________________________________
decisions? ases
the use of a sc
ening/assessme
ed (ie: based o
ol used to makases
y: Final Repor
on probation?
____________________________________________________________
Some Cas
creening/asses
ent tool.
on research)?
ke decisions? Some Cas
rt
Appen
___________
_______________________________________________________
ses
ssment tool?
ses
ndix C
____________
_______________________________________________________
Rare Cases
Y
Rare Cases
Page | 5
_____
_________________________
Yes
9
LCL
8
W__
Is
If__________
H
DN
If__
Is__
H
LE – Disproport
. Cases Res
Who is respons___________
s this decision
f yes, please de_______________________________________________________
How often are Every C
Does the decisiNo
f yes, please pr___________
s the screen/as___________
How often is thEvery C
tionate Minori
ulting in Co
sible for determ__________
based on obje
escribe these c_______________________________________________________
these criteria Case
ion-making pr
rovide the nam___________
sessment tool ___________
his screening/aCase
ty Contact Ass
onfinement
mining if a ch
ective criteria?
criteria. ____________________________________________________________
used to make Most Ca
rocess involve
me of the scree__________
evidence-base______
assessment tooMost Ca
sessment Study
t in Secure J
hild is placed i
? Yes No
_______________________________________________________
decisions? ases
the use of a sc
ening/assessme
ed (ie: based o
ol used to makases
y: Final Repor
Juvenile Co
n secure confi
____________________________________________________________
Some Cas
creening/asses
ent tool.
on research)?
ke decisions? Some Cas
rt
Appen
orrectional F
finement?
_______________________________________________________
ses
ssment tool?
ses
ndix C
Facilities
_______________________________________________________
Rare Cases
Y
Rare Cases
Page | 6
_________________________
Yes
0
LCL
9
W__
Is
If__________\
H
DN
If__
Is__
H
Ftc
LE – Disproport
. Cases Tra
Who is respons___________
s this decision
f yes, please de_______________________________________________________
How often are Every C
Does the decisiNo
f yes, please pr___________
s the screen/as___________
How often is thEvery C
For questioncurry@gcrco
Thank y
tionate Minori
ansferred to
sible for determ___________
based on obje
escribe these c_______________________________________________________
these criteria Case
ion-making pr
rovide the nam___________
sessment tool ___________
his screening/aCase
ns or commeonsulting.co
you for ta
ty Contact Ass
Adult Cour
mining if a ch____
ective criteria?
criteria. ____________________________________________________________
used to make Most Ca
rocess involve
me of the scree__________
evidence-base______
assessment tooMost Ca
ents, please om.
aking th
sessment Study
rt
hild is sent to s
? Yes No
_______________________________________________________
decisions? ases
the use of a sc
ening/assessme
ed (ie: based o
ol used to makases
contact To
he time to
y: Final Repor
secure detenti
____________________________________________________________
Some Cas
creening/asses
ent tool.
on research)?
ke decisions? Some Cas
obie Curry a
o provid
rt
Appen
on?
_______________________________________________________
ses
ssment tool?
ses
at
de this in
ndix C
_______________________________________________________
Rare Cases
Y
Rare Cases
nformatio
Page | 6
_________________________
Yes
on.
1