restorative community conference pilot …...2 the restorative community conference (rcc) pilot...
TRANSCRIPT
RESTORATIVE COMMUNITY
CONFERENCE PILOT PROJECT
STEERING COMMITTEE REPORT
MAY 2014 THROUGH JULY 2018
AUGUST 27, 2018
2
The Restorative Community Conference (RCC) Pilot Project is an alternative method to address juvenile delinquent behavior. Unlike traditional juvenile court and diversion, RCC requires voluntary participation of the youth responsible for the crime, the victim, and the community. After a series of meetings to prepare each person individually, all participants (including the youth responsible for harm (“juvenile offender”), their families, the persons harmed (“victim”), community members, and community based social service providers) convene for a confidential joint meeting, the RCC. The goals of RCC include: 1) holding the youth accountable in a non-punitive manner; 2) having a victim centered dialogue; and 3) collaborative creating a voluntary plan for the youth to complete to repair harm caused to victim, community, family and self. If no agreement on the plan is reached, the case is returned to juvenile court. The statistics in this report include data from the program inception, May 2014 through August 15, 2018.
Overview
3
Statistics
Facilitator Decision,
8
RY Decision, 23
PH Decision, 12
Technical, 15
167 Referrals
109 convened (65%)
19 preparing for RCC
90RCC occurred
0 No Agreement
(0%)
90 Agreements
(100%)
86 cases closed
84 Action Plan completed
(98%)
2 Action Plan not completed
(2%)
4 action plan in process
58 Screened Out (35%)
4
PRE-CHARGE
1 Reasons for screening out cases include: youth not accepting responsibility, victim declines, facilitator determines process would not be beneficial to all participants, youth or victim unavailable, and statute of limitations.
Referrals
TOTAL
Total Referrals 167
Screened out1 35% (58)
RCC Agreement Rate 100% (90 of 90)
Plan Completion Rate 98% (84 of 86)
Referrals 134
Screened out 34% (45)
RCC Agreement Rate 100% (69 of 69)
Plan Completion Rate 99% (67 of 68)
POST-CHARGE
Referrals 33
Screened out 39% (13)
RCC Agreement Rate 100% (18 of 18)
Plan Completion Rate 94% (17 of 18)
5
*Other – Disturbing the peace, Hit and Run, Criminal Threat
Assault
Battery
Burglary
Theft
Vandalism
Weapons
No charges(Community Referral)
Resisting Arrest
Other
1
6
4
4
8
1
0
8
1
Primary Charges
Assault
Battery
Burglary
Theft
Vandalism
Weapons
No…
Resisting Arrest
Other
4
62
8
21
21
7
1
5
5
PRE-CHARGE
Assault
Battery
Burglary
Theft
Vandalism
Weapons
No…
Resisting Arrest
Other
1
6
4
4
8
1
0
8
1
POST-CHARGE
Statistics
6
91945, 3, 2%
91977, 17, 11%
92102, 12, 7%
92104, 5, 3%
92105, 41, 25%
92113, 24, 15%
92114, 36, 22%
92115, 8, 5%
92139, 10, 6%other, 6, 4%
Zip Code of Responsible Youth
Statistics
Eligible Zip Codes
City Heights - 92102, 92104, 92105, 92114
Barrio Logan - 92113
Southeastern San Diego - 92102, 92113, 92114, 92139
Lemon Grove - 91945
Spring Valley - 91977, 91978
7
1 04 3
1715
17 1715
23
3
22
3 6
8 910
7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Age & Gender of Responsible Youth
115 Male 71% 47 Female 29%
0
5
10
15
20
25
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
PRE-CHARGE
89 Male 66% 45 Female 34%
0
5
10
15
20
25
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
POST-CHARGE
