Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Detention Assessment Instrument and DMC Impact
Similar to Detention Assessment Instrument and DMC Impact (20)
More from bartoncenter
More from bartoncenter (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Detention Assessment Instrument and DMC Impact
- 1. 8/26/2014 1
- 2. The DAI and DMC Impact The Detention Assessment Instrument (DAI) was developed as a result of the 1998 Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation into DJJ secure facilities. • It was determined there were great inconsistencies with the youth being detained. • As a part of the Memorandum of Agreement with the DOJ, the agency created the establishment of “Risk Assessment Standards” and a “Detention Assessment Instrument”. 8/26/2014 2
- 3. The DAI and DMC Impact Detention assessment is seen as a best practice: • Defined as the process of evaluating an arrested minor to determine the need for detention • First tools used in the mid to late 1980s • JDAI promoted and assisted with the implementation of the tools throughout the country 8/26/2014 3
- 4. The DAI and DMC Impact • Sites that successfully use these tools: • More accurately identify youth who need to be detained • Free up resources to spend on other ways to protect the public • Ensure the right youth are detained • Overrides are allowed based on mitigating or aggravating circumstances 8/26/2014 4
- 5. The DAI and DMC Impact Essential principles behind the Detention Assessment instruments are: • Objectivity • Uniformity • Risk Based 8/26/2014 5
- 6. The DAI and DMC Impact • Objectivity • Based on neutral and objective factors • Uniformity • Standardized and consistent • Risk Based • Measure specific risks posed by the youth 8/26/2014 6
- 7. The DAI and DMC Impact The Georgia DJJ Detention Assessment Instrument (DAI) was implemented in 2000 • Provide greater structure and consistency • Focus the use of detention resources on high risk youth • Reduce inappropriate detention by identifying youth who can be safely released • Establish a basis for DJJ to monitor detention assessment operations 8/26/2014 7
- 8. The DAI and DMC Impact • The new Juvenile Court Code, HB 242, includes language requiring the use of a detention assessment prior to making a detention decision • The DJJ assessment tool will be used by all jurisdictions beginning on January 1, 2014 • The current tool is being reviewed by committee and will be revised by mid year 2014 8/26/2014 8
- 9. The DAI and DMC Impact • The DAI is a standardized and validated instrument • Measures: • Youth’s risk to reoffend • Youth’s risk to abscond before court 8/26/2014 9
- 10. The DAI and DMC Impact • Incorporates 6 assessment items: • Most serious current offense • Other current offenses • Pending offenses • Past adjudications • History of Escapes, Runaways, or FTA • Current legal/supervision status 8/26/2014 10
- 11. The DAI and DMC Impact The DAI items are scored and the detention decision is based on the total: • 12 or Above - High Risk • Detain unless policy or discretionary overrides provided • 8 – 11 – Medium Risk • Release with conditions unless overrides provided • 7 or Under – Low Risk • Unconditional release unless overrides provided 8/26/2014 11
- 13. 8/26/2014 13
- 14. The DAI and DMC Impact • The Detention Assessment Instrument is race-neutral and should be developed to eliminate DMC concerns • DAI designers need to be mindful to incorporate basic measures to remove bias from the tool: • Review aggravating and mitigating criteria • Review override criteria • Use a field test to measure DMC effects 8/26/2014 14
- 15. Questions or Thoughts Theodore Carter, Jr. Director, Office of Training Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice TheodoreCarterJr@djj.state.ga.us 8/26/2014 15
Editor's Notes
- Chris, you can introduce yourself and the presentation title to the “audience” and then proceed to slide 2
- When the Department of Justice completed its 1998 investigation into the secure facilities of the Department of Juvenile Justice, DJJ had to take a hard look into the practices of detention. This meant we had to face the challenge of revising practices within the facilities, and we did this by making changes to facility structure and environment; staff training was revised; mental health, medical and education services for youth were improved, and agency culture adapted. These changes positively effected how youth were supervised and helped within the facility setting, but DJJ also had to address the inconsistencies identified by the DOJ in how detention decisions were made. Intake officers were making detention decisions based on individual experience, police narratives of the arresting offense and “gut” feelings. An officer’s experience can be valuable, but leaning on this alone created disparities across the state in how these important decisions were being made. A youth in Albany with no criminal history arrested for an offense could be detained while a similar youth could be released in Decatur or Savannah. The DOJ recognized these inconsistencies in their investigation and DJJ agreed as part of the MOA to create and implement a statewide detention assessment instrument.
