If you have issues viewing or accessing this file, please contact us at NCJRS.gov.
Tazewell County Warren County Westmoreland~CO~tt~~'~dfla Bedford Bristol Buena Vista Charl~esville ~ake clnr(~ F:Org I Heights Covington Danville Emporia Fairfax Falls ~.~tur.~~l~).~ ~urg Galax Hampton HarrisonburgHopj~ll~l Lexingtor~ynchburgl~'~assa ~ anassas Martinsville Newport News Norfolk Norton PetersbutrgPoque~o~ .Portsmouth Radford Richmond Roano~l~~ Salem ~th Bostor~t~nto SuffoLk Virginia Beach Waynesboro Williamsburg Winchester ~a~:~ingham Ceuul~ Carroll County Charlotte County Cra~ Col~ty Roar~ County~cco~Lac= Albemarle County Alleghany County Amelia County#~rlb~ ~NJ~/Ly,~ll~iatt~ County Arlington CountyAugula County Bath i~nty BerJ~rd Cd~t B.I.... ~1 County Botetourt County Brunswick County Buchanal~C~ut~ ~~wrtty Caroline County Charles City C~nty Ch~erfield~bunty C~rrke Co~t CT~-~eperCounty Dickenson County Dinwiddie County~ ~~~ r-'luvanneCounty Frederick County C~ucester (~unty C~yson (j~nty Gre~=~ County Greensville County Halifax County Hanover County ~ .(D~I~ I~liry Cottnty Highland County Isle of *~.P-.o.~t~l~me~y C~ ~county King George County King William County~r .(~,t~ ~ (~'~ Loudoun County Louisa County M~ Mat~s Cot]1~l~~ qt... ~ Montgomery County New Kent County North~ur~d County N~y County Page County Pittsylvania CouniY--Powhatan]~.~unty Princ~eorg, oC'6-~ty Prince William County Rappahannock County Richmol~l 0~)1~1=I~Woo~ Gi0ochtandCounty Lunenburg County Mecklenburl~nty Nelson Count Northampton CountyOrange County Patrick CountyPdn¢~ ~~ I;~lli~ls~d~izty SussexCounty Washington CountyWise~~m.t~-~umberlan~ q'---~y Essex County Fauquier County Franklin County Gile~ (~n~ l~¢~bl~dli~ Oo~int~Rockingham County Russell County ~,p]~,.,=~z~.au=~h Count County Southampton County Spotsylvania County Stafford (~W~l~;~rl70e~mty Tazewell County Warren County Westmoreland County Wythe Count Alexandria Bedford Bristol Buena Vista Charlottesville Chesapeake Cliften Forge Colonial Heights Covington Danville Emporia Fairfax Falls Church Frankli] Fredericksburg Galax Hampton Harrlsonburg Hopeweil Lexington Lynci~lxlr,g Manassas Park Manassas Martinsville Newport News Norfolk Norton Petersbur; F~-pson Portsmouth Radford Richmond Roanoke City Salem South BostonStaunton Suffolk Virginia Beach WaynesboroWilliamsburg Winchester Bucklnghan q__~,~~y Carroll County Charlotte County Craig County Roanoke County Accomack County Albemarle County Alleghany County Amelia County Amherst Count Appomattox CountyArlington CountyAugusta CountyBath County Bedford CountyBland County Boteteurt CountyBrunswick County BuchananCounty Campbe County Caroline County Chades City County Chesterfield County Cla~e County Culpeper County Dickenson County Dinwiddie County Fairfax County Floy, .q-"~y Fluvanna County Frederick CountyGloucester Cou~nty Grayson County Greene County GreensvilleCounty Halifax County Hanover County Henrico Count ~ ~ ~ ~-CountyHighland County Isle of Wight County James City Count~ ¥,1~=~and Queen County King George County King William County Lancaster County Le, CSIIh~ Loudoun County Louisa County Madison County.M~tbews Couf~ MiddleSex County Montgomery County New Kent County Northumberland Count Nottoway County Page County Pittsylvania County Powlratan CO~ty Ptil~e G~etge (~ounty Prince William County Rappahannock County Richmond Count ~--~bridge Goochland County Lunenburg County MecklenbUrg County Nelson County Northampton County Orange County Patrick County Prince Edwar~ :~y Pulaski County Sussex County Washington County WiseCoui~t~ York Ommty Cumberland County Essex County Fauquier County Franklin County Gila b'~ty Rockbrldge County Rockingham County Russell County Sco¢l:~(]etl~ty~tlandoah County Smyth County Southampton County Spotsylvania Coun~ Stafford County Surry County Tazewell County Warren County Westn~releed County Wythe County Alexandria Bedford Bristol Buena Vista Charlottesvill q~---~peake Clifton Forge Colonial Heights Covington Danville Emporia Pakfax Falls Church Franklin Fredericksburg Galax Hampton Harrisonburg Hopew¢t ~gton LynchburgManassas Park Manassas Martinsville Newport News Norfolk Norton Petersburg Poquoson Portsmouth Radford Richmond Roanoke Citl Salem South Boston Staunton Suffelk Virginia Beach WaynesboroWilliamsburg Winchester Buckingham County Carroll County Charlotte County Craig Count Roanoke County Accomack County Albemarle CountyAlleghany County Amelia County Amherst CountyAppomattox County Arlington County Augusta Count I~-~ounty Bedford CountyBland CountyBotetourt CountyBrunswick County Buchanan County Campbell CountyCaroline CountyCharles City CountyChesterfiel, [.(~.~y Clarke County Culpeper County Dickenson County Dinwiddie County Fairfax County Floyd County Fluvanna County Frederick County Gloucester Count Grayson County Greene County Greensville County Halifax County Hanover County Henrico County Henry County Highland County Isle of Wight County Jame City County King and Queen county King George County King William County Lancaster County Lee County Loudoun County Louisa County Madison Count o~un.~WSCounty Middlesex County Montgomery County New Kent County Northumberland County Nottoway County Page County Pittsylvania County Powbata y Prince George County Prince William County Rappahannock County Richmond CountyWoodbrldge Goochland County Lunenburg County Mecklenbur Nelson County Northampton County Orange County Patrick Coun~Pdl~e Edward County Pulaski County Sussex County Washington County Wis County York County Cumberland County Essex County Fauquier C.~ ~ COUn~ Giles County Rockbridge County Rockingham County Russell Count County Shenandoah County Sm~ County Southampton Cour~..:~p~lBj/l~!hi~County Stafford County Surry County Tazewell County Warren COunt ~oreland County Wythe CouJll=ndria Bedford Bristol (~uena~!~ta (~lh~tottesville Chesapeake Clifton Forge Colonial Heights Covington Danvi)l Emporia Fairfax Falls Church Fra~ricksburg Galex Ftamf>tcm Hardsot~urg Hopewell Lexington Lynchburg Manassas Park Manassas Martinsvill Newport News Norfolk Norton t~quoson Portsmouth Radfot¢l Ri¢~orK! Roanoke City Salem South Boston Staunton Suffolk Virginia Beac ~'=-~esporo Williamsburg Winct1~~ham County Carroll County Charlotte County Craig County Roanoke County Accomack County Albemarle Count /~__Jhany County Amelia County~J~lrunty Appomattox County Arlington.County Augusta County Bath County Bedford County Bland County BotetoiJi co.unty Brunswick County Buchanan~'Campbell CountyCaroline Couttbj Challes City County Chesterfield CountyClarke County CulpeperCounty Dickenso •County Dinwiddie County Fairfax County Floyd County Fluvanna County Frederick County Gloucester County Grayson County Greene County Greensville Count .~x County Hanover County Henrico County Henry County Highland County Isle of Wight County James City County King and Queen County King Georg ". y King William County Lancaster County Lee County Loudoun County Louisa County Madison County Mathews County Middlesex County Montgomer County New Kent County Northumberland County Nottoway County Page County Plttsylvania County Powhatan County Prince George County Prince Williar_ ~ichmond County Woodbrid~eGoochlandOounty t.unenburg Cour Mecklenburg County Nelson County Northampton Count ~rince Edward County Pulaski County sussex County Washington ~.nty Wise County York County Cumberland County Esse r County Giles County Rockbridge County Rockingham County R~ ~lsmnty~l'4tct County Shenandoah County Smyth Count =ia CountyStafford CountySurry CountyTezewell CountyWarren C¢ ~d CountyWythe CountyAlexandria Bedfor, lie Chesapeake Clifton Forge Colonial Heights Covington Danvitl~ , ~ Church Franklin Fredericksburg Gala 1 Lexington LynchburgManassas Park Manassas Martinsville I~i~ i~r=w~.~=,~,~t~n Petersburg Poquoson Portsmout ty Salem South Boston Staunton Suffolk Virginia Beach V~t~ ,K,==L1~t=~=~m=~#H.,~ester Buckingham County Carro ;ounty Roanoke County Accomack County Albemarle .~ourH~=U~ r.m~...~=l=M=lblb[ounty Amherst County Appomatto :a County Bath County Bedford County Bland County ~,~.Hr===~ ,~e~=mv.,~rm=c...wtduchanan County Campbell Count )unty Chesterfield County Clarke County Cuipeper O.~,-I,N=~= ,..=~,.m~.=~r~ll~ County Fairfax County Floyd Count Ity Gloucester County GraysonCounty Gree!,~n~f~t'r~wn~ ,.=~u=~m~,]..u Hanover County Henrico County Henr ~VightCounty James City County King and 0 " -.' ~0~ =~.m..mt~=~vm~l~nty Lancaster County Lee Count Madison County Mathews County IVHddl~,~~0~=r~ au=n=~L,=cme~r~J~o..u=,-~rthumberlandCounty Nottowa nCounty Powhatan County Prince Geo~~=~=m~, ounty Mecklenburg County Nelson Coe=u,=m===i~m~..~-,=~ Edward on Count),Wise CountyYork Cou ~sell County Scott County Shenand County Westmoreland County ille Emporia Fairfax Falls Church'! vport News Norfolk Norton Pete~ )oro Williamsburg Winchester !~ County Amelia CO~ ~nswick County Bud County King nce
moreland County Wythe Count ~a Vista Charlottesv nial Heights Covington Danville Emporia Fairfax Falls Church Frankli Harrisonburg Hopewell Lexington Lynchburg Manassas Park Manassas Martinsville Newport News Norfolk Norton Petersbur ~U
n~
E~ I I ..- PROPERTY OF National Criminal Justi~ BeIerc)nc~Sefvioe {NOJR..$) Box 6000 Rockville, MO 2084'9°BoO~"Y
Data Resource Guide Fiscal Year 2002
The Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice
Commonwealth of Virginia Jerrauld C. Jones, Director December 2002
FUNDING PROVIDED BY A GRANT FROM THE OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION Juvenile Accountability h~cen6ve Block Grant # 02-C3302JB00
I /
Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice
RESEARCH AND EVALUATIONSECTION PROJECT LEADERS W. Stephen Pullen Lynette B. Greenfield Baron S. Blakley
PROJECT STAFF Deborah M. Anchors Alex V. Chobotov Michael L. Garrett Terr,mce N. Gray Anthony L. Guenther, Ph.D. LesleyMcCorkle Susan M. Shaughnessy
LAYOUT DESIGN Baron S. Blakley LesleyMcCorkle @
The DJJ Research and Evaluation Section would like to thank everyone who contributed to this document. Our appreciation goes to Susan Gholston, Diane Anderson, Scott Reiner, Ed Holmes, George Wakefield, Bill Hill, Lisa Walker, James Hodgson (with the Department of Criminal Justice Services), and the DJJ Information Services staff. We are especially grateful to the CSU staff who helped to gather the data necessary to complete the Data Resource Guide on schedule. I L..-
I)ata Resource Guide FY2002
Table of Contents I NTRODUCTION A Word from the Director ...... v Terms and Concepts ...... vi
SECTION I: AN OVERVIEW OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE Introduction to the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice ...... 3 Organizational Chart ...... 4 Historical Tuneline ...... 6 Juvenile Justice System Flowchart ...... 7 Virginia's Operating Expenditures ...... 10 Training Unit ...... 11
SECTION I1: COMMUNITY PROGRAMS Introduction to Community Programs ...... 15 Court Service Units Map ...... 17 Court Service Units ...... 18 Court Service Unit Trends ...... 90 Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act ...... 91 Service Areas for Virginia's Juvenile Detention Homes ...... 93 Detention Homes ...... 94 Camp Kenbridge Boot Camp ...... 142 Halfway Houses ...... 144 Offices on Youth ...... 146
SECTION II1: COMMITMENTS TO THE STATE Introduction to Institutional Programs ...... 149 Map of the Juvenile Correctiona.1 Centers ...... 150 Juvenile Correctional Centers ...... 154 Private Provider Programs ...... 168
SECTION IV: REOFFENSE RATES Measuring Reoffense Rates ...... 173 Reoffense Rates for Agency Programs ...... 175
SECTION V" APPENDICES Appendix A: CSU Staffing as of June 30, 2002 ...... 185 Appendix B: JCC Staffing as of June 30, 2002 ...... 186 Appendix C: JCC Expenditures, FY 2002 ...... 186 Appendix D: Facility Classifications and Guidelines for Placement ...... 187 Appendix E: Length of Stay Guidelines ...... 188 Appendix F: Initial Classification Custody Designation Form ...... 189 Appendix G: Reclassification Form ...... 190 Appendix H: Risk Assessment Instrument ...... 192 Appendix I: Miscellaneous/Other Offenses ...... 194 Appendix J: Code of Virginia Citations Pertaining to Djj ...... 195 Appendix K: Detention Assessment Instrument ...... 196 I
l)ata Resource Grade FY2002 m W W m W Im W W W W W W B U U i W W W OB Data Resource Guide FY2002
A Word from the Director...
Throughout juvenile justice - from the front-line probation officers and correctional staff, to judges, agency heads, and legislators - people are asking tough questions and making difficult decisions. Who are the typical offenders in a given court district, and what kind of offenses are they committing? What programs are available for them in the community and in the correctional centers? How long are youth staying in detention? How many youth are being committed to the state, and how many are committing new offenses once they are released? The book you're holding, the Department of Juvenile Justice Data Resource Guide: Fiscal Year 2002, can't answer evew question you'll ever have; but we've tried to cover as much as possible. Now m its second year, this publication provides a comprehensive look at juvenile justice activity at multiple levels in the system. Two pages of statistical information are devoted to each district court service unit, detention home, and juvenile correctional center. Sections on Offices on Youth, halfway houses, the Camp Kenbridge intermediate sanction boot camp, local funding through the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act, and other DJJ activities are included. It's always nice to follow one success with another, even greater achievement; and I think you'll agree that we've managed to do that with the 2002 Guide. Using feedback from the survey, included with the 2001 publication, we've refined this Guide to include more information and to more clearly explain complex issues. Two issues in particular are covered in more detail than before. First, in response to your suggestions, we significantly expanded the section detailing reoffense rates for juveniles m Djj programs. This expansion required extra effort from court service unit staff, who tracked down missing dispositional information for thousands of cases, thereby allowing our research staff to study, reoffense rates across the state and within individual court districts. The impact of chronic offenders--those juveniles who return to court again and again-was also studied. Chronic offenders tax our resources the most, and it's crucial that we understand their impact on juvenile justice in Virginia. A second issue that we developed further m this year's Guide is detention utilization. Fiscal year 2002 is the first complete year in which the new Detention Home Module was used as part of the Juvenile Tracking System. A much closer examination of both pre-dispositional and post-dispositional detention utilization for each court district is now possible. We are also able to examine detention placements by a court district versus detention admissions into an individual detention home. The Ternzs and Concepts section explains the differences between these two concepts, as well as other concepts discussed in the Guide. We've been so pleased by the improvements that resulted from your survey ,esponses that I want to stress to you the importance of taking a moment to complete the enclosed survey and faxing it to the DJJ Research and Evaluation Section (804-371-0726). We want the Data Resource Guide to be useful to you on a daily basis in your juvenile justice work, so please let us know how we are doing, and how we can improve. Finally, I'd like to express my sincere appreciation to everyone who put so much effort into this project. The Research and Evaluation Section and the Community Progran~ and Institutional Progranzs staff worked hard to assemble this book for you. Staff in the court service units, detention homes, and juvenile correctional centers made an intensive effort to ensure that the information in the Guide is accurate and complete. Also, this publication would not be possible without a grant from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; and, of course, we are grateful for that funding. I hope you find this information as useful as I do. Thank you, in advance, for your feedback which will help us provide you with meaningful data.
Director ~ lt # / 7
l)ata Resource Guide FY2002
Terms and Concepts
Adjudicatory Hearing: a hearing on merits where i,mocence or COV(Code of Vir~nia): legal code of the Conmaonwealth of Virginia. guilt is determined. Witnesses and testimony are presented, Detention: placement in a secure facility resulting in a loss of physical similar to a trial. freedom. Behavioral Services Unit (BSU): located in the juvenile Detention Hearing:. judicial hearing held witt~n 72 hours of initial custody correctional centers and at RDC. In addition to traditional that determines a youth's proper detention status while awaiting an psychological evaluations and individual and group therapy, BSU adjudicatory hearing. The court may subpoena witnesses to assist m cu,'rently operates Sex Offender Treatment programs in several detemainmg probable cause. Juvenile Correctional Centers (JCCs), and oversees substance abuse treatment services. Staff consists of psychologists, clinical Detention Home temporary holding facility for serious juvenile offenders social workers, and clerical support. awaiting ~m adjudicatoty hearing or placement m a conmatmity progrlun. ['~ Individuals may be held no longer them 21 days prior to their adjudicator), (Sertification: applicable if the juvenile is 14 or older. The,'e are hearings without just cause and/or five days following the disposition two types: (1) If a juvenile is accused of certain serious felonies, hearing (up to 15 if necessary) while awaiting placement in a program. [1~ the case will be automatically certified to the Circuit Court if the Juveniles also may be placed in a detention home post-disposition:flly. Juvenile and Domestic Relations judge finds probable cause that the act was committed; (2) If a juvenile is accused of other serious Detention Placements versus Detention A&nissions: a detention felonies, the case is certified to Circuit Court if the placement is based on a decision made by ~uaint~e officer or judge to detain 1.1~1 Commonwealth Attorney files a motion for a preliminary a juvenile. A detention admission is when a juvenile enters a facility either hearing on probable cause, and the judge finds probable cause. tlu'ot~a dilect placement or througtl t r,msfer. The mfole, durhN one deteaation Any juvenile convicted in Circuit Court after certification will placement, a juvenile may have severA detention admissions. 1~] be treated as an adult in all future criminal cases. Detmninate Conmaitn~m ,~ing by a judge, pm~u:mt to CO Vf~ 16.1- CHINS: a Child in Need of Se,-vices is one whose behavior (that 285.1, who retains control over the conaniitment time of a juvenile who [1~ would not be cmmnal if committed by ;m adult) presents a clear mad conmaitted a serious offense. The judge specifies an exact time period for urea substantial danger to his/he, life or health, who requires treatment commitment. The juvenile comes under judicial review after a two-year services or rehabilitation not being received, and for whom the period. If not released, the youth then has an annual hearing befo,e the inte~wention of the court is essential to provide such services to the judge who made the initial commitment. child or f,maily. Dis'positional Hearing: a hearing in a juvenile citse (similar to a sentencing Vlrl'l CHINSup: a Child in Need of Supezvision is one who is habitually hearingin a crimin~fl court) that determines the proper path for t,'eatment i and without justification absent from school despite opportunity ;rod services ~md s:mctions. I reasonable eflocts to keep him/her in school, who habitually rt,ns Diversion: juvenile offender is diverted out of the official court process, away f,'om home or a residential ca,e court placement, or has not ~ma mad the case is h;uadled infonnally. A juvenile c:ua be diverted onJy once. responded to available conununity t,eatment or services provided as a result of CHINS behavior. Domestic Relations: all references to this te,'m include both domestic mma relations as well as child welfare. Conmaitn~t versus Achnission: a conm~itment is a cou,-t action placing a juvenile ha the custody of the Depamnent of Juvenile Justice Fiscal Year: time period me,sured for this report :is FY 2002 (July 1, 2001 (DJJ) for placement in a JCC or a private secure hcility. An adinission throu~June 30, 2002). []7~ occurs when a juvenile physically arrives at a facility and is officially Group Home: progr~un that provides a ,'esidential placement in a non- entered into the facility's rolls. Aa~ adinission to RDC may occur da),~ secure enviromnent. Services may iaaclude: residential care; group, fmlxily, or weeks :ffter the juvenile is conunitted to DJJ (during which time he rill and individual counseling; ~tssessment and anger management; life skills; or she is in secure detention). A single adilmsion could be the result of recreation; educational support; etc. Placements can be pre- or post- mt,ltiple comnaitments to DJJ (for example, a juvenile may be disposition~d. [I~ conunitted to DJJ by mo,e thim one District Court, prior to adinission to RDC). For these reasons, the number of conmaitments to DJJ in Halfway House tnmsition~ residenti~ placement for juveniles on parole a fiscid year x~611be sli~tly different from the number of adilaissiom to that provides services such as independent living skills, enlplo)~lent skills, RDC and work experience. [~1 Court Service Unit (CSU): the Department's major provider of Indetmainate Conm~itment: ruling by a judge giving the Director of Djj services (intake, investigations and reports, probation, parole, the authority to determine how long the jt,venile will remain conamitted. counseling, mad other related services) within the conmatu'aity. There are p,u',uneters for this conamimlent sud~ as the jtr~r eaaile ~ s21st birth&),r []1]
I !1 I ~ ° , , ,, fl ,1 ~ r, II
Data Resource Guide FY2002
a 36-month statutory maximum length of stay (LOS) for all offenses Pre-dispositional Detention: secure residential placement while except murder or manslaughter (CO V~ 16.1-285), and Djj's policy. a juvenile is awaiting a court disposition. Intake Case: an occurrence of a juvenile being brought before a CSU Private Provider: company or non-state entity that is under for one or more alleged violations of law. This process of initial contract with DJJ to provide direct-care residential beds and acceptance and screening is used to determine appropriateness of treatment services for committed youth. release or referral to formal action via petition. An intake officer at Probation: alternative to commitment that requires a specified the CSU decides which path the case will follow. One case can level of supervision for juveniles who remain in the conmaunity. involve multiple intake complaints. May be referred to simply as an "intake." Reception and Diagnostic Center (RDC): location to which conmfitted juveniles are initially sent .after the dispositional hearing Intake Complaint: the specific violation of law that a juvenile is and preceding placement in a JCC. alleged to have committed. Recidivism: as defined by Djj, a recidMst is a person who is found by Juvenile Correctional Center (JCC): facility for juveniles comanitted a court to have committed, 'after being (a) placed on probation or (b) to state care where juveniles receive 24-hour supervision, education, released from confinement, a delinquent or cri,~n',d act other than treatment services, recreational services, and a variety of special violation of probation or parole. (See .also reoffendin~ programs. Region: in order to better manage the use of conmaumty resources Length of Stay (LOS): a range of time for a juvenile's stay in a statewide, the Depamnent divides Virginia into three geographical facility. Regions: Region I (Western), Region II (Northern), and Region 1~I Nolle Prosequi: decision of prosecutors to dismiss charges against (Eastern). (See page 17 for a map of the three Regions). The exact defendants- Lltin for "unwilling to prosecute." re&e-up of the Regions changed slightly in FY 2002. Parole: continued supervision ~uadmonitoring of an individu~d ~er release Reoffending (Measures of): three measures used in this docunaent fi'om conanimaent in aJCC or a privately contracted facility. - (1) Rearrest: a petition filed at intake for a new &linquency compl~lt or ma adult arrest for a new crimhaal offense; (2) Reconviction: a guiltT petition: a document filed at court intake ~e~ag that a juvenile is delinquent, adjudication for a delinquent or crinfinal offense, which is the only a child in need of services, supervision, or for domestic purposes and measure of reoffending that meets the Department's definition of asking that the court asstane jurisdiction over the juvenile. recidivism; (3) Reconmfiranent: an), ret urn to a JCC 'after having been Post-disposition: the period of time between the final disposition and previously released from aJCC. fin~d rele,se from supervision. Risk Assesmmnt Instnmlent: tool used to identify: juveniles at risk Post-dispositional Detention: secure residenti~ placement as a short-term for reoffending. court sanction or while a j uvenile is awaiting transfer to a juvenile correctior~ll Shdter Care: detaimnent option that provides non-secure detention. Juvenile is placed in a group home or under foster care with no fonn of Post-disposifional Detention with Programs versus Post-dispositional physical inaprisolmaent. Detention without Programs: postdisposinon~ detention with progranas Status Offense: an act prohibited by law that would not be an offense involves structured programs of treatment and services given to youth who ifcon~rfitted by an adult. have been sentenced by a judge. Progranxs ~ue typically designed for 180 days and are intended to maintain and/or build community ties. Post- Transfer: a means of moving a case from Juvenile and Domestic dispositional detention without programs involves the sentencing of Relations District Court to Circuit Court. Applicable when a juvenile juvenile by a judge to a detention facility for short periods of time without 14 or ol&r is accusedof a felony other than' those warrantingcertification full services being provided. or if the Con~nonwealth Attorney decides not to seek certification to Circuit Court mad files papers requesting a transfer. In order to t r,msfer Pre-disposition: the period of time from when charges are filed until the a case to the Circuit Court, a transfer hearing must be held during which court makes a final disposition. a judge must detemfine that the act would be a felony if coirunitted by Pre-disposition Report: document prepared by a probation officer in an adult and must .alsoexamine issues of competency and the juvenile's preparation for a dispositional hearing that considers the court history of history. Any juvenile convicted in Circuit Court after transfer will be the juvenile, physical or mental exalninations, the j uvenile's family, and treated as an adult in 'all future criminal cases. previous contact with other agencies. It assists the court in selecting the most appropriate dispositional sanctions and services. li
Dala Resolcrce ffu#le FY2002
Temporary l)etention: transfer to a mental heahh facility from a JCC. This decision is made by a judge following a recommendation from the Behavioral Services Unit that treatment for an acute mental heahh condition is needed. IIW Waiver: a request initiated by the juvenile, 14 years or older (and a guardian), prior to the adj udicatm T hearing that seeks to waive the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and have the case transferred to the circuit court. (Pursuant to COV~ 16.1-270) Ward: a juvenile that has been committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice to serve a sentence. Weekender: a juvenile sentenced by a judge to serve a certain number of das:s m detention, typically served on weekends. The juvenile remains in school during the week and, typically, enters the detention home Friday after school until Sunday.
J
W W
W
J
tl . r .. .,
;. .- W , , , ' ' . . . .ll f
r L.'\
~. .- )
/
L.
-, e ' 'qZq "
'1 ~ I ' I L}/ : I ' t
J~ t.
\ / hk.J \ "h, / f / )£ t / f 4, } ( 0 f / L"
) r- f
k
% /. f / \. /
©IS Y~S~~r~ - .