30 Male 91% 3 Female 9%
Demographics
8
Hispanic, 79, 49%
Black, 48, 29%
Asian, 6, 4%White, 11, 7% Multiple, Other, or
not reported, 18, 11%
Race / Ethnicity of Responsible Youth
Hispanic, 57, 42%
Black, 45, 34%
Asian, 4, 3%
White, 9, 7%
Multiple, Other, or
not reported, 19, 14%
PRE-CHARGE
Hispanic, 22, 67%
Black, 6, 18%
Asian, 2, 6%
White, 2, 6%
Multiple, Other, or
not reported,
1, 3%
POST-CHARGE
Demographics
9
13%
76%
11%
Arrest rate for youth participating in RCC six months after case closed
(n = 62)
No data avail
No Arrest
Arrest
5%
69%
26%
Arrest rate for youth not participating in RCC six months after case closed
(n=38)
No data avail
No Arrest
Arrest
Six Month Recidivism
10
14%
68%
18%
Arrest rate for youth participating in RCC one year after case closed
(n = 55)
No data avail
No Arrest
Arrest
8%
62%
30%
Arrest rate for youth not participating in RCC one year after case closed
(n = 37)
No data avail
No Arrest
Arrest
1 Year Recidivism
11
11%
78%
11%
Arrest rate for youth participating in RCC three years after case closed
(n = 9)
No data avail
No Arrest
Arrest
0%
29%
71%
Arrest rate for youth not participating in RCC three years after case closed
(n = 7)
No data avail
No Arrest
Arrest
3 Year Recidivism
12
At the end of the RCC, participants are asked to complete an evaluation survey. The surveys are customized for: 1) youth; 2) person harmed; and 3) all other participants.
Q: Was the RCC helpful to you?
38, 84%
7, 16%
Person Harmed (n = 45)
Yes Somewhat No
65, 92%
6, 8%
Responsible Youth (n = 71)
Yes Somewhat No
Post Conference Surveys
13
Q: Was the RCC meaningful to you?
Q: Would you recommend the RCC process to others in a similar situation?
207, 89%
15, 6%
6, 3% 2, 1%
3, 1%
All Other Participants (n = 233)
5) Yes 4) 3) 2) 1) No
Post Conference Surveys
Yes
No
Person Harmed Responsible Youth All Others
43, 100% 65,
97%
2, 3%
247, 100%
14
MONTH REFERRALS AGENCY OFFENSES
Jan 2017 0
Feb 5
DA/Pub Def – 1 (20%) Probation – 4 (80%)
Vandalism 2 x Vandalism, Battery, Theft
Mar 6 Probation – 5 (84%)
Community – 1 (16%) 2 x Assault, 2 X Vandalism, Battery
Vandalism
Apr 6 Probation – 6 (100%) 4 X Vandalism, Theft, Battery
July 3 DA/Pub Def – 1
Probation – 2 Other
2X Battery
Sep 6 SDUSD PD – 3
Probation – 3 2X Vandalism, Battery
3X Burglary
Oct 2 SDUSD – 1
Probation – 1 Battery Battery
Nov 6 Probation – 4
SDUSD – 2 4x Battery 2x Battery
Dec 3 Probation – 3 3x Battery
Jan 2018 2 DA – 1
Probation - 1 Weapons Battery
Feb 11 SDUSD – 2
Probation – 9 2X Battery
5X Battery, 2X Resisting Arrest, Weapon, Theft
Mar 10 SDUSD – 1
Probation – 7 Pub Def / DA
Weapons 4X Battery. 2XAssault, Theft
Assault, Vandalism
Apr 4 SDUSD – 3
Probation-1
3X Battery Vandalism
May 1 Probation – 1 Battery
June 5 Probation – 5 3X Burglary, 2X Battery
July 5 Probation – 3
SDUSD – 1 Community - 1
2X Theft, Vandalism Theft
Weapons
Law Enforcement Referral Analysis
15
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
JAN 2 4 0 2
FEB 0 3 5 11
MAR 3 1 6 10
APR 7 4 6 4
MAY 2 5 0 0 1
JUN 3 2 2 0 5
JUL 1 4 1 3 5
AUG 7 5 0 0
SEP 2 2 2 6
OCT 5 3 1 2
NOV 2 5 2 6
DEC 3 8 1 3
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Referrals by Month
Pre charge Post Charge
Linear Trendline (Pre Charge) Linear Trendline (Post Charge)
Disaggregated Referrals
TOTALS 25 46 21 37 38
Per month avg 3.13 3.83 1.75 3.08 5.4