- The use of a standardized and validated detention assessment tool is recognized nationally as a best practice. The Annie E Casey Foundations, Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative, widely known as JDAI, in their 2006 “Practice Guide to Juvenile Detention Reform” defined risk screening as the process of evaluating each arrested minor to determine the need for secure, locked confinement. The Detention Assessment Instrument is the tool used to complete this risk screening process. The use of assessment instruments to help guide the detention decision began in the mid to late 1980s in California. When the JDAI was launched in 1993 it quickly became active in the promotion and implementation of these tools across the nation. Detention assessment instruments are now used in several states including Georgia.
- The successful implementation of detention assessment instruments has improved the accurate identification of youth requiring detention, decreasing subjectivity and the inappropriate detainment of low risk youth. Low risk youth can be provided services within the community without mixing them with higher risk youth; which the research has shown to be counter-productive to reducing recidivism. The tools have been effective in developing controls in the over use of detention improving overcrowded conditions and reducing government costs and liabilities. Resources can be redirected to community services or improving facility programs for high risk youth. Public safety is improved as risk and need are better matched and services are made more effective. Overrides are allowed that provide the intake officer to either detain or release a youth based on aggravating or mitigating factors. The circumstances need to be based on factors ensuring community safety.
- The detention assessment basically consists of a checklist of criteria that are applied to rate a minor for detention risks. The overall risk score is used as a guide by the detention intake officer to determine whether to detain or release an arrested youth. The tools are locally designed and vary throughout the country based on local and state factors and laws. Despite the slight differences, all are grounded in basic principles. The essential principles behind the detention assessment instruments that have been proven to be most effective in decreasing subjectivity or inappropriate detention decisions, controlling admissions and reducing government liabilities and costs are Objectivity, Uniformity and Risk Based.
- Objectivity – the assessment tool needs to provide the means for a detention intake officer to make a decision based on objective, measurable factors and not simply subjective opinion. The detention decision is based on such criteria as the nature and severity of the offense, number of prior referrals or the youth’s history of flight from custody. These objective criteria help decrease liabilities while ensuring the detention decision is not based on an individual’s biases. This leads to the next important principle – uniformity. It is important that the critical decision of detaining a youth is applied fairly and equally by all staff and facilities. The use of the detention assessment instrument develops this equality when coupled with strong policies and procedures. Detention decisions based on the objective scoring of the tool are more likely to be more consistent despite differences in the locale or the individuals who are scoring the tool. The detention assessment instrument needs to be Risk Based. Community safety and security must be considered throughout the measurement of the youth’s risk to reoffend or risk to flee the jurisdiction before adjudication. There is the assumption that risk instruments are “light” on crime, but this cannot be further from the truth. When used properly the tool presents clear, standardized criteria to accurately measure the youth’s risk to the community and to his or her self. Collaboration with law enforcement professionals and thorough research in delinquency and risk are essential when developing the tool to ensure its accurate measure of risk.
- The Department of Juvenile Justice implemented the DAI in 2000, and we have experienced many of the previously mention benefits. The agency immediately improved upon the consistency and standardization of detention decisions because of the tool. DJJ could now monitor detention decisions in an established, measurable manner and focus the use of detention resources on those youth who are higher risk to re-offend.
- DJJ immediately implemented policies to ensure a DAI was completed on all juvenile intakes into a DJJ secure facility regardless of the jurisdiction being a dependent or independent court. Although youth from the independent courts would be detained despite the results of the detention assessment, the score has helped the agency collect thorough data that has been used to measure the effectiveness of the tool. The authors of the new Juvenile Court Code, House Bill 242, considered the importance of the evidence-based research supporting the use of detention risk assessments and included language requiring the use of the DAI for all Georgia juvenile courts. The DJJ tool will be used beginning January 1, 2014, but a special committee has been convened to review the tool and suggest revisions that will be made effective by the summer of 2014.