/
/ Wards from the Virginia Wilderness Institute assist State Police with flood relief efforts in Grundy, Virginia• !1
Data Resource Guide FF2002
Introduction to the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice
To accomplish its Mission, the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) provides an integrated approach to juvenile justice. MISSION OF THE VIRGINIA We bring together current research and best practices in the field DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE to better understand and modify delinquent behavior; to meet the needs of offenders, victims, and communities; and to manage our To protect the public through a balanced activities and resources in a responsible and proactive manner. approach of comprehensive services that A BALANCED APPROACH prevent and reduce delinquency through Djj responds to juvenile offenders through a three-tiered system that partnerships with families, schools, provides: (1) control of a j uvenile's liberty through secure confinement communities, law enforcement and other and/or community supervision to ensure public safety; (2) a structured agencies, while providing the opportunity system of incentives and graduated sanctions in both institutional and for delinquent youth to develop into community settings to ensure accountability for the juvenile's actions; and (3) a variety of services and programs that builds skills and responsible and productive citizens. competencies (e.g., substance abuse treatment, support for academic and vocational education, anger management classes) to enable the DATA-DRIVEN MANAGEMENT juvenile to become a law-abiding member of the community upon Over the past several years, DJJ has greatly enhanced its ability to release from DJJ's supervision. effectively plan for and manage juveniles, programs, services, and other resources. DJJ designed functional management infonnation systems and used the data generated and reported from these RISK-BASED PROGRAMMING systems to better understand the offender population, activities in DJj is committed to having the highest impact on offenders, their relation to those offenders, and methods to become more effective families, victims, and communities by focusing resources to minimize and efficient. The Juvenile Tracking System (ITS) is comprised of the risk of reoffending. Using a set of research and consensus-based modules covering the full range of institutional and community- instruments, juveniles are classified by different risk levels. The based activities. Community-based modules include intake, classification of juveniles to appropriate secure confinement settings in workload and detention home systems, capturing risk assessment the correctional centers, the use of risk instruments to determine the and substance abuse assessment data, and the soon-to-be likelihood of reoffendingwhile on probation or parole in the corrununitT, implemented social historT and connnunity programs modules. and.the development of a risk assessment tool for detention decisions The Automated Population Board, Juvenile Profile, Direct Care, are examples of DJJ's emphasis on risk-based programming. Once ~md LEADER modules contribute to effective management in the appropriately classified, those juveniles at highest risk for reoffending institutions. DJJ's philosophy is that sound management of public receive the most intensive resources. In addition to applying resources resources and adherence to our core Mission cannot be accomplished to those at highest risk, DJJ's institutional and community-based without the input provided from comprehensive data-based programs addressspecific risk factors (ganginvolvement, substance abuse, practices. and antisocial peer 'affiliations)to reduce recidivism. Through the application of the integrated approach to juvenile INDIVIDUALIZED SERVICES justice, DJJ will continue to make a difference in the lives of citizens and conxmunities across the Corrunomvealth. Through responsible Djj recognizesthat successfulreactions to juvenile crime require tailored, resource management, performance accountability, and sound individualized responses to the needs of juveniles and families. Such intervention strategies, DJJ will strive to improve and meet the services are provided through a full range of activities conducted by DJJ changing demands of j uvenile justice practice. personnel and through partnerships with other public and private service providers, which represent key components to achieve DJJ's Mission. These programs and services span the full range of needs including alcohol and drug abuse, sexual offending, truancy and other school- related problems, anger and other self-management skills, and effective parenting. Individualized responses include the application of the appropriate level of social control such as electronic monitoring, urine drug testing, and various levels of probation and parole supervision. Incentives are used to reward success and reinforce the juvenile's efforts to succeed upon return to the community. W l)ata Resource GuMe FI2002 Ill
Organizational Chart W AS OF .JUNE 30, 2002 IS
Director n
Special Assistant W
Inspector General @ Human Resource Director W Policy Manager 11
DeputyDirector t DeputyDirector DeputyDirector Admmmra/ion ~ t;?mmce Comm/tm' O, Programs -t I ia*li/tttiopt,c 11
Chief of Operations ] W __ Finance& ~lanagcmcnt Services ] Manager Juvenile Correctional Center Bud tact, ]?llrucaS[lll~, ,'~CCrttlll[lll}~,P, cscarch ,Y,' / t:icld Opcrattons Superintendents (8) I{vahi,m, ,n, Pr, ,ctlrclncllt,Rtcl }rds~]~ltl:/t~¢'tI/ellt ] 11
Manager ~ Reg'ional Operations Managers Director- Chief Psychologist 11 I)ata l)r{}ccssmg (6) _•Behavioral Scrvsces @
__1 Manager [~ Court Service Unit Directors (35) --] Administrator Capiual Outlay Halfway House Directors (3) 1lealrh Services W B
Manager _~ Manager Saate & l,ocal Parmcrships Institutional Programs 18 W __1 Manager Manager Court Setaacc Support Operations W W II Data Resottrce Guide fT2002
r ~ , Agency Organization f~ ,i ,"
h A seven-member Board, appointed by the Governor for a four-year .[.';,~ i ; j t ._ .) +: , term, provides policy oversight for the agency. The Board sets policy, ._ !( .,:. sk_ .3, reviews agency budget matters, ensures the development of long-range ..3L~3.~_ " )C_ " > juvenile services, monitors agency activities, adopts standards for the "~ <.~- :.;--J C._.) " r- operation of programs, and certifies compliance with those standards. ci; <,"o
#. :j f. ,, - ir The Department of Juvenile Justice serves the entire Commonwealth ! #-,-&.~ ~-~.23 ,_.~ ..,"
by providing support for community programs and services,community I supervision and case management, and custody and care of committed
juveniles. I'
The Central Office in Richmond, and three regional officesin Roanoke, J " 5c¢ ~- Fairfax, and Hampton coordinate the functions and funding for the i,. court service units, community programs, community facilities, state facilities, volunteers, and private providers. ,~ k Administered by the Director, agency functions are divided among the following: O •. ,..- ° The Deputy Director for Administration and Finance manages ',o , support functions that include fiscal operations, purchasing, capital outlay, information services, research and evaluation, and budgeting. ° The Deputy Director for Comanunity Programs oversees operations that provide community-based services to youth and families. Functionally, this division includes community-based services, probation and parole services, regional offices, court service units, ' ~T___/~> detention, interstate compact, Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act (VJCCCA), and diversion efforts. ' ,t ' (j ' ', " t • The Deputy Director for Institutions oversees juvenile correctional I center operations that include residential treatment programs and health servicesfor committed youth, as well as facilitysupport services including maintenance and food service operations. ° The Offices of the Inspector General, Human Resources, and Policy Development are currently overseen by the Director. <" " -,, if\:
," ] #,, ) :, : , 7
r,J.2" ', I F 2~.%; -t, ,,,- Data Resource Guide lY2002 DJJ Historical Timeiine 1989 • ~ 16.1-285.1 Commitment of Serious Offender Statute is amended • "Learning Centers" renamed to"Juvenile Correction Centers" @ • ~ 66-1 creates the Department of Youth Services and schedules • court allowed to order parole supervision, but total of conmlitment separation from the Depamnent of Corrections ~md parole time c~mnot exceed seven years or continue past juvenile's 21st birthday IB 1990 • adds criteria for determination of appropriate placement of • ~ 66-I is amended conmlitted juveniles • July 1st, tim new agency opens under the name "Depamnent • The first phase of the computer automation of the Virginia Juvenile of Youth and Family Services" Tracking System begins (~ 16.1-222) • Chapter 914 of The Acts of the Assembly establishes the Juvenile 1994 Justice Reform Act • Tidewater Environmental Program (TEP) opens as a private • ~ 16.1-269.1 Transfer and Waiver is amended placement for conm~itted youth with a 12 bed capacity • lowers the age at which juveniles can be tried as adults for violent o'imes from 15 to 14 years old • ~ 16.1-285.1 Commitment of Serious Offender Statute is passed 1997 • stipulates conditions forcertification of juvenile as adult for • Expansion of Beaumont and Bon Air Juvenile Correctional Centers purposes of trial and sentencing • Kenb,'idge Youth Development School (KYDS) opens as a private • allows for court to commit a j t,venile for a determinate length placement for committed youth with a 50 bed capacity of time • The ~nerican Correctional Association conducts accreditation 1998 of three DJJ facilities: Oak Ridge JCC, 6th District CSU, and • Camp Kenbridge (intermediate sanction boot camp) opens with a 50 Abraxats Halikvay House bed capacitT • JLARC releases the first study on CSUs • Virginia Wilderness hastitute (VWI) opens as a private placement for conmaitted youth with a 32 bed capacity 1995 • JLARC releases study onJCCs and Treatment Services 1999 • ~ 16.1-3092 establishes the Virginia Juvenile Conmmmt3, Crime • Camp Kenbridge expands its capacity from 50 to 100 beds Control Act • CulpeperJCC is opened with a capacity of 112 beds. This is the first • provides funding for local programs and services for low-level new facility for DJJ since Oak Ridge JCC opened in 1982 juvenile offenders, who are before the court or at intake • Culpeper Detention Home, Virginia's o,aly statewide detention home, • provides conm~unity-based services for juveniles and their is opened with a capacity of 50 beds families, holding the juveniles responsible for their actions • Governor George Allen forms the Juvenile Justice Reform Connnission, which develops ,'ecommendations for overhauling 2000 the Juvenile Justice System • The Objective Classification system is impleme,lted for use inJCCs • ~ 16.1-278.8 is amended • modifies the criteria for commitment of a j t, venile to Djj to a 1996 minimum of four misdemeanor adjudications • ~ 66-1 is amended • Barrett JCC wins Award of Excellence from the Virginia Association • renames agency to "Depamnent of Juvenile Justice" of Drug and Alcohol Programs for its Substance Abuse Treatment • ~ 16.1-269.1 Transfer and Waiver is amended Pr~r, un • creates p,'ovisions for Automatic ,rod Prosecutorial Certification • stipulates preliminary hearings for certification as ~m aduh • ~ 16.1-285 is amended 2002 • stipulates establishment of Length of Stay (LOS) guidelines • ~ 16.1-285.1 is amended for juveniles committed indeterminately • expands criteria for court to detemainately conmlit juveniles who • stipulates report of LOS guidelines and estimated bed space have been transferred to and found guilt), by a circuit court impact ,umually to the General Assembly • stipulates LOS cannot exceed 36 months or go beyond juvenile's 21st birthday i, II ,, I! oo O2 1989 'A' 2003 L~-l~reationLDepartme,~,/\ \ 11-~l%-~-78.8.,4 I§ 16.1-285.1 Expanded of DYS opens a~DY ~ IK.Co~mitmentmodifilLcriteria are authority for commitment of youth - § 16.1-278.'/ Minimum age for commi~i'ment changed ~ - Barrett JCC wins nationally recognized, award Certification denied - Ifgt, ilty, Direct Indictment Juvenile Disposition c}16.1-269.1D or Adult Sentence Ull8 - T I ° , Transfer/Certi~ /Waiver as an Adult Nolle Prosequi, [~ ( or Dismissed ) ~16.1-269.1 16.1-270 2 I °N Juvenile Disposition < ° Djj RDC Assessment ] [~ Commitment 111 Community Transfer denied - Handle as Juvenile i, [1 t Community Based Sanctions and/or Probation (Reeased) Supervision Dispositional Iti~M> Process .... Exiting the Juvenile Justice System Data Resource Guide 132002 STEPS IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM 1. The juvenile enters the system when an offense is committed and 9. If committed to DJJ, the juvenile must undergo psychological, reported by a parent, citizen, agency complaint, or the police. educational, social, and medical evaluations conducted at RDC. 2. If the juvenile entered the system through police contact, a decision 10. From RDC, the juvenile may go to a privately operated is made whether to counsel and release the youth back to the residential facility or a juvenile correctional center (ICC). At the community or to arrest. If a parent, citizen, or agency made the JCC, a committed juvenile receives 24-hour supervision, complaint, then the complaint goes to intake. education, treatment services, recreational services, and a variety of special programs. 3. An intake officer at the court service unit makes the decision whether to take informal action such as crisis-shelter care, detention outreach, It After completion of the commitment period, a juvenile may or counseling; to take no action; or to file a petition. In some cases, be placed on parole or directly released. During parole, the a police officer or the original complainant will appeal to the juvenile transitions to the community through agencT program magistrate if they disagree with the intake officer's decision. The efforts and is "afforded local services. Some juveniles may need magistrate must certify the charge and the matter is returned to 24-hour residential care and treatment services provided by a intake to file a petition. halfway house. Upon completion of parole or entry into the adult criminal justice system, the youth is discharged from the 4. Once a petition has been filed, an intake officer decides if the juvenile system. should be detained or released to his or her parents/guardians. The decision is based on the juvenile's risk to self, community, or 12. (Appeals Process and Circuit Court Cases) A case may be sent flight. into the appeals process following the dispositional hearing. After presentation to the circuit court, the case is reconsidered 5. If the decision is made to detain the juvenile, a detention hearing is and the issue of guilt is examined. If the juvenile is found not held within 72 hours in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District guilty, the case is dismissed. If found guilty, the circuit court Court to determine the need for further detention and examine the judge adininisters an appropriate juvenile disposition. merits of the charges. 13. If the circuit court received the case through a direct indictment, & A preliminary hearing is held to ensure that the case has enough a trial will rake place. If found not guilty, the case is dismissed. merit to carry it to trial. Issues of competency, insanity, subpoenas, If found guilty, the judge will decide whether to render a and witnesses are also addressed. If no probable cause exists, the juvenile disposition or an adult sentence. case is dismissed. If cause is determined then the case moves to the adjudicatory hearing. Also during this phase issues of transfers and waivers are addressed by the court. If certification is ordered or a direct indictment issued, the case goes to the circuit court (see sections 12-13). . Innocence or guilt is determined at the adjudicatory hearing. Witnesses and testimony are presented similar to an adult trial. If found not guilty, the case is dismissed. If found guilty, a dispositional hearing is held. 8. At the dispositional hearing, the pre-disposition report (social history) is used to assist in selecting appropriate sanctions and services. The court decides if the juvenile will be committed to DJJ or face community sanctions such as warnings, restitutions, or fines. A conditional disposition may be imposed such as prolxation, which includes participation in CSU programs, referral to local services or facilities, to other agencies, to private or boot camp placement, or to post-dispositional detention. Once the requirements have been met, the juvenile is released by the court. Data Resource Guide 1:)'2002 DJJ Operating Expenditures- GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES $220.5 MILLION NoN-GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES $ 7.2 MILLION TOTAL FY 2002 EXPENDITURES $227.7 MILLION During the fiscal year ending June 30, 2002, the Department expended a total of $227.7 million. Of this amount, 35% was in transfer payments to loc~ities for VJCCCA, local detention, Offices on Youth, and locally run court service units. The pie chart below reflects the programs for which these funds were expended. Institutions 31% Ill Offices on Youth 1% Central & Regional Adm inistration 6% Court Services - Probation & Reentry [J (bm m unit), Based & 21% Co n mlct Services 8% [J VJCCCA 13% Detention 20% ill nI ~D Data Resource Guide F12002 DJJ Training Unit The Training Unit is responsible for providing or facilitating training for the 3100+ employees and affiliates of the agency. The unit's mission is to provide quality training that addresses specific job functions and duties, matches the experience level of the participants, is responsive to current topics and trends, and assists individuals in meeting their annual training requirements. Organized as a centralized unit, training is delivered statewide, in each of the three geographical regions, as well as in Richmond where the main training facility is located. On average, each biannual calendar offers 300 training dates in 62 topical areas. TRAINING CERTIFICATIONPROGRAMS Supreme Court Mediation- (16 days), 2 times a year o Basic- 20 hours o Family - 20 hours Substance Abuse Certification program- 160 hours (20 days) Basic Skills for JCOs- 160 hours (20 days), 11 times a year Basic Skills for Probation Officers- 52 hours (5 days), 8 times a year Sex Offender Program training- 21 hours (3 days), 2 times a year Handle with Care Instructor certification- 21 hours (3 days), 3 times a year o Re-certification 16 hours (2 days), 6 times a year Safety Officer Program - 160 hours (20 days), 2 times a year Mandatory Employee Relations training- 1 day for new supervisors & half-day formats o Harassment in the Workplace- 1 day & half-day formats o Performance Management- 1 day & half-day formats o Standards of Conduct- 1 day & half-day formats o Recruitment & Selection- 1 day & half-day formats .[7.,_" o Timekeeping & Leave Reporting- 1 day & half-day formats ~.,'~,., .,.~ i Train the Trainer- 40 hours (5 days), once a ),ear ~-.a~.~-~ , ,~ ',r~ ~ ,. ,, ~ m Dala Resource Guide FY2002 m m m ! I i m m m m B m g B @ @ m B m Im "x, L j- .\ ~ -\ ,_s \ .~ .ff 'rf : L , \, ~) j f {- /) ', . '~I / - .~..~. .J~------ \. -, .~ :3/ - ~ ..... --<.'7~i /-~-" L:) , ... -_-. r k f~ 1,//}\ f ,/ ' I f r," ",a , . ~f'" Oommuni(ly lS 'ol!l 'ams f / Data Resource Guide F12002 Introduction to Community Programs The Division of Community Programs is responsible for providing services such as treatment referral, supervision, and counseling a continuum of community-based services to juvenile offenders. are provided in adult cases of domestic violence. The following briefly describes these services: Custody Investigations COURT SERVICE UNIT FUNCTIONS Although the majority of custody investigations for the court are performed by the local Department of Social Services staff, Juvenile Intake some CSUs also perform investigations to provide Intake services are provided 24 hours a day at each of the 35 court recommendations to the court on parental custody and service units (CSUs) across the state. The intake officer on duty, visitation based on the best interests of the youth and defined or on call after business hours, has the authority to receive, review, criteria in the COV. The investigation includes an extensive and process complaints. review of the home environment and background of the youth's parents or caretakers, including any individuals living in the Based on the information gathered, a determination is made home, and the role and relationship of the parents and whether or not a petition should be filed with the juvenile court caretakers of the child. and, if so, whether or not the juvenile should be released to the parents or detained pending a court hearing. The agency provides Probation diversion and referral to other community resources to first-time, The most frequently used disposition for those juveniles low-level offenders. adjudicated guilty is probation supervision. Virginia's juvenile probation strives to achieve a 'balanced approach,' focusing Investigations and Reports on the principles of cmnmunity protection (public safety), Social histories make up the majority of the reports that CSU accountability, and competency development. personnel complete. These court-ordered investigations describe the social adjustment of the youth before the court or receiving Parole Services services. A risk assessment instrument is completed at the same Upon release from state commitment, offenders are provided time as the social history, letting the court know the juvenile's risk parole services, which are begun when a juvenile is committed of reoffending, and a detention risk instrument is completed at to DJJ, to assist in the transition back to the community. Parole intake on those juveniles who have committed detainable offenses. services build on the services and supervision that the juvenile The information in the social history and risk assessment provides received in the JCCs. Parole supervision focuses upon the the basis for the CSU to develop appropriate services for the juvenile 'balanced approach.' Protection of public safety is emphasized and the family, to determine the level of supervision needed based through a level system of supervision based on the juvenile's on risk classification, and to help the court select the most assessed risk of reoffending and adjustment to rules and appropriate disposition for the case. expectations. The period of parole will vary according to the juvenile's needs, level of risk, Other reports and investigations offense history, and adjustment. completed by CSU personnel Supervision may last until the include substance abuse evaluations, juvenile's 21 ~ birthday. case summaries to the Family Assessment and Planning Teams, Parole officers are assigned to commitment packets for the offenders to provide case Reception and Diagnostic Center, management services, broker interstate compact report,s, transfer appropriate transitional services, reports, and ongoing case and monitor adjustment to the documentation. community. Juveniles may receive family and individual Domestic Relations counseling, referral to other In addition to handling delinquency community services, vocational and Child in Need of Service/ services, or specialized Supervision complaints, CSUs educational services. These provide intake services for domestic services are provided statewide relations complaints. These include by a network of approved vendors non-support, family abuse, from which the local Court adjudication of custody (permanent Services Units purchase and temporary), abuse and neglect, programs and services for termination of parental rights, ~aaroled juveniles and their visitation rights, paternity, and rallies. emancipatton. In some CSUs, I Data Resource Guide FY2002 lib INTERSTATE COMPACTON JUVENILES temporary care for delinquents and allegeddelinquents who require secure I custody pending a court appearance. Educational instruction (including The IntersEate Compact on Juveniles ('lCJ) unit provides for the remedial services) is mandatory within 24 hours of any youth being cooperative supervision of probationers and parolees moving from detained and is provided by the locality in which the detention facility is mE state to state and the return of nmaways, absconders; and escapees. located (funded by the Department of Education). Program All 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and components include medic'al and mental health screening, recreational Guam are participants of the compact. The ICJ mandates each and religious activities, and parental or guardian visitation. state to provide services per the compact requirements. Probation and parole services for ICJ cases are to be provided in the same Many detention programs provide secure custody and services for post- manner and at the same level as provided to residents of that state. dispositional delinquents as an "alternativeto state con-unitment or as an ]][~ option for judges pursuant to ~16.1-284.1 of the COIl. In a post- OFFICES ON YOUTH (OOY) dispositional "program," secure beds are designated for juveniles for up to 180 days. In post-dispositional "programs," treatment services are Partially funded by grants from the Commonwealth, Offices on coordinated by the detention home, the CSU, local mental health and Youth represent DJJ's most concrete prevention efforts. Locally social service agencies,and the juvenile's family. These servicesare tailored operated programs conduct assessments of their communities, to meet the specific needs of that juvenile. thereby providing infonnation on juvenile risk and protective factors m and recon~nending ways to fill any identified gaps in servicedelivery. CONTRACT SERVICES Local programs address risk factors such as substance abuse and school truancy, and design strategies for interventions with high- Boot Camp I risk juveniles. In addition, OOY provide information on local A privately-operated, state-funded boot camp, located in Kenbridge, resources and collaborate with other youth and family serving Virginia, houses 100 juveniles. This boot canlp serves as an intermediate agencies to promote positive youth development. Their goal is to sanction for Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court Judges, in W reduce the number of juveniles entering the juvenile justice system. an effort to keep juveniles from penetrating further into the justice system, f VIRGINIA JUVENILECOMMUNITY CRIME CONTROLACT (VJCCCA) The boot camp is reserved for non-violent male and female juveniles who have never been committed to a correctional center. The boot camp Funding is provided to local governments through the VJCCCA is a ten-month program; four months of structured residential living to design aad implement services to meet the needs of juveniles that includes military-style drill and ceremony, exercise, physical labor, before the court in their localities. discipline, counseling, and education, followed by skx months of ~fftercare supervision in the colvununity. With a plan approved by the Board of Juvenile Justice, localities may purchase or develop programs and services that are pre- or Day Treatnmnt post-dispositional, diversionary, residential, or nonresidential. The Depamnent contracts with two privately-operated, marine-based day treatment programs located in the Tidewater area. The intent of the COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT (CSA) program is to assist offenders in obtaining skills and abilities to ensure a positive adjustment in the movement from the day treatment program B Developed to help At-Risk Youth and Families, the CSA is a child- to public school or to full-time employment. centered, community-based, collaborative system of services and ftmding. CSUs may refer juveniles to local, interdisciplinary, Family Both programs provide a Assessmenv and Planning Teams (FAPTs). Representatives from structured day program that I DJJ, by law, are members of several FAPTs. When local funding is incorporates skill development available, the FAPTs may assess a youth's strengths and needs in in marine-based activities such order to develop and implement a service plan to meet those needs. as sailing, swimming, B operating boats, maintaining DETENTION and repairing boats, water safety, first aid, and CPR. The B Most secure detention programs are operated by local govermnents programs provide a full range or multi-jurisdictional commissions. DJJ provides partial funding of educational services for construction and operations and serves as the regulatory agency including high school classes, I for these homes. The only state-operated secure detention facility is GED preparation, and special located in Culpeper, adjacent to Culpeper Juvenile Correctional education. Center. These physically secure residential programs provide m m Data Resource Guide FY2002 • Offenders are ordered to the programs in lieu of commitment to DJJ. The programs include six months of the structured day program and four to six months of community aftercare. HALFWAY HOUSES ~The Department operates three halfway houses and contracts for one privately-operated h~fway house. These facilities are designed to provide transitional skills to juveniles released from the JCCs. Each hal~vay house program is designed to t~tke .,,dv.,mtage of the unique resources available in its community to meet the needs of the residents, ~ Upon completion of the prognun, the resident will have gained additional skills to promote a continued positive adjustment and reduce the risk of recidivism. DJJ District Court Service Units 17th / 18th O 25A 23rd 4th 7th 3rd COURT SERVICE UNIT ADMINISTRATIVEOFFICES Re~ion I (Western~ Region II (Northern) Re~ion III (Eastern3 10th Charlotte Courthouse 14th Henrico 1st Chesapeake 12th Chesterfield 21st Martinsville 15th Fredericksburg 2nd Virginia Beach 13th Richmond City 22nd Rocky Mount 16th Charlottesville 2A Accomack (District 13 moved from 23rd Salem 17th Arlington 3rd Portsmouth Region II to Region III in 23A Roanoke City 17F Falls Church 4th Norfolk FY 2002) 24th Lynchbur~; 18th Alexandria 5th Suffolk 25th Staunton 19th Fairfax City 6th Hopewell 27th Pulaski 20L Loudoun 7th Newport News 28th Abingdon 20W Warrenton 8th Hampton 29th Pearisbur~ 26th Winchester 9th Williamsburg 30th Gate City 31st Manassas llth Petersburg IH Data Resource GuMe FY2002 IH Statewide Activity for Court Service Units m m • The Comnlonwealth of Virginia has 35 CSUs, statewide. District ~U INTAKE COMPLAINTS, FY 2000-2002 19 (Fairfax) was not part of the Juvenile Tracking System dvrmg FY 2000 and FY 2001, and therefo,e is not included in the two tables showing trend data for those years (Intake Complaints and I Juvenile Inrake Cases). All other tables and chiuxs include data for all Districts. • U.S. Census data indicate that between 1990 and 2000, Virginia's juvenile population ages 10-17 increased 23% (from 637,222 to 781,196). • Intake cases are identified differently than in the past, to account i[~ for variations in reporting across jurisdictions. A single intake Technicfl Violations 7,347 7,001 6,315 case now includes all compMnts reported for a single juvenile, on Traffic 847 836 903 a single day, within a single locality. Other 4~443 3~963 3~733 • In FY 2002, the CSUs, excluding District 19, processed 62,111 Total l.~,,& co.¢,lamts 88,255 86)918 86)019 juvenile intakes and 86,019 juvenile complaints for an average of Total Con¢,laints 200,675 203,441 204,699 1.4 complaints per intake. When District 19 is included in statewide Hi District 19 (Fairfax) is not included in above table. totals, they increase to 67,939 intakes and 93,390 complaints, as INTAKE [DISPOSITION OF JUVENILE COMPLAINTS shown in the offense distribution table on page 19. See pages 60-61 FY 2002 for mfo,mation on District 19. |~ • A petition was filed in response to 81% of juvenile complaints. 100%, [] Petition Filed Only, • Between FY 2000 and FY 2002, domestic relations complaints 80% ' increased by 6"/0, while juvenile compMnts decreased 3%. 58''/o [] Petition/ • Over half (57°/,,) of FY 2002 complaints were for domestic ,'elations 60% Detention Order or child welfare (not juvenile justice-related). 40% [] Resolved/ • A juvenile at intake during FY 2002 was most likely to be a white, Diverted 20% 16 or 17 year old male. [] Other • 8,851 juveniles in FY 2002 had a risk assessment completed. Of |~ 0% JUVENILE INTAKE CASES, DEMOGRAPHICS these, over half had a moderate score. FY 2000-2002 • 80% of new probation cases we,'e for felonies or class 1 misdemeanors, a • Detention placements refer to the decision, made by an intake Bla& officer or judge, to detain a juvenile. See 'Tin'ms and Concepts" for White 52.5% 52.0% 52.6% the difference between detention placements and detention Other 3.7% 3.9% 4.Y'/,) admissions. '.X • The inte,-vals selected for days juveniles spent in detention (0-3, 4- Male 70.4% 70.2% 68.9% 21, 22-51, and 52+) a,'e consistent with applicable statt,tes found in Female 29.6% 29.8% 31.1''/o the CO V. See Appendix J for CO Vcitations. RIsK ASSESSMENT RESULTS g 8.50£, 8.40£ 8.2% 8-12 FY 2002 13 8.7% 8.4% 8.6% -T 14 14.6% 14.1% 13.7% 19.3% 19.4% 18.6% High 17% m 15 q 16 22.7% 23.2% 24.0% 17 23.1% 23.3% 23.7% Moderate 54% 18-20 2.3% 2.3% 2.2% m E nor/Missing; 0.8% 0.9% 0.9% Low 29% 7btal /uuwile Cas~ 64,780 62,799 62,11l m 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% I00 lib Data Resource Guide FY2002 OFFENSE* DISTRIBUTION FOR INTAKE CASES, NEW PROBATION CASES, PRE-DIsPOSITIONAL DETENTION PLACEMENTS, AND COMMITMENTS TO THE STATE OFFENSE* CATEGORY AND SEVERITY, FY 2002 • Of juveniles in pre-dispositional detention, statewide, over two- thirds were detained for 21 days or less. 3 • Of FY 2002 releases, the average length of stay (LOS) for Desertion/Support 20,428 0 0 0 juveniles in post-dispositional detention with programs was Spousal Abuse 15,849 0 3 0 3.3 months. The COV allows juveniles to be in post- Other DR/CW 6,189 10 5 2 dispositional detention for no longer than 6 months. A list of ~tal DRICW 126,229 13 13 2 COVcitations pertaining to DJJ can be found i,a Appendix J. ,velnile Offensesl I See also 'Terms and Concepts' for the difference between types Abusive Language 1,125 23 89 25 of detention admissions. Alcohol 2,765 251 271 50 • Of FY 2002 releases, the LOS for juveniles committed to the Arson 984 174 340 43 state was 12.6 months. The COVallows juveniles committed Assault 13,345 1,746 4,283 420 indeterminately to stay up to 36 months (unless committed for Burglary 2,995 479 1,138 296 murder or manslaughter), and determinately until their 2P' Contempt of Court 4,408 73 1,682 105 Disorderly Conduct 2,869 199 461 66 birthday. A list of COVcitations pertaining to Djj can be Escapes 138 6 82 23 found in Appendix J. Extortion 417 52 106 28 AVERAGE LOS FOR PROBATION, PRE-DISPOSlTIONAL Failure to Appear 1,245 10 737 18 DETENTION, POST-DISPOSlTIONAL DETENTION (WITH Family Offense 1,409 18 73 15 PROGRAMS), STATE COMMITMENTS, AND PAROLE Fraud 1,676 105 407 73 Gangs 12 1 7 0 FY 2002 RELEASES Kidnapping 209 6 172 20 500 i Larceny 13,397 1,600 3,410 890 400 - Misc/Other 4,854 57 961 45 Murder 122 5 90 13 ~, 300 Narcotics 5,620 748 1,029 212 Obscenity 529 43 47 C 200 Obstruct Justice 1,037 71 302 6C Prob./Parole Violation 6,984 30 3,543 564 100 Robbery 869 93 693 145 Sexual Assault 1,104 214 580 17~ I're-disp Post-disI) Probation* Stale Parole Status Offense 9,943 918 289 l)elention Detention Telephone Law 330 19 37 Traffic 3,928 156 528 107 • Average I,OS 21 I O0 384 312 Trespass 2,627 227 362 8~ Rele:Lses 8,260 15,881 285 1,227 914 Vandalism 6,458 510 1,325 24~ Weapons 1,991 287 905 127 *Probatlotl I.OS caiitlot be calculated due to data lost during system upgrade. StatewideJuvenile Offenses 93,390 8,128 23,949 3,87( PRE-DISPOSMONAL DETENTION LOS DISTRIBUTION FY 2002 RELEASES 50% I 42% Class 1 Misdemeanor 38,723 3,846 8,114 1,181 Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 11,776 580 2,179 259 40% CI-{[NS/CHINSup 11,589 948 408 2(] 30%, Other 12,310 109 4~526 592 Statewide flwenile Offenses 93,390 8, 128 23,949 3,870 20% 9% Statewide flwenile Cases/ 10% P/acements/CommitTnents + 67,939 8,128 15,98I 1,218 I_ "includes Distdct 19) 0% ':-A si~]gle casc, placemcut, or" coinmlt~,ent may revolve multiple offenses. 0-3 da)s 4- 21 22- 51 52 + Unless noted otherwise, these data do not include domestic relations or child welfare complahlts. Percemages may not add to 100% due to rounding. Data Resource Guide IY2002 m I Distriict 1 301 Albemarle Drive Chesapeake, Virginia 23322 Director: Maury Brickhouse 757-382-8150 ~ INTAKE COMPLAINTS, FY 2000-2002 • This Region 3 CSU is composed of one locality, the City of Chesapeake. • U.S. Census data indicate that between 1990 and 2000, this district s juvenile population ages 10-17 increased 46% (from 18,449 to 26,873). • Intake cases are identified differently than in the past, to accot, nt for variations in reporting across jurisdictions. A single intake case now includes all complaints reported for a single juvenile, on a single day, within a single locality. • In FY 2002, the 1st District CSU processed 2,042 juvenile intakes Ill and 2,896 juvenile complaints for an average of 1.4 compMnts per Technical Violations 247 203 182 intake. Traffic 7 8 15 • A petition was filed in response to 90% of juvenile complaints. IBI Other 47 76 60 Only 6% of intakes were resolved or diverted compa,'ed to 16% on Total [m~Tile Co,~laims 2~838 2~899 2,896 the statewide level. Ira] Total Con:plaints 5,824 6~261 6,248 • Between FY 2000 and FY 2002, domestic relations complaints increased by 12%, while juvenile compMnts increased 2%. INTAKE DISPOSITION OF JUVENILE COMPLAINTS • Over half (54%) of FY 2002 comphints were for domestic relations FY 2002 or cMd welfare (not juvenile justice-related). l O0% I Petition Filed • The 1st District CSU saw an 18% decrease in juvenile felony Only complaints between FY 2000 and FY 2002, while statewide trends 80% - decreased 3%. 62% [] lYtition/ • A juvenile at intake in District 1 during FY 2002 was most likely to (;0% ------Detention Order be a black, 17 year old male. 40% [] Resolved/ • 263 juveniles in FY 2002 had a risk assessment completed. Of Diverted these, over half had a moderate score. 20% 6% 5% [] Other • 96% of new probation cases were for felonies or class 1 O% misdemeanors. JUVENILI" INTAKE CASES, DEMOGRAPHICS • Detention placements refer to the decision, made by an retake I FY 2000-2002 officer or judge, to detain a juvenile. See 'Terms and Concepts' for the difference between detention placements and detention admissions. Bla& • The intervals selected for days juveniles spent in detention (0-3, 4- I White 46.2% 44.0% 45.5% 21, 22-51, and 52 +) are consistent with applicable statutes found in 2.3% 1.7% 2.8% the CO V. See Appendix J for CO Vcitations. m • Of juveniles in pre-dispositional detention from 1st District, nearly Male 75.6% 72.2°/, 68.6% two-thirds were detained for 21 days o," less. Fa'~de 24.4% 27.8% 31.4% I ~e~e . . ]i ' ' RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS m 8-12 8.7% 6.1% 6.4% FY 2002 13 9.7% 8.2% 7.8% 14 12.6% 15.7% 13.0% High m 15 21.6% 20.3% 20.3% 16 21.1% 26.1% 24.2% Moderate 57% m 17 23.4% 21.6% 25.6% 18-20 2.2% 1.9% 1.9% Low Error/ Missing; 0.6"/0 .. 0.2% 0.7% R Total/,~e~ile G~.~.... 1,933 1,964 2,042 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 900/, 100 w, i i i i i ' i 1 ~ 1 . 1 .1 i it i - ,~ , 1 ,^^~, 1 Hi Data Resource Guide 1.3"2002 OFFENSE* DISTRIBUTION FOR INTAKE CASES, NEW PROBATION CASES, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION PLACEMENTS, AND COMMITMENTS TO THE STATE OFFENSE* CATEGORY AND SEVERITY, FY 2002 • Of FY 2002 releases, the average length of stay (LOS) for juveniles in post-dispositional detention with programs was 0 0 4.8 months. The COV allows juveniles to be in post- Desertion/Su 0 0 dispositional detention for no longer than 6 months. A list of Spousal Abuse 375 0 0 0 COgcitations pertaining to Djj can be found in Appendix J. Other DR/CW 133 0 1 0 See also 'Terms and Concepts' for the difference between types ~tal DR/CW 3,352 0 1 6 of detention admissions. ,veniJe Offen~ses [ [ i. " Of FY 2002 releases, the average LOS for juveniles committed Abusive Language 12 0 0 0 to the state was 10.4 months. The COVallows juveniles Alcohol 54 3 9 6 committed indeterminately to stay up to 36 months (unless Arson 19 3 11 1 committed for murder or manslaughter), and determinately Assault 568 43 202 26 until their 21st birthday. A list of CO Vcitations pertaining to Burglary 70 11 32 12 Djj can be found in Appendix J. Contempt of Court 98 0 56 0 Disorderly Conduct 65 6 14 2 Escapes 1 0 0 1 AVERAGE LOS FOR PROBATION, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL Extortion 6 0 1 4 Failure to Appear 17 0 29 0 DETENTION, POST-DISPOSITIONALDETENTION (WITH Family Offense 42 0 1 2 PROGRAMS), STATE COMMITMENTS, AND PAROLE Fraud 56 2 22 0 FY 2002 RELEASES Gangs 0 0 0 0 500 Kidnapping 15 0 8 0 400 Larceny 440 51 15 ] 30 Misc/Other 69 1 25 1 300 Murder 7 0: 4 0 >,, Narcotics 246 11 30 4 200 Obsceni ,ty 9 0 0 0 100 Obstruct Justice 39 1 7 3 Prob./Parole Violation 177 2 80 28 Robbery 45 2 31 8 Post-dis I) I'rohation* Pre-disp St:tle Parole Sexual Assault 29 5 2 3 l)etenlion l)elenlion Status Offense 344 0 7 0 • Average I,OS 23 147 317 355 Telephone Law 10 0 0 1 Traffic 96 1 27 4 Rele:Lses 193 t 545 I [ 50 41 Trespass 132 11 24 4 ':-Probation LOS cannot be calculated due to data lost during system upgrade. Vandalism 146 7 47 4 Weapons 84 6 36 14 PRE-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION LOS DISTRIBUTION 7btalJuvenile Offenses Z896 166 856 146 FY 2002 RELEASES 60% ] 52% 75 336 50% Classl Misdemeanor 1,205 85 334 57 Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 368 3 64 5 40% CHINS/CHINSup 386 0 9 2 30% Other 257 3 113 3(] 20% Total flwenile Offenses 2,896 166 856 148 11% 7btal Juvenile Cases/ 10% 2,042 166 534 49 Placements~Commitments* O% *A single case, placement, or COlnmltmellt may involve muhiple ol'fe~ses. 0-3 days 4-21 22-51 52+ U,less noted otherwise, these data do not include domestzc relauolls or child welfare complai.ts. 1) ercemages may not add to 100% due to roundine. @ @ Data Resource Guide F)2002 2425 Nimmo Parkway, 10A U Distriict 2 Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456 Director: Bruce E. Bright 7574274361 INTAKE COMPLAINTS, FY 2000-2002 • This Region 3 CSU is composed of one locality, the City of Virginia I Beach. m Dom. Rel./Child Welf. ,i 6,449 6,108 6,389 • U.S. Census data indicate that between 1990 and 2000, this district's @ I juvenile population ages 10-17 increased 22% (from 43,303 to 52,749). Felony 836 1~016 889 • Intake cases are identified differently than in the past, to account Class 1 Misdemeanor 1~585 1~731 2~056 for variations in reporting across jurisdictions. A single intake case now includes all conaplaints reported for a single juvenile, on m Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 541 708 728 a single day, within a single locality,. CHINS/CHINSup 507 441 645 • In FY 2002, the 2 ''d District CSU processed 3,548 juvenile intakes Other and 5,444 juvenile complaints, for an average of 3.3 complaints per m Technical Violations 548 448 467 intake. Traffic 20 46 56 • A petition was filed in response to three-quarters of juvenile I Other 638 557 603 complaints. Total,/uvenile Complaims 4,675 <947 ~444 • Between FY 2000 and FY 2002, domestic relations complaints Total Com plaims 11,124 11,055 11,833 decreased by less than 1%, while juvenile complaints increased @ 16%. INTAKE DISPOSITION OF JUVENILE COMPLAINTS • Over half (54%) of FY 2002 complaints were for domestic relations FY 200:2 or child welfare (not juvenile justice-related). ! • District 2 saw a 30% increase m class I misdemeanors complaints 100% Petition Filed • between FY 2000 and FY 2002, while statewide trends decreased Only 80% less than 1%. m [] Petition/ • A juvenile at intake during FY 2002 was most likely to be a white, 60% 47% Detention Order 17 year old male. i 40% [] Resolved/ • 354 juveniles in FY 2002 had a risk assessment completed. Of Diverted these, over half had a moderate score. 20% • 87% of new probation cases were for felonies or class 1 [] Other i 0% _1 misdemeanors. JUVENILE INTAKE CASES, DEMOGRAPHICS • Detention placements refer to the decision, made by an intake FY 2000-2002 officer or judge, to detain a juvenile. See'Terms and Concepts' for @ the difference between detention placements and detention admissions. Black • The intervals selectedfor days juveniles spent in detention (0-3, 4- i White 58.3% 57.1% 57.6% 21, 22-51, and 52 +) are consistent with applicable statutes found in Other 4.5% 6.1% 6.6% the COV. See AppendixJ for COVcitations. • Of juveniles in pre-dispositional detention from the 2 '''t District, I Male 71.9% 73.6% 70.2% nearly two-thirds were detained for 21 days or less. Female 28.1% 26.4% 29.8% imm mm mm RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS I 8-12 7.7% 7.1°/,) 8.1% FY 2002 13 7.6% 5.8% 6.8% 14 14.0% 12.0% 13.5"/,, High ~ 17% m 15 20.5% 19.7% 18.9% 16 23.6% 26.9% 23.8% Moderate 60% 17 21.7% 23.7% 25.1% -~ I I ] m 18-20 4.4% 4.4% 3.1% Low ,~~ 23°/,> Error/Missing 0.6% 0.5% 0.8% i i Total,/uvenile Cases 3,188 3,076 3,548 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100 Unless noted otherwise, these data do *lot include domestic relations or child welfare complaints. Percemages may not add to 100% due to rounding. I Data Resource GttMe FY2002 OFFENSE* DISTRIBUTION FOR INTARE CASES, NEW PROBATION CASES, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION PLACEMENTS, AND COMMITMENTS TO THE STATE OFFENSE* CATEGORY AND SEVERITY, FY 2002 • The Juvenile Tracking System shows no juveniles from the 2 '' Data Resource Guide FY2002 E! P.O. Box 446 R District 2A Accomac, Virginia 23301 Director: William J. Weaver, III 757-787-5860 • This Region 3 CSU is composed of two localities, the counties of [] Accomack and Northampton. • U.S. Census data indicate that between 1990 and 2000, this district's lib juvenile population ages 10-17 inc,eased 19% (from 4,875 to 5,806). • Intake cases are identified differently than in the past, to account mm for x,,.ariations in reporting across jurisdictions. A single intake 118 case now includes all complaints reported for a single juvenile, on a single day,, within a single locality. • In FY 2002, the District 2A CSU processed 384 juvenile intakes and I!~ Techniml Violations 112 83 84 510 juvenile complaints for an average of 1.3 complaints per intake. Traffic 0 6 20 Other 1 3 5 A petition was filed in response to 73% of jt,venile complaints. B Over 25% of complaints in CSU 2A were resoh,ed or diverted Total [u~5le Co~¢)laints 806 724 510 compared to 16"/,, on the statewide level. Total Con.plaints 2,006 1,798 1,293 • Between FY 2000 and FY 2002, domestic relations complaints lib decreased by 35%, while juvenile complaints decreased 37%. INTAKE DISPOSITION OF JUVENILE COMPLAINTS FY 2002 • Over half (61%) of FY 2002 complaints were for domestic relations or child welfare (not juvenile justice-related). 100% [] Petition Filed Only • The District 2A CSU saw a 52% dec,'ease in juvenile felony 80% - complaints between FY 2000 and FY 2002, while statewide trends ~]~ [] Petition/ 60% decreased 3%. District 2A also saw a 28% decrease in class 1 Detention Order misdemeanor complaints, while the statewide trends decreased 40% H Resolved/ less than 1%. Diverted 20% • A juvenile at retake during FY 2002 was most likely to be a black, 1% [] Other 17 year old male. ][~ 0'% • 68 juveniles in FY 2002 had a risk assessment completed. Of these, JUVENILr INTAKE CASES, DEMOGRAPHICS over half had a moderate score. FY 2000-2002 • 100% of new probation cases were fo," felonies o, class 1 i misdemeanors. Bla& • Detention placements refer to the decision, made by an intake \Vh ite 40.1% 41.7% 43.0% officer or judge, to detain a juvenile. See 'Terms and Concepts' for Other 5.3% 3.4% 3.4% the difference between detention placements and detention admissions. B Male 68.4% 69.6% 70.1% Female 31.6% 30.4% 30.0% :e I I I '¸ ;lit , t R~sK ASSESSMENT RESULTS W 8-12 7.0% 6.0% 3.9% FY 2002 13 7.0% 7.8% 9.1% 14 12.2% 8.8% 1Y8% High ~ 16% W 15 19.2% 17.9% 15.1% 16 22.1% 25.1% 26.8% Moderate ~2% 17 28.5"/,, 29.00/,, 28.4% i m 18-20 Y4% 5.4% 2.6% I E n~or/Missing, 0.6% 0.2% 0.3% "v i I Total flcztvTileCases 526 503 384 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100 m Unless noted otherwise, these data do not include domestic relations or child welfare conlplaints. Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. E Data Resource Guide t3"2002 OFFENSE* DISTRIBUTION FOR INTAKE CASES, NEW PROBATION CASES, PRE-DIsPOSITIONAL DETENTION PLACEMENTS, AND COMMITMENTS TO THE STATE OFFENSE* CATEGORY AND SEVERITY, FY 2002. • The intervals selected for days juveniles spent in detention (0- state 3, 4-21, 22-51, and 52 +) are consistent with applicable statutes t found in the COV. See Appendix J/or COVcitations. Custody 618 0 0 0 • Of juveniles in pre-dispositional detention from the District Desertion/Support 41 0 0 0 2A CSU, over three-quarters were detained for 21 days or less. Spousal Abuse 97 0 0 0 Other DR/CW 27 1 0 0 • The Juvenile Tracking System shows no juveniles from District Total DR/CW 783 1 0 6 2A were released from post-dispositional detention (with In programs) in FY 2002. Abusive Language (] 0 0 I 0 • Of FY 2002 releases, the average length of stay (LOS) for Alcohol 6 6 0 0 juveniles committed to the state was 10.2 months. The COg Arson 4 0 0 1 allows juveniles committed indeterminately to stay up to 36 Assault 79 16 21 7 months (unless committed for murder or manslaughter), and Burglary 13 5 1 5 &terminately until their 21 ~' birthday. A list of COVcitations Contempt of Court 23 0 7 3 pertaining to Djj can be found in Appendix J. Disorderly Conduct 17 2 4 5 Escapes 0 0 0 0 AVERAGE LOS FOR PROBATION, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL Extortion 2 0 3 3 DETENTION, POST-DISPOSITIONALDETENTION (WITH Failure to Appear 1 0 0 0 PROGRAMS), STATE COMMITMENTS, AND PAROLE Family OFfense 5 0 0 o FY 2002 RELEASES Fraud 0 0 0 0 500 Gangs 0 0 0 0 Kidnapping 0 0 0 0 400 Larceny 69 15 8 8 Misc/Other 8 1 0 0 300 Murder 0 0 0 0 D 200 Narcotics 21 2 5 4 Obscenity 1 0 0 0 100 Obstruct Justice 5 1 0 0 Prob./Parole Violation 84 0 11 15 Robbery 7 0 2 1 Probation* Pre-disp Post-disp Sexual Assault 7 3 3 1 Detention Detention Status Offense 54 0 0 0 • AverageLOS - 17 Telephone Law 5 0 3 1 Releases 81 60 0 Traffic 49 2 1 0 ~'Probation LOS calmot be calculated clue to data lost during system upgrade. Trespass 6 0 0 0 Vandalism 41 6 10 7 Weapons 3 0 0 0 PRE-DISPOSlTIONAL DETENTION LOS DISTRIBUTION ~tal Juvenile Offenses 510 59 79 61 FY 2002 RELEASES I'~:~~ 4, [~¢lvt~ 70% i 6-2% Felony 99 21 29 231 60% Classl Misdemeanor 201 38 31 2C 50% Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 25 0 4 CHINS/CHINSup 76 0 4 C 30% Other 109 0 11 15 20% __1722_o__ 18% Total fiwenile O~nses 510 59 79 61 Total Juvenile Cases/ ,o% --3~ m 384 59 63 21 Placements~Commitments* 0% t..: ~~ "A single case, placement, or commitment may involve multiple offenses. 0-3 days 4-21 22-51 52+ Unless noted otherwise, these data do not include domestic relations or child welfare complaints. Percentages may not add to 100% clue to rounding. Vi-rglnia @ @ Data Resource Guide FY2002 District 3 605 Crawford Street m Portsmouth, Virgmia 23704 Director: David G. Lively 757-393-8571 INTAKE COMPLAINTS, FY 2000-2002 • This Region 3 CSU is composed of one locality, the City of B Portsmouth. • U.S Census data indicate that between 1990 and 2000, this district's juvenile population ages 10-17 increased 1% (from 11,278 to 11,389). m • Intake cases are identified differently than in the past, to account for variations in reporting across jurisdictions. A single intake i case now includes all complaints reported for a single juvenile, on a single day, within a single locality. • In FY 2002, the 3 'a District CSU processed 1,052 juvenile intakes M Te& nical Violations 74 81 97 and 1,433 juvenile complaints, for an average of 1.4 complaints per Traffic 18 16 1~ intake. Other 55 61 43 • A petition was filed in response to over three quarters of FY 2002 I Total l.mTile Complaints 1,807 1,643 1~433 of juvenile complaints. Total ConIolaints 4, 968 4, 796 4~546 • Between FY 2000 and FY 2002, domestic relations complaints decreased by 2%, while juvenile complaints decreased 21%. m I NTAKE DISPOSITION OF JUVENILE COMPLAINTS • Over two-thirds (68%) of FY 2002 complaints were for domestic FY 2002 relations or child welfare (not juvenile justice-related). M 100% [] Petition Filed • The ya District CSU saw a 41% decrease in juvenile felony Only complaints between FY 2000 and FY 2002, while statewide trends 80% decreased 3%. Class 1 misdemeanor complaints decreased 15% at [] Petition/ I the CSU, while statewide trends decreased less than 1%. 60% Detention Order • A juvenile at intake during FY 2002 was most likely to be a black, ! 40% [] Resolved/ 16 ),ear old male. Diverted 20% • 194 juveniles in FY 2002 had a risk assessment completed. Of [] Other those, nearly half had a low score. 0% M • 86% of new probation cases were for felonies or class 1 JUVENILE INTAKE CASES, DEMOGRAPHICS misdemeanors. FY 2000-2002 • Detention placements refer to the decision, made by an intake i officer or judge, to detain a juvenile. See 'Terms and Concepts' for Bla& the difference between detention placements and detention admissions. White 21.2% I 22.0% 25.0% B Other 1.2% 1.7% 1.7% • The intervals selected for days juveniles spent in detention (0-3, 4- 21, 22-51, and 52 +) are consistent with applicable statutes found in B Male 72.5% 72.0% 68.1% the COV. See AppendixJ for COVcitations. I Female 27.5% I 28.0% 31.9% Q - RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS I 8-12 10.9% 10.1% 6.7% FY 2002 13 10.0% 10.3% 10.7% 14 14.1% I 16.0% 13.7% B 15 19.4% 20.9% 20.6% 16 22.9% 21.7% 24.9% Moderate -t~ 4 %, 17 20.9% 19.0% 20.9% m 18-20 1.5% 1.7% 2.0% Low 43(! Enor/Missing, 0.5% 0.3% 0.5% i Total l ,mTile Cases 1,300 1,151 1~052 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100 Unless noted otherwise, these data do not include domestic relations or child welfare complaints, Percentag, es may not add ,o 100% due to roundiug, • . • .. ,. . _ , • . • ". ~ .7 7. " , SECTIO~IH:'COMMUNITYPROGRAMS m Data Resource Guide FY2002 OFFENSE* DISTRIBUTION FOR INTAKE CASES, NEW PROBATION CASES, PRE-DIsPOSITIONAL DETENTION PLACEMENTS, AND COMMITMENTS TO THE STATE OFFENSE* CATEGORY AND SEVERITY, FY 2002 • Of juveniles in pre-dispositional detention from the 3 'd District, almost two-thirds were detained for 21 days or less. 0 1 • The Juvenile Tracking System shows no juveniles from the 3 ''t Desertion/Support 0 District CSU were released from post-dispositional detention Spousal Abuse 198 0 0 0 (with programs) in FY 2002. Other DR/CW 177 0 0 0 • Of FY 2002 releases, the average len~h of stay (LOS) for 7btal DR/CW 3,113 0 1 0 juveniles committed to the state was 13.2 months. The cog allows juveniles committed indeterminately to stay up to 36 Abusive Language 27 1 6 0 months (unless committed for murder or manslaughter), and Alcohol 17 1 1 1 determinately until their 21 " birthday. A list of COVcitations Arson 15 2 11 1 pertaining to DJJ can be found in Appendix J. Assault 381 57 142 15 Burglary 31 7 11 9 Contempt of Court 39 0 2O 1 Disorderly Conduct 35 2 8 0 Escapes 1 0 0 0 AVERAGE LOS FOR PROBATION, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL Extortion 2 1 0 0 DETENTION, POST-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION (WITH Failure to Appear 10 0 5 0 PROGRAMS), STATE COMMITMENTS, AND PAROLE Family Offense 26 0 1 I Fraud 17 0 10 4 FY 2002 RELEASES Gangs 0 0 0 0 500 Kidnapping 4 0 2 0 400 Larceny 89 20 23 26 Misc/Other 59 1 11 1 300 ...... Murder 5 0 4 0 4 Narcotics 82 32 29 9 200 ...... Obscenity 2 1 0 0 100 - Obstruct Justice 24 2 15 1 Prob./Parolc Violation 97 2 81 21 m l're-diq) PosFdisp Robbery 21 6 17 4 Probation* Slate i Parole Sexual Assault 20 1 10 5 Detention Detention Status Offense 192 1 3 1 i Average LOS 24 402 268 Telephone Law 2 0 0 0 Traffic 69 1 9 8 Rele:L~eS 185 319 0 56 I 30 Trespass 57 5 16 4 'q'robation LOS c,mnot be calculated due to data lost during system upgrade. Vandalism 76 4 17 5 Weapons 33 14 21 4 PRE-DISPOSITIONAL DETENnON LOS DISTRmUTmN Total Juvenile Offenses 1,433 161 473 121 FY 2002 RELEASES 50% 50 159 Class 1 Misdemeanor 657 89 187 34 40% I Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 142 19 37 30% CHINS/CHINSup 217 1 4 2 Other 156 2 86 22 20% Total/uvenile Offenses 1,433 161 473 121 10% Total Juvenile Cases/ 1,052 161 317 41 Placements~Commitments" 0% "~A single case, placement, or commitment may revolve multiple offenses. 0-3 da)s 4-21 22-51 52+ Unless noted otherwise, these data do not include domestic relations or child welfare complaints. Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. Virginia , Ig IJata Resom'ce (,'1,'Me 1:}~2002 IB District 4 800 East City; Hall Avenue, 3rd Floor Ill Norfolk, Virginia 23510 757-664-7601 Director: Kevm J. Moran I INTAKE COMPLAINTS, FY 2000-2002 • This Region 3 CSU is composed of one locality, the City of NoNolk. • U.S. Census data indicate that between 1990 and 2000, this district's Dora. Rel./Chilct \Velf. juvenile population ages 10-17 inoeased 10% (f,om 21,119 to 23,298). nil • Intake cases are identified differently than in the past, to account Felony 898 953 850 for va,'iations in reporting across jurisdictions. A single intake Class 1 Misdemeanor 1,428 1,469 1,558 case now includes all complaints reported for a single juvenile, on Im Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 437 522 627 a single day, within a single locality. CHINS/ ([1-[1NSup 809 874 1,005 • In FY 2002, the 4 '1' District CSU processed 3,296 juvenile intakes Im Other and 4,624 juvenile complaints, for an average of 1.4 complaints per Tedmital Violations 280 345 301 retake. Traffic 4 15 30 • A petition was filed in response to 79% of FY 2000 complaints. Othe, 804 363 253 Im Total [,u~ile Cg,#mTts 4~660 4~541 4,624 • Between FY 2000 and FY 2002, domestic relations complaints Tolal O)~V)/cmJls 11,610 ll,91.7 11,816 increased by 3%, while juvenile complaints decreased less than Iil 1%. INTAKE DISPOSITION OF JUVENILE COMPLAINTS • Over half (61%) of FY 2002 complaints were for domestic relations FY 2002 or child welfare (not juvenile justice-related). I • The 4th District CSU saw a 9% increase in class 1 misdemeanor 100% • Petition Filed complaints while the statewide trend decreased less than 1"/,). 80% Only lib • A juvenile at intake during FY 2002 was lnost likely to be a black, 59% [] Petition/ 60% Detention Order 16 yea, old male. • 355 juveniles in FY 2002 had a risk assessment completed. Of @ 40% [] Resolved/ Diverted those, over half had a moderate score. 20% [] Other • 88% of new probation cases were for felonies or class 1 IJ 0% misdemeanors. JUVENILE INTAKE CASES, DEMOGRAPHICS • Detention placements refer to the decision, made by, an intake officer or judge, to detain a juvenile. See 'Terms and Concepts' for lib FY 2000-2002 the diffe,'ence between detention placements and detention admissions. Bla& • The intervals selected for days juveniles spent in detention (0-3, 4- Ill White 19.3% 20.7% 20.3% 21, 22-51, and 52 +) are consistent with applicable statutes found m Other 2.4% _.o9:,,/,¢,, 2.7% the COV. See AppendixJ for COVcitations. g • Of juveniles in pre-dispositional detention f,om the 4 u' District, Male 67.9% 67.7% 66.5% more than half were detained for 21 days or less. Female 32.1('/(, 32.3% 33.5% ,Ill R~SK ASSESSMENT RESULTS lib 8-12 7.5% 9.3% 8.9% FY 2002 13 9.9% 10.8% 10.4% 14 18.3"/,, 16.2% 16.4% High 21% ill 15 20.8% 21.0% 20.0"/,) 16 22.9% 21.3% 22.9% Moderate 51% 17 17.6% 17.4% 18.4% Im 18-20 2.7% 2 2% 1.6% Low 28% E ITOI'/Missin'¢ 0.5% 1.7% 1.4% lib Total/,uwile C;~scs .3,531 3~348 3~296 0% 10% 20')/(, 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90o/o 100 UHlcss Hoted ,~flwr,.visc, tt~csc data do ~lot include ¢tOI//CStlC l'CLltiOI/S Of clnld welfare complaints. ]'ercemages may n<,t add to t00% due to rounding. liil Data Resource Guide 1:}2002 OFFENSE* DISTRIBUTION FOR INTAKE CASES, NEW PROBATION CASES, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION PLACEMENTS, AND COMMITMENTS TO THE STATE OFFENSE* CATEGORY AND SEVERITY, FY 2002 • Of FY 2002 releases, the average length of stay (LOS) for juveniles in post-dispositional detention with prognuns was 0 0 4.6 months. The COV allows juveniles to be in post- Desertion/Support 0 0 dispositional detention for no longer than 6 mouths. A list of Spousal Abuse 816 0 1 0 COVcitations pertaining to DJJ can be found in Appendix J. Other DR/CW 695 0 0 0 See also 'Terms and Concepts" for the difference between types 7btal DR/CW 7,192 0 1 6 of detention admissions. |. • Of FY 2002 releases, the average LOS for juveniles committed Abusive Language 83 1 10 2 to the state was 18.6 months. The COl~" allows juveniles Alcohol 42 2 4 2 committed indeterminately to stay Lip to 36 months (unless Arson 9 3 2 5 committed for murder or manslaughter), and determinately Assault 673 89 227 14 until their 21 ~' birthday. A list of COVcitations pertaining to Burglary 126 13 34 35 Djj can be found in Appendix J. Contempt of Court 369 5 94 1 Disorderly Conduct 162 8 32 0 Escapes 7 0 6 0 AVERAGE LOS FOR PROBATION, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL Extortion 47 2 8 0 DETENTION, POST-DISPOSlTIONAL DETENTION (WITH Failure to Appear 201 0 140 3 PROGRAMS), STATE COMMITMENTS, AND PAROLE Family Offense 49 0 6 1 Fraud 60 0 9 0 FY 2002 RELEASES Gangs 0 0 1 0 500 ! Kidnapping 31 0 28 5 400 i I:arccny 449 61 111 50 I Misc/Other 288 0 57 6 ~, 300 i Murder 4 0 3 I Narcotics 193 34 51 14 200 -;! Obscenity 19 0 0 0 100 Obstruct Justice 47 1 15 0 Prob./Parole Violation 229 0 177 29 I I , Pre-disp I l'ost-disp Robbery 54 3 45 14 l)i'o])iilioll* + St:tie Pari)le I)ctcnti(m +i I)ctentiou Sexual Assat, h 54 8 51 24 I Status Offense 907 11 34 0 I I • Average I.()S 30 139 567 3(;7 +['clephone Law 10 0 2 0 , i Traffic 172 3 36 l 0 Rdeascs - 326 731 39 74 73 Trcspass 108 7 18 1 ::'Prol~,~tv>u I.C)S tAllliot [~C calculated due to ¢]ata lost dLIrlll~. S}+SIClll upg.rade, Vandalism 151 20 42 3 Weapons 80 13 32 3 PRE-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION LOS DISTRIBUTION 7atalflwenile Offbmes 4,624 284 1,275 223 FY 2002 RELEASES 50% ! 113 427 40% Classl Misdemeanor 1,558 137 387 2(] 40% -= Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 627 18 134 7 30% CH1NS/CHINSup 1,005 16 44 1 Other 584 0 283 32 20% 7atal flwenile Off;'nses 4,624 284 1,275 223 10% 7bmlJuveni/e Cases/ .3,296 284 Z34 78 Placements~Commitments * 0% :"-A Sillglt: case, i~]0.cclllc, tlt, or COllnllitlllullt Ill,iv itlvo]ve lllu]tipll: oFf¢IlScS. 0-3 da}s 4-21 22-51 52 + Uuh:ss no~ed othcrv, usc, thcsu data do uot nn'ludc dcunesth: relations or cluht wdfarc compJamts. Purceutages may not add to 100% due to roundh4:,. Data Resottrce (;tilde F12002 District 5 P.O. Box 1135 Suffolk, Virginia 23439 Director: William D. Harrell 757-923-2440 INTAKE COMPLAINTS, FY 2000-2002 ° This Region 3 CSU is composed of four localities, the cities of Franklin and Suffolk, and counties of Isle of Wight and Southampton. I)om. Rel./Claild Welf. ; 1~587] "' 1~712 7" 1~785 ° U.S. Census data indicate that between 1990 and 2000, this district's Felon), 427 273 413 juvenile population ages 10-17 increased 26% (from 11,686 to 14,694). Class 1 Misdemeanor 688 539 652 ° Intake cases are identified differently than in the past, to account Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 170 157 131 for variations in reporting across jurisdictions. A single intake NS/CHI NSup 62 62 54 case now includes all complaints reported for a single juvenile, on Other a single day, within a single locality. Technical Violations 60 82 67 ° In FY 2002, the 5 '1' District CSU processed 890 juvenile intakes and Traffic 9 8 16 1,391 juvenile complaints, for an average of 1.6 complaints per Other 106 141] 58 intake. Total [uwn~e Complaints 1)522 1)262 1)391 °A petition was filed in response to 96% of FY 2000 juvenile Total Con#laints 3,109 2, 974 3,176 complaints. Only 3% of complaints in District 5 were resolved or diverted compared to 16% on the statewide level. INTAKE DISPOSITION OF JUVENILE COMPLAINTS ° Between FY 2000 and FY 2002, domestic relations complaints FY 200,2 increased by 12%, while juvenile complaints decreased 9%. 100% Z4% [] Petition Filed ° Over half (56%) of FY 2002 complaints were for domestic relations Only 80% -' - or child welfare (not juvenile justice-related). H Petition/ 60% ~tl ° District 5 saw a 5% decrease in class 1 misdemeanor complaints Detention Order between FY 2000 and FY 2002, while the statewide trend decreased 40% [] Resolved/ less than 1%. 22% Diverted 20% • A juvenile at intake during FY 2002 was most likely to be a black, [] Other 17 ),eat" old male. 0% • 214 juveniles in FY 2002 had a risk assessment completed. Of JUVENILE INTAKE CASES, DEMOGRAPHICS these, half had a moderate score. FY 2000-2002 °92°/,, of new probation cases were for felonies or class 1 misdemeanors. Bla& 67.4% 68.2% 65.8% • Detention placenmnts refer to the decision, made by ,m intake White 32.2% 31.0% 33.1°/,, officer or judge, to detain a juvenile. See 'Terms and Concepts' for Other 0.4% 0.8% 1.0% the difference between detention placements and detention ..... o ~, i' ', • i!: .... admissions. Male 74.8% 76.0% 77.6% Female 25.2% 24.0% 22.4% R~sK ASSESSMENT RESULTS 8-12 10.7% 10.9% 9.1% FY 2002 13 10.9% 11.8% 10.6% 14 13.5% 13.9% 13.7% High ~ 14% 15 21.1% 16.9% 18.1% -! I ~ i r , 16 21.9% 22.3% 20.5% Moderate [;~[~i~]~. l 50% 17 19.9% 20.1% 24.0% q I : I 18-20 1.3% 2.9% 3.7% Low ~ 57°/0 E trot/Massing; 0.7% 1.2% 0.3% } q . i Total luwniL'. Cases 945 888 890 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100 Unless noted ol:herwise, these data ,do not include domestic relations or clnld welfare complaints. Percentages lnay not acid to 100% ctue to rounding. I i, , , i li Data Resonrce Gttide F}2002 OFFENSE* DISTRIBUTION FOR INTAKE CASES, NEW PROBATION CASES, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION PLACEMENTS, AND COMMITMENTS TO THE STATE OFFENSE* CATEGORY AND SEVERITY, FY 2002 • Of juveniles in pre-dispositional detention from the 5th District, more than half were detained for 21 days or less. 0 o • The Juvenile Tracking System shows no juveniles from the 5 'h Deserti0n/Support 263 0 0 01 District CSU were released from post-dispositional detention Spousal Abuse 191 0 0 0 (with programs) in FY 2002. Other DR/CW 87 0 0 0 • Of FY 2002 releases, the average len~h of stay (LOS) for 7btal DRICW 1,785 0 0 0 juveniles committed to the state was 12.8 months. The COV El allows juveniles committed indeterminately to stay up to 36 Abusive Language l 0 0 1 0 months (unless committed for murder or manslaughter), and Alcohol 27 0 0 l determinately until their 21 'I birthday. A list of COVcitations Arson 10 1 l 2 pertaining to Djj can be found in Appendix J. Assault 269 35 68 9 Burglary 79 ~ 19 32 17 Contempt of Court 34 0 17 1 Disorderly Conduct 23 2 5 0 Escapes 0 0 01 0 Extortion 0 0 0 0 AVERAGE LOS FOR PROBATION, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL Failure to Appear 3 0 1 1 DETENTION, POST-DISPOSITIONALDETENTION (WITH Family Offense 25 0 2 0 PROGRAMS), STATE COMMITMENTS, AND PAROLE Fraud 86 3 5 4 FY 2002 RELEASES Gangs 0 0 0' 0 500 Kidnapping 2 0 4 0 .__] Larceny 253 27' 76 44 400 Misc/Other 65 1 3 1 300 Murder 2 0 01 0 Narcotics 70 8 15 5 200 Obscenity 8 21 3 1 Obstruct Justice 18 0 5 1 100 Prob./Parole Violation 67 1 31 16 ___/ Robbery 11 0 7 5 F'ost-dis I) i)rot)alion . l)re-disp Slate Parole Sexual Assault 17 2 6 1 l)etention Detention Status Offense 29 0 1 0 Telephone Law 6 0' 0 0 IAvemge LOS I 25 389 273 _ Traffic 59 1 3 2 Rele:tses i 127 201 0 36 26 Trespass 54 6 5 3 *l>robat~on LOS ea~mot be calculated clue to data lost during system upgrade. Vandalism 103 9 26 11 Weapons 61 6 22 4 PRE-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION LOS DISTRIBUTION TotalJuvenile Offenses 1,391 125 339 129 FY 2002 RELEASES 50%1 "47% 59 153 Class"l Misdemeanor 652 561 124 36 40% Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 131 61 26 9 30o/,i - _. CHINS/CHINSup 54 0 3 0 Other 141 4 33 17 20% Total flzveni/e OAfenses 1,391 125 339 129 10% Total Juvenile Cases/ 890 125 200 35 Placements/Commitments * 0% , • A single case, placenie[it, OF colzllllitlilellt may involve multiple offenses. 