- The DJJ instrument is a standardized and validated instrument that has been in practice for thirteen years to measure a youth’s risk to reoffend and/or to abscond from the court. The DJJ tool complies with the basic principles as described by the JDAI, and the current tool is being revised by a committee of collaborators with law enforcement, judicial, juvenile services and advocate experience.
- Six key items are used to determine the youth’s risk: The presenting offense or offenses are considered. The Most Serious Current Offense is considered along with other offenses the youth may have been charged with. More serious offenses, such as: Murder, Aggravated Sexual Battery or Armed Robbery with a Firearm, are scored higher than offenses like Criminal Damage to Property or Misdemeanor Escape. Depending on the number of additional charges, up to three points can be added to the youth’s score. Up to three points can be added to the score for additional charges pending adjudication; and up to three points for past adjudications for felony or misdemeanor charges. The youth’s runaway, escape or Failure to Appear history is considered to determine his/her risk to flee prior to court. Depending on the youth’s history up to three points can be added based on this item. The final item is the youth’s current legal status. The youth can earn up to six points depending on his/her legal status or supervision under a Superior Court, commitment to DJJ or probation status.
- Once all of the assessment items have been entered and scored, the juvenile intake officer will add up the score to determine the detention decision. A youth who has a total score of twelve or more in the tool will be considered a high risk and detained unless discretionary overrides are supported. The discretionary overrides are subject to the jurisdiction and approval must be provided by a supervisor. A youth who has a total score between eight and eleven is considered medium risk and can be released with conditions, subject to judicial authorization unless policy or discretionary overrides are entered. A youth who scores seven or lower is considered low risk and can be released unconditionally unless policy or overrides are activated. Overrides in these situations are rare, but have been used when a youth has had an extreme history of running away from home and violating court directives in the past. Even in these situations, the intent of the court is to release the youth as soon as a more suitable placement can be located. As we have heard in the CHNS presentation, it is the goal of the new law that more appropriate placements will be available as communities will have additional funds to develop these more suitable alternatives to detention.
- The basic premise of the standardized risk or detention assessment is to remove bias or subjectivity and to only apply objective factors specific to detention-related risk, but this can be a challenge because of the incorporation of some criteria that can lead to unintended race effects. Designers of detention assessment instruments should take care to consider some simple measures, recommended by the JDAI, to remove bias from the DAI: Designers should review the race effect certain aggravating or mitigating criteria can have. Earlier this year when developing the Pre-Disposition Risk Matrix, the collaborative committee of Georgia lawyers, juvenile justice specialists and consultants reviewed in detail the effects “gang member associates” could have for African-American and Latino youth if measured as an aggravating factor. These youth are more likely to have neighborhood associates, friends or family members who may be involved in gang activity despite their lack of personal involvement in similar activity. A thorough review of override criteria should be completed to eliminate possible racial biases. As the tool is being used, regular reviews of the data should be completed to determine if overrides lean toward the detainment of minorities for reasons that are based on race, gender or socio-economic status. A youth is detained because the parent or parent’s work schedule and cannot leave to pick up their son or daughter. Youth lives in a recognizably poorer neighborhood or an apartment complex that has been considered “high crime”. Particular offenses that have caught the attention of the community, but automatic detainment of the youth committing these crimes can lead to the detainment of primarily minority youth. Field tests are the best way to measure unintended and intended effects of the DAI. Designers should review the present detention admission data to examine how the tool would effect race and gender effects. How does the tool impact the numbers of low and high risk youth released or detained. DJJ reviewed the possible effects of the Pre-Disposition Risk Assessment through field tests and presented the results to the collaborative committee, and a similar process should be followed as the development of the revised DAI is completed.
- The use of a standard and validated detention assessment instrument is essential in the success of Juvenile justice reform, the implementation of evidence based practices and the eventual elimination of disproportionality in the system. It is important the tool meets the essential principals of Objectivity, Uniformity and Risk based in order to maintain fidelity to the prime objectives of standardization and equality. Program designers must be mindful of the subtle effects the tool can have on DMC in order to eliminate biases from the instrument. Thank you for your time. If you have questions related to this presentation, feel free to email them to Theodore Carter, Jr. Director of the DJJ Office of Training.