0-3 days 4-21 22-51 52 + Unless noted otherwise, these data do not include domestic relations or child welfare colnp]amts. Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. rirgi,,if / Ill Jl l)ala Resemrce (,'u#/e F12002 100 East Broadway, Suite G05 @ District 6 Hopewell, Virginia 23860 Director: John H. Weigel, III 804-541-2265 • This Region 3 CSU is composed of seven localities, the cities of @ INTAWP ~nMPl AIIVTC. FY 9~U~-9~09 Emporia and Hopewell, and the counties of Brunswick, Greensville, Prince Geo,'ge, Surry, and Sussex. @ • U.S. Census data indicate that between 1990 and 2000, this district's juvenile population ages 10-17 increased 11% (from 10,938 to 12,145). • Intake cases are identified differently than in the past, to accoullt @ for variations in reporting across jurisdictions. A single intake case now includes all colnplaints reported for a single juvenile, on a single day, within a single locality. Q~hcl B Te&nkal Violations 118 90 90 • In FY 2002, the 6 'h District CSU p,ocessed 1,358 juvenile intakes Tmffic 8 1 3 and 2,064 juvenile complaints for an average of 1.5 complaints pe, @ Other 16 5 10 intake. Tot,,/[.~'nile ConCglmts lr797 1~837 21064 • A petition was filed in response to 91% of FY 2002 juvelfile Tohd Conc)/aints 3,627 4,015 4~ 104 complaints. Only 9% of complaints in District 6 were resolved or @ dive,-ted compared to 16% on tile statewide level. INTAKE D~SPOSITION OF JUVENILE COMPLAINTS • Between FY 2000 and FY 2002, domestic relations complaints FY 200;2 ino'eased by 11%, while juvenile complaints increased 15%. @ 100% [] IYtition Filed ° Half of FY 2002 COlnplaints were for domestic ,'elations or child 74% Only welfare (not juvenile justice-related). 80% [] Petition/ • The 6'h District CSU saw a 9"/,, increase in juvenile felony COlnplaints I 60% Detention Older between FY 2000 and FY 2002, while the statewide trend decreased 40% [] Resolved/ 3"/,,. Z Dive,ted • A jure,file at intake during FY 2002 was most likely to be a black, 20% 0% [] Ofiaer 16 year old male. 0% • 204 juveniles in FY 2002 had a risk assesslnent COlnpleted. Of m these, over half had a mode,'ate score. JUVENILE INTAKE CASES, DEMOGRAPHICS FY 2000-2002 °91% of new probation cases were for felonies or class 1 IE misdemeanors. Bla& • 26% of felonies and 15% of class 1 misdemeanors at intake ,esulted \Vh ire 39.2"/,, 32.6% 35.6% in detention. m Other 1.4% 1.3% 1.5% • Detention placements refer to the decision, lnade by; an intake officer or judge, to detain a juvenile. See 'Terms and Concepts' fo, g Male 74.6% 69.5% 72.8% the difference between detention placements and detention Female 25.4% 30.5% 27.3% admissions. R~sK ASSESSMENTRESULTS I 8-12 10.3% 9.7% 10.8% FY 2002 13 10.3% 11.7% 10.4% 14 14.6% 15.7% 15.0% High 18% B 15 18.0"/,, 21.4% 19.0% 16 22.1% 18.1% 22.9% Moderate 5i! 17 20.9% 19.5% 18.9% I 18-20 2.4% 2.7% 1.3% OLo/ [£) \V • . , ,, ,., _o/i) E wor/IVlissin,e, 1.4% 1.3% 1.8% ...... r Total ]u~Ti/c Glscs 1,252 lrU7 lr~58 0'7,, 10% 20% 30"/,, 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100 m [ Julcss uoted otiaerwlsc, tllcsc data do n,~t lllclutlc d,,mc~,t~c rd,mo~s or child ,a'dfarc complaints. l~crceuta~cs l/hlV Illl[ Att~] H) 100I~1 lille Iz~ I'IOLIII~tlII~. g I I I)ala Resource 6'Hide 1:}2002 OFFENSE* DISTRIBUTION FOR INTAt4E CASES, NEW PROBATION CASES, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION PLACEMENTS, AND COMMITMENTS TO THE STATE OFFENSE* CATEGORY AND SEVERITY, FY 2002 • The intervals selected fox days juveniles spent in detention (0- 3, 4-21, 22-51, a,ld 52 +) are consistent with applicable statutes Custody 0 0 found in the CO V. See Appendix J for CO Vcitations. Desertion/Support 0 0 • Of juveniles in p,e-dispositional detention from the ffh District, Spousal Abuse 132 0 I 0 ,marly two-thi,ds were detained for 21 days or less. Other DI~CW 65 0 0 0 7btal DR/CW 2, 040 0 I 6 • The Juvenile Tracking System shows no juveniles from the 6 'h District CSU were released from post-dispositional detention ivenile Offenl ses Abusive Language 36 0 4 l (with programs) in FY 2002. Alcohol 45 0 7 2 • Of FY 2002 releases, the aventge length of stay (LOS) for Arson 14 0 7 3 juveniles committed to the state was 8.3 months. The COIl Assault 404 13 82 13 allows juveniles committed indeterminately to stay up to 36 Burglary I 10 6 49 19 months (unless committed for murde, or ,nanslau?.o,hter), and Contempt o[Court 6 0 5 2 deterlninatelv until their 21 ~' birthday. A list of COl/citations Disorderly Conduct 180 I 29 4 pert,fining to DJJ can be found in Appendix J. Escapes 3 0 3 1 Extortion 9 1 5 ' 3 AVERAGE LOS FOR PROBATION, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL Failure to Appear 0 0 0 0 DETENTION, PosT-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION (WITH Family Offense 11 0 3 0 PROGRAMS), STATE COMMITMENTS, AND PAROLE Fraud 54 2' 7 1 FY 2002 RELEASES Gangs 0 0 0 0 500 Kidnapping 3 0 2 0 Larceny 302 24 94 39 400 Misc/Other 51 0 7 0 300 Murder I 0 0 0 Narcotics 131 3 40 11 200 Obscenity 4 0 0 0 Obstruct Justice 16 0 8 2 100 / Prob./Parole Violation 90 f) 74 14 I I _ P,obbcry 16 0 11 7 I'rol):llion* I're-(lisp I'osl-(lis 1) Slale I):u'ole Sexual Assault 21 5 10 4 Dclcnlioll I)clelllioll Status Offense 155 0 21 0 Telephone Law 8 0 2 0 • Average I,()S 24 2 :,4 409 ]¥affic 35 0 6 2 Rc'leases 75 374 () 24 25 Trespass 63 9 7 3 ::l'r(,l,at~,,n I.OS camP~* 1,,_. cah'ulated due m data h~st during system upg.ra,te. Vandalism 266 4 41 8 Weapons 30 1 24 I PRE-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION LOS DISTRIBUTION 7btal flwenile Offbnses 2, 064 70 548 146 FY 2002 RELEASES 40% - 38!~ .... 31 21 Class I Misdemeanor 1,108 33 203 43 30Y,,() - 26% Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 160 5 23 9 23% CHINS/CHINSup 166! 0 24 (} 20% - Other 103i 1 79 14 7btal luvenile O[fi'nses 2,0641 70 548 140 10% " 7btal Juveni/e Cases/ / 1,358 70 378 34 l'lacementslCommitments " x-/\ Slllg}c CASt-', ])]At'ClIlellt, {)r CnllllllitlllCllt llhlV H]V()IVtc nlultllqC o[fcH>c>. 0-3 dass 4-21 22-51 52+ [T)lless n<~ted ,~tllt:rxvlse, these ,]ata &) n(>t nlcludc ,t(>mestu" rclatu~lts or child wdLm: c,,nqqamts. I'crcemagcs mav Hot add to 100% due to TOUR,flu,g. I • T • ! SECTION Ih COMMUNI~;F PROGRAMS , ' ,~ = ' 33": Virginia ,-/ M Data Resource Guide t.32002 B District 7 230 25th Street Newport News, Virginia 23607 Director: \Valter J. Dean 757-926-8781 INTAKE COMPLAINTS, FY 2000-2002 • This Region 3 CSU is composed of one locality, the City of B Newport News. lllu. [~.a fil ~i~l~r( [o] i ~ILK,]. u / ~., n~; ~------~OIOII ,Zololl I' 2002 Dora. Rel./C_.hild Well. 31061 • U.S. Census data indicate that between 1990 and 2000, this district's juvenile population ages 10-17 increased 20% (from 17,381 to 20,893). B Felony 694 638 855 • Intake cases are identified differently than in the past, to account Class 1 Misdemeanor 1,009 1,059 1,110 for variations m repotting across jurisdictions. A single intake I Class 2-4 Misdemeano, 202 225 240 case now includes all complaints reported for a single juvenile, on CHI NS/Oil NSu p 292 359 409 a single day, within a single locality. Other • In FY 2002, the 7th District CSU processed 2,203 juvenile intakes M Tech nk:d Violations 315 340 257 and 3,199 juvenile complaints or an average of 1.5 complaints per Traffic 11 12 10 intake. II Other 417 424 318 • A petition was filed in response to 85% of juvenile compMnts. Total/uu~de Co,¢)laints 2)940 3)057 3) 199 • Between FY 2000 and FY 2002, domestic relations compMnts Total ConFlaims ~001 5,968 6,331 increased by 2%, while juvenile compMnts increased 9%. m • Nearly half (49%) of FY 2002 complaints were for domestic relations INTAKE DISPOSITION OF JUVENILE COMPLAINTS or child welfare (not juvenile justice-related). FY 2002 • The 7th District CSU saw a 23% increase in juvenile felony B _ 25% [] Petition Filed complaints between FY 2000 and FY 2002, while statewide trends decreased 3%. S0% Only g [] Petition/ • A juvenile at intake during FY 2002 was most likely to be a black, 60% - 50% -- Detention Order 15 );ear old male. 40% ! --[~ [] Resoh,ed/ • 581 juveniles in FY 2002 had a risk assessment completed. Of B these, nearly half had a moderate score. - ---I~ 13% ~). Diverted •Other • 93% of new probation cases were for felonies or class 1 :°"0% l_l misdemeanors. m JUVENILE INTAKE CASES, DEMOGRAPHICS • Detention placements refer to the decision, made by an intake officer or judge, to detain a juvenile. See 'Terms and Concepts' for FY 2000-.2002 the difference between detention placements and detention t] admissions. Bla& • The intervals selected for days juveniles spent in detention (0-3, 4- White 26.9% 29.8% 28.8% 21, 22-51, and 52 +) are consistent with applicable statutes found in B Other 2.3% 3.0% 3.2% the COV. See AppendixJ for COVcitations. • Of juveniles in pre-dispositional detention from the 7th District, m Mate 70.1% 68.9% 67.0% over half were detained for 21 days or less. Female 29.9% 31.1% 33.0% RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS Ill 8-12 8.3% 10.0% 9.3% FY 2002 13 8.7% 9.4% 9.7°/. 14 12.8% 15.3% 16.9% High ~ 19% B 15 19.9% 19.6% 20.6"/0 q 16 24.1% 19.8% 20.3% Moderate 48% 17 22.6% 22.5% 20.0% i ! 18-20 2.6% 2.3% 1.9% Low ~ 33°/(> E nor/Missing 0.9% 1.1% 1.4% Total [uwnile Cases 2,038 2,238 2,203 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100 m Ullless lloicd otherw)se, these data do ilOt include dollleStlC rdations or child welfare complaints. Percentages may not add to 100% clue to rou.dmg. I Data Resource GuMe F}2002 OFFENSE* DISTRIBUTION FOR INTAKE CASES, NEW PROBATION CASES, PRE-DIsPOSITIONAL DETENTION PLACEMENTS, AND COMMITMENTS TO THE STATE OFFENSE* CATEGORY AND SEVERITY, FY 2002 Offensei • Category[ " " • Of FY 2002 releases, the average length of stay (LOS) for Domesnc Relatmns/Gh juveniles in post-dispositional detention with programs was Custody 0.7 months. The COV allows juveniles to be in post- Desertion/Support 4131 0 0 0 dispositional detention for no longer than 6 months. A list of Spousal Abuse 4681 0 1 0 COVcitations pertaining to Djj can be found m Appendix J. Other DR/CW 2011 I 0 0 See also 'Terms and Concepts' for the difference between types Total DRICW 3,1321 1 3 ( of detention admissions. • Of FY 2002 releases, the average LOS for juveniles committed Abusive Language 421 2 15 2 to the state was 10.9 months. The COV allows juveniles Alcohol 401 14 14 3 committed indeterminately to stay up to 36 months (unless Arson 12! 5 8 4 committed for murder or manslaughter), and determinately Assault 4721 81 191 34 until their 21st birthday. A list of COVcitations pertaining to Burglary 1401 30 109 11 i Djj can be found in Appendix J. Contempt of Court 0 1 0 Disorderly Conduct 631 5 18 3 i Escapes -' 2 4 0 Extortion 281 4 9 0 AVERAGE LOS FOR PROBATION, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL Failure to Appear 231 0 17 0 DETENTION, POST-DISPOSITIONALDETENTION (WITH Family Offense 22[ 0 4 3 PROGRAMS), STATE COMMITMENTS, AND PAROLE Fraud 29I 6 10 2 FY 2002 RELEASES Gangs I,I 0 0 0 50O Kidnapping 1S[ 1 17 0 Larceny 499[ 73 201 73 400 Misc/Other 335] 6 115 1 i 300 - Murder -' 0 6 0 Narcotics 1811 34 84 28 C3 i 200 - Obscenity 0 1 0 Obstruct Justice 4%1 4 25 4 100 Prob./Parole Violation 2551 2 128 34 i Robbery 48! 4 46 7 l)re-disp l)ost-disp Sexual Assault 641 16 44 4 I) robalion * State I)arole l)elenlion Detention Status Offense 385[ 0 20 0 i Telephone Law 2 1 1 • Average LOS 28 22 331 343 Traffic 1221 3 61 10 i Rele:L~es 349 78g 81 39 Trespass 741 4 29 10 *l~robatlou LOS canuot be calculated due to data lost during systmn upgrade. Vandalism 1981 12 105 8 i Weapons 81! 14 52 10 PRE-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION LOS DISTRIBUTION ~talJuvenile Offenses 3,1991 324 1,335 252 FY 2002 RELEASES 40% I 35% I Felony 855 159 627 117 Class I Misdemeanor 1,110 142 371 82 30% Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 240 18 77 16 CHINS/CHINSup 409 0 24 3 20% Other 585 5 236 34 Total fi~venile Offenses 3,199 324 1,335 252 10% 7btalJuvenile Cases/ 2,203 324 788 79 Placements/Comm#ments * 0% • A single case, placement, or comnutmei~t may involve multiple offenses. 0-3 days 4-21 22-51 52+ Unless noted otherwise, these data do not include domestic relations or child welfare complahtts. Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. m Dala Resource Guide FY2002 m m 35 Wine Street |[W District 8 Hampton, Virginia 23669 Director: James B. Thomas 757-727-6184 INTAKE COMPLAINTS, FY 2000-2002 • This Region 3 CSU is composed of one locality, the City of Hampton. • U.S. Census data indicate that between 1990 and 2000, this district's g juvenile population ages 10-17 increased 22% (from 13,300 to 16,182). • Intake cases are identified differently than in the past, to account for variations in reporting across jurisdictions. A single intake IRI case now includes all complaints reported for a single juvenile, on a single day, within a single locality. • In FY 2002, the 8 '1' District CSU processed 2,153 juvenile intakes Tedmicd Violations 98 116 9~ and 2,966 juvenile complaints for an average of 3.4 complaints per Tmffic 27 82 164 intake. Other 96 301 325 • A petition was filed in response to 56% of juvenile complaints. 2) 433 2)626 2) 966 Tol OFFENSE* DISTRIBUTION FOR INTAKE CASES, NEW PROBATION CASES, PRE-DIsPOSlTIONAL DETENTION PLACEMENTS, AND COMMITMENTS TO THE STATE OFFENSE* CATEGORY AND SEVERITY, FY 2002 • The intervals selected for days juveniles spent in detention (0- 3, 4-21, 22-51, and 52+) are consistent with applicable statutes 0 0 found in the COV. See AppendixJ for COVcitations. Desertion/Support 309 O~ 0 0 ° Of juveniles in pre-dispositional detention fiom the 8 'h District, Spousal Abuse 506 0 0 0 over half were detained for 21 days or less. Othcr DR/CW 123 0 0 0 0 • The Juvenile Tracking System shows no juveniles from the 8 '1' 7btal DR/CW 4,295 0 0 District CSU were released from post-dispositional detention avemle Offenses i I" I .: I (with programs) m FY 9009 Abusive Language 43 0 0 Alcohol 48 0 3 0 ° Of FY 2002 releases, the average length of stay (LOS) for Arson 25 3 12 0 juveniles committed to the state was 13.9 months. The COl/ Assault 510 25 109 8 allows juveniles committed indeterminately to stay up to 36 __Burglary 87 9 32 6 months (unless committed for murder or manslaughter), and Contempt of Court 9 0 3 1 determinately until their 2F' birthday. A list of COVcitations Disorderly Conduct 28 0 5 0 pertaining to Djj can be found in Appendix J. Escapes 9 0 7 2 AVERAGELOS FOR PROBATION, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL Extortion 2 0! 0 0 DETENTION, POST-DISPOSITIONALDETENTION (WITH Failure to Appear 43 0 21 0 PROGRAMS),STATE COMMITMENTS, AND PAROLE Family Offense 40 0 0 0 Fraud 25 0 1 l FY 2002 RELEASES Gangs 0 0 0 () 500 Kidnapping 10 0 9 o Larceny 471 34 94 25 400 i I Misc/Other 357 0 31 0 300 - Murder 2 0 2 0 Narcotics 103 6 19 4 200 - Obsccnity 9 01 0 0 100 ..... Obstruct Justice 23 01 5 1 Prob./Parole Violation 95 I 48 16 I I Robbery 57 3 45 8 Pr(}l);ltion* I'rcdisl} Post-disp State Parole Sexual Assault 35 8 10 3 I)etention Detention Stares Offense 307 0 • Average LOS 29 422 3 13 Telephone Law 19 i 30 I i Traffic 313 4 0 RcIc;LsCS I 117 302 o 46 35 Trespass 88 3 7 4 *l'robat~ ,~ I+OSC,2llliOt [)C calculated tILie to data lost L{urlll~, s vstelll upgrade. Vandalism 111 12 12 0 Weapons 97 9 49 0 PRE-DISPOSMONAL DETENTION LOS DISTRIBUTION 7btal Juvenile Offe;;ses 2,966 ]/5 53] 80 FY 2002 RELEASES 40% 35% 56 284 Class I Misdemeanor 1,165 55 158 1C 30% Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 216 1 5 CH I NS/CH INSt, p 344 2 3 C 20% Other 591 1 81 ld 7btal /uvenile Offi'mes 2, 966 115 53 ] 80 10% 7btal fl,]enile Cases/ 2,153 115 3O7 37 /)/acementslCommitme,lts " 0% ~:-/\ shlg]e case, placenlettt, or cotunntnlcu~, nlav htvo],:e lllLlhlplc ofrellsos. 0-3 dass 4-21 22-51 52+ [.lttlus.,, ttotcd otherwise, these data do uot II/cluc]u dOlDCStic relations or clnld welfare complaiuts. Pcrcentag.es may not add to 100% due to rounding. Fir , i n i a 7 I l)ala Resource 6"uide F}2002 m 4093 Ironbound Road, Suite D B District 9 Williamsburg, Virginia 23188 Director: Thocnas A. Gooding 757-564-2460 E FY 2000-2002 • This Region 3 CSU is composed of eleven localities, the City of i Williamsburg, and the counties of Charles City, Gloucester, James City, King and Queen, King William, Mathews, Middlesex, New Dora. Rei./Ghild Welf. i 21821 3~108 21985 Kent, York, and York Count), for Poquoson. m i • U.S. Census data indicate that between 1990 and 2000, this district's Felony 439 653 61C juvenile population ages 10-17 increased 32% (from 20,292 to 26,797). Class 1 Misdemeanor 1,240 1,435 1~38c • Intake cases are identified differently than in the past, to account B Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 295 305 335 for variations in reporting across jurisdictions. A single intake CHINS/CHI NSu p 193 135 192 case now includes all complaints reported for a single juvenile, on Other a single day, within a single locality. m Technical Violations 73 85 115 • In FY 2002, the 9 '~' District CSU processed 1,842 juvenile intakes Tmffic 47 44 44 and 2,768 juvenile complaints for an average of 1.5 complaints per Other 134 147 83 intake. m Total fltwnk,ConFlainzs 2,421 2,804 2, 768 • A petition was filed in response to 85% of juvenile complaints. Total Co,wlaints 5~242 5,912 5, 753 • Between FY 2000 and FY 2002, domestic relations complaints i increased by 6%, while juvenile complaints increased 14%. I NTAKE DISPOSITION OF JUVENILE COMPLAINTS • More than half (52%) of FY 2002 complaints were for domestic FY 2002 relations or child welfare (not juvenile justice-related). m 100% [] Petition Filed • The 9 'h District CSU saw a 39% increase in juvenile felony Only complaints between FY 2000 and FY 2002, while statewide trends 80% 62% [] Petition/ decreased 3%. B Detention Order • A juvenile at intake during FY 2002 was most likely to be a white, 17 year old male. 761 o [] Resolved/ m fill Diverted • 198 juveniles had a risk assessment completed. Of these, over half had a moderate score. [] Other O% • 91% of new probation cases were for felonies or class 1 W misdemeanors. JUVENILE INTAKE CASES, DEMOGRAPHICS • Detention placements refer to the decision, made by an intake FY 2000-2002 officer or judge, to detain a juvenile. See 'Terms and Concepts' for I the difference between detention placements and detention admissions. Bla& @ White 71.3% 70.4% 68.6%, • The intervals selected for days juveniles spent in detention (0-3, 4- 21, 22-51, and 52 +) are consistent with applicable statutes found in 1.7% 1.7% 2.3%! Other the COV. See AppendixJ for COgcitations. 6~ne.,,,nmnnn~ae I Male 74.7% 75.3% 76.1% Female 25.3% 24.7% 23.9% i RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS B 8-12 5.2% 4.8% 5.6% FY 2002 13 7.1% 6.6% 6.8% 14 12.4% 13.3% 12.7% High ~ 17% B 15 17.1% 18.2% 18.4% " L , , ~ i . 16 24.7% 26.1% 26.5% Moderate mlMi lmlimu 17 30.5% 28.3% 26.9% -I I I m 18-20 3.0% 2.4% 2.3% Low ~ 21% Error/Missing; 0.2% 0.2% 0.7% i Total l,wnile Cases 1~717 11695 11842 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100 m Unless noted otherwise, these data do not include domesuc relations or child welfare complaints. Percentages may not add to 100% clue to rounding. m Data Resource Guide 1:}2002 OFFENSE* DISTRIBUTION FOR INTAKE CASES, NEW PROBATION CASES, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION PLACEMENTS. AND COMMITMENTS TO THE STATE OFFENSE* CATEGORY AND SEVERITY, FY 2002 Offense Category,. • Of juveniles in pre-dispositional detention from the 9 ~h District, Domest,c' I . Relatmns/Chi • over two-thirds were detained for 21 days or less. 0 0 • Of FY 2002 releases, the average length of stay (LOS) for Desertion/Support 447 0 0 0 juveniles in post-dispositional detention with programs was Spousal Abuse 352 0 0 0 4.7 months. The COV allows juveniles to be in post- Other DR/CW 95 0 0 0 dispositional detention for no longer than 6 months. A list of Total DRJCW 2,985 0 0 COVcitations pertaining to DJJ can be found in Appendix J. mum m See also 'Terms and Concepts' for the difference between types Abusive Language 17 0 2 0 of detention admissions. Alcohol 183 3 8 0 Arson 47 6 23 0 • Of FY 2002 releases, the average LOS for juveniles committed to the state was 12.8 months. The COV allows juveniles Assault 368 38 124 7 committed indeterminately to stay up to 36 months (unless Burglary 93 16 39 7 Contempt of Court 41 2 20 4 committed for murder or manslaughter), and determinately Disorderly Conduct 92 3 12 2 until their 21 ~' birthday. A list of COVcitations pertaining to Escapes 1 0 0 o DJJ can be found in Appendix J. Extortion 26 0 5 2 AVERAGE LOS FOR PROBATION, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL Failure to Appear 5 0 6 0 DETENTION, POST-DISPOSITIONALDETENTION (WITH Family Offense 118 0 2 o PROGRAMS), STATE COMMITMENTS, AND PAROLE Fraud 47 1 17 0 FY 2002 RELEASES Gangs 0 0 0 0 5OO Kidnapping 7 1 4 1 Larceny 400 31 99 17 400 Misc/Other 108 1 19 1 Murder 2 0 I 0 ~, 300 Narcotics 241 14 39 4 "q 200 Obscenity 32 0 7 2 Obstruct Justice 27 1 11 1 100 Prob./Parole Violation 114 2 68 10 Robbery 16 1 14 1 Sexual Assault 54 2 31 10 Status Offense 75 4 8 0 Telephone Law 9 0 2 0 i Average1.O! Traffic 265 1 26 4 Rdeases Trespass 56 1 7 4 Vandalism 267 6 4O 2 *Probation LOS cannot be calculated due to data lost during systen~ upgrade. Weapons 57 3 25 2 PRE-DISPOSlTIONAL DETENTION LOS DISTRIBUTION 7btal Juvenile Offenses 2,768 137 659 81 FY 2002 RELEASES 50% 66 275 40% Classl Misdemeanor 1,389 58 247 24 Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 335 6 41 6 30% CHINS/CHINSup ]92 4 l0 (~ Other 242 3 86 10 20% ~tal /uveni/e Offenses 2,768 137 659 81 ]0% "FomlJuvenile Cases/ 1,842 137 380 29 Placements~Commitments * 0% "~A single case, p]acement, or commitment may involve multiple offenses. 0-3 days 4-21 22-51 52+ Unless noted otherwise, these data do not include domestic relations or child welfare complaints. Percemages may not add to 100% clue to rounding. lU Data Resource (;uide FY2002 Uli District 10 P.O. Box 441 lib Charlotte Court House, Virginia 23923 Director: Robert C. Bradner 434-542-5080 INT~V~ [~.fl,MDI,~IIMTg FY 9~('1('1-9('1~9 • This Region 1 CSU is composed of eight localities, the counties of II11 Appomattox, Btickingham, Charlotte, Cumberland, Halifax, Lunenburg, Mecklenburg, and Prince Edward. • U.S. Census data indicate that between 1990 and 2000, this district's Iii juvenile population ages 10-17 increased 6% (from 15,512 to 16,489). • Intake cases are identified differently than in the past, to account Iii for variations in reporting across jurisdictions. A single intake case now includes all complaints reported for a single juvenile, on a single day, within a single locality. Other Ill Technical Violations 89 83 50 • In FY 2002, the 10u' District CSU processed 1,447 juvenile iritakes Traffic 10 8 9 and 1,939 juvenile COlnplaints for an average of 1.3 complaints per Other 64 38 26 intake. 116 Total [uuvvile ConF/amts ll899 6831 6939 • A petition was filed in response to 94% of juvenile complaints. Total ConFlai',vts 5)542 5)347 5,556 Only 3% of complaints in District 10 were resolved or diverted compared to 16% on the statewide level. M iNTAKE DISPOSITION OF JUVENILE COMPLAINTS • Between FY 2000 and FY 2002, domestic relations complaints FY 2002', decreased by less than 1%, while juvenile complaints increased 2%. I11 100% I [] Petition Filed • Nearly two-thirds (65%) of FY 2002 complaints were for domestic ] 77% relations or child welfare (not juvenile justice-related). 80% Only lib [] Petition/ • The 10 'h District CSU saw an 8% increase in juvenile felony 60°/`, Detention Order COlnplaints between FY 2000 and FY 2002, while statewide trends decreased 3%. 40% [] Res o lved / ill Diverted • A juvenile at intake during FY 2002 was most likely to be a black, 20°/{) 17 year old male. [] Other 0% • 185 juveniles in FY 2002 had a risk assessment completed. Of I11 these, over half had a moderate score. JUVENILE INTAKE CASES, DEMOGRAPHICS • 93% of new probation cases were for felonies or class 1 FY 2000-2002 misdemeanors. Ilil • Detention placements refer to the decision, made by an intake Bla& officer or judge, to detain a juvenile. See 'Terms and Concepts' for White 41.9% 43.2% 40.2% the difference between detention placements and detention Iil Other 0.8% 1.1% 0.7% admissions. • The intervals selected for days juveniles spent in detention (0-3, 4- Ill Male 71.5% 73.6% 68.7% 21, 22-51, and 52 +) I Data Resource Guide FY2002 OFFENSE* DISTRIBUTION FOR INTAKE CASES, NEW PROBATION CASES, PRE-DIsPOSITIONAL DETENTION PLACEMENTS, AND COMMITMENTS TO THE STATE OFFENSE* CATEGORY AND SEVERITY, FY 2002 "Of juveniles in pre-dispositional detention from the 10 'h District, nearly three-quarters were detained for 21 days or less. Custody 0 0 Desertion/Support 0 0 • Of FY 2002 releases, the average len~h of stay (LOS) for Spousal Abuse 439 0 0 0 juveniles in post-dispositional detention with programs was Other DR/CW 191 0 0 0 0.5 months. The COV allows juveniles to be in post- Total DR/CW 3,617 0 0 0 dispositional detention for no longer than 6 months. A list of I COVcitations pertaining to Djj can be found in Appendix J. wemle Offens~ es I I Abusive Language 23 0 0 0 See also 'Terms and Concepts' for the difference between types Alcohol 74 2 7 2 of detention admissions. Arson 18 2 8 3 • Of FY 2002 releases, the average LOS for juveniles committed Assault 305 39 86 10 to the state was 13.7 months. The COV allows juveniles Burglary 107 15 32 6 committed indeterminately to stay up to 36 months (unless Contempt of Court 145 4 41 0 committed for murder or manslaughter), and determinately Disorderly Conduct 87 0 11 1 until their 21 ~ birthday. A list of COVcitations pertaining to Escapes 1 0 0 0 DJJ can be found in Appendix J. Extortion 4 0 1 0 AVERAGELOS FOR PROBATION, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL Failure to Appear 15 0 6 0 Family Offense 17 1 0 0 DETENTION, POST-DISPOSlTIONALDETENTION (WITH Fraud 39 5 4 0 PROGRAMS),STATE COMMITMENTS, AND PAROLE Gangs 0 0 0 o FY 2002 RELEASES Kidnapping 2 0 1 1 500 Larceny 287 40 76 10 400 Misc/Other 43 0 14 3 Murder 2 0 2 0 300 Narcotics 57 4 9 1 Obscenity 6 1 0 0 200 Obstruct Justice 19 1 5 1 100 Prob./Parole Violation 47 1 10 2 Robbery 15 4 11 2 __III .? Sexual Assault 45 3 29 2 Pre-disp Post-disp Probation* Stale Parole Status Offense 268 1 8 0 l)elention l)elention Telephone Law 4 0 0 0 I• Average LOS 20 14 418 240 Traffic 61 1 2 0 Trespass 55 9 3 0 Releases 169 286 I 20 . 23 Vandalism 153 21 31 4 *Probation LOS cannot be calculated due to data lost during system upgrade. Weapons 40 8 14 3 PRE-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION LOS DISTRIBUTION TotalJuvenile Offenses 1,939 162 411 51 .FY 2002 RELEASES , ~c~o/_0% I 46% 58 176 Class 1 Misdemeanor 833 93 158 19 0% Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 243 9 43 0 0% CH1NS/CHINSup 284 1 9 0 Other 85 1 25 3 0% Total flwenile Offenses 1,939 162 411 51 9% 0% TotMJuvenile Cases/ 1,447 162 286 17 Placements/Commitments* 0% *A singJe case, placement, or conm,tment may involve multiple offenses. 0-3 days 4-21 22-51 52+ Unless noted otherwise, these data do not include domestic relations or child welfare cqmplaints. Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. 'Verge ' -/ l)a/a Resource 6'uMe F12002 20 East Tabb Street, Suite 300 District 11 Petersburg, Virginia 23803 Director: Frances H. Brown 804-733-2371 INTAKE COMPLAINTS, FY 2000-2002 "This Region 3 CSU is composed of five localities, the City of Petersburg and the counties of kanelia, Dinwiddie, Nottoway, and Powhatan. Dom. Rel./Child Well. i 3,368 3,226 3,092 ~~~.17i; I[Mllt~dd-411i:~]t,~ [. 1:5~-°ii/. I~]{~_ ' ~]~i :, • U.S. Census data indicate that between 1990 and 2000, this district's Felony 470 393 431 juvenile population ages 10-17 increased 22% (from 10,126 to 12,350). Class 1 Misdemeanor 887 622 640 • Intake cases are identified differently than in the past, to account Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 192 295 264 for variations in reporting across jurisdictions. A single intake CHINS/CHINSup 266 195 140 case now includes all complaints reported for a single juvenile, on Other a single day, within a single locality. Technical Violations 150 171 104 • In FY 2002, the 11 '1' District CSU processed 1,138 juvenile intakes Traffic 14 32 52 and 1,711 juvenile complaints for an average of 1.5 complaints per Other 69 65 80 intake. gl 1,773 1,711 Totalflwenile Complaints 2,048 • A petition was filed in response to 77% of juvenile complaints. Tota/ Complaints 5,416 4999 4803 • Between FY 2000 and FY 2002, domestic relations complaints decreased by 8%, while juvenile complaints decreased 16%. I NTAK E DISPOSITION OF JUVENILE COMPLAINTS FY 2002 • Nearly two-thirds (64%) of FY 2002 complaints were for domestic relations or child welfare (not juvenile justice-related). 100% [] IYtition Filed Only • The 11 'h District CSU saw a 28% decrease in class 1 misdemeanor 80% complaints between FY 2000 and FY 2002, while statewide trends 58% [] Petition/ decreased less than 1%. 60°,4) Detention Order • A juvenile at intake during FY 2002 was most likely to be a black, [] Resolved/ 17 year old male. Diverted 20% • 204 juveniles in FY 2002 had a risk assessment completed. Of [] Other these, over half had a moderate score. 0% • 85% of new probation cases were for felonies or class 1 JUVENILE INTAKE CASES, DEMOGRAPHICS misdemeanors. FY 2000-2002 • Detention placements refer to the decision, made by an intake officer or judge, to detain a juvenile. See 'Terms and Concepts' for Black 71.6% 71.1% 69.9% the difference between detention placements and detention White 27.8% 28.3% 29.7% admissions. Other 0.6% 0.6% 0.4% • The intervals selected for days juveniles spent in detention (0-3, 4- I~ 1L ,11 .::g,z4~Z::]k_ L, ,1t" ~.'.iiJld~i ilL;i: !, • !) ~;~. _:tIfl , 21, 22-51, and 52 +) are consistent with applicable statutes found in Male 76.40/0 70.0% 72.3% the COV. See AppendixJ for COVcitations. Female 23.6% 30.1% 27.7% ~:~]I 1..?~,,~lb a:: )ii., .ll .liiL:. ;i.]li~d[:TL'i,: RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS 8-12 8.5% 7.4% 8.5% FY 2002 13 10.3% I 0.2% 9.9% 25% 14 12.8% 15.3% 12.3% High 15 20.3% 19.8% 18.2% 16 23.2% 22.8% 21.4% Moderate 58% 17 21.9% 21.5% 26.2% 18-20 2.6% 2.6% 2.8% Low 17% Error/Missing 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% Total flweni/e Cases 1,431 1,258 I, 138 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100 Unless noted otherwise, these data do not include domestic relations or child welfare complaints. Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. Data Resource Guide F}2002 OFFENSE* DISTRIBUTION FOR INTAKE CASES, NEW PROBATION CASES, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION PLACEMENTS, AND COMMITMENTS TO THE STATE OFFENSE* CATEGORY AND SEVERITY, FY 2002 • Of FY 2002 releases, the average length of stay (LOS) for juveniles in post-dispositional detention with programs was C 0 3.9 months. The COV allows juveniles to be in post- Desertion/Su 0 0 dispositional detention for no longer than 6 months. A list of Spousal Abuse 269 0 0 0 COVcitations pertaining to DJJ can be found m Appendix J. Other DR/CW 42 0 2 0 See also 'Terms and Concepts' for the difference between types Total DR/CW 3,092 0 2 0 of detention admissions. I • Of FY 2002 releases, the average LOS for juveniles committed Abusive Langt, age 20 1 0 0 to the state was 12.9 months. The COV allows juveniles Alcohol 47 0 0 1 committed indeterminately to stay up to 36 months (unless Arson 18 2 6 1 committed for murder or manslaughter), and determinately Assault 263 40 93 14 until their 21 ~' birthday. A list of COVcitations pertaining to Burglary 53 10 32 10 Djj can be found in Appendix J. Contempt of Court 110 l 50 1 Disorderly Conduct 31 I 51 Escapes 2 0 0 Extortion 8 1 1 AVERAGE LOS FOR PROBATION, PRE-DISPOSlTIONAL Failure to Appear 2 0 3 DETENTION, POST-DISPOSITIONALDETENTION (WITH Family Offense 35 0 2 PROGRAMS), STATE COMMITMENTS, AND PAROLE Fraud 29 4 6 FY 2002 RELEASES Gangs 0 0 0 )UU Kidnapping 9 0 7 Larceny 224 37 84 35 4OO Misc/Other 94 0 14 1 Murder 2 0 1 j 300- Narcotics 138 10 30 2 ~ 200 Obscenity 2 2 0 0 Obstruct Justice 25 1 6 ,00 I- Prob./Parole Violation 104 1 62 9 Robbery 28 2 24 . Sexual Assauh 17 2 12 1 Probation" , 0 I Detenti°n Stares Offense 104 19 4 I Telephone Law 9 0 l 0 I [] AverageLOS 27 119 392 300 "lYaffic 152 2 5 0 ] Releases 153 322 5 42 35 Trespass 51 2 9 0 *l>robatioH LOS caintot be calculated due to data lost duri~lg system upgrade. Vandalism 91 11 21 9 Weapons 43 16 29 3 TotalJuvenile Offenses 1,711 165 507 102 PRE-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION LOS DISTRIBUTION FY 2002 RELEASES 40% - 330/0 64 223 Class 1 Misdemeanor 640 76 145 3Z 30% Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 264 5 57 11 I CHINS/CHINSup 140 19 6 0 20% Other 236 1 76 9 Toml /uvenile Offenses 1,711 165 507 102 10% TotalJu venile Cases/ 1,138 165 311 39 Placements/Commitments* 0% *A single case, placement, or comlnitment may involve multiple offenses. 0-3 days 4-21 22-51 52+ Unless noted otherwise, these data do not include domestic relauons or child welfare COlnplaints. Percentages may llOt add to 100% due to rounding. V g, in:ia -, ii I Data Resottrce 6'uide 1:}2002 m District 7000 Lucy Corr Boulevard i 12 Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Director: Charles R. Chitwood 804-748-1372 INTAKE COMPLAINTS, FY 2000-2002 • This Region 3 CSU is composed of two localities, the City of m Colonial Heights and the County of Chesterfield. • U.S. Census data indicate that between 1990 and 2000, this district's juvenile population ages 10-17 increased 33% (from 27,880 to 37,144). B • Intake cases are identified differently than in the past, to accot, nt for variations in reporting across jurisdictions. A single intake case now includes all complaints reported for a single juvenile, on i a single day, within a single locality. • In FY 2002, the 1T h District CSU processed 5,241 juvenile intakes I Technical Violations 304 237 225 and 7,012 juvenile complaints for an average of 1.3 complaints per intake. Traffic 10 3 10 Other 250 315 352 • A petition was filed in response to 53% of juvenile complaints. m Over 46% of comphlints in District 12 were resolved or diverted Total/,r~nile Co,,¢~laints 6,618 6,310 7,012 compared to only 16% on the statewide level. Total Co~Flamts 13,308 13,607 14,339 • Between FY 2000 and FY 2002, domestic ,elations complaints B increased by 10%, while juvenile complaints increased 6%. INTAKE DISPOSITION OF JUVENILE COMPLAINTS • Over half (51%) of FY 2002 complaints we,'e for domestic relations FY 2002 or child welfare (not juvenile justice-related). m 100% [] Petition Filed • The 12 'l' District CSU saw a 6% increase in class 1 misdemeanor 800/,, . Only complaints between FY 2000 and FY 2002, while statewide trends [] Petition/ decreased less than 1%. B 60% 47% Detention Order • A juvenile :it intake during FY 2002 was most likely to be a white, 40% [] Resolved/ 16 or 17 },ear old male. B Diverted • 241 juveniles in FY 2002 had a risk assessment completed. Of 20% these, over half had a moderate score. 0% [] Other 0% • 82% of new probation cases were for felonies or class 1 m misdemeanors. JUVENILE INTAKE CASES, DEMOGRAPHICS • Detention placements ,'efer to the decision, lnade by an intake FY 2000-2002 officer or judge, to detain a juvenile. See 'Terms and Concepts' for I the difference between detention placements and detention admissions. Bla& White 61.0% 59.0% 58.6% • The intervals selected for days juveniles spent in detention (0-3, 4- I Other 3.0% 2.2% 2.4% 21, 22-51, and 52 +) are consistent with applicable statutes found in the COl/'. See AppendixJ for COVcitations. @ Male 68.70/o 68.2% 66.2% Female 31.3% 31.8% 33.8% RIsK ASSESSMENT RESULTS m 8-12 9.5% 10.7% 9.9% FY 2002 13 9.5% 8.8% 9.5% 14 16.0% 13.5% 13.7"/o High 116% m 15 19.9% 19.3% 18.4% ! 16 21.0% 22.7% 23.3% Moderate 57% 17 22.0% 23.2% 23.4% q I 18-20 1.5% 1.2% 1.2% Low "'' • ,, . b :,. I 27%i E rror/Mis,;ing 0.7% 0.5% 0.7% Total/,zenile Cases 5, 042 4, 773 5,241 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100 B Unless noted olherw~se, tllese data do not include domestic relations or clnld welfare complaints. Percentages may not add to 100% due to rou~khng. I Data Resource GuMe D2002 OFFENSE* DISTRIBUTION FOR INTAKE CASES, NEW PROBATION CASES, PRE-DIsPOSITIONAL DETENTION PLACEMENTS, AND COMMITMENTS TO THE STATE OFFENSE* CATEGORY AND SEVERITY, FY 2002 • Of juveniles in pre-dispositional detention from the 12 u' District, nearly two-thirds were detained for 21 days or less. 0 0 • Of FY 2002 releases, the average length of stay (LOS) for Desertion/Support 1,553 0 0 0 juveniles in post-dispositional detention with programs was Spousal Abuse 565 0 0 0 0.8 months. The COV allows juveniles to be in post- Other DR/CW 47 0 0 0 dispositional detention for no longer than 6 months. A list of ~tal DR/CW Z327 0 0 6 COgcitations pertaining to DJJ can be found in Appendix J. I • : ,vemle Ot:fcnstes . . i I See also 'Terms and Concepts' for the difference between types Abusive Language 116 0 2 1 of detention admissions. Alcohol 235 2 6 1 Arson 113 1 17 2 • Of FY 2002 releases, the average LOS for juveniles committed Assault 1,159 39 218 15 to the state was 15 months. The COV allows juveniles Burglary 226 11 48 10 committed indeterminately to stay up to 36 months (unless Contempt of Court 205 2 86 5 committed for murder or manslaughter), and determinately Disorderly Conduct 196 6 I 0 3 until their 2V' birthday. A list of COVcitations pertaining to Escapes 1 0 0 0 Djj can be found in Appendix J. Extortion 29 0 1 0 AVERAGE LOS FOR PROBATION, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL Failure to Appear 100 0 37 1 DETENTION, POST-DISPOSITIONALDETENTION (WITH Family Offense 25 1 2 0 Fraud 127 2 25 0 PROGRAMS), STATE COMMITMENTS, AND PAROLE Gangs 0 0 0 0 FY 2002 RELEASES Kidnapping 14 0 5 0 5O0 Larceny 1,290 31 162 23 40O Misc/Other 378 2 20 0 Murder 1 0 10 3 y.. 300 Narcotics 436 16 30 2 Obscenity 92 1 4 0 200 ' Obstruct Justice 62 2 8 7 100 Prob./Parole Violation 225 1 178 8 Robbery 31 4 26 2 Sexual Assault 112 8 48 11 lq'ol)ation* Pre-disp Post-disp State Parole Stares Offense 856 10 8 0 l)etention Detention Telephone Law 31 0 2 1 • Average I,OS 20 25 457 314 "l?affic 101 1 10 3 Trespass 219 5 12 0 Rele:tses 191 I 789 1 I 28 22 Vandalism 527 6 67 6 "~t'robatiou LOS cannot be calculated due to data lost during system upgrade. Weapons 105 2 65 1 PRE-DISPOSMONAL DETENTION LOS DISTRIBUTION 7btalJuvenile OJJbnses ZO12 153 1,102 105 FY 2002 RELEASES 40% 374 Class 1 Misdemeanor 3,516 67 431 33 30°/, Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 831 12 101 11 CHINS/CHINSup 881 10 10 0 20% Other 587 6 191 8 8% Total flwenile O~Fenses ZOI2 153 1,102 105 10% 7btalJuvenile Cases/ 5,241 153 797 31 P/acements/Commitznents * 0% T~ "-A single case, pla,'emem, or comtmtment may involve multiple offeuses. 0-3 days 4-21 22-51 52+ UMess rioted otherwise, these data do trot include domestic relations or c)fiid welfare complaints. Percelltages may not add to 100% due to rounding. m Data Resource Guide FY2002 Im 1600 North 17th Street, Suite C104 District 13 Richmond, Virginia 23219 m Director: Sue Mayes 804-646-2901 I INTAKE COMPLAINTS, FY 2000-2002 • This Region 3 CSU is composed of one locality, the City of Richmond. Prior to FY 2002, the lY h District was part of Region 2. • U.S. Census data indicate that between 1990 and 2000, this district's juvenile population ages 10-17 increased 12% (from 16,137 to 18,037). • Intake cases are identified differently than in the past, to account for variations in reporting across jurisdictions. A single intake case now includes all complaints reported for a single juvenile, on a single day, within a single locality. • In FY 2002, the 13 'I' District CSU processed 2,343 juvenile intakes Technical Violations 449 324 273 and 3,641 juvenile complaints for an average of 1.6 complaints per Traffic 19 10 15 intake. Other 56 85 79 • A petition was filed in response to 89% of juvenile complaints. Tota/Juveni,l,e Complaints 4,192 3,985 3, 641 • Between FY 2000 and FY 2002, domestic relations complaints Total Complaints 9,375 9, 042 8,347 decreased by 9%, while juvenile complaints decreased 13%. B • Over half (56%) of FY 2002 complaints were for domestic relations INTAKE DISPOSITION OF JUVENILE COMPLAINTS or child welfare (not juvenile justice-related). FY 2002 • The lY h District CSU saw a 16% increase m juvenile felony 100% [] Petition Filed complaints between FY 2000 and FY 2002, while statewide trends Only decreased 3%. 80% • A juvenile at intake during FY 2002 was most likely to be a black, ___5_3°7o [] Petition/ 15 year old male. 60% Detention Order • 334 juveniles in FY 2002 had a risk assessment completed. Of 40% V1 Resolved/ these, nearly two-thirds had a moderate score. Diverted 20% • 89% of new probation cases were for felonies or class 1 [] Other misdemeanors, am 0% • Detention placements refer to the decision, made by an intake JUVENILE iNTAKE CASES, DEMOGRAPHICS officer or judge, to detain a juvenile. See 'Terms and Concepts' for the difference between detention placements and detention .==. FY 2000-2002 admissions. • The intervals selected for days juveniles spent in detention (0-3, 4- Black 21, 22-51, and 52 +) :ire consistent with applicable statutes found in White 4.8% 4.8% 4.4% the CO V. See Appendix J for CO Vcitations. Other 0.6% 0.8% 0.6% mm "Of juveniles in pre-dispositional detention from the 13 *h District, i Malc 71.70/0 73.00/0 75.70/0 over half were detained for 21 days or less. Female 28.3% 27.0% 24.3% Hmm iNm Hi RISK ASSESSMENTRESULTS 8-12 8.6%! 9.6% 9.5% FY 2002 m 13 10.3% 10.5% 10.2% 14 16.7% 17.7% 16.0% High ~/i 26% m 15 19.4% 19.7% 21.9% 16 21.3% 20.2% 21.4% Moderate iJ MIB ||lfl lm Ellll [] 65% 17 20.8% 19.9% 18.7% @ 18-20 2.4% 2.1% 1.8% Low Im ;O/o Error/Missing 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% Total.flwenile Cases .3.066 2,713 2,343 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100 g Unless noted otherwise, these data do not include domestic relauons or child welfare complaints. ]ercemages) may not add to 100% due to rounding. E Data Resource Guide 1:}'2002 OFFENSE* DISTRIBUTION FOR INTAKE CASES, NEW PROBATION CASES, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION PLACEMENTS, AND COMMITMENTS TO THE STATE OFFENSE* CATEGORY AND SEVERITY, FY 2002 • Of FY 2002 releases, the average len~h of stay (LOS) for juveniles in post-dispositional detention with programs was 0.8 months. The COVallows juveniles to be in post- Custody 0 1 dispositional detention for no longer than 6 months. A list of Desertion/Support 0 0 COVcitations pertaining to DJJ can be found in Appendix J. Spousal Abuse 797 0 0 See also 'Terms and Concepts' for the difference between types Other DR/CW 232 0 0 of detention admissions. 7bta/ DR/CW 4, 706 0 1 • Of FY 2002 releases, the average LOS for juveniles COlnmitted Abusive Language 80 4 6 4 to the state was 15.6 months. The COV allows juveniles Alcohol 16 l 3 0 committed indeterminately to stay up to 36 months (unless Arson 49 10 17 0 committed for murder or manslaughter), and determinately Assault 778 79 391 26 until their 21 ~ birthday. A list of COVcitations pertaining to Burglary 94 19 61 8 DJJ can be found in Appendix J. Contempt of Court 84 2 69 5 Disorderly Conduct 231 11 53 3 Escapes 30 1 26 6 AVERAGE LOS FOR PROBATION, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL Extortion 64 6 22 0 Failure to Appear 68 0 123 0 DETENTION, POST-DISPOSlTIONALDETENTION (WITH Family Offense 49 0 14 3 PROGRAMS), STATE COMMITMENTS, AND PAROLE Fraud 22 1 7 3 FY 2002 RELEASES Gangs 0 0 0 0 500 i Kidnapping 14 1 15 4 I Larceny 388 74 227 46 400 - Misc/Other 117 2 40 3 300 Murder 38 1 26 8 Narcotics 299 49 179 33 200 Obscenity 5 1 2 0 Obstruct Justice 84 2 31 4 100 - Prob./Parole Violation 267 3 207 49 1 1 Robbery 84 9 82 22 Pre-disI} l'(}sl-{lisp I'rol}ati(}t]* St;ale I}arole Sexual Assault 47 12 38 8 l)etention l)etention Status Offense 72 17 14 0 [] AveFage I,OS 26 25 476 315 I / Telephone Law 1 0 0 0 i Traffic 175 4 84 14 Rele;LseS 426 I 1,116 3 73 58 ] ~lTespass 120 8 55 11 ':-l'ro[mtton I.OS cannot be calculated due to data lost during system upgrade. Vandalism 179 13 64 4 Weapons 186 29 178 27 PRE-DISPOSlTIONAL DETENTION LOS DISTRIBUTION 7bta/Juvenile Offenses 3,641 359 2,034 291 FY 2002 RELEASES 40% 167 948 30% -, 29% 29% 28% Class 1 Misdemeanor 1,560 151 695 71 Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 422 19 124 22 20% CHINS/CHINSup 123 17 27 3 Other 367 5 240 5 I I0% Tota/ flwenile Q~enses 3,641 359 2,034 2.91 7btal Juvenile Cases/ 0% 2,343 35.9 1,121 101 Placements/Comm#rnems* 0-3 days 4-21 22-51 52+ :'~A single case, p]acenmnt, or conunitment may involve multiple offenses. Uuless noted otherwise, these data do ;tot include domesuc relations or child welfare complaints, lercentages) may not add to 100% due to rounding. , SECTION I1: ~OMMUNITY PROGRAMS 47 Vireinia -, i Data Resource Guide FY2002 @ District 14 P.O. Box 27032 @ Richmond, Virginia 23273 Director: Kay Frye 804-501-4692 INTAKE COMPLAINTS, FY 2000-2002 • This Region 2 CSU is composed of one locality, the County of R Henrico. • U.S. Census data indicate that between 1990 and 2000, this district's juvenile population ages 10-17 increased 34% (from 20,817 to 27,958). m • Intake cases are identified differently than in the past, to account for variations in reporting across jurisdictions. A single retake @ case now includes all complaints reported for a single juvenile, on a single day, within a single locality. • In FY 2002, the 14 'h District CSU processed 2,249 juvenile intakes I Technical Violations 276 348 305 and 3,214 juvenile complaints for an average of 1.4 complaints per Traffic 9 9 15 intake. Other 95 117 129 • A petition was filed in response to 81% of juvenile complaints. IJ Total./uvenile Complaints ~074 ~254 ~214 • Between FY 2000 and FY 2002, domestic relations complaints Total Complaints ~517 ~37 ~779 increased by 33%, while juvenile complaints decreased 21%. • Over half (59%) of FY 2002 complaints were for domestic relations i INTAKE DISPOSITION OF JUVENILE COMPLAINTS or child welfare (not juvenile justice-related). FY 2002', • The t4 'h District CSU saw a 22% decrease in juvenile felony m complaints between FY 2000 and FY 2002, while the statewide 100% [] IYtition Filed Only trend decreased 3%. District 14 saw a 27% decrease in class 1 80% misdemeanor complaints, while the statewide trend decreased less m [] Petition/ than 1%. 60oA) Detention Order • A juvenile at intake during FY 2002 was most likely to be a black, 40% [] Resolved/ 16 3,ear old male. I Diverted 20% • 357 juveniles in FY 2002 had a risk assessment completed. Of these, over half had a moderate score. [] Other 0% • 71% of new probation cases were for felonies or class 1 m JUVENILE INTAKE CASES, DEMOGRAPHICS misdemeanors. FY 2000-2002 • Detention placements refer to the decision, made by an intake @ officer or judge, to detain a juvenile. See 'Tin'ms and Concepts' for the diffe,'ence between detention placements and detention Black admissions. @ White 50.4% 43.9% 45.3% • The intervals selected for days juveniles spent in detention (0-3, 4- Other 2.0% 1.9% 2.8% 21, 22-51, and 52 +) are consistent with applicable statutes found in III the COV. See AppendixJ for COgcitations. @ Male 70.4% 68.3% 70.5% Fe male , 29.6% 31.7% 29.5% RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS 8-12 10.0% 9.9% 8.7% FY 2002 m 13 9.6% 8.4% 9.3% 14 14.7% 13.4% 13.4°/,, High I 14"/,, I 15 18.3% _~._9c~9o/m 17.0% I 16 22.0"/0 22.8°/,, 24.8% Moderate 63% 17 22.7% 22.9% 24.2% q I 18-20 2.0% 1.8% 1.8% Low [, ' 23% Erro,/Missin,g 0.7"/0 @.7% 0.8% , i Total Juveni/e Cases 2,732 2,214 2,249 0"/,, 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100 I Wuless noted otherwise, these data do; llOt u)cludc domestic relations or child welfare COlnplahlts. lercentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. R l)ala Resource GuMe I:}2002 OFFENSE* DISTRIBUTION FOR INTAKE CASES, NEW PROBATION CASES, PRE-DIsPOSlTIONAL . = DETENTION PLACEMENTS, AND COMMITMENTS TO THE STATE OFFENSE* CATEGORY AND SEVERITY, FY 2002 "Of juveniles in pre-dispositional detention from the 14 'h District, over two-thirds were detained for 21 days or less. Custody 0 0 • Of FY 2002 releases, the average len~h of stay (LOS) for Desertion/St, pport 0 0 juveniles in post-dispositional detention with programs was Spousal Abuse 586 0 0 0 2.8 months. The COVallows juveniles to be in post- Other DR/CW 79 0 0 0 dispositional detention for no longer than 6 months. A list of "~tal DR/CW 4,565 0 0 0 COgcitations pertaining to DJJ can be found in Appendix J. I ° See also 'Terms and Concepts' for the difference between types ,vende Abusive Language 90 3 6 1 of detention admissions. Alcohol 76 I 1 5 0 • Of FY 2002 releases, the average LOS for iuveniles committed Arson 67 l 0 12 3 to the state was 13.9 months. The COV allows juveniles Assault 420 66 132 21 committed indeterminately to stay up to 36 months (unless Burglary 60 4 16 15 committed for murder or manslaughter), and detemfinately Contempt of Court 54 1 31 0 until their 21st birthday. A list of COV citations pertaining to Disorderly Conduct 34 4 5! 3 DJJ can be found in Appendix J Escapes 0 0 0 0 Extortion 16 1 3 2 AVERAGE LOS FOR PROBATION, PRE-DISPOSlTIONAL Failure to Appear 2 0 2 0 DETENTION, POST-DISPOSlTIONALDETENTION (WITH- Family Offense 109 1 2 0 PROGRAMS), STATE COMMITMENTS, AND PAROLE Fraud 97 9 16 11 FY 2002 RELEASES Gangs 0 0 0 0 5OO Kidnapping 5 0 4 1 Larceny 651 52 163 39 4OO Misc/Otber 154 5 19 0 300 Murder 3 0 21 0 Narcotics 201 38 11 4 200 Obscenity 23 3 5 0 Obstruct Justice 34 5 7 1 I O0 Prob./Parole Violation 305 0 204 31 Robbery 18 3 24 4 .. il Probation" Post-disp te Perole Sexual Assault 34 5 9 2 Detention Detention Stares Offense 192 54 16 0 Telephone Law 3 0 1 0 • Average LOS 19 84 422 375 Traffic 98 4 I 1 2 Rdeases 390 590 40 38 15 Trcspass 145 15 20 1 *l)robatioi1 LOS cam~ot be calculated due to data lost during system upgrade. Vandalism 230 16 30 15 Weapons 93 17 29 3 PRE-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION LOS DISTRIBUTION 7btalJuve,ile Off~,ses 3.214 327 785 159 FY 2002 RELEASES 4O% 86 245 Class 1 Misdemeanor 1,363 146 260 54 30% Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 443 38 49 4 CHINS/CHINSup 301 55 18 0 20% Other 449 2 213 31 7bml /uvenile Offenses 3,214 327 785 159 10% 7btal Juvenile Cases/ 2,249 327 584 45 l)/acements/Commitrnents * 0% ':A sitLgie case, placemem, or colnnlitnaellt inay revolve muhq~le offenses. 0-3 days 4-21 22-51 52+ [hdess noted otherwise, these data do not include domestic relations or child wdfare complaints. Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. SECTION Ih Co UNITY OGRA .. ~ ; 49 I Data Resource Guide D'2002 W 601 Caroline Street, Suite 400, 4th Floor m District 15 Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 Director: Ivlich.ael J. Mastropaolo 54O-3724068 • This Region 2 CSU is composed of eleven localities, the City of m Fredericksburg and the counties of Caroline, Essex, Hanover, King George, Lancaster, Northumberland, Richmond, Spotsylvania, Stafford, and Westmoreland. I • U.S. Census data indicate that between 1990 and 2000, this dist,'ict's juvenile population ages 10-17 increased 51% (from 32,310 to 48,880). II • Intake cases are identified differently than in the past, to account for variations in reporting across jurisdictions. A single intake case now includes all complaints reported for a single juvenile, on Other a single day, within a single locality. m Technical Violations 55( 724 541 • In FY 2002, the 15 ~]' District CSU p,'ocessed 4,410 juvenile intakes Traffic 50 42 42 and 6A67 juvenile complaints for an average of 1.5 complaints per Other 90 76 103 intake. Ill Total Juver,!z/e ComDlaints 6,637 6,837 6,467 • A petition was filed in response to 8Y'/,, of juvenile complaints. Total Com?laints 16,308 16,349 16,387 • Between FY 2000 and FY 2002, domestic relations complaints B increased by 3%, while juvenile complaints decreased Y'/o. I NTAKE DISPOSITION OF JUVENILE COMPLAINTS • Over half (61%) of FY 2002 complaints we,'e for domestic relations FY 2002 or child welfare (not juvenile justice-related). IB 100% [] lYtition Filed • The 15 ']' District CSU saw a 7% decrease in juvenile felon); Onl), complaints between FY 2000 and FY 2002, while the statewide 80% trend decreased 3%. m 61% [] Petition/ 60% Detention Order • A juvenile at intake during FY 2002 was lnost likely to be a white, 17 year old lnale. 40% m [] Resolved/ • 641 juveniles in FY 2002 land a risk assessment completed. Of Diverted 20% these, half had a moderate score. [] Othcr • 86% of new probation cases were for felonies or class 1 i 0% lnisdenleanors. JUVENILE [NTAKE CASES, DEMOGRAPHICS • Detention placements refer to the decision, made by an intake FY 2000-2002 officer or judge, to detain a juvenile. See 'Terms and Concepts' for m the difference between detention placements and detention admissions. Black White 66.0% 652% 63.4°/`,, • The intervals selected for days juveniles spent in detention (0-3, 4- J Othe, 3.9"/o 3.7% 4.5% 21, 22-51, and 52 +) are consistent with applicable statutes found in the COll. See AppendixJ for COVcitations. ! Male 70.8% 72.5% 72.1% Female 29.3% 27.5% 27.9% RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS 8-12 9.0% 9.0% 7.7% FY 2002 13 7.2% 8.2% 6.6% 14 13.0% 13.1% 13.0°/,, High D 15 19.6% 18.4°/,, 18.6°/,> 16 23.5% 23.7% 24.7% Moderate 5O% I 17 24.4% 23.3% 25.8% g 18-2(? 2.4% 2.6('/,, 2.3% Low Error/Missing 1.0% 1.7% 1.3% Total ./uvenile Ca~es 4,509 4,821 4,410 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100 lib I.jnlc.~s noted otherwise, these data do not nlclude domestic relations or c}lild vcdfare conaplau]ts, l'ercemages may not add to 100% due to rounding. II Data Resource Guide F}2002 OFFENSE* DISTRIBUTION FOR INTAKE CASES, NEW PROBATION CASES, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION PLACEMENTS, AND COMMITMENTS TO THE STATE OFFENSE* CATEGORY AND SEVERITY, FY 2002 .of juveniles in pre-dispositional detention from the 15'" District, nearly three-quarters were detained for 21 days or less. II Custody 0 0 • Of FY 2002 releases, the average length of stay (LOS) for Desertion/Su 0 0 juveniles m post-dispositionat detention with programs was Spousal Abuse 1,120 0 0 (1 3.7 months. The COVallows juveniles to be in post- Other DR/CW 1,004 0 0 0 dispositional detention for no longer than 6 months. A list of 7btal DR/CW 9,920 0 0 ( COgcitations pertaining to DJJ can be found m Appendix J. ' I ' ,venile Offelnses -I t " See also "Terms and Concepts' for the difference between types Abusive Language 46 0 1 0 of detention admissions. Alcohol 269 13 44 4 Arson 69 6 36 4 • Of FY 2002 releases, the average LOS for juveniles committed Assault 854 87 239 24 to the state was 12.1 months. The COV allows juveniles Burglary 197 45 75 12 committed indeterminately to sta5," up to 36 months (unless Contempt of Court 211 5 127 7 committed for murder or manslaughter), and determinately Disorderly Conduct 360 23 55 7 until their 2Y' birthday. A list of COVcitations pertaining to Escapes 12 0 5 5 DJJ can be found in Appendix J. Extortion 35 4 10 3 AVERAGE LOS FOR PROBATION, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL Failure to Appear 15 0 14 0 DETENTION, POST-DISPOSITIONALDETENTION (WITH F'amily Offense 132 0 15 0 PROGRAMS), STATE COMMITMENTS, AND PAROLE Fraud 129 3 66 1 Gangs 0 0 0 0 FY 2002 RELEASES 500 , Kidnapping 6 1 3 O I Larceny 791 105 237 40 400 Misc/Other 152 6 25 2 Murder 2 0 1 0 ~, 300 " Narcotics 512 49 98 10 Obscenity 32 0 2 0 200 ' Obstruct Justice 106 6 29 7 100 Prob./l)arole Violation 541 l 335 35 / Robbery 30 3 20 6 _ / I'rol)alion* Pre-disp Post-disp I i Sexual Assault 62 11 29 13 I St;lle : Ihirole Stares Offense 633 30 16 0 l)elenlion Delenlion ' Telephone Law 25 0 4 0 [] Average I.OS 18 112 367 257 ]]affic 241! 11 37 4 I,~eleases 53(I 1.1 ~5 27 58 38 Trespass 211 i 12 16 5 Vandalism 682 34 107 13 *l'r Imti(m I,()S caun(,t [~e caJctdated due to data lost during, system upg, rade. Weapons 112 13 29 6 PRE-OISPOSITIONAL DETENTION LOS DISTRIBUTION 7btal flwenile Offenses 6. 467 469 1,675 208 FY 2002 RELEASES 60% 49% 146 499 50"/,,: Class 1 Misdemeanor 3,010 257 628 80 40% -: Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 829 28 170 17 CHINS/CFIINSup 770 33 29 0 30% -. 21% Other 686 5 349 35 20% - 7bml ]uvenik" Offbnses 6, 467 469 1,675 208 10%1 ~nalJuvenile G;ses/ 4,410 469 1,151 61 0% ;- I, Placements~Commitments" *A single case, placement, or ccmunltnlcnt nmv mvolve muh*ple of lenses. 0-3 daFs 4-21 22-51 52+ Unless noted otherwtse, these data do not iucludc domestic relations or child v,'clfarc complahlts. ['crcentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. Wl Data Resottrce 6:uide 112002 W 407 East High Street m District 16 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Director: Martha W. Carroll 434-979-7191 INTAKE COMPLAINTS, FY 2000-2002 • This Region 2 CSU is composed of nine localities, the City of I Charlottesville and the counties of Mbemarle, Culpeper, FhB, anna, Goochland, Greene, Louisa, Madison, and Orange. I • U.S. Census data indicate that between 1990 and 2000, this district's juvenile population ages 10-17 increased 35% (from 21,496 to 28,972). • Intake cases are identified differently than in the past, to account @ for variations in reporting across jurisdictions. A single intake case now includes all complaints reported for a single juvenile, on a single day, within a single locality. 8 Technical Violations 547 420 362 • In FY 2002, the lff h District CSU processed 2,444 juvenile intakes Tnfffic 10 9 11 and 3,187 juvenile complaints for an average of 1.3 complaints per Other 63 58 88 intake. W Total [uwnile (~n¢)/aints 3t315 3~242 3~ 187 • A petition was filed in response to 86% of juvenile complaints. Total Conc~lainls 8,157 8, 561 8, 287 • Between FY 2000 and FY 2002, domestic relations complaints W INTAKE DISPOSITION OF JUVENILE COMPLAINTS increased by 5%, while juvenile complaints decreased 4%. FY 2002 • Over half (62%) of FY 2002 complaints were for domestic relations or child welfare (not juvenile justice-related). D 100% • Petition Filed Only • The lff h District CSU saw a 10% decrease in juvenile felony 80% ,...... complaints between FY 2000 and FY 2002, while statewide trends [] Petition/ I 60% decreased 3%. The lff h District also saw a 17% increase in class 1 Detention Order misdemeanor complaints, while statewide trends decreased less 40% [] Resolved/ than 1% B Diverted 20% • A juvenile at intake during FY 2002 was most likely to be a white, [] Other 16 year old male. 0% D • 243 juveniles in FY 2002 had a risk assessment completed. Of JUVENILE INTAKE CASES, DEMOGRAPHICS these, over half had a moderate score. FY 2000-2002 • 78% of new probation cases were for felonies or class 1 I misdemeanors. Bla& • Detention placements refer to the decision, made by an intake @ Wh ite 60.2% 59.3% 61.1% officer or judge, to detain a juvenile. See 'Terms and Concepts' for Other 2.4% 2.Y'/o 2.9% the difference between detention placements and detention .].~ admissions. @ Male 69.5% 65.9% 65.4% Female 30.5% 34.1% 34.6"/0 R~sK ASSESSMENT RESULTS I 8-12 7.0% 7.2% 6.6% FY 2002 13 7.3% 9.5% 8.2% i 14 13.5°/o 13.3% 12.5% High Im 12% W 15 22.2% 19.6% 16.5% P 16 23.9% 23.5% 27.0% Moderate 58% I @ 17 22.4% 24.4% 25.7% 2, 18-20 3.1% 2.0% 2.8% Lo x3,r 30% Error/ Missing 0.7% 0.6% 0.8% , @ Total luwnile {P~ 2~625 2,516 2,444 0% 10{}/o 20% 30% 40{}/0 50{}/0 60% 70% 80% 90% 100 Unless iloted otherwise, these data do not include domestic relations or child welfare conqqaints, l)crcemages nlay not add to 100% due to romRhug. ml Dala Resource Guide F}2002 OFFENSE* DISTRIBUTION FOR INTAKE CASES, NEW PROBATION CASES, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION PLACEMENTS, AND COMMITMENTS TO THE STATE OFFENSE* CATEGORY AND SEVERITY, FY 2002 • The intervals selected for days juveniles spent in detention (0- 3, 4-21, 22-51, and 52 +) are consistent with applicable statutes found in the CO V. See Appendix J for CO Vcitations. 0 0 Desertion/Support O[ 0 • Of juveniles in pre-dispositional detention from the 16 'h Spousal Abuse 496 0 0 0 District, over three-quarters were detained for 21 days or less. Other DR/CW 98 0 0 0 • The Juvenile Tracking System shows no juveniles from the 7btal DR/CW 5,1 O0 0 0 .: [ • 0 16 u' District CSU were released from post-dispositional Jvende Offense, I detention (with programs) in FY 2002. Abusive Language 10 1 1 0 Alcohol 66 10 3 0 • Of FY 2002 releases, the average len~h of stay, (LOS) for Arson 33 9 14 3 juveniles committed to the state was 9.6 months. The COV Assault 417 103 146 17 allows juveniles committed indeterminately to stay up to 36 Burglary 95 14 31 12 months (unless committed for murder or manslaughter), and Contempt of Court 394 8 102 5 determinately until their 21 ~' birthday. A list of COVcitations Disorderly Conduct 63 11 12 2 pertaining to DJJ can be found in Appendix J. Escapes I 0 0 0 AVERAGE LOS FOR PROBATION, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL Extortion 6 2 0 0 Failure to Appear 110 0 23 1 DETENTION, POST-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION (WITH Family Offense 12 0 0 0 PROGRAMS),STATE COMMITMENTS, AND PAROLE Fraud 56 6 0 5 FY 2002 RELEASES Gangs 0 0 0 0 500 Kidnapping 2 0 2 0 400 Larceny 343 50 79 24 Misc/Other 94 2 11 0 300 Murder 2 0 1 0 Narcotics 163 27 30 8 2OO Obscenity 3 0 1 0 Obstrtict Justice 31 2 10 2 100 Prob./Parole Violation 353 1 180 36 .I Robbery 12 5 7 3 l}r<}l}:ttion. I}n'e-disp I}ost-disp Slalc I}ar{}le Sexual Assault 32 6 11 3 I}elenli{}n I}elenIion Status Offense 424 50 3 0 • Avcntge LOS 16 "292 242 Telephone Law 8 1 1 0 qTaffic 70 2 17 3 Rele:Lses 4,,, I 56:¢ I 0 52 i¢2 Trespass 103 4 5 2 ':-l}rol}atiou LOS cal]ilot [~c calculated due to data tost durh)g system ul~gra(le. Vandalism 236 27 52 10 Weapons 48 12 17 13 PRE-DISPOSlTIONAL DETENTION LOS DISTRIBUTION 14.0 ~talJuvenile Offenses 3,187 353 759 FY 2002 RELEASES 60% 52% 102 212 50°/,, Class 1 Misdemeanor 1,189 172 245 35 Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 498 20 106 8 40% CHINS/CHINSup 479 56 8 1 30% Other 461 3 188 36 20% ~tal /uvenile Offbnses 3,187 353 759 14fi 10% Total Juvenile Cases/ 2, 444 353 566 58 Placements~Commitments * 0% ~"-A single case, lqaccment, or col]]lnltI]lclit in,Y," revolve muhiple offetlses. 0-3 days 4-21 22-51 52+ Unless uotcd otherwise, these data do not iuclude domesuc relations or child welfare complaints, Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. lib Data Resottrce Guide FY2002 M 1425 New Courthouse Road, Suite 5100 I District 17 Arlington, Virginia 22201 Director: Patricia Romano 703-228-4600 INTAWt: ~.I%MPl AINT¢. FY 9~01"1-9009 • This Region 2 CSU is composed of one locality, the County of m Arlington, and is locally operated. • U.S. Census data indicate that between 1990 and 2000, this district's juvenile population ages 10-17 increased 29% (from 9,370 to 12,101). lU • Intake cases are identified differently than in the past, to account for variations in reporting across jurisdictions. A single intake @ case now includes all complaints reported for a single juvenile, on a single day, within a single locality,. • In FY 2002, the 17 u' District CSU processed 1,245 juvenile intakes M and 1,478 juvenile complaints for an average of 1.2 complaints per Techniml Violations 428 529 557 intake. Traffic 12 1l ll Other 181 118 122 • A petition was filed in ,esponse to 91% of juvenile complaints. m Only 2% of complaints in CSU 17 were resolved or dive,'ted Total luu'nile Co,~/ai~Tts 1,649 1,539 11478 compared to 16°/,, on the sratewide level. Total Con#/aints 2,341 2,179 2,241 • Between FY 2000 and FY 2002, domestic relations complaints I increased by, 10°/`,, while juvenile complaints decreased 10%. I NTAKE DISPOSITION OF JUVENILE COMPLAINTS • Over one-third (34%) of FY 2002 complaints we,'e for domestic FY 2002 relations o, child welfare (not juvenile justice-related). m 100% I 84% • Petition Filed • The 17 ~h District CSU saw a 30% decrease in class 1 misdemeanor 80% Only complaints between FY 2000 and FY 2002, while the statewide @ [] Petition/ trend decreased less than 1%. 60% Detention O1der • A juvenile at intake during FY 2002 was most likely, to be a black, 16 or 17 year old male. 40% [] Resolved/ I Diverted • 254 juveniles in FY 2002 had a risk assesslnent completed. Of 20% these, nearly half had a moderate score. ;~o/`, 2% 7% [] Other • 56% of new probation cases were for felonies or class 1 0% -- m misdemeanors. JUVENILE INTAKE CASES, DEMOGRAPHICS • Detention placements refer to the decision, made by, an intake FY 2000-2002 officer or judge, to detain a juvenile. See 'Terms and Concepts' for S the difference between detention placements and detention admissions. Bla& Whhe _4.4"), O~, 24.3% 19.8% • The intervals selected for days juveniles spent in detention (0-3, 4- S 21, 22-51, and 52 +) are consistent with applicable statutes found in Other i 34.6% 38.5% /l the COll. See AppendixJ for COVcitations. @ Male 72.3% 70.3('/,, 68.6% Female 27.7% 29.7% 31.4% RsK ASSESSMENTRESULTS II 8-12 4.7% 4.7% 4.7('/,, FY 2002 13 6.1% 5.0% 5.9% "! 14 14.7% 11.7('/,, 10.2% High + 11% t 15 18.1% 20.3% 20.0% -I 16 23.9% 24.5% 26.9% Moderate 47% 17 -/."?" 9'"/o 29.0% 26.8% I I III 18-20 4.2% 4.6% 5.4°/,, Low ~ 42% E nor/MJssing 0.4('/(, 0.2% 0.1% I i M Tot,d [uuv,Ie Glsc'~ l,d50 1,331 1,245 0% 10% 20% 300/`, 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100 Unless noted otherwise, these data do uot mchtde dOIIICS[IC relations or chdd welfare complaints. Percentages may not add to 100% due to roundhtg. g Dala Resource Guide F}2002 OFFENSE* DISTRIBUTION FOR INTAKE CASES, NEW PROBATION CASES, PRE-DIsPOSITIONAL DETENTION PLACEMENTS, AND COMMITMENTS TO THE STATE OFFENSE* CATEGORY AND SEVERITY, FY 2002 I ' I [ Offense Category • Of juveniles in pre-dispositional detention from the 17'h District, I ' 7 t Domestic Relations/Ch nearly three-quarters were detmned for 21 days or less. Custody i 407 0 0 0 • Of FY 2002 releases, the average length of stay (LOS) for Desertion/Support 70 0 0 0 juveniles in post-dispositional detention with programs was Spousal Abuse 140 0 0 0 4.9 months. The COV allows juveniles to be in post- Other DWCW 146 0 0 0 dispositional detention for no longer than 6 months. A list of 7btal DR/CW 765 0 0 6 COVcitations pertaining to DJJ can be found in Appendix J. See also 'Terms and Concepts' for the difference between types Abusive Language 1 0 1 o of detention admissions. Alcohol 15 5 3 0 • Of FY 2002 releases, the average LOS for juveniles committed Arson 6 1 2 1 to the state was 16.8 months. The COV allows juveniles Assauh 109 28 66 8 committed indeterminately to stay up to 36 months (unless Burglary 29 11 18 6 committed for murder or manslaughter), and determinately Contempt of Court 0 0 0 1 until their 2Y' birthday. A list of COVcitations pertaining to Disorderly Conduct 15 3 5 0 DJJ can be found in Appendix J. Escapes 0 0 0 0 Extortion 1 0 2 ' 1 AVERAGE LOS FOR PROBATION, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL Failure to Appear 0 0 0 1 DETENTION, POST-DISPOSlTIONALDETENTION (WITH Family Offense 12 0 0 0 PROGRAMS), STATE COMMITMENTS, AND PAROLE Fraud 14 1 11 0 FY 2002 RELEASES Gangs 0 0 0 0 Kidnapping 0 0 0 0 500 Larceny 185 54 78 9 400 Misc/Other 125 0 32 1 Murder 6 0 6 o >. 300 Narcotics 47 11 17 1 Obscenity 1 0 0 0 200 Obstruct Justice 5 I 4 1 100 Prob./Parole Violation 557 0 214 21 Robbery 25 7 26 4 Sexual Assault 12 4 8 1 Probation' Stares Offense 112 71 8 0 "Dlephone Law 0 0 0 0 • AverageLOS "lTaffic 118 14 26 1 Trespass 25 11 6 1 Releases 165 Vandalism 35 7 12 1 'q}robation I.OS cannot be calculated due to data lost during system upgrade. Weapons 23 1 16 3 7btal Jt,venile Offbnses 1,478 230 561 62 PRE-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION LOS DISTRIBUTION m FY 2002 RELEASES Felony 276 64 188 221 60% Class 1 Misdemeanor 285 64 98 17 50% Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 103 17 22 2 40% CH INS/CH 1 NSup 124 71 8 0 30% Other 690 14 245 21 20% Total flwenile Offenses 1,478 230 561 62 10% Total Juvenile Cases/ 1,245 230 412 24 Placements/Commitments" 0% '~A single case, pla'emem or comm*tment may involve multiple offenses. 0-3 clays 4-21 22-51 52+ Unless noted otherwtse, these data do not include domestic relat*ons or child welfare complaints. Percentag, es may not add to 100% due to roundn3~. I l)ata Resource Guide F}2002 i 200 Little Falls Street, Suite 207 I District 17F Falls Church, Virginia 22046 Director: Earl Conklin 703-241-7630 INTAKE COMPLAINTS, FY 2000-2002 • This Region 2 CSU is composed of one locality, the City of Falls D Church, and is locally operated. • U.S. Census data indicate that between 1990 and 2000, this district's @ juvenile population ages 10-17 increased 48"/,, (from 800 to 1,186). • Intake cases are identified differently than in the past, to account for variations in reporting across jurisdictions. A single intake case now I includes all complaints reported for a single juvenile, on a single day, within a single locality. @ • ha FY 2002, the District 17F CSU processed 90 juvenile intakes and 118 Technical Violations 17 24 24 juvenile complaints for an average of 1.3 complaints per intake. ' Traffic 0 1 1 • A petition was filed in response to 94% of juvenile complaints. Only , Otller 2 5 I 3 3% of complaints in District 17F were resolved or diverted compared to 7btalJuvenile Complaints 131 185 118 16% on the statewide level. 7btal Compluints 140 214 135 @ • Between FY 2000 and FY 2002, domestic relations complaints inoeased by 89% (from 9 to 17 cases), while juvenile complaints deo'eased 10%. INTAK E DISPOSITION OF JUVENILE COMPLAINTS FY 2002 • 13% of FY 2002 complaints were for domestic relations or clfild welfare 0aot j t,venile justice-related). I 100% • Petition Filed Only • The District 17F CSU saw a 62% decrease (from 21 to 8 cases) in juvenile 80% felony complaints between FY 2000 mad FY 2002, while statewide trends @ [] Petition/ decreased 3%. 60% Dctcnti()n Ordcr • A juvenile at int~e during FY 2002 w~ts most likely to be a white, 16 yea, 40'¼, [] Resolved¼ old male. m l) ivcrtcd 20% • 13 juveniles in FY 2002 had a risk assessment completed. Of these, [] Other over three-quarters had a moderate score. 0% I • 84% of new probation cases were for felonies or class 1 misdemeanors. JUVENILE INTAKE CASES, DEMOGRAPHICS • Detention placements refer to the decision, made by an intake officer or FY 2000-2002 judge, to detain a juvenile. See 'Terms and Concepts' for the difference I between detention placements and detention admissions. 13lack • The intervals selected fo, days juveniles spent in detention (0-3, 4-21, I White 66,7% 67.2% 61.1'¼, 22-51, and 52 +) are consistent with applicable statutes found in the Other 31.1% 23.1% 22.2% COV. See AppendixJ for COVcitations. I Male 80.0% 83.6'¼, 76.7(¼, Female 20.0% 16.4'¼) 23.3% RmsK ASSESSMENT RESULTS @ 8-12 1.1% 6.0% 2.2(¼) FY 2002 13 4.4'7,, 5.2'/, 4.4% 14 18.9% 8.2% l 0.0% High I t 15 21.1% 15.7% 15.6% 16 27.8% 26.9% 37.8'7,, Moderate 85'¼, 17 23.3"/,, 33.6% 27.8% S 18-20 3.3'¼, 4.5% 1.1% I Error/Missing 0.0% I 0.0% 1.1% t 'uvenile Cases 0% 10'¼, 20% 30% 40'¼, 50'¼, 60'¼, 70'¼, 80'¼, 90% 100 m Unless noted otherwise, these data d,o not include domestic relatious or child welfare complaults. Percentages may uot add to 100% due to rounding, I Data Resource Guide D2002 OFFENSE* DISTRIBUTION FOR INTAKE CASES, NEW PROBATION CASES, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION PLACEMENTS, AND COMMITMENTS TO THE STATE OFFENSE* CATEGORY AND SEVERITY, FY 2002 • Of juveniles in pre-dispositional detention from the District 17F CSU, nearly three-quarters were detained for 21 days or Custody 0 0 less. Desertion/Su 0 0 • The Juvenile Tracking System shows no juveniles from District Spousal Abuse 4 0 01 17F were released from post-dispositional detention (with Other DR/CW 1 0 0 programs) in FY 2002. ~ml DR/CW ;e ol 0 • None of the comnfitted juveniles released m FY 2002 were aven,le Offenses ] [ from District 17F. Abusive Language 0 0 0 0 Alcohol 26 5 0 0 Arson 0 0 0 0 Assault 8 4! 4 0 Burglary 0 O' 0 0 Contempt of Court 0 0 0 0 Disorderly Conduct 1 0 1 0 Escapes 0 0 0 0 AVERAGE LOS FOR PROBATION, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL Extortion 0 1 0 0 Failure to Appear 0 0 0 0 DETENTION, POST-DISPOSlTIONALDETENTION (WITH Family Offense 0 0 0 0 PROGRAMS), STATE COMMITMENTS, AND PAROLE Fraud 3 2 0 0 FY Pn02 RELEASES Gangs 0 0 0 0 500 Kidnapping 0 0 0 0 Larceny 12 9 3 1 400 Misc/Other 3 0 0 0 300 Murder 0 0 0 0 Narcotics 17 2 0 0 200 Obscenity 1 0 0 0 Obstruct Justice 2 0 0 0 100 Prob./Parole Violation 24 0 10 1 Robbery 2 1 1 0 Pre-disp Post-disp State Parole Sexual Assault 1 2 2 1 Probation" Detention Detention Status Offense 91 3 0 0 Telephone Law O' 0 0 0 • Average LOS 13 Traffic 2 1 0 0 Releases 31 22 0 0 0 Trespass 4 0 1 0 *Probatiou LOS cannot be calculated due to data lost during system upgrade. Vandalism 3 2 3 0 Weapons 0 0 0 0 PRE-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION LOS DISTRIBUTION 7btalJuvenile Offenses 118 32 25 3 FY 2002 RELEASES 50% 5 Class ~1 Misdemeanor 49 22 9 C 40% Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 24 2 0 C 30% CHINS/CHINSup 9 3 0 C Other 28 0 10 20'¼, 7bta/ /uvenile Offenses 118 32 25 3 10% Total flwenile Cases/ 90 32 22 2 0% Placements/Commitments ~ 0% *A single case, placement, or colnmltlnellt may revolve multiple offenses. 0-3 days 4-21 22-51 52+ Unless noted otherwise, these data do not include domestic relations or cluld wel[are complaints. Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. Data Resource GuMe F}2002 District 18 520 King Street I Alexandria, Virginia 22314 Director: Lillian B. Brooks 703-838-4144 INTAKE COIVIPLAINTS, FY 2000-2002 • This Region 2 CSU is composed of one locality, the City of I Alexandria. • U.S. Census data indicate that between 1990 and 2000, this district's I juvenile population ages 10-17 increased 20% (f,om 6,347 to 7,622). • Intake cases are identified differently than in the past, to account for variations in reporting across jurisdictions. A single intake case now I! includes all complaints reported for a single juvenile, on a single day, within a sin~e locality. • In FY 2002, the 18~h District CSU processed 1,121 juvenile intakes and II Technical Violations 142 127 146 1,335 juvenile complaints for an average of 1.2 complaints per intake. Traffic 173 190 I 18 • A petition was filed in response to 64% of juvenile complaints. a Other 17 12 30 7btalJuvenile Complaints 1.355 1. 696 1.335 • Between FY 2000 and FY 2002, domestic relations complaints inoeased Total Complaints 2. 433 2. 794 2. 434 by 2%, wMe juvenile complaints deo'eased 1%. II1 • Nearly half (45%) of FY 2002 complaints were for domestic relations or I NTAKE DISPOSITION OF JUVENILE COMPLAINTS child welfiue 0aot juvenile justice-related). FY 2002 • The 18*h District CSU saw a 7% increase in juvenile felony complaints i between FY 2000 and FY 2002, while statewide trends decreased 3%. 100% [] Pelition Filed Only • A juvenile at intake dumag FY 2002 was most likely to be a black, 17 year a 80% old male. Ill Petition/ 60% Detention Order " 170 juveniles in FY 2002 had a risk assessment completed. Of these, nearly half had a moderate score. It 40% [] Resolved/ Diverted * 61% of new probation cases were for felonies or class 1 misdemeano,'s. 20% • Detention placelnents refer to the decision, made by an intake officer or 0% [] Ol her judge, to detain a juvenile. See 'Terms and Concepts' for the difference i JUVENILE INTAKE CASES, DEMOGRAPHICS between detention placements and detention admissions. FY 2000-2002 • The intervals selected for days juveniles spent in detention (0-3, 4-21, i 22-51, and 52 +) are consistent with applicable statutes found in the COV. See AppendixJ for COVcitations. Black 25.3% 26.0% • Of juveniles in pre-dispositional detention from the 18"' District, @ Wh ite 22.7% 23.3% over three-quarters were detained for 21 days or less. Other 19.4% 20.1% I Male 65.4% 64.1% 63.8% Female M.6 ¼ 35.9% 36.2% R~sK ASSESSMENT RESULTS I 8-12 11.5% 8.4% 9.9% FY 2002 13 7.3(¼, 6.1"/,, 7.7% 14 11.6% 11.4% 11.7% High 18% I 15 13.8% 15.6(¼, 15.4(¼, 16 23.0% 25.0% 24.1% Nh)dcratc 47% 17 27.4% 28.8% 27.2(>, i 18-20 1.5% 2.2% 1.5% ] A )\V Error/Missing 3.8% 2.4% 2.5% m.m fota/ /uvenile Cases 1.200 1.439 1. 121 0% 10% 20'Y,, 3o% 40'¼, 50(¼, 60'¼, 70% 80'¼, 9(t'¼, 100 i , I I I I I 1 I~ 1 i I . , ~r,J I 1" I Data Resource Guide 132002 OFFENSE* DISTRIBUTION FOR INTAKE CASES, NEW PROBATION CASES, PRE-DISPOSlTIONAL DETENTION PLACEMENTS, AND COMMITMENTS TO THE STATE OFFENSE* CATEGORY AND SEVERITY, FY 2002 • Of FY 2002 releases, the average length of stay (LOS) for juveniles in post-dispositional detention with programs was 4.8 months. The COV allows juveniles to be in post- Custody 0 0 dispositional detention for no longer than 6 months. A list of Desertion/Support 0 0 COVcitations pertaining to DJJ can be found in Appendix J. Spousal Abuse 320 0 0 0 See also 'Terms and Concepts' for the difference between types Other DR/CW 71 0 0 0 of detention admissions. Total DR/CW 1,095 0 0 0 avenileOffenl ses i [ • Of FY 2002 releases, the average LOS for juveniles committed Abusive Language 3 0 2 to the state was 13.7 months. The COV allows juveniles Alcohol 53 1 8 committed indeterminately to stay up to 36 months (unless Arson 13 4 4 committed for murder or manslaughter), and determinately Assault I 18 39 43 until their 21 ~' birthday. A list of COVcitations pertaining to Burglary 20 5 10 DJJ can be found in Appendix J. Contempt of Court 59 3 10 Disorderly Conduct 3 1 1 Escapes 0 0 0 AVERAGE LOS FOR PROBATION, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL Extortion 2 0 0 DETENTION, POST-DISPOSlTIONALDETENTION (WITH Failure to Appear 1 0 1 Family Offense 17 0 4 PROGRAMS), STATE COMMITMENTS, AND PAROLE Fraud 17 1 2 FY 2002 RELEASES Gangs 7 1 6 5OO Kidnapping 1 0 2 400 -' Larceny 147 26 63 Misc/Other 34 5 5 1 300 Murder 0 0 0 0 Narcotics 54 18 15 0 200 Obscenity 4 0 0 0 Obstruct Justice 15 2 6 0 I00 Prob./Parole Violation 146 0 78 2 m.__ Robbery 28 3 17 2 I'tol)ation* Pre-disp Post-disI) Stale Parole Sexual Assault 17 3 10 2 l)etcntion l)etention Status Offense 316 36 9 2 l8 Average LOS 19 145 416 473 Telephone Law 0 0 0 0 Traffic 196 1 5 0 J Rele~L';es 11761258 7 7 14 Trespass 14 0 5 0 ':-Probation LOS c:umot be calculated clue to data lost during system upgrade. Vandalism 29 7 9 1 Weapons 21, 3 11 0 PRE-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION LOS DISTRIBUTION TotalJuvenile Offenses 1,335 159 326 21 FY 2002 RELEASES 70% ] 60% 32 Ill 60% Class 1 Misdemeanor 368 65 99 4 50% Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 85 18 11 0 40% CHINS/CHINSup 392 39 23 2 3O% Other 294 5 82 2 17% 2O% Total flwenile Ofenses 1,335 159 326 21 6% 10% TotalJuvenile Cases/ 1,121 159 266 13 Placements~Commitments* 0% *A single case, placenlent, or commitment may involve multiple offenses. 0-3 day 4-21 22-51 52+ Unless iloted otherwise, these data do not include domestic relations or chdd welfare complaints. Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. m Data Resource Gitide kT2002 @ 4000 Chain Bridge Road @ District: 19 Fairfax, Virginia 22030 Director: Janms Dedes 703-246-3414 INTAKE COMPLAINTS, FY 2000-2002 • This Region 2 CSU is composed of two localities, tile City of m Fairfax and tile County of Fairfax, and is locally operated. Dom. Rel./C;hild Welf. I N/A N/A • The 19 't' District became part of the agency's juvenile tracking @ I system in mid-year 2001. Therefore, FY 2002 represents the first Felony N/A N/A 1,50C full year of data from this district and we a,'e unable to report their Class 1 Misdemeano, N/A N/A 2,684 intake totals in a format comparable to the other districts. @ Class 2-4 Misdemeanor N/A N/A 967 • U.S. Census data indicate that between 1990 and 2000, this district's CI-E NS/CHI NSup N/A N/A 861 juvenile population ages 10-17 increased 25% (from 88,062 to 110,320). Other • Intake cases are identified differently than in the past, to account B Technical Violations N/A N/A 818 for variations in reporting across jurisdictions. A single intake Traffic N/A N/A 17 case now includes all complaints ,'eported for a single juvenile, on Othe, N/A N/A 524 a single day, within a single locality. @ Tota/ /.wni/e (~.plamts N/A N/A 7~371 • In FY 2002, the 19 'l' District CSU processed 5,828 juvenile intakes Total Con#]aints N/A N//t 14,920 and 7,371 juvenile complaints for an average of 1.3 complaints per @ intake. INTARE DISPOSITION OF JUVENILE COMPLAINTS • A petition was filed in response to 84% of juvenile complaints. FY 2002 • Over half (51%) of FY 2002 complaints were for domestic relations @ 100% • Petition Filed or child welfare (not juvenile justice-related). Only 80% • A juvenile at intake during FY 2002 was most likely to be a white, 56% [] Petition/ 16-17 year old male. m 60% Detention O,der • 324 juveniles in FY 2002 had a risk assessment completed. Of 40% [] Resolved/ these, over half had a moderate score. Diverted D 20% • 62% of new probation cases were for felonies or class 1 [] Other misdemeanors. 0% @ • Detention placements refer to tile decision, made by an intake JUVENILE INTAKE CASES, DEMOGRAPHICS officer or judge, to detain a juvenile. See 'Terms and Concepts' for FY 2000-2002 the difference between detention placements and detention li admissions. Bla& • The intervals selected for days juveniles spent in detention (0-3, 4- White N/A N/A 52.5% 21, 22-51, and 52 +) are consistent with applicable statutes found in @ Other N/A N/A 23.0% the COl/. See AppendixJ for COVcitations • Of juveniles in pre-dispositional detention from 19'h District, nearly Male N/A N/A 70.0% three-quarters were detained for 21 days or less. m Female N/A N/A 30.0% II RIsK ASSESSMENT RESULTS 8-12 N/A N/A 4.1% FY 2002 R 13 N/A N/A 6.3% 14 N/A N/A 13.7% High 15 N/A N/A 18.7% D 16 N/A N/A 25.8% Moderate 17 N/A N/A 26.9% @ 18-20 N/A N/A 4.1% Low E nx)r/Missin~ N/A N/A 0.6% Total [,wniIe C.~ses N/A N/A 5,828 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100 @ Unless noted otherwise, these data do not include domestic relations or child welfare complaints. I)ercemages may not add to 100% due to rounding. I Data Resource Guide 13"2002 OFFENSE* DISTRIBUTION FOR INTAKE CASES, NEW PROBATION CASES, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION PLACEMENTS, AND COMMITMENTS TO THE STATE OFFENSE* CATEGORY AND SEVERITY, FY 2002 • Of FY 2002 releases, the average lengh of stay (LOS) for juveniles in post-dispositional detention with programs was 4.6 months. The COV allows juveniles to be in post- Custody 2 0 dispositional detention for no longer than 6 months. A list of Desertion/Support 0 0 COVcitations pertaining to DJJ can be found in Appendix J. Spousal Abuse 725 0 0 0 See also 'Terms and Concepts' for the difference between types Other DR/CW 236 7 1 0 of detention admissions. Total DR/C W Z 54c0 9 1 I ' i • Of FY 2002 releases, the average LOS for juveniles committed lvenile Offensles 7 Abusive Language 32 0 11 0 to the state was 16.1 months. The COV allows juveniles Alcohol 201 29 41 0 committed indeterminately to stay up to 36 months (unless Arson 134 33 35 0 committed for murder or manslaughter), and detemfinately Assault 723 138 315 7 until their 2P' birthday. A list of COVcitations pertaining to Burglary 249 44 58 2 Djj can be found m Appendix J. Contempt of Court 335 2 79 0 Disorderly Conduct 176 31 28 0 Escapes 15 0 6 0 Extortion 28 7 11 0 AVERAGE LOS FOR PROBATION, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL Failure to Appear 29 0 13 0 DETENTION, POST-DISPOSITIONALDETENTION (WITH Family Offense 77 1 10 0 PROGRAMS), STATE COMMITMENTS, AND PAROLE Fraud 164 17 43 1 FY 2002 RELEASES Gangs 5 0 0 0 500 Kidnapping 15 0 14 4 Larceny 1,151 153 277 17 400 Misc/Other 561 4 50 4 Murder 3 0 3 0 300 Narcotics 504 87 53 3 C3 200 Obscenity 56 8 10 0 Obstruct Justice 47 9 14 0 100 Prob./Parole Violation 808 4 357 15 Robbery 102 7 81 13 Post disp Sexual Assault 45 14 18 2 I Probation* / Par°le Detention Detention Stares Offense 784 290 11 0 Telephone Law 29 3 5 0 • AverageLOS 18 140 489 346 Traffic 180 11 33 0 Releases 721 1,379 42 60 39 Trespass 245 35 40 1 *[~robation LOS cannc~ be ca]culated due to data lost during system upgrade. Vandalism 458 62 109 4 Weapons 215 271 95 3 PRE-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION LOS DISTRIBUTION Total Juvenile Offenses Z371 1.016 1,820 76 FY 2002 RELEASES 60% 204 620 50% Class 1 Misdemeanor 2,684 429 625 21 4O% Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 967 82 142 1 CHINS/CHINSup 861 291 21 0 3O% Other 1,359 10 412 17 2O% Total Juvenile Offenses Z371 1,016 1,820 76 10% Total Juvenile Cases/ 5.828 1,016 1.386 33 O% Placenwnts/Commitments* • A single case, placement, or coinnlitntent inay revolve muhiple offenses. 0-3 days 4-21 22-51 52+ Unless noted otherwise, these data do not include domestic relations or child welfare complaints. 1) ercemages may not add to 100% due to rounding. @ Data Resource (;uide F12002 Ill District 20L 18 East Market Street @ Leesburg, Virginia 20178 Director: Mark Crowley 703-777-0303 INTAKE COMPLAINTS, FY 2000-2002 • This Region 2 CSU is composed of one locality, the Count), of t Loudoun. • U.S. Census data indicate that between 1990 and 2000, this district's juvenile population ages 10-17 increased 108% ffrom 9,045 to 18,825). I • Intake cases are identified differently than in the past, to account for variations m re~orting across jurisdictions. A single intake case now includes all complaints reported for a single juvenile, on M a single day, within a single locality. • In FY 2002, the District 20L CSU processed 1,224 juvenile intakes and 1,637 juvenile complaints for an average of 1.3 complaints per @ Technictl Violations 73 57 78 intake. Traffic 13 8 5 • A petition was filed in response to 77% of juvenile complaints. Other 65 57 76 @ • Between FY 2000 and FY 2002, domestic relations complaints Total [uzenile Conc~lamzs 1~562 1,652 1~637 increased by 26%, while juvenile complaints increased 5%. Total Conc21aints 2,223 2,365 2,469 • Over one-third (34%) of FY 2002 complaints were for domestic relations or child welfare (not juvenile justice-related). m I NTAKE DISPOSITION OF JUVENILE COMPLAINTS • The District 20L CSU saw a 27% decrease in juvenile felony FY 2002 complaints between FY 2000 and FY 2002, while statewide trends 100% decreased 3%. District 20L saw a 32% increase in class 1 I • Petition Filed misdemeanor complaints while the statewide trend decreased less 80% Only than 1%. @ [] Petition/ • A juvenile at retake during FY 2002 was most likely to be a white, 60% Detention Order 16 or 17 year old male. 40% [] Resolved/ • 39 juveniles in FY 2002 had a risk assessment completed. Of these, @ Diverted nearly half had a moderate level and the same number had a high 20% level. [] Other 0% • 88% of new probation cases were for felonies or class 1 misdemeanors. D JUVENILE INTAKE CASES, DEMOGRAPHICS • Detention placements refer to the decision, made by an intake FY 2000-2002 officer or judge, to detain a juvenile. See 'Terms and Concepts' for the difference between detention placements and detention m admissions. Bla& • The intervals selected for days juveniles spent in detention (0-3, 4- White 65.6"/o 67.7% 68.0% 21, 22-51, and 52 +) are consistent with applicable statutes found in m Other 14.2% 10.2% 10.5% the COV. See AppendixJ for COVcitations. • Of juveniles in pre-dispositional detention from the District 20L @ M~e 78.6% I 72.9% 73.0% CSU, nearly 90% were detained for 21 days or less. Female 21.4%1 27.2% 27.0% R~SK ASSESSMENT RESULTS I 8-12 5.4% 4.7% 4.4% FY 2002 13 6.4% 6.0% 7.0% 14 9.5% 14.0% 14.5% High t% g 15 18.2% 18.2% 17.2% -! ( 16 26.0% 23.2% 26.1% Moderate 44% 17 30.2% 29.8% 25.8% i g -' i ¸ I 18-20 4.2% 3.8% 4.7% Low Ji - 13% E rmr/Missin~ 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% I i @ Tota] [uzenile Cases l ~0 54 1,197 1,224 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100 Unless noted otherwise, these data do ilot include domestic relations or child welfare complaints. Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. B I F Data Resource Guide 1:}I2002 OFFENSE* DtSTRtBUTtON FOR INTAKE CASES, NEW PROBATION CASES, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION PLACEMENTS, AND COMMITMENTS TO THE STATE I OFFENSE* CATEGORY AND SEVERITY, FY 2002 • Of FY 2002 releases, the average length of stay (LOS) for juveniles in post-dispositional detention with programs was 2.1 months. The COVallows juveniles to be in post- Custody 0 0 dispositional detention for no longer than 6 months. A list of Deserl ion/Su 0 0 COVcitations pertaining to DJJ can be found in Appendix J. Spousal Abuse 162 0 0 See also 'Terms and Concepts' for the difference between types Other DWCW 5 0 0 of detention admissions. Total DR/CW 832 0 0 I [ Jvenile Offelnses I [ ' . l • Of FY 2002 releases, the average LOS for juveniles committed Abusive Language 7 0 0 0 to the state was 11.0 months. The COV allows juveniles Alcohol 185 1 5 l committed indeterminately to stay up to 36 months (unless Arson 22 1 0 0 committed for murder or manslaughter), and determinately Assault 160 16 59 10 until their 21 +~ birthday. A list of COVcitations pertaining to Burglary 19 4 3 0 DJJ can be found in Appendix J. Contempt of Court 219 0 165 2 Disorderly Conduct 7 0 0 0 Escapes 5 0 2 0 AVERAGE LOS FOR PROBATION, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL Extortion 7 0 0 0 Failure to Appear 10 0 15 0 DETENTION, POST-DISPOSITIONALDETENTION (WITH Family Offense ] 06 l 0 0 PROGRAMS), STATE COMMITMENTS, AND PAROLE Fraud 38 1 0 0 FY 2002 RELEASES Gangs 0 0 0 0 500 Kidnapping 4 0 2 0 400 Larceny 224 6 33 2 Misc/Other 86 0 l 300 Murder 0 0 0 Narcotics 106 8 4 200 Obscenity 13 1 0 100 - Obstruct Justice 26 0 4 I Prob./Parole Violation 69 0 36 Robbery 6 0 2 I)re-disp l)ost-disp I)rohation * State Parole Sexual Assault 12 4 6 l)elenlion l)etendon Status Offense 83 0 4 II Average LOS 11 63 335 190 Telephone Law 6 1 0 Traffic 43 2 5 Releases 58 l 284 7 t II 9 Trespass 22 1 4 0 :~l)robation LOS ca[mot be calculated due to data lost during system upgrade. Vandalism 107 3 12 0 Weapons 45 0 9 1 PRE-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION LOS DISTRIBUTION Total Juvenile Offenses 1,637 50 371 23 FY 2002 RELEASES 60% 22 69 50% Class ] Misdemeanor 676 22 84 40% Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 339 4 165 2 CHINS/CHINSup 187 1 4 C 30% Other 159 1 49 4 20% 50 371 23 Total Juvenile Offenses 1,637 10% I4%--. Total Juvenile Cases/ 1,224 50 286 7 Placetnents/Commimwnts * 0% ::A single case, placement, or commmueut may involve multiple offenses. 0-3 da)s 4-21 22-51 52+ Unless noted otherwise, these data do not include domestic relatious or clnld welfare complaints. Percentages may not add to 100% due to roundh~g. iniiq /--/ U Data Resource Guide F}2002 I 9 Court Street @ District 20W Warrenton, Virginia 20186 Director: Kenneth E. Smith 540-347-8634 • This Region 2 CSU is composed of two localities, the counties of R Fauquier and Rappahannock. • U.S. Census data indicate that between 1990 and 2000, this district's U juvenile population ages 10-17 increased 31% (from 6,030 to 7,891). • Intake cases are identified differently than in the past, to account for variations in reporting across jurisdictions. A single intake m case now includes all complaints reported for a single juvenile, on a single day, within a single locality. @ • In FY 2002, the District 20W CSU processed 355 juvenile intakes Technical Violations 64 65 99 and 479 juvenile complaints for an average of 1.3 complaints per Traffic 11 5 6 retake. @ Other 3 3 1 • A petition was filed in response to 95% of juvenile complaints. Total/uusvile Conplamts 511 498 479 Only 1% of complaints in District 20W were resolved or diverted Total Conc)laints 923 935 1,005 compared to 16% on the statewide level. t • Between FY 2000 and FY 2002, domestic relations complaints INTAKE DISPOSITION OF JUVENILE COMPLAINTS increased by, 28%, while juvenile complaints decreased 6%. FY 2002 m 100% • Over half (52('/0) of FY 2002 complaints were for domestic relations • Petition Filed or child welfare (not juvenile justice-related). Only 8O% • The District 20W CSU saw a 30% decrease in class 1 misdemeano," [] Petition/ m complaints between FY 2000 and FY 2002, while statewide trends 60% Detention Ozder decreased less than 1%. District 20W saw an 18% decrease in 40% [] Resolved/ juvenile felony complaints, while the statewide trend decreased U Diverted 3%. 20% [] Other • A juvenile at intake during FY 2002 was most likely to be a white, 0% 16-17 year old male. I JUVENILE INTAKE CASES, DEMOGRAPHICS • 113 juveniles in FY 2002 had a risk assessment completed. Of FY 2000-2002 these, over half had a moderate score. I • 77% of new probation cases were for felonies o, class 1 Bla& misdemeanors. White 78.7%1 85.5% 83.1% • Detention placements refer to the decision, made by an intake M Other 3.5% 3.2% 1.4% officer or judge, to detain a juvenile. See 'Terms and Concepts" for I the difference between detention placements and detention S Male 75.5% 73.0% 78.6% admissions. Female 24.5% 27.0% 21.4% RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS @ 8-12 2.6% 3.8% 5.1% FY 2002 13 7.31'/o 6.1% 6.5% i @ 14 11.2°/,) 13.1% 10.1% High I 12°/' 15 20.1(,/o 24.4% 19.7% I 16 24.8% 26.5% 27.3% Moderate 52% 17 32.2% 23.6% 28.5% @ 18-20 1.6% 1.7% 2.3% Low 3~% I E m~r/Missing, 0.3% 0.9"/0 0.6% !. I Total fltmzile Cases 314 344 355 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100 Unless noted otherwise, these data do not include domestm relatio.s or child welfare complaims. Percentages may .or add to 100% due to rotmding. D Data Resource Guide t"}I2002 OFFENSE* DISTRIBUTION FOR INTAKE CASES, NEW PROBATION CASES, PRE-DISPOSlTIONAL DETENTION PLACEMENTS, AND COMMITMENTS TO THE STATE OFFENSE* CATEGORY AND SEVERITY, FY 2002 • The intervals selected for days juveniles spent in detention (0- 3, 4-21, 22-51, and 52 +) are consistent with applicable statutes found in the COV. See AppendixJ for COVcitations. 0 0 Desertion/Support 0 0 • Of juveniles in pre-dispositional detention from the District Spousal Abuse 81 0 0 0 20W CSU, two-thirds we,'e detained for 21 days or less. Other DR/CW 13! 0 0 0 • The Juvenile Tracking System shows no juveniles from District Total DR/C W 526 0 0 6 20W were released from post-dispositional detention (with m programs) in FY 2002. Abusive Language 2 l 0 0 Alcohol 32 13 0 0 • Of FY 2002 releases, the average length of stay (LOS) for Arson 2 2 0 0 juveniles committed to the state was 13.2 months. The COV Assault 59 27 16 0 allows juveniles committed indeterminately to stay up to 36 Burglary 16 8 4 0 months (unless committed for murder or manslaughter), and Contempt of Court 3 2 1 0 determinately until their 21" birthday. A list of COVcitations Disorcterly Conduct 6 0 0 0 pertaining to DJJ can be found in Appendix J. Escapes ] 0 1 0 AVERAGE LOS FOR PROBATION, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL Extortion 4 0 1 I Failure to Appear 0 0 0 0 DETENTION, POST-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION (WITH Family Offense 8 0 0 0 PROGRAMS), STATE COMMITMENTS, AND PAROLE Frauct 4 0 0 1 FY 2002 RELEASES Gangs 0 0 0 0 500 Kidnapping 0 0 0 0 400 -' Larceny 52 22 14 5 Misc/Other 5 l 1 2 300 Murcler 0 0 0 0 Narcotics 55 37 4 1 200 Obscenity 0 0 0 0 Obslruct Justice 5 0 0 1 100 Prob./Parole Violation 99 0 21 3 Robbery 1 2 2 0 l)rol)ation , l)re-disp l)ost-disp St:tie l'arole Sexual Assaul! 7 1 5 9 l)etention l)etenlion Status Offense 28 3 0 0 Average I.OS 28 276 Telephone Law 5 2 0 0 • 401 Traffic 36 16 0 0 Rele:LseS ,,7 I I 0 Trespass 9 3 0 0 'q)robation LOS cannot bc ca]culated due to data lost dtlrlllg, s}'stem upgrade. Vandalism 33 15 7 3 Weapons 7 3 0 0 PRE-DISPOSlTIONAL DETENTION LOS DISTRIBUTION Tota/ Jtyveni/c Offenses 479 158 77 26 FY 2002 RELEASES 50% 38 30 40% 40% Class 1 Misdemeanor 175 83 22 c Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 63 29 3 30% CHINS/CHINSup 36 4 0 C Other 106 4 22 20% To/a/Juvenile Offenses 479 158 77 26 10% To/a/Juvenile Cases/ 355 158 61 7 Plgtce//m//L~Coml/yilllle/lls + 0% *A single case, placement, or conmntment may revolve muhiple offe.ses. 0-3 da)s 4-21 22-51 52+ Unless noted otherw,se, these data do not include domestic relauons or chdd welfare complaints. Percentages may not add to 100% due to roundin,a. Virginia -, U @ Data Resource 6'uide kY2002 3160 Kings Mountain Road, Suite E I District 23. Martinsville, Virginia 24112 Director: Robert W. Foster 276-634-4865 INT&I~';" CnMPI&INT¢, FY 9(3(313-913(39 • This Region 1 CSU is composed of three localities, the City of D Martinsville, and the counties of Hem T and Patrick. • U.S. Census data indicate that between 1990 and 2000, this district's I juvenile population ages 10-17 increased 2% (from 9,541 to 9,763). • Intake cases are identified differently than in the past, to account for variations in reporting across jurisdictions. A single intake @ case now includes all complaints reported for a single juvenile, on a single day, within a single locality. Other • In FY 2002, the 21 ~ District CSU processed 980 juvenile intakes I Technical Violations 42 57 40 and 1,548 juvenile complaints for an average of 1.6 complaints per Traffic 3 10 9 intake. Other 38 31 43 m • A petition was filed m response to 73% of juvenile complaints. Total [u~Tile ConF(amts I fi74 649I i fi48 Over 25% of complaints in District 21 were resolved or diverted Total Concdaints 4, 737 4, 672 4, 955 compared to only 16% on the statewide level. I • Between FY 2000 and FY 2002, domestic relations complaints INTAKE DISPOSITION OF JUVENILE COMPLAINTS increased by 1%, while juvenile complamts increased 13%. FY 200.2 • Over two-thirds (69%) of FY 2002 complaints were for domestic m 1O0 % [] Petition Filed relations or child welfare (not j t,venile justice-related). Only 80% • The 21 ~ District CSU saw a 20% increase in juvenile felony m [] Petition/ complaints between FY 2000 and FY 2002, while statewide trends 60% Detention Order decreased 3%. 40% [] P,esolved/ • A juvenile at intake during FY 2002 was most likely to be a white, I Divel~ed 20% 16 ),ear old male. [] Other • 183 juveniles in FY 2002 had a risk assessment completed. Of I 0% these, over half had a moderate score. JUVENILE INTAKE CASES, DEMOGRAPHICS • 84% of new probation cases were for felonies or class 1 FY 2000-2002 misdemeanors. i • Detention placements refer to the decision, made by an intake Black officer or judge, to detain a juvenile. See 'Terms and Concepts' for White 43.6°'4, 48.7°£ 54.6% the difference between detention placements and detention m Other 1.2% 1.2% 2.1% admissions. I Male 70.10/0 74.9% 71.7% Female 29.9% 25.1% 28.3% mlmmmm mn m RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS B 8-12 9.50/0 10.5°,4} 10.1% FY 2002 13 9.7% 7.5% 10.0% i I 14 16.6°/o 12.3°'4, 14.0°/o High m 15 20.3% 18.1% 14.0% -i 16 23.9{}/{} 26.00£ 25.3% Moderate 54{'/,} 17 16.6% 23.0% 22.7(}/{, -t m I 18-20 1.7% 1.6{}/,} 2.80/{} Low 34°'4, g nx3r/Missing 1.7% 1.1% 1.2% it I m Total fltuwile Cases 921 890 980 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 500£ 600/,} 70% 80% 90% I00 Unless noted otherw)sc, thest: data do not mclude domestic relatlons or child we]fare complaints. Percentages may not add to I00% due to rounding. B Data Resource Guide FY2002 OFFENSE* DISTRIBUTION FOR INTAKE CASES, NEW PROBATION CASES, PRE-DIsPOSITIONAL DETENTION PLACEMENTS, AND COMMITMENTS TO THE STATE OFFENSE* CATEGORY AND SEVERITY, FY 2002 • The intervals selected for days juveniles spent hi detention (0- 3, 4-21, 22-51, and 52 +) are consistent with applicable statutes found in the CO V. See Appendix J for CO Vcitations. 0 0 "Of juveniles in pre-dispositional detention from the 2P' Desertion/Support 0 0 District, nearly three-quarters were detained for 21 days or Spot,sal Abuse 326 0 0 0 less. Other DR/CW 96 0 0 0 Total DR/C W 3, 407 0 0 i "The Juvenile Tracking System shows no juveniles from the 21 ~ District CSU were released from post-dispositional detention Abusive Language 57 1 3 0 (with programs) in FY 2002. Alcohol 28 7 2 0 • Of FY 2002 releases, the average length of stay (LOS) for Arson 13 2 9 2 juveniles committed to the state was 10.4 months. The COV Assault 243 51 54 4 allows juveniles committed indeterminately to stay up to 36 Burglary 97 23 57 I2 months (unless committed for murder or manslaughter), and Contempt of Court 38 0 5 4 &terminately until their 21 ~' birthday. A list of COVcirations Disorderly Conduct 41 6 l 0 pertaining to DJJ can be found in Appendix J. Escapes 1 0 0 0 AVERAGE LOS FOR PROBATION, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL Extortion 8 3 2 l Failure to Appear 10 0 6 0 DETENTION, POST-DISPOSITIONALDETENTION (WITH Family Offense 26 0 1 0 PROGRAMS), STATE COMMITMENTS, AND PAROLE Fraud 25 2 4 o FY 2002 RELEASES Gangs 0 0 0 0 )UU Kidnapping 0 0 0 0 Larceny 359 39 110 25 4OO Misc/Other 50 1 24 0 300 Murder 3 0 3 0 Narcotics 57 11 1 4 200 Obscenity 12 1 0 0 Obstruct Justice 1 I 0 3 1 100 Prob./Parole Violation 30 0 9 3 Robbery 16 1 7 1 Pre-disp Post-disp ;Probation" State Parole Sexual Assault 9 4 3 0 Detention Detention Status Offense 145 27 2 0 Telephone Law 30 4 3 0 • AverageLOS 16 317 378 Traffic 43 6 6 0 Releases 214 162 0 16 14 Trespass 28 6 2 0 *Probation LOS cannot be calculated due to data lost during system upgrade. Vandalism 129 18 63 14 Weapons 39 9 17 4 PRE-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION LOS DISTRIBUTION Tom~Juvenile Offenses 1,548 222 397 75 FY 2002 RELEASES 40% .... 68 222 Class 1 Misdemeanor 687, 118 121 20 30% Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 172 9 12 5 CHINS/CHINSup 176 27 3 0 20% Other 92 0 39 3 10% Total Juvenile Offenses 1,548 222 397 75 Total Juvenile Cases/ 980 222 166 17 0% Placements~Commitments * *A single case, t)lacement, or cominitulellt lnay involve inu]tiple offenses. 0-3 days 4-21 22-51 52+ Unless noted odmrwise, these data do not include domestic relations or child wdfare con@aims. I.) ercentages may llOt add to 100% due to rounding. li Data Resource Guide FY2002 m District 22 275 South Main Street, Suite 53 m Rocky Mount, Virginia 24151 Director: Hart7 W. Ayer 54O-483-3O5O I INTAKE COIVlPLAINTS, FY 2000-2002 • This Region 1 CSU is composed of three localities, the City of Danville and the counties of Franklin and Pittsylvania. • U.S. Census data indicate that between 1990 and 2000, this district's m juvenile population ages 10-17 increased 9% (from 15,641 to 17,118). • Intake cases are identified differently than in the past, to account for variations in ,'eporting across jurisdictions. A single intake I case now includes all complaints reported for a single juvenile, on a single day, within a single locality. @ • In FY 2002, the 22 '''j District CSU processed 1,808 juvenile intakes Technicfi Violations and 2,304 juvenile complaints for an average of 1.3 complaints per Traffic 10 17 12 intake. D Othe," 155 174 194 • A petition was filed in response to 82% of juvenile complaints. Total [uze~TileCo~¢)laints 2~704 2fi98 2t304 Total Concdait;,ts 6,561 6,409 6,047 • Between FY 2000 and FY 2002, domestic relations complaints decreased by 3%, while juvenile complaints decreased 15%. I I NTAKE DISPOSITION OF JUVENILE COMPLAINTS • Over half (62%) of FY 2002 complaints were for domestic relations FY 2002 or child welfare (not juvenile justice-related). D • The 22 ''d District CSU saw a 21% decrease in juvenile felony 100% • Petition Filed Only complaints between FY 2000 and FY 2002, while statewide trends @ 80% decreased 3%. [] Petition/ 60% -' Detention Order • A juvenile at intake during FY 2002 was most likely to be a white, 16 year old male. 40% -- []Resoh'ed/ m Dive,'ted • 239 juveniles in FY 2002 had a risk assessment completed. Of 20% these, over half had a moderate score. 0% [] Other B 0% • 92% of new probation cases were for felonies or class 1 misdemeanors. JUVENILE INTAKE CASES, DEMOGRAPHICS • Detention placements refer to the decision, made by an intake @ FY 2000-2002 officer or judge, to detain a juvenile. See "Terms and Concepts' for the difference between detention placements and detention Black admissions. i White 52.7% 52.3('/0 52.9% • The intervals selected for days juveniles spent in detention (0-3, 4- Othe,- 0.5% 0.5% 1.2% 21, 22-51, and 52 +) are consistent with applicable statutes found in the COll. See AppendixJ for COVcitations. m Male 66.8% 69.2% 67.5% Female 33.2% 30.9% 32.5% I_l RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS m 8- t2 10.2% 10.3% 9.2% FY 2002 13 7.3% 7.7% 10.3% 14 16.8% 16.1% 13.7% High B 15 17.1% 21.4% 17.6% 16 21.2% 20.9% 24.0% Moderate II159% 17 24.3% 20.1% 22.4% W 18-20 2.6('/,, 2.3% 1.8% Low E mor/Mis,.;in~ 0.6% 1.2% 1.0% @ i Tota! fltwnile Cases 2~169 1~916 1,808 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100 d~e~e ,~:~*.~,tc~ Not im:lude domestic relations or child welfare complaints. Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. I m m Data Resource GuMe F}2002 OFFENSE* DISTRIBUTION FOR INTARE CASES, NEW PROBATION CASES, PRE-DIsPOSITIONAL DETENTION PLACEMENTS, AND COMMITMENTS TO THE STATE OFFENSE* CATEGORY AND SEVERITY, FY 2002 "Of juveniles in pre-dispositional detention from the 22 "d District, over three-quarters were detained for 21 days or less. Custody 0 0 ° Of FY 2002 releases, the average length of stay (LOS) for juveniles Desertion/Support 642 0 0 0 m post-dispositional detention with programs was 2.0 months. Spousal Abuse 405 0 0 0 The COVallows juveniles to be in post-dispositional detention Other DR/CW 81 0 0 0 for no longer than 6 months. A list of COVcitations pertaining Total DR/C W 3. 743 0 0 0 to DJJ can be found in Appendix J. See also 'Terms and |veniieOffenlse. , Concepts' for the difference between types of detention Abusive Language 15 0 0 0 admissions. Alcohol 28 2 3 2 ° Of FY 2002 releases, the average LOS for juveniles committed Arson 7 1 2 1 to the state was 11.5 months. The COV allows juveniles Assault 324 45 152 6 committed indeterminately to stay up to 36 inonths (unless Burglary 83 15 44 6 committed for murder or manslaughter), and determinately Contempt of Court 144 5 45 6 until their 2Y' birthday. A list of COVcitations pertaining to Disorderly Condttct 105 8 33 2 DJJ can be found in Appendix J. Escapes 4 0 2 0 Extortion 2 3 1 1 AVERAGE LOS FOR PROBATION, PRE-DISPOSlTIONAL Failure to Appear 98 0 30 1 DETENTION, POST-DISPOSITIONALDETENTION (WITH Family Offense 64 0 0 0 PROGRAMS), STATE COMMITMENTS, AND PAROLE Fraud 45 4 21 3 FY 2002 RELEASES Gangs 0 0 0 0 5OO Kidnapping 2 0 2 0 Larceny 310 42 90 19 400 Misc/Other 204 1 99 7 300 Murder 3 1 l 0 ;.,... Narcotics 78 l 0 18 3 200 Obscenity 19 0 0 0 Obsu'uct Justice 19 0 5 3 100 Prob./Parole Violation 159 0 99 13 Robbery 91 l 10 2 Probation" Pre-disp Post-disp Paroll Sexual Assault 25 3 25 4 Detention Detention Status Offense 213 1 3 0 60 350 200 Telephone Law 10 0 2 0 I AverageLOS - 17 Traffic 62 6 16 3 Releases 169 623 5 36 35 Trespass 63 7 8 0 ':-l)robatioll LOS cmmot be calculated due to data lost during system upgrade. Vandalism 167 6 39 2 Weapons 42 5 21 1 PRE-OISPOSmONAL DETENnON LOS DtSIRtBUnON Toga~Juvenile Offenses 2.304 166 771 85 Fg 2002 RELEASES 60% 76 211 50%1 48% 1 Class 1 Misdemeanor 1,034 77 301 22 4O% Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 250 9 50 7 CHINS/CHINSup 283 2 10 C 3O% Other 368 2 199 2C 2O% Tolal Jtmenile Offenses 2,304 166 771 85 10% Tota/ Juvenile Cases/ 1,808 166 614 32 0% PlacemenlJCommilmenls* ':A single case, placelnent, or comnutn/e,n may involve multiple offe,,ses. 0-3 days 4-21 22-51 52+ Unless noted otherwise, these data do ,lot include domestic relations or child v,,clfare complaims. l'ercentages may not add to 100% clue to rounding. R R I)ata Resource Guide 1:}'2002 305 East Main Street B District 23 Salem, Virginia 24153 Director: David Davis 540-387-6125 B ~hlTAlgl: P. CIIVlDlalI~IT¢, FV 9{'}C~-~)~{'~ • This Region 1 CSU is composed of two localities, the City of Salem and the County of Roanoke. i • U.S. Census data indicate that between 1990 and 2000, this disuict's J juvenile populatiola ages 10-17 increased 11% (from 10,666 to 11,858). • Intake cases are identified differently than in the past, to account for variations in reporting across jurisdictions. A single intake case now includes all complaints reported for a single juvenile, on a single day, within a single locality. B Other • In FY 2002, the 23 r~t District CSU processed 1,507 juvenile intakes Technical Violations 92 65 49 and 1,823 juvenile complaints for an average of 1.2 complaints per Traffic 205 78 74 intake. mlB Other 137 83 105 • A petition was filed in response to 70% of juvenile complaints. 11823 Total [ltze~TileCon#laints 1T872 1~863 30% of complaints in District 23 were resolved or diverted ~1 m~ Total Concdaints 3,058 3,024 3~058 compared to only 16"/,, on the statewide level. • Between FY 2000 and FY 2002, domestic relations complaints INTAKE DISPOSITION OF JUVENILE COMPLAINTS increased by 4%, while juvenile complaints decreased 3%. R FY 2002 • Over one-third (40%) of FY 2002 complaints were for domestic 100% Petition Filed relations or child welfare (not juvenile justice-related). Only 80°/, • The 23 ''1 District CSU saw a 24% increase in class 1 misdemeanor [] 58% Petition/ complaints between FY 2000 and FY 2002, while statewide trends 60% Detention Order decreased less than 1%. [] 40% Resolved/ • A juvenile at intake during FY 2002 was most likely to be a white, Diverted 20% 17 year old male. 0% [] Othe," • 152 juveniles in FY 2002 had a risk assessment completed. Of 0% these, over half had a moderate score. JUVENILE INTAKE CASES, DEMOGRAPHICS "88% of new probation cases were for felonies or class 1 FY 2000-2002 misdemeanors. • Detention placements refer to the decision, made by an intake Bla& officer o* judge, to detain a juvenile. See 'Terms and Concepts' for lIB White 90.5% 88.3% 87.9% the difference between detention placements and detention Other 1.5% 1.1% 1.3% admissions. mmmmnmm mm • The inte~,als selected for days juveniles spent in detention (0-3, 4- Male 64.8% 67.8% 65.7°/, 21, 22-51, and 52 +) are consistent with applicable statutes found in Female 35.2% 32.2% 34.3% the COV. See AppendixJ for COVcitations. 8-12 7.9% 9.0% 7.7% FY 2UU2 13 5.5% 7.2°/, 5.9% 14 9.6°/,, 12.7% 11.2% High 18 15 17.3% 16.2% 2(?.6% 60% 16 25.7% 25.4% 24.6% Moderate B 17 31.2°/, 25.8% 26.9% 18-20 2.2% 2.0% 1.7% Low ~ E n~or/Missin~ 0.6% 1.7% 1.4% B Total lu'~nile Cases 1,563 1,509 1,507 O% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100 B Data Resource Guide F12002 OFFENSE* DISTRIBUTION FOR INTAKE CASES, NEW PROBATION CASES, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION PLACEMENTS, AND COMMITMENTS TO THE STATE OFFENSE* CATEGORY AND SEVERITY, FY 2002 "Of juveniles in pre-dispositional detention from the 23 "l District, over two-thirds were detained for 21 days or less. 0 0 • The Juvenile Tracking System shows no juveniles from the Desertion/Su 0 23 "l District CSU were released from post-dispositional Spousal Abuse 173 0 0 0 detention (with programs) m FY 2002. Other DR/CW 35 0 0 0 • Of FY 2002 releases, the average length of stay (LOS) for Total DR/C W 1,235 0 6 0 juveniles committed to the state was 12.8 months. The COg allows juveniles committed indeterminately to stay up to 36 Abusive Language 28 1 4 0 months (unless committed for murder or manslaughter), and Alcohol 71 1 12 0 determinately until their 21 ~* birthday. A list of COgcitations Arson 11 0 5 0 pertaining to DJJ can be found in Appendix J. Assault 240 22 35 3 Burglary 34 1 12 0 Contempt of Court 44 0 16 0 Disorderly Conduct 88 4 41 0 Escapes 0 0 0 0 AVERAGE LOS FOR PROBATION, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL Extortion 3 0 0 0 DETENTION, POST-DISPOSlTIONALDETENTION (WITH Failure to Appear 32 0 19 1 Family Offense 7 0 0: 0 PROGRAMS), STATE COMMITMENTS, AND PAROLE Fl+aud 31 3 6; 0 FY 2002 RELEASES Gangs 0 0 0 0 500 , Kidnapping 0 0 0 0 400 -~ Larceny 223 14 41 2 Misc/Other 113 0 36 0 ~.. 30O ----- Murder 1 0 0 0 Narcotics 125 6 7 0 200 Obscenity 20 0 1 0 100 Obstruct Justice 20 0 2 1 Prob./Parole Violation 39 1 24 1 .I Robbery 3 0 2 2 Probation* Pre-disp Post-disp State Parole Sexual Assault 11 1 21 3 l)elenlion l)elen/ion Status Offense 320 2 2 0 • Average LOS 22 391 2O7 Telephone Law 4 0 1 0 Traffic 168 2 13 0 Rele:kses 81 1 222 l 0 Trespass 75 1 7 0' +Probation LOS cannot be calculated due to data lost during system upgrade. Vandalisnt 96 5 10 1 Weapons 16 0 2 0 PRE-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION LOS DISTRIBUTION Total Juvenile Offenses 1.823 64 282 14 FY 2002 RELEASES 50% 45% 63 40% Class 1 Misdemeanor 829 39 125 C Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 252 5 28 30% CHINS/CHINSup 324 2 2 C 20% Other 228 l 64 Total Juw'nile Offenses 1,823 64 282 14 10% Total Juvenile Cases/ 1,507 64 220 7 0% Placements/Commimwnts * +A single case, placement, or commitment may revolve multiple offenses. 0-3 daxs 4-21 22-51 52 + i ' . h i i ,^^n, i Virginia ,-, B Data Resource Guide FY2002 Iill Distric t 23A 309 3rd Street, S.W., 3rd Floor B Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Director: Rodney C. Hubbard 540-853-2615 INTAKE COMPLAINTS, FY 2000-2002 • This Region 1 CSU is composed of one locality, the City of B Roanoke. • U.S. Census data indicate that between 1990 and 2000, this district's B juvenile population ages 10-17 increased 5% (from 8,471 to 8,876). • Intake cases are identified differently than in the past, to account for variations in reporting across jurisdictions. A single intake B case now includes all complaints reported for a single juvenile, on a single day, within a single locality. • In FY 2002, the District 23A CSU processed 1,662 juvenile intakes B and 2,042 juvenile complaints for an average of 1.2 complaints per Traffic intake. Other 476 331 252 B • A petition was filed in response to 79% of juvenile complaints. Total lmeni]e Col~laints 21278 2t 104 21042 Total Con#aims 5~053 4,543 4~552 • Between FY 2000 and FY 2002, both domestic relations and total juvenile complaints decreased by 10% each. I INTAKE DISPOSITION OF JUVENILE COMPLAINTS • Over half (55%) of FY 2002 complaints were for domestic relations FY 2002 or child welfare (not juvenile justice-related). I • The District 23A CSU saw a 30% decrease in juvenile felony 100% • Petition Filed Only complaints between FY 2000 and FY 2002, while statewide trends 80% - 60% decreased 3%. @ [] Petition/ 60% Detention Order • A juvenile at intake during FY 2002 was most likely to be a black, 16 year old male. 40% [] Resolved/ @ Diverted • 205 juveniles in FY 2002 had a risk assessment completed. Of 20% these, over half had a moderate score. 1% [] Other 0(% • 90% of new probation cases were for felonies or class 1 I misdemeanors. JUVENILE INTAKE CASES, DEMOGRAPHICS • Detention placements refer to the decision, made by an intake @ FY 2000-2002 officer or judge, to detain a juvenile. See 'Terms and Concepts' for the difference between detention placements and detention Bla& admissions. White 40.7% 39.1% 43.5% B Other 1.3% 2.0% 3.0% @ Male 64.4% 66.1% 66.7% Female 35.6% 34.0% 33.3% RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS B 8-12 11.5% 10.1% 11.6% FY 2002 13 12.3% 12.9% 11.7% I 14 19.0o/o 18.0% 15.8% High 35% B 15 19.1% 21.5% 19.3% I 16 18.5% 19.(7% 23.0% Modmate i3% 17 17.8% 17.0% 16.7% q B 18-20 1.7% 1.3% 1.7% Low 12% E rmr/Missin~ 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% ~ I Total fitwnile Cases 1,824 1,720 1,662 0 % 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100 B ) I I,do~ ,~nloH otherw;,;o tho~o olala olo not mclucle ('lomeslic relaTiC,,~ nr ,~hih] welfare co,nnlalnts. I ercenta~,es may not add to 100% due to roundhw. I Data Resource Guide D2002 OFFENSE* DISTRIBUTION FOR INTAKE CASES, NEW PROBATION CASES, PRE-DIsPOSITIONAL DETENTION PLACEMENTS, AND COMMITMENTS TO THE STATE OFFENSE* CATEGORY AND SEVERITY, FY 2002 "The intervals selected for days juveniles spent in detention (0- 3, 4-21, 22-51, and 52+) are consistent wkh applicable statutes found in the CO V. See Appendix J for CO gcitations. 0 0 Desertion/Support 423 0 0 0 • Of juveniles izl pre-dispositional detention from the District Spousal Abuse 558 0 0 0 23A CSU, nearly two-thirds were detained for 21 days or less. Other DWCW 222 0 0 2 • The Juvenile Tracking System shows no juveniles from District Total DR/C W Z 510 0 0 2 23A were released from post-dispositional detention (with ,Ivenile Offenlses ] I programs) in FY 2002. Abusive Language 37 1 2 0 • Of FY 2002 releases, the average len~h of stay (LOS) for Alcohol 19 0 1 0 juveniles committed to the state was 12.1 months. The COV Arson 8 1 6 0 allows juveniles committed indeterminately to stay up to 36 Assault 362 17 89 9 months (unless committed for murder or manslaughter), and Burglary 38 5 14 6 determinately until their 21 ~ birthday. A list of COVcitations Contempt of Court 47 1 27 8 pertaining to DJJ can be found in Appexldix J. Disorderly Conduct 129 1 13 1 Escapes 5 0 0 C AVERAGE LOS FOR PROBATION, PRE-DISPOSlTIONAL Extortion 13 0 2 1 DETENTION, POST-DISPOSITIONALDETENTION (WITH Failure to Appeal 57 1 41 2 Family Offense 18 l OI C PROGRAMS), STATE COMMITMENTS, AND PAROLE Fraud 15 1 2 C FY 2002 RELEASES Gangs 0 0i 0 £ 500 Kidnapping 2 0 1 C 400 Larceny 324 22 45 2 Misc/Olher 258 0 52 C 300 .... Murder 3 0 3 C Narcotics 89 8 19 200 ...... Obscenity l l 0 1 C 100 - Obstruct Justice 25 3 9 Prob./Parole Violation 47 0 34 Post-disI) Robbery 17 1 I 1 Probation* I're-disp Slale Parole Sexual Assault 111 0 0 ( l)etention 1)etention Status Offense 187 0 4 ( ll Average LOS 22 367 263 Telephone Law 8, 0 0 ( .de:+ I I 360 2.3 22 Traffic 32 0 0 i Trespass 89 4 9 ':'l}rolmtion LOS cmluot be cah.'ulated due to data lost during, systeut upgrade. Vandalism 154 6 19 z Weapons 37 4 21 ( PRE-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION LOS DISTRIBUTION Tom/Juvenile Offenses 2. 042 77 425 7t FY 2002 RELEASES 40% 3R9/~, 35 122 Class 1 Misdemeanor 1,054 34 177 2~ 30% Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 163 6 35 c CHINS/CHINSup 204 1 4 C 20% Other 303 l 87 l Tom/Juvenile Oflbnses 2. 042 77 425 75 10% Tota/ Juvenile Cases/ 1,662 77 366 21 0% Placements/Commimwnts * *A single case, placement, or conunltmcnt may involve multiple offenses. 0-3 da)s 4-21 22-51 52+ Unless noted otherwise, these data do not include dontestic relations or clnld welfare conlplamts. Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. Virginia U, ia Ilia Data Resource Guide F12002 District 24 901 Church Street, 2nd Floor W Lynchburg, Virginia 24504 Director: Robert G. Wade 434-847-1582 INTAKE COMPLAINTS, FY 2000-2002 • This Region 1 CSU is composed of six localities, the cities of W Bedford and Lynchburg, and the counties of Amherst, Bedford, Campbell, and Nelson. • U.S. Census data indicate that between 1990 and 2000, this district's W juvenile population ages 10-17 increased 17% (froln 21,365 to 24,949). • Intake cases are identified differently than in the past, to account for variations in reporting across jurisdictions. A single intake W case now includes all COlnplaints reported for a single juvenile, on a single day, within a single locality. W Technical Violations 199 177 205 • In FY 2002, the 24 '~' District CSU processed 2,424 juvenile intakes and 3,077 juvenile complaints for an average of 1.4 complaints per T,'affic 10 9 3 intake. Other 15 8 7 W • A petition was filed in response to 98% of juvenile complaints. Tom/luwnile ConFlaints 3,127 3,273 3,077 Only 2% of intakes at District 24 were ,'esolved or dive,'ted compared Total Concdaims 8,057 8,698 8,832 to 16% on the statewide level. W • Between FY 2000 and FY 2002, domestic relations complaints INTAKE DISPOSITION OF JUVENILE COMPLAINTS increased by 17%, while juvenile complaints decreased 2%. FY 2002: • Nearly two-thirds (65%) of FY 2002 complaints were for domestic W 100% , • Petition Filed relations or child welfare (not juvenile jt,stice-related). 80% --70% Only • The 24 'h District CSU saw a 9% increase in juvenile felony Im [] Petition/ complaints between FY 2000 and FY 2002, while statewide trends 60% Detention Oider decreased 3%. • A juvenile at intake during FY 2002 was most likely to be a white, 40% [] Resolved/ 28% 16 )rear old male. Im Diverted 20% • 283 juveniles in FY 2002 had a risk assessment completed. Of 2% 0%, [] Other these, over half had a moderate score. 0% Ha • 77% of new p,'obation cases were for felonies or class 1 JUVENILE INTAKE CASES, DEMOGRAPHICS misdemeanors. W I FY 2000-2002 • Detention placements refer to the decision, made by an intake officer o1"judge, to detain a juveni]e. See 'Terms and Concepts' for Bla& the difference between detention placements and detention admissions. im White 55.7% 54.1%1 55.2% Other 1.3% 0.8%' 0.9% • The intervals selected for days juveniles spent in detention (0-3, 4- i 21, 22-51, and 52 +) are consistent with applicable statutes found in ~:, the COll. See AppendixJ for COVcitations. @ Male 67.4% 66.5% 64.6% Female 32.6°/{, 33.50/o 35.4% n RisK ASSESSMENT RESULTS Iil 8-12 9.6% 8.0% 6.9% FY 2002 13 8.9% 7.0% 8.6% I 14 14.5% 17.0% 14.4% High 20°/{} Ill 15 19.6{'/o 19.2% 20.7% -t L 16 20.50/o 23.4% 23.4% Moderate 54% 17 23.2% 22.3% 22.3% -i I m 18-20 2.5% 2.0% 2.6% Low 26% E n'or/Missin~ 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% I I am IToral luu~ile Cases 2,456! 2,457 2,424 0% 10{/o 20% 300/{} 40{}/{} 500/o 60{'/{) 70% 80% 90% 100 .1 I . 1_ . • I l ] ." I .' I II 1( 1 l~ i i . , ^^,w i i, Im Data Resource Guide fY2002 OFFENSE* DISTRIBUTION FOR INTAKE CASES, NEW PROBATION CASES, PRE-DisPOSmONAL DETENTION PLACEMENTS, AND COMMITMENTS TO THE STATE OFFENSE* CATEGORY AND SEVERITY, FY 2002 • Of juveniles in pre-dispositional detention from the 24 'h District, over three-quarters were detained for 21 days or less. Custod.y 0 0 • Of FY 2002 releases, the average len~h of stay; (LOS) for Desertion/Su 0 0 juveniles in post-dispositional detention with p,ograms was Spousal Abuse 1.094 0 0 0 2.5 nlonths. The COV allows juveniles to be in post- Other DR/CW 168 0 0 0 dispositional detention for no longer than 6 months. A list of Tolal DR/CW 5, 755 0 0 COVcitations pertaining to DJJ can be found in Appendix J. f .I See also 'Terms and Concepts' for the difference between types Abusive Language 47 0 3 1 of detention admissions. Alcohol 58 7 5 4 • Of FY 2002 releases, the average LOS for juveniles committed Arson 24 10 16 2 to the state was 9.7 months. The COV allows juveniles Assault 453 90 203 20 committed indeterminately to stay up to 36 months (unless Burglary 104 27 55 6 committed for murder or manslaughter), and determinately Contempt of Court 497 10 171 20 until their 2V ~birthday. A list of COVcitations pertaining to Disorderly Conduct 67 5 15 1 DJJ can be found in Appendix J. Escapes 4 1 3 3 Extortion 8 4 3 0 AVERAGE LOS FOR PROBATION, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL Failure to Appear 2 l 0 3 2 DETENTION, POST-DISPOSITIONALDETENTION (WITH Family Offense 36 0 0 0 PROGRAMS), STATE COMMITMENTS, AND PAROLE Fraud 45 2 4 14 FY 2002 RELEASES Gangs 0 0 0 0 500 Kidnapping 6 0 6 2 Larceny 357 61 128 36 400 Misc/Other 27 3 4 0 Murder 2 0 0 0 300 ...... Narcotics 198 37 66 18 200 " Obscenity 8 3 2 0 Obstruct Justice 30 6 8 3 100 Prob./Parole Violation 207 3 79 14 Robbery 12 0 11 4 Post-disp Sexual Assault 36 8 36 7 Probati(m* Pre-disp State I'arole l)elention I)etention Status Offense 427 55 8 l Telephone Law 22 0 0 0 • AverageLOS 16 76 294 429 Traffic 49 4 6 2 Releases 36O 638 19 56 29 Trespass 66 7 12 3 Vandalism 220 39 48 39 *l'robation LOS cmmot be calculated due to data lost &mug system upgrade. Weapons 46 ? 18 5 PRE-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION LOS DISTRIBUTION TotalJuvenile Offenses 3,077 389 913 207 FY 2002 RELEASES 50% I 46%- 109 346 40% Class 1 Misdemeanor 1,067 191 298 82 Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 708 29 181 27 30% CHINS/CHINSup 461 55 8 2 II Other 219 5 80 14 20% Toga/Juvenile Offem'es 3.077 389 913 207 10% To/a/Juvenile Cases/ Z 424 389 654 56 I_ Placemet]t.v/Commitmenls * 0% • A single case, placetueut, or commitment may revolve muhiple offenses. 0-3 da)s 4-21 22-51 52+ Unless noted otllerwise, these data do not include domestic reLuions or child welfare complaints. Per,:entages may not add to 100% due to roundHtg. F >gin,ia ,-/ B l)ala Resottrce 6'uide FY2002 B District 25 6 East Johnson Street B Staunton, Virginia 24401 Director: Ga O~ Conway 540-245-5315 INTAKE COMPLAINTS, FY 2000-2002 • This Region 1 CSU is composed of twelve localities, the cities of B Buena Vista, Covington, Lexington, Staunton, Waynesboro, and the counties of Alleghany, Augusta, Bath, Botetourt, Craig, Highland, and Rockbridge. B • U.S. Census data indicate that between 1990 and 2000, this district's juvenile population ages 10-17 increased 13% (from 19,714 to 22,250). • Intake cases are identified differently than in the past, to account B for variations in reporting across jurisdictions. A single intake case now includes all complaints reported for a single juvenile, on B a single day, within a single locality. Tech nica}. Violations 142 146 129 Traffic 68 53 47 • In FY 2002, the 25 'h District CSU processed 1,982 juvenile intakes Other 62 67 44 and 2,564 juvenile complaints for an average of 1.3 complaints per B Total [,zeni/e Cot?¢#aints 3~044 2r910 2~564 intake. Total Conc#aint s 7,166 7,312 6,968 • A petition was filed in ,esponse to 81% of juvenile complaints. @ • Between FY 2000 and FY 2002, domestic relations complaints INTAKE DISPOSITION OF JUVENILE COMPLAINTS increased by 7%, while juvenile complaints decreased 16%. FY 2002 • Nearly two-thirds (63%) of FY 2002 complaints were for domestic B 100% • Petition Filed relations or child welfare (not juvenile justice-related). 80% ...... Only • The 25 ~1' District CSU saw a 31% decrease in juvenile felony 60% [] Petition/ complaints between FY 2000 and FY 2002, while statewide trends B Detention Order decreased 3%. 40% [] Resolved/ • A juvenile at intake during FY 2002 was most likely to be a white, B Diverted 16 or 17 year old male. [] Other • 201 juveniles in FY 2002 had a risk assessment completed. Of 0% these, over half had a moderate score. B JUVENILE INTAKE CASES, DEMOGRAPHICS • 92% of ,lew probation cases were for felonies or class 1 FY 2000-2002 misdemeanors. B • Detention placements refer to the decision, made by an retake officer or judge, to detain a juvenile. See 'Terms and Concepts' for Black the difference between detention placements and detention White 83.6% 84.8% 82.6°/,, m admissions. Other 1.0% 1.0% 1.5% • The intervals selected for days juveniles spent in detention (0-3, 4- U Male 70.1% 69.3% 67.6"/o 21, 22-51, and 52 +) are consistent with applicable statutes found in Female 29.9% 30.7% 32.4% the COV. See AppendixJ for COVcitations. Risk ASSESSMENT RESULTS m 8-12 10.2% 9.5% 7.8% FY 2002 13 7.9% 7.5% 8.1% T ' I 14 13.4% 13.1% 13.9% High 2t"/,, m 15 19.7% 20.3% 17.3% q 16 23.1°/,, 21.4% 24.9% Moderate 55% 17 21.6% 25.2% 25.0% m 18-20 3.0% 2.6% 2.3% Low 21o/,, I Error/ Missin~ 1.1% 0.4% 0.7% I m Total fltzenile Cases 2,204 2,112 1,982 0% 10% 20°/`, 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 - i 1 -1 i 1j- I i • ^^,,, 1 i, m Data Resource Guide 13"2002 OFFENSE* DISTRIBUTION FOR INTAKE CASES, NEW PROBATION CASES, PRE-DIsPOSlTIONAL DETENTION PLACEMENTS, AND COMMITMENTS TO THE STATE OFFENSE* CATEGORY AND SEVERITY, FY 2002 • Of juveniles in pre-dispositional detention from the 25 'h District, over three-quarters were detained for 21 days oi less. 0 0 • Of FY 2002 releases, the average length of stay, (LOS) for Desertion/Su 0 0 juveniles in post-dispositional detention with programs was Spousal Abt, se 559 0 0 0 2.0 months. The COV allows juveniles to be in post- Other DR/CW 202 l 1 0 dispositional detention for no longer than 6 months. A list of ~i i~~ COVcitations pertaining to DJJ can be found in Appendix J. See also 'Terms and Concepts' for the difference between types Abusive Language 45 1 0 4 of detention admissions. Alcohol 169 7 10 5 • Of FY 2002 releases, the average LOS for juveniles committed Arson 8 1 1 0 to the state was 10.7 months. The COV allows juveniles Assault 327 47 129 18 committed indeterminately to stay up to 36 months (unless Burglary 98 21 44 27 committed for murder or manslaughter), and determinately Contelnpt o1" Court 145 l 47 9 until their 21 '~ birthday. A list of COVcitations pertaining to Disorderly Conduct 86 9 17 3 Djj can be found in Appendix J. Escapes 9 0 4 2 Extortion 10 4 3 0 AVERAGE LOS FOR PROBATION, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL Failure to Appear 13 0 8 0 DETENTION, POST-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION (WITH FanlilyOffense 38 0 1 1 PROGRAMS),STATE COMMITMENTS, AND PAROLE F,-aud 39 4 7 7 FY 2002 RELEASES Gangs 0 0 0 0 500 Kidnapping l 0 l 0 Larceny 351 41 126 52 400 - - Misc/Other 53 1 12 4 Murder 0 0 0 0 ~. 300 ...... Narcotics 133 10 18 12 Obscenity 21 0 4 1 200 -- Obstruct Justice 32 3 12 4 100 -- Prob./Parole Violation 128 0 93 25 __~ Robbery 4 2 4 0 i)robation , Pre-disp l)ost-disp Sexual Assault 34 7 12 5 Status Offense 275 10 2 0 I)eienlion l)elention Telephone Law 4 1 0 0 IAvemge LOS __ - _ 15 6(1 325 193 . Traffic 164 3 10 7 Rele:tses 1180 1471 47 r ,9 Trespass 78 2 3 7 Vandalism 267 11 34 1fi *Prolmuou LOS cal]ilot be calculated due to data lost durhlg, system upgra(]e. Weapons 32 4 2 0 PRE-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION LOS DISTRIBUTION e.564 zgo 6o4 cos FY 2002 RELEASES 60°/o I 53% 82 207 50% Class 1 Misdemeanor 1,243 92 241 72 40°/,, Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 302 5 45 22 CHINS/CHINSup 340 10 8 I 30% Other 220 l 103 26 20% --13% TolalJu venile Offemvs 2, 564 196 604 208 10% Tolal Juvenile Cases/ 1,982 190 475 50 0% , PI;-tcemezlls/Co/lmlilm6vlls* • A smglc case, placement, or conmutment may involve ]nultq,le offenses. 0-3 days 4-21 22-31 52 + Unless noted o'thcrwlsc, l.hese data do not ]Ilclude domestic relations or child welfare COlnplaillts. I'ercenta~,es may not add to 100% clue to roundine. Virgini il= Da#l Resource Guide FY2002 il District 26 5 North Kent Street B Winchester, Virginia 22601 Director: C. Douglas Tucker 540-667-5770 INTAKE COMPLAINTS, FY 2000-2002 • This Region 2 CSU is composed of eight localities, the cities of m Harrisonburg and Winchester, and the counties of Clarke, Frederick, Page, Rockingham, Shenandoah, and Warren. • U.S. Census data indicate that between 1990 and 2000, this district's B juvenile population ages 10-17 increased 27% (from 24,319 to 30,975). • Intake cases are identified differently than in the past, to account for variations in reporting across jurisdictions. A single intake B case now includes all complaints reported for a single juvenile, on a single day, within a single locality. • In FY 2002, the 26 '1' District CSU processed 1,847 juvenile intakes B Tedmical Violations 194 186 184 I and 2,747 juvenile complaints for an ave,age of 1.5 complaints per T,'affic 5 14 23! intake. Other 18 23 25 B • A petition was filed in response to 89% of juvenile compMnts. Tota] [uwniJe Con~9/amls 2,471 2~666 2r 747 • Between FY 2000 and FY 2002, domestic relations complaints Toted Con#laints 5, 9.37 6,188 6, 423 increased by 6%, while juvenile complaints increased 11%. B INTAKE DISPOSITION OF JUVENILE COMPLAINTS • Over half (57°/,,) of FY 2002 complaints were for domestic relations or child welfare (not juvenile justice-related). FY 2002 • The 26 '1' District CSU saw an 18% increase in juvenile felony B 100% • Petition Filed complaints between FY 2000 and FY 2002, while the statewide trend decreased 3%. 80% Only [] Petition/ • A juvenile at intake during FY 2002 was most likely to be a white, m 60°/, Detention O~der 16 year old male. 40% [] Resolved / • 187 juveniles in FY 2002 had a risk assesslnent completed. Of J Dive,ted these, nearly two-thirds had a naoderate score. 20% % [] Other °90% of new probation cases were fo," felonies or class 1 O/ misdemeanors. 0 I0 R • Detention placements refer to the decision, made by an intake JUVENILE INTAKE CASES, DEMOGRAPHICS officer or judge, to detain a juvenile. See 'Te,ms and Concepts' for FY 2000-2002 the difference between detention placements and detention @ admissions. Bla& • The inte,wals selected for days juveniles spent in detention (0-3, 4- White 80.7% 83.9% 83.9% 21, 22-51, and 52 +) are consistent with applicable statutes found in B the COV. See AppendixJ for COVcitations. Other 10.2% 8.1% 5.6% • Of juveniles in pre-dispositional detention from the 26 '~' District, @ Male 72.9% 73.1% 67.9% over three-qua,ters were detained for 21 days or less. Female 27.2% 26.9% 32A% i Risk ASSESSMENT RESULTS m 8-12 7.3% 5.2% 6.7% FY 2002 13 8.2% 7.3% 8.5% i 14 15.0% 14.0% 14.8% High 17% S 15 21.4% 18.2% 17.5'}/{, -I 16 22.6"/{, 27.0% 25.YYo Moderate 65% 17 22.9% 23.3% 23.1% -I I 18-20 2.0% 4.5"/,, 3.3% Low ,18% E nor/Missin~ 0.6% 0.5% 0.7% I Total/uuwilc Ggs(s 1,676 1~811 6847 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50°,{, 60% 70% 80% 90% 100 m I I,,I,-,;,; 11{%1,~f1 ,~lh,,rv,,;,;,, llu~.o ,Llln ,](~ nc~1 hl,:hu](! (]onle~lu: rulallons (~r ch)ld wellare conn~[ahlts. P~:rcemaees may nol add to 100% due [o roui~dMu. i Data Resource GttMe F}2002 OFFENSE* DISTRIBUTION FOR INTAKE CASES, NEW PROBATION CASES, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION PLACEMENTS, AND COMMITMENTS TO THE STATE OFFENSE* CATEGORY AND SEVERITY, FY 2002 • Of FY 2002 releases, the average len~h of stay (LOS) for juveniles in post-dispositional detention with programs was 0 0 3.6 months. The COV allows juveniles to be in post- Desertion/Su 0 0 dispositional detention for no longer than 6 months. A list of Spousal Abuse 632 0 0 0 COVcitations pertaining to Djj can be found in Appendix J. Other DR/CW 286 0 0 0 See also 'Terms and Concepts' for the difference between types Total DR/C W 3, 676 0 6 0 of detention admissions. avenile Offentses I [ , • Of FY 2002 releases, the average LOS for juveniles committed Abusive Language 13 0 0 0 to the state was 9.7 months. The COV allows juveniles Alcohol 77 1 5 1 committed indeterminately to stay up to 36 months (unless Arson 60 7' 8 0 committed for murder or manslaughter), and dete,'minately Assault 321 30 93 5 until their 21" birthday. A list of COVcitations pertaining to Burglary 152 7 28 4 DJJ can be found in Appendix J. Contempt of Court 40 2 8 0 Disorderly Conduct 37 2 2 0 Escapes 0 0 0 0 Extortion 6 0 0 1 AVERAGE LOS FOR PROBATION, PRE-DISPOSlTIONAL Failure to Appear 2 0 3 0 DETENTION, POST-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION (WITH Family Offense 13 0 0 0 PROGRAMS), STATE COMMITMENTS, AND PAROLE Frat,d 96 2 28 0 FY 2002 RELEASES Gangs 0 0 0 0 50O Kidnapping 11 0 8 0 Larceny 636 55 90 26 400 Misc/Otber 52 l 1 0 ~.. 300 Murcler 3' 0 3 0 Narcotics 156 15 21 0 200 i Obscenity 15 1 1 0 Obstruct Justice 25 2 3 0 100 Prob./Parole Violation 184 0 99 12 Robbery 23 2 19 4 l)ost-disp l)robalion , Pre-disp Slate l)arole Sexual Assault 28 3 5 0 Detention l)eterltior~ Status Offense 209 3 9 0 • Average I,OS 17 110 296 313 Telephone Law 9 2 2 0 k Traffic 134 1 13 4 Rele:Lses 166 I 324 18 2'2 15 Trespass 66 4 6 0 *Probanou [.OS calmot be calculated due to data lost dunng system upgrade. Vandalism 343 18 63 7 Weapons 36 4 ] 4 0 PRE-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION LOS DISTRIBUTION Total Juvenile Offenses 2. 747 165 532 64 FY 2002 RELEASES 50% , 48% 68 229 Class 1 Misdemeanor 1,298 80 179 24 40°/. Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 268 9 ] 4 30% CFtlNS/CHINSup 229 4 9 C Other 232 4 101 12 20% TotalJuvenile Offenses 2, 747 165 532 64 10% --6%m TotalJuvenile Cases/ 1.847 165 344 20 Placements/Commimwnts * 0% '"-A single ease, placement, or commxtlnent may involve multiple offenses. 0-3 da}s 4-21 22-51 52+ Unless noted otherwise, these data do not include domestic relations or child welfare complaims. Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. Virginia -, Im @ Data Resource Guide fT2002 District 27 143 3rd Street, N.W., Suite 2 IS Pulaski, Virginia 24301 Director: John D. Moore 540-980-7735 INTAKE COMPLAINTS, FY 2000-2002 • This Region 1 CSU is composed of eight localities, the cities of I Galax and Radford, and the counties of Carroll, Floyd, Grayson, Montgomery, Pulaski, and Wythe. Iii • U.S. Census data indicate that between 1990 and 2000, this district's juvenile population ages 10-17 increased 3% (from 19,537 to 20,063). • Intake cases are identified differently than in the past, to account @ for variations in reporting across jurisdictions. A single retake case now includes all complaints reported for a single juvenile, on a single day, within a single locality. m Technical Violations 138 111 143 • In FY 2002, the 27 ~1' District CSU processed 1,775 juvenile intakes Traffic 25i 48 21 and 2,354 juvenile complaints for an average of 1.3 complaints per Other 46 24 27 intake. m Total/.while (7o.~laints 2~788 2) 899 2~354 • A petition was filed in response to 78% of juvenile complaints. Total Co,~vlab~ts 6,209 6,586 5,593 • Between FY 2000 and FY 2002, domestic relations complaints m decreased by 5%, while juvenile complaints decreased 16%. I NTAKE DISPOSITION OF JUVENILE COMPLAINTS FY 2002 • Over half (58%) of FY 2002 complaints were for domestic relations or child welfare (not juvenile justice-related). Im 100% • Petition Filed • The 27 'h District CSU saw a 21% decrease in class 1 misdemeanor Only 80% 64% complaints between FY 2000 and FY 2002, while statewide trends m [] Petition/ decreased less than 1%. District 27 saw a 10% decrease in juvenile 60% Detention Ozder felony complaints while the statewide trend decreased 3%. 40% [] Resolved/ • A juvenile at intake during FY 2002 was most likely to be a white, II Diverted 16 year old male. 20% [] Other * 262 juveniles in FY 2002 had a risk assessment completed. Of II 0% these, over half had a moderate score. JUVENILE INTAKE CASES, DEMOGRAPHICS • 78% of new probation cases were for felonies or class 1 FY 2000-2002 misdemeanors. IB • Detention placements refer to the decision, made by an intake Bla& officer or judge, to detain a juvenile. See 'Terms and Concepts' for m White 84.6% 86.6% 85.6°/`, the difference between detention placements and detention Other 2.8% 2.0% 2.4% admissions. • The intervals selected for days juveniles spent in detention (0-3, 4- U Male 69.9% 71.2% 67.9% 21, 22-51, and 52 +) are consistent with applicable statutes found in Female 30.2% 28.8% 32.1% the COV. See AppendixJ for COVcitations. RnSK ASSESSMENT RESULTS Ill 8-12 7.6% 6.6% 8.9% FY 2002 13 9.8% 8.4('/0 9.5% T 14 15.5% 14.3% 14.1°/`, High ]26% Im 15 19.6% 18.3% 18.3% 1 I 16 20.0% 23.3% 24.5% Moderate 53"/,, 17 22.6% 23.6% 19.8''/o q m I 18-20 3.2% 3.2% 3.6% Low 20°/,, I I E fro r/Missin~ 1.8% 2.3% 1.20/o I m Total/men& (~s~ 2950 1~855 1,775 O% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100 J l l)ata Resource Guide FY2002 OFFENSE* DISTRIBUTION FOR INTAKE CASES, NEW PROBATION CASES, PRE-DIsPOSITIONAL DETENTION PLACEMENTS, AND COMMITMENTS TO THE STATE OFFENSE* CATEGORY AND SEVERITY, FY 2002 • Of juveniles in pre-dispositional detention from the 27 'h District, over three-quarters were detained for 21 days or less. Custody 0 0 • Of FY 2002 releases, the average len~h of stay (LOS) for Desertion/Support 645 0 0 C juveniles in post-dispositional detention with programs was Spot,sal Abuse 443 0 0 C 2.2 months. The COV allows juveniles to be in post- Other DPUCW 192 0 0 C dispositional detention for no longer than 6 months. A list of Total DR/C W 3, 239 0 0 t COVcitations pertaining to Djj can be found in Appendix J. ] 7 avenile Offens~ es See also 'Terms and Concepts' for the difference between types Abusive Language 56 2 2 C of detention admissions. Alcohol 83 10 6 C • Of FY 2002 releases, the average LOS for juveniles committed Arson 22 7 3 C to the state was 13.9 months. The COV allows juveniles Assault 328 51 79 C committed indeterminately to stay up to 36 months (unless 13urglary 89 14 24 committed for murder or manslaughter), and determinately Contempt of Court 84 2 26 until their 2P' birthday. A list of COgcitations pertaining to Disorderly Conduct 112 4 15 C DJJ can be found m Appendix J. Escapes 3 0 0 C Extortion l 1 2 4 C AVERAGE LOS FOR PROBATION, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL Failure to Appear 2 0 2 C DETENTION, POST-DISPOSITIONALDETENTION (WITH Family Offense 33 0 0 C PROGRAMS), STATE COMMITMENTS, AND PAROLE Fraud 23 2 1 2 FY 2002 RELEASES Gangs 0 0 0 C Kidnapping g 1 0 C 500 Larceny 377 55 75 400 Misc/Other 37 0 7 C Murder 1 0 1 C ,~ 300 Narcotics 117 7 8 C Obscenity l 7 1 1 C 200 Obstruct Justice 26 2 5 C 100 Prob./Parole Violation 143 0 46 Robbery 4 0 2 C Sexual Assault 36 4 11 C Pre-disp t Post-disp ~ Parole Status Offense 297 39 24 C Probation" Detention Detention Telephone Law 14 2 1 C m Average •I - 20 66 344 i Traffic 119 8 5 C' Trespass 49 4 2 C V ~ 244 271 8 Vandalism 231 15 33 • Probation LOS cmmot be calculated due to data lost during system upgrade. Weapons 38 12 7 2 PRE-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION LOS DISTRIBUTION 7blal Juvenile Offen~s 2. 354 244 390 17 FY 2002 RELEASES 60% 62 126 5O% [ 48% Class 1 Misdemeanor 1,107 129 157 3 40% Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 303 13, 32 3 CHINS/CH[NSup 328 39[ 24 0 3O% Other 191 1 51 1 2O% Total flwenile Offenses 2, 354 244 390 l 7 10% Total Juvenile CaseJ 1.775 244 277 7 P/acements/Commimwnts * O% *A siugle case, placement, or comlnltlnem may involve multiple offenses. 0-3 days 4-21 22-51 52+ Unless noted otherwise, these data clo not include donmstlc relations or c]fi]d welfare COmlqamts. Percentages may not add to 100% due to roundups. Virgini - @ Oala gesource Guide I,T2002 B 187 East Main Street @ District 28 Abingdon, Virginia 24210 Director: Randall T. Blevins 276-676-6284 INTAKE COMPLAInts, FY 2000-2002 • This Region 1 CSU is composed of three localities, the City of t Bristol, and the counties of Smyth and Washington. Dom. Rel./Child Welf. i • U.S. Census data indicate that between 1990 aim 2000, this district's @ juvenile population ages 10-17 decreased 5% (from 10,423 to 9,945). Felony, 175 303 201 • Intake cases are identified differently than in the past, to account Class 1 Misdemeanor 572 518 494 for variations in reporting across jurisdictions. A single intake @ case now includes all complaints reported for a single juvenile, on Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 349 321 413 a single day, within a single locality. CHINS/ O-IINSu p 278 300 302 • In FY 2002, the 28 ~h District CSU processed 1,103 juvenile intakes Othel Ill and 1,577 juvenile complaints for an average of 1.4 complaints per Technicd Violations 217 208 150 intake. T,'affic 1 11 7 • A petition was filed in response to 87% of juvenile complaints. Other 12 18 10 B Total/menile Con#aims 11604 1)679 1)577 • Between FY 2000 and FY 2002, domestic relations complaints increased by 4%, while juvenile conaplaints decreased 2%. Total Condaints 3,876 4,226 3,942 @ • Over half (60%) of FY 2002 complaints were for domestic relations INTAKE DISPOSITION OF JUVENILE COMPLAINTS or child welfare (not juvenile justice-related). FY 2002 • The 28 a' District CSU saw a 15% increase in juvenile felony complaints between FY 2000 and FY 2002, while statewide trends D 100 % • Petition Filed decreased 3%. Only 80% • A juvenile at intake during FY 2002 was most likely to be a white, D [] Petition/ 17 year old male. 60% Detention Order • 230 juveniles in FY 2002 had a risk assessment completed. Of 40% [] Resolved/ these, over half had a moderate score. D Diverted • 67% of new probation cases were for felonies or class 1 20% misdemeanors. 1% [] Other g 0% • Detention placements refer to the decision, made by an intake officer or judge, to detain a juvenile. See 'Terms and Concepts' for JUVENILE INTAKE CASES, DEMOGRAPHICS the difference between detention placements and detention FY 2000-2002 admissions. m • The intervals selected for days juveniles spent in detention (0-3, 4- Bla& 21, 22-51, and 52 +) are consistent with applicable statutes found in White 89.4% 92.3% 92.2% the COV. See AppendixJ for COVcitations. M Other 1.6% 1.6% 2.8% • Of juveniles in pre-dispositional detention from the 28 '1' District, nearly three-quarters were detained for 21 days or less. m Ivlale 65.9% 65.5% 57.2% Female 34.1% 34.5% 42.8% RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS g 8-12 6.9% 8.0% 11.2% FY 2002 13 10.0% 8.8% 9.6% I 14 14.2% 10.5% 13.3% High 21% I m 15 17.6% 18.8% 18.0% q I 16 23.1% 25.4% 22.2% Moderate 55% 17 26.60/'> 26.5o/') 24.4o/') q B 18-20 1.1% 1.4% 0.5% Low 24% I E ~vor/Missing, 0.6°/,> 0.7% 0.8% Tot,*] fltwnile Cases 1,126 I t 155 1) 103 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100 m Unless noted otlnerwisc, these data d 9 not include domestic relauons or clnld welfare comp]aults. Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. I Data Resource Guide FY2002 OFFENSE* DISTRIBUTION FOR INTAKE CASES, NEW PROBATION CASES, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION PLACEMENTS, AND COMMITMENTS TO THE STATE OFFENSE* CATEGORY AND SEVERITY, FY 2002 • Of FY 2002 releases, the average length of stay (LOS) for juveniles m post-dispositional detention with programs was Custody 1 0 1.3 month. The COVallows jm;eniles to be m post-dispositional Desertion/Support 0 0 detention for no longer than 6 months. A list of COVcitations Spousal Abuse 415 0 0 0 pertaining to DJJ can be found in AppendixJ. See also 'Terms Other DR/CW 171 0 0 0 and Concepts' for the difference between types of detention Total DR/C W 2. 365 1 0 6 admissions. ,venfle Offenses I I • Of FY 2002 releases, the average LOS for juveniles committed Abusive Language 20 0 2 0 to the state was 12.8 months. The COV allows juveniles Alcohol 42 5 8 1 committed indeterminately to stay up to 36 months (unless Arson 6 3 6 0 committed for murder or manslaughter), and determinately Assault 175 23 53 1 until their 2P' birthday. A list of COVcitations pertaining to Burglary 26 3 1 1 DJJ can be found in Appendix J. Contempt of Court 335 6 54 7 Disorderly Conduct 10 2 3 1 Escapes 0 0 0 0 Extortion 1 0 1 0 AVERAGE LOS FOR PROBATION, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL Failure to Appear 25 1 7 0 DETENTION, POST-DISPOSITIONALDETENTION (WITH Fantily Offense 50 0 0 0 PROGRAMS), STATE COMMITMENTS, AND PAROLE Fraud 27 1 0 1 FY 2002 RELEASES Gangs 0 0 0 0 500 Kidnapping 1 0 0 0 Larceny 180 30 31 8 400 Misc/Other 12 0 3 0 Murder 3 0 1 0 300 Narcotics 61 11 9 7 200 Obscenity 3 0 0 0 Obstruct Justice 5 1 1 0 100 P,ob./Parole Violation 150 2 57 13 Robbery 2 0 l 0 Sexual Assault 10 1 1 7 Probation" Pre-disp Post-disp State Parole Detention Detention Status Offense 252 23 3 0 Telephone Law 2 0 0 0 • Average LOS 20 39 391 239 Traffic 43 5 4 0 Relcascs 141 185 17 10 9 Trespass 32 7 3 l *Probation LOS cmmot be calculated clue to data lost during systent upgrade. Vandalism 90 9 13 2 Weapons 14 3 1 0 PRE-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION LOS DISTRIBUTION Total Juvenile Offenses 1.577 136 263 50 FY 2002 RELEASES 5°% L 4@70 1 31 53 Class i Misdemeanor 494 60 89 14 40% Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 413 18 60 10 30% CHINS/CHINSup 302 23 3 0 Other 167 4 58 13 2O% Tom/Juvenile Offenses 1.,577 136 263 50 I0% Total Juvenile Cases/ 1.103 136 181 12 Placements/Commimwnls * O% *A single case, placement, or coinlnltlnent may revolve muhiple offenses. 0-3 clays 4-21 22-51 52+ Unless noted otherwise, these data do ilot include domestic relations or clnld welfare complaints. Percentages may Hot add to 100% due to rounding. Yirgini D Dala Resource 6:uMe 1:}I2002 @ District 29 507 Wenoah Avenue IB Pearisburg, Virginia 24134 Director: Ronald W. Belay 276-988-1255 INTAKE COMPLAINTS, FY 2000-2002 • This Region 1 CSU is composed of six localities, the counties of Im Bland, Buchanan, Dickenson, Giles, Russell, and Tazewell. • U.S. Census data indicate that between 1990 and 2000, this district's IH juvenile population ages 10-17 decreased 23% (from 19,040 to 14,657). • Intake cases are identified differently than in the past, to account for variations in reporting across jurisdictions. A single retake IB case now includes all complaints reported for a single juvenile, on a single day, within a single locality. • In FY 2002, the 29 '~' District CSU processed 1,003 juvenile intakes Ill Technical Violations 122 121 103 and 1,290 juvenile complaints for an average of 1.3 complaints per Traffic 14 12 15 intake. Other 84 75 61 ill • A petition was filed in response to 88% of juvenile complaints. Tom] fltwnile Con~laints 1~267 1)293 1)290 ,Total Con#aims 4,84I 5,040 5,811 • Between FY 2000 and FY 2002, domestic relations complaints increased by 26%, while juvenile complaints decreased 2%. @ I NTAKE DISPOSITION OF JUVENILE COMPLAINTS • Over three-quarters (78%) of FY 2002 complaints were for domestic FY 2002 relations or child welfare (not juvenile justice-related). IWl 100% • Petition Filed • The 29 't' District CSU saw a 5% increase in juvenile felony complaints between FY 2000 and FY 2002, while statewide trends 80% -- 7-'4-% Only decreased 3%. [] Petition/ m 60% Detention Order • A juvenile at intake during FY 2002 was most likely to be a white, 16 year old male. 40% [] Resolved/ El Divmxed • 202 juveniles in FY 2002 had a risk assessment completed. Of 20% these, over half had a moderate score. [] Othe, 0% • 77% of new probation cases were for felonies or class 1 @ misdemeanors. JUVENILE INTAKE CASES, DEMOGRAPHICS FY • Detention placements refer to the decision, made by an intake 2000-2002 officer or judge, to detain a juvenile. See 'Terms and Concepts' for II the difference between detention placements and detention Bla& admissions. I11 White 98.4% 96.9% 96.4% • The intervals selected for days juveniles spent in detention (0-3, 4- Other 0.0% 0.4% 0.8% 21, 22-51, and 52 +) are consistent with applicable statutes found in the COV. See AppendixJ for COVcitations. @ Male 68.8% 69.9% 68.8% Female 31.2% 30.1% 31.2% R~sK ASSESSMENT RESULTS II 8-12 6.2% 9.2% 10.2% FY 2002 13 6.8% 6.3"/0 8.8% , 14 12.8% 13.9% 11.4% High inmm 8% I 15 14.3% 17.6% 19.9% q 16 26.6% 23.8% 23.7% Moderate 51% 17 29.1% 25.2%! 22.9% q I 18-20 1.5% 1.8% 1.Y'/o Low 41% E rror/Missingi 2.7% 2.1% 1.8% q Total [uwnile Cases 977 987 1)003 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% I00 IB add to 100% due to rou,)dh,g. Ih COMMUNITYPROGRAMS I Data Resource Guide FY2002 OFFENSE* DISTRIBUTION FOR INTAKE CASES, NEW PROBATION CASES, PRE-DIsPOSlTIONAL DETENTION PLACEMENTS, AND COMMITMENTS TO THE STATE OFFENSE* CATEGORY AND SEVERITY, FY 2002 • Of juveniles in pre-dispositional detention from the 29 ~h District, over three-quarters were detained for 21 days or less. 0 1 • Of FY 2002 releases, the average len~h of stay (LOS) for Desertion/Support 0 0 juveniles in post-dispositional detention with programs was Spousal Abuse 514 0 0 0 0.3 months. The COV allows iuveniles to be in post- Other DWCW 269 0 0 0 dispositional detention for no longer than 6 months. A list of Total DR/CW 4,521 0 1 0 COVcitations pertaining to DJJ can be found in Appendix J. tvenl|e Offenses i i 7 See also 'Terms and Concepts' for the difference between types Abusive Language 26 1 0 of detention admissions. Alcohol 39 28 4 • Of FY 2002 releases, the average LOS for juveniles committed Arson 6 8 4 to the state was 11.2 months. The COV allows juveniles Assault 152 37 31 committed indeterminately to stay up to 36 months (unless Burglary 41 6 13 committed for murder or manslaughter), and determinately Contempt of Court 27 0 16 until their 21 ~' birthday. A list of COVcitations pertaining to Disorderly Conduct 46 31 4 DJJ can be found in Appendix J. Escapes 0 1 0 Extortion 2 2 0 AVERAGE LOS FOR PROBATION, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL Failure to Appear 1 0 0 DETENTION, POST-DISPOSlTIONAL DETENTION (WITH Family Offense 41 1 0 PROGRAMS), STATE COMMITMENTS, AND PAROLE Fraud 48 4 4' FY 2002 RELEASES Gangs 0 0 0 5OO Kidnapping 0 0 0 Larceny 133 31 16 4OO Misc/Other 78 2 4 1 Murder 5 0 0 0 "g'~ 300 I/ Narcotics 73 33 2 0 200 Obscenity 21 5 0 0 Obstruct Justice 14 3 3 0 100 Prob./Parole Violation 103 1 39 6 Robbery 1 0 0 0 Probation" Pre-disp Post-disp State Parole Sexual Assault 9 5 1 8 Detention Detention Status Offense 269 20 10 0 Telephone Law 10 0 0 0 I AverageLOS 14 8 342 208 Traffic 71 12 2 0 Releases 241 139 6 11 4 Trespass 16 2 0 0 ::-I~rol~ation LOS catmot be calculated due to data los~ during system upgrade. Vandalism 42 15 7 0 Weapons 16 6 0 0 PRE-DISPOSlTIONAL DETENTION LOS DISTRIBUTION "%ta/J.veni/e Offenses 1,290 22~ /6o 28 FY 2002 RELEASES 50% /~o/. 62 48 40% Classl Misdemeanor 443 113 43 7 i Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 140 28 17 3 30% CHINS/CHINSup 311 20 10 0 Other 179 3 42 6 20% I 7btal flwenile Offenses 1,290 226 160 28 10% ~ta/ Juvenile Cases/ 1,003 226 147 13 0% Placements/Commitments* I *A single case, placemem, or commitment may revolve multiple offenses. 0-3 days 4-21 22-51 52+ Unless noted otherwise, these data do not include domestic relations or child welfare complaints, l)ercentages may, not add to 100% due to rounding. I Viminia -, m Data Resource GuMe FY2002 I 105-B West Jackson Street @ District 30 Gate City, Virginia 24251 Director: R. Wayne McClelland 276-386-9561 INTAKE COMPLAINTS, FY 2000-2002 • This Region 1 CSU is composed of four localities, the City of m Norton, and the counties of Lee, Scott, and Wise. • U.S. Census data indicate that between 1990 and 2000, this district's @ juvenile population ages 10-17 decreased 17% (from 11,570 to 9,585). • Intake cases are identified differently than in the past, to account for variations in reporting across jurisdictions. A single intake D case now includes all complaints reported for a single juvenile, on a single day, withi,a a single locality. • In FY 2002, the 30"' District CSU processed 1,153 juvenile intakes @ Techniml Violations 247 154 202 and 1,466 juvenile complaints for an average of 1.3 complaints per T,'affic 16 3 6 intake. Other 63 63 61 • A petition was filed in response to 93% of juvenile complaints. D Told/uwnile Co, Flaints 1~774 6343 6466 Only 6% of complaints in District 30 were resolved or diverted Total Co.p/ainls 4,080 3,465 3,435 compared to 16% on the statewide level. m • Between FY 2000 and FY 2002, domestic relations complaints INTAKE DISPOSITION OF JUVENILE COMPLAINTS decreased by 15%, while juvenile complaints decreased 17%. FY 2002 • Over half (57°/,,) of FY 2002 complaints were for domestic relations m 100% , • Petition Filed or child welfare (not juvenile justice-related). Only • The 30 ~h District CSU saw a 25% decrease in juvenile felon?, 80% -- 71% [] Petition/ complaints between FY 2000 and FY 2002, while statewide t,'ends S 60°/° Detention O~der decreased 3%. • A juvenile at retake during FY 2002 was most likely to be a white, 40% [] t~.esolved/ 99o/, I ----/O Diverted 17 year old male. -----] 6°/° 1% [] Other • 228 juveniles in FY 2002 had a risk assessment completed. Of these, nearly half had a low score. 0% M • 73% of new probation cases were for felonies or class 1 JUVENILE IINTAKE CASES, DEMOGRAPHICS misdemeanors. ml FY 2000-2002 • Detention placements refer to the decision, made by an intake officer or judge, to detain a juvenile. See 'Terms and Concepts' for Bla& the difference between detention placements and detention White 96.0% 96.7% 95.2% admissions. M Other 0.8% 0.7% 1.0% • The intervals selected for days juveniles spent in detention (0-3, 4- 21, 22-51, and 52 +) are consistent with applicable statutes found in m Male 68.6% 68.7°/,, 67.4% the COV. See AppendixJ for COVcitations. Female 31.4% 31.3% 32.6% RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS m 8-12 8.9% 8.3% 8.7% FY 2002 13 9.8% 8.1% 8.4% ! 14 13.8% 12.3% 12.4% High OI 8% Q 15 18.5% 19.4% 18.0% 1 16 21.2°/° 26.3% 22.1% Mod ePate 46o/] 17 25.0% 23.8°/° 27.8% "! m 18-20 1.3% 1.3% 1.4% Low ] o E nor/Missin,~ 1.5% 0.6% 1.2% I Total fltuvffle Gists 1,447 1~044 1~153 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80°/, 90% 100 I Unless noted otherwise, these data do not include domestic relatiolis or child welfare complaints. I'crccntages may not add to 100% due to rounding, I I Data Resource GuMe 1:}2002 II OFFENSE* DISTRIBUTION FOR INTAKE CASES, NEW PROBATION CASES, PRE-DIsPOSITIONAL DETENTION PLACEMENTS, AND COMMITMENTS TO THE STATE OFFENSE* CATEGORY AND SEVERITY, FY 2002 • Of juveniles in pre-dispositional detention from the 301h District, over half were detained for 21 days or less. 0 0 • Of FY 2002 releases, the average length of stay (LOS) for Desertion/Support 0 0 juveniles in post-dispositional detention with programs was Spousal Abuse 340 0 0' 0 0.3 months. The COV allows juveniles to be in post- Other DR/CW 355 0 0 0 dispositional detention for no longer than 6 months. A list of Total DR/C W 1,969 0 0 0 COVcitations pertaining to DJJ can be found in Appendix J. [venile II See also 'Terms and Concepts' for the difference between types Abusive Language 16 l 1 1 of detention admissions. Alcohol 98 9 10 0 • Of FY 2002 releases, the average LOS for juveniles committed Arson 19 6 8 0 to the state was 7.2 months. The cog allows juveniles Assault 205 48 58 3 committed indeterminately to stay up to 36 months (unless Burglary 30 3 13 2 committed for murder or manslaughter), and determinately Contempt of Court 26 0 9 0 until their 2V' birthday. A list of COVcitations pertaining to Disorderly Conduct 49 13 4 0 1 DJJ can be found in Appendix J. Escapes 2 0 2 Extortion 3 0 0 0 AVERAGE LUb FOR laROBATION, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL Failure to Appear 1 0 0 0 DETENTION, POST-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION (WITH Family Offense 51 4 0 0 PROGRAMS), STATE COMMITMENTS, AND PAROLE Fraud 5 2 0 o FY 2002 RELEASES Gangs 0 0 0 0 500 Kidnapping 1 0 0 0 Larceny 136 50 33 4 400 Misc/Other 70 2 10 0 Murder 1 0 0 0 .< 300 Narcotics 57 23 8 3 200 Obscenity 15 2 0 0 Obstruct Justice 13 0 5 l 100 Prob./Parole Violation 202 0 70 3 Robbery 1 0 0 2 Pre-disp Post-disp Sexual Assault 8 1 8 2 Probation' State Detention Detention I Status Offense 280 39 16 0 Telephone Law 4 0 1 0 l AverageLOS 22 8 218 300 Traffic 55, 7 4 6 Releases 237 209 14 6 2 Trespass 24 5 0 0 Vandalisln 84 13 25 5 ~Probation LOS cannot be calculate(] clue to data lost dunng system upgrade. Weapons 10 6 2 0 PRE-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION LOS DISTRIBUTION Total Juvenile Offenses 1,466 234 287 35 FY 2002 RELEASES 50' , I I 45 67 40% Class '1 Misdemeanor 572 125 114 12 Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 118 21 11 5 30% CHINS/CHINSup 340 43 16 C 20% Other 269 0 79 4 Tota/ Juvenile Offenses 1,466 234 287 33 10% Total Juvenile Cases/ 1.153 234 209 ? Placements~Commitments* 0% "~A single case, p[acemem, or COlnmitment may involve multiple offenses. 0-3 days 4-21 22-51 52+ Unless noted otherwise, these data do not include domestic relauons or child welfare complaints, l)ercemages may not add to 100% due to rounding. II Data Resoun:e Guide FY2002 Ill District 31 9540 Center Street, Suite 200 f~ Manassas, Virginia 20110 Director: James D. Rankin, Jr. 703-792-6200 INTAKE COMPLAINTS, FY 2000-2002 • This Region 2 CSU is composed of four localities, the County of - Prince William and the cities of Manassas, Manassas Park, and Woodbridge. Dom. Rel./Child Well. , 4~030 4~600 5,226 fNt ° U.S. Censvs data indicate that between 1990 and 2000, this district's Felony 948 928 1~013 juvenile population ages 10-17 increased 40% (from 30,382 to 42,556). Class ] Misdemeanor 1,610 1,540 1;446 @ Intake cases are identified differently than in the past, to account for 1~1 Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 537 544 604 variations in reporting across jurisdictions. A single intake case now CHINS/CHINSup 235 214 210 includes all complaints reported for a single juvenile, on a single day, Other within a single locality. ,~ Technical Violations 656 581 375 • In FY 2002, the 31 ~ District CSU processed 2,792 juvenile intakes and Tra ffic 8 [ 11 13 3,714 juvenile complaints for an average of 3.2 complaints per intake. Other 68 39 53 o A petition was filed in response to 87% of juvenile complaints. TotalJuuenile Complaints 4,062 3. 857 3, 714 Total Complaints 8. 002 8. 457 8. 040 ° Between FY 2000 ~md FY 2002, domestic relations complaints inoeased by 30%, while juvenile complaints decreasM9%, t~ INTAKE DISPOSITION OF JUVENILE COMPLAINTS ° Over half (58%) of FY 2002 complaints were for domestic relations or FY 2002 cMd welfare (not juvenile justice-related). ['~ 100% [] Petition Filed ° The 3V District CSU saw a 7% increase in juvenile felony complaints Only between FY 2000 and FY 2002, while statewide trends decreased 3%. 80% 64% [] Petition/ ° A juvenile at intake during FY 2002 was most likely to be a white, 17 1]~ 60% Deten6on Order year old male. ° 693 juveniles in FY 2002 had a risk assessment completed. Of these, [~ 40°/,, [] Rcsolvcd/ l)ivertcd nearly half had a moderate score. 20% 78% of new probation cases were for felonies or class 1 misdemeanors. [] Other 0% Detention placements refer to the decision, made by :m intake officer or fitrl JUVENILI-INTAKE CASES, DEMOGRAPHICS judge, to detain a juvenile. See 'Terms and Concepts' for the difference between detention placements and detention admissions, f~ FY 2000-2002 ° The intervals selected for days juveniles spent in detention (0-3, 4-21, 22-51, and 52 +) are consistent with applicable statutes found in the Black 38.1% 39.1% 37.4% COV. See AppendixJ for COVcitations. f~ White 55.4'¼, 52.1% 52.0% Other 6.5% 8.8% 10.6% Male 75.1% 73.8% 73.1% Female 25.0% 26.2°/{, 26.9% ~I~ 112~,,(!!,2:'.tl,.4g...... di,e,dL::.." ;_°.J.2...-ellh.:.~ ~"°,.~: RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS 8-12 6.7% 6.3% 6.1% FY 2002 13 8.3% 7.8% 7.3% 14 14.7% 13.9% 12.2% I 15 19.7% 20.7% 18.5"/,, q I 16 25.3% 23.5% 26.5% 17 24.3% 26.7'¼, 27.5% -t I I I ~] 18 18-20 0.8{¼, 1.0% i 1.7% Error/Missing 0.2'¼, 0.1% 0.2% q I I --, mml Total flaJenile Cases 3. 29,9 3. 111 [ 2. 792 (1% 10% 20% 3(1'>' 40'¼' 50'¼' 60% 70% 80% 90'7" 10l~ Unless noted otherwise, these data do not include domestic relations or child welfare {:omp]auus. 1) ercemages may not add to 100% due to rounding. Data Resource Guide 1=}'2002 OFFENSE* DISTRIBUTION FOR INTAKE CASES, NEW PROBATION CASES, PRE-DIsPOSITIONAL DETENTION PLACEMENTS, AND COMMITMENTS TO THE STATE OFFENSE* CATEGORY AND SEVERITY, FY 2002 • Of juveniles in pre-dispositional detention from the 31 '~ District, nearly three-quarters were detained for 21 days or less. 0 0 • Of FY 2002 releases, the average length of stay (LOS) for juveniles Desertion/Support 673 0 0 0 in post-dispositional detention with programs was 5.5 months. Spousal Abuse 812 0 1 0 The COgallows juveniles to be in post-dispositional detention Other DR/CW 84 0 0 0 for no longer than 6 months. A list of CO Vcitations pertaining Total DR/C W 5. 226 0 0 6 to Djj can be found in Appendix J. See also 'Terms and I : t I ; Concepts' for the difference between types of detention lvenile OffenSes i ;. 1 Abusive Language 2 0 0 0 admissions. Alcohol 27 21 2 1 "Of FY 2002 releases, the average LOS for juveniles committed Arson 39 17 11 0 to the state was 5.4 months. The COV allows juveniles Assault 427 110 129 14 committed indeterminately to stay up to 36 months (unless Burglary 150 25 55 3 committed for murder or manslaughter), and determinately Contempt of Court 267 6 60 3 until their 21 ~' birthday. A list of COVcitations pertaining to Disorderly Conducl 117 16 19 1 DJJ can be found in Appendix J. Escapes 8 0 7 0 Extortion 16 4 6 1 AVERAGELOS FOR PROBATION, PRE-DISPOSITIONAL Failure to Appear 164 8 81 l DETENTION, POST-DISPOSlTIONAL DETENTION (WITH Family Offense 14 7 0 o PROGRAMS),STATE COMMITMENTS, AND PAROLE Fraud 115 11 52 5 FY 2002 RELEASES Gangs 0 0 0 0 50O Kidnapping 8 0 11 0 Larceny 689 116 128 31 40O Misc/Other 84 4 38 0 0 ~ 300 Murcter 3 3 1 & Narcotics 328 54 24 3 ~ 200 Obscenity 24 7 1 0 Obstruct Justice 56 6 17 1 100 Prob./Parole Violation 373 1 72 12 [~obbery 59 11 40 4 Probation' _illPre-disp Post-disp State Parole Sexual Assault 56 33 31 10 Detention Detention Stacus Offense 196 85 6 G Telephone Law 6 1 0 0 [IAverage LOS 19 168 164 339 rFraffic 95 15 15 1 Releases 697 576 1 32 38 Trespass 57 22 12 2 ::-Probatu)n LOS camlot be calculated due to data lost during, system upg..'rav{e. Vandalism 240 39 42 5 Weapons 94 19 15 0 PRE-DISPOSITIONAL DETENTION LOS DISTRIBUTION Total Juvenile Offenses 3, 714 641 875 O~ FY 2002 RELEASES 201 413 50% I 43% Class l Misdemeanor 1,446 300 282i 30 40% Class 2-4 Misdemeanor 604 49 69 5 30% CHINS/CHINSup 210 85 6 0 Other 441 6 105 12 20% I Total Juvenile Of/bnses 3. 714 641 875 98 10% Total Juvenile CasY"s/ 2. 792 641 573 45 Placemcnts/Commimwtlts * 0% *A single case, ]~lacemcnt, or commitment may revolve muhip]e offenses. 0-3 clays 4-21 22-51 52+ / Unless noted otherwise, these data do ~lot include ~tolnestlc relations or chdd welfare complaints. Percentages may not add to 100% due to roundh~g. I l)aia Resot~rce 6'n#te 1:}'2002 118 CSU Trends Ig JUVENILE INTA½E CASES & COMMITMENTS TO D J J, FY 2000-2002 PRE-DISPOSlTIONAL DETENTION PLACEMENTS& NEW PROBATION CASES, FY 2002 IH 18 10 162 286 21 92 I 89(1 98() 222 166 21 20 17 22 2, 169 1,916 1,808 166 614 50 47 32 U 23 1,563 1,5(19 1,5(17 64 22(1 20 11 7 23A 1,824 1,72(I 1,662 77 366 19 19 21 24 2,456 2,457 2,424 389 654 57 47 56 @ ~.~ 2~204 9119 1,982 19() 475 49 36 50 27 2,050 1,855 1,775 244 277 19 9 7 28 1,126 1,155 1,103 136 181 11 8 12 Ig 29 977 987 1,0(13 226 147 9 12 13 30 1,447 1,(144 1,153 234 209 9 8 7 14 2,7.32 2,214 2,249 327 584 50 40 45 Ill 15 4,509 4,821 4,410 469 1,15 l 67 58 6 I 16 2,625 2,516 2,444 .35.3 566 81 75 58 17 1,350 1,331 1,245 230 412 37 34 24 @ 17 F 90 134 90 32 22 0 0 2 18 1,20- 1,439 1,121 159 266 11 12 13 19 N/A N/A 5,828 1,016 1,386 97 60 33 Im 2()1. 1,054 1,197 1,224 50 286 7 13 7 2I )\'(7 314 344 355 158 61 1 3 7 26 1,676 1,811 1,847 165 344 19 18 20 i 31 3,299 3,111 2,792 641 573 I1 33 45 1 1,933 1,964 2~042 166 534 5() 47 49 9 3,188 3,076 3,548 300 805 111 108 90 m ()2A 526 503 384 59 63 40 26 21 3 1,300 1~151 1~052 161 317 52 48 41 4 3,531 3~348 3~296 284 734 92 69 78 @ 5 945 888 890 125 20( 37 42 35 6 1,252 1~357 1,358 70 378 41 30 34 7 2~03~ 2~238 2,2I )3 324 788 90 86 79 II 8 1,802 1~946 2,153 l 15 307 61 50 37 9 1,717 1~695 1,842 137 380 36 31 29 [ I [~431 1~258 1,138 165 311 58 38 39 im 12 5~(342 4,773 5,241 153 797 38 36 31 13 3~066 27713 2r343 359 1~121 81 66 101 7g, la/ G4.780 62.799 G2.111" 8.12,5 15.,98J 1,4G2 1.263 1,218 J :"-Intake data for District 19 (Fatrfax) are tumvailable tot t*scal )'c'ars 2000-2001. AJ~J~ougb iJm~kc dala are provided for the 19a' I)ismct for FY 2002, t c>" are not hlc]uded m the statewide totals, so that tile ammal figures arc comparable. When District 19 data are included, the total ttulnber of }uvclfilc imakcs statcwide is 67.939. Im • Intake cases are identified differently than in the past, to account for variations in reporting across jurisdictions. A single intake case now includes all complaints reported for a single juvenile, on a single day, within a single locality. • Due to changes in data collection fo," probation and detention, which took full effect in FY 2002, it is impossible to provide trend m data for these items. Historical data published elsewhere cannot be accurately compared to these FY 2002 data. • Between FY 2000 and 2002, juvenile intakes dropped 4%. I • Between FY 2000 and FY 2002, commitments to the state dropped 17%. Ill Dala Resource Guide FY2002 Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act In 1995, Virginia's community-based juvenile justice programs funding to serve children and families). The local governing body consisted primarily of group homes, sheltercare, outreach detention designates who will be responsible for developing and managing (home confinement), and electronic monitoring. Funding was the plan. In over half of the localities, this responsibility has been provided to each specific program though a block grant. To begin a delegated to the court service unit. new program, change capacity, or revise funding, the locality had to Rules for using VJCCCA funding are straightforward. Capital justify its request to the Department of Juvenile Justice. expenditures, secure detention, and indirect costs are not allowed. A legislative study on the lack of alternatives to detention and All funding must be used to serve "juveniles before intake on substantial revisions to the juvenile code led the 1995 Virginia General complaints or the court on petitions alleging that the juvenile is a Assembly to pass the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control child in need of services, child in need of supervision or Act (VJCCCA) "to establish a community-based system of progressive delinquent" (COV ~16.1-309.2) Local governing bodies may intensive sanctions and services that correspond to the severity of provide services directly or purchase them from other public or offense and treatment needs" (CO V, ~ 16.1-309.2). The purpose of the private agencies. No specific types of programs or services are VJCCCA is "to deter crime by providing immediate, effective required. The intent is for programs and services to be developed punishment that emphasizes accountability of the juvenile offender to fit the needs of each particular locality. for his actions as well as reduces the pattern of repeat offending" PROGRAMS INCLUDED (coK ~16.1-309.2). VJCCCA serves over 20,000 youth annually through: less secure VJCCCA Is MEANT TO... detention; group homes; family-oriented group homes; crisis • Be a community-based system intervention and shelter care; outreach detention and electronic • Be comprised of progressive intensive sanctions and services monitoring; supervision and probation; substance abuse • Correspond with the severity of the offense and treatment needs ~tssessment and treatment; sex offender assessment and treatment; • Encourage communities to develop, implement, operate, and ev~uate mental health assessments; individual, group and family programs and services responsive to juvenile offender needs and counseling; home-based, in-home, or family preservation services; crime trends in their communities mentormg; community service; restitution/restorative justice; • Provide an adequate level of services available to every Juvenile and after-school or extended day services; academic improvement; Domestic Relations District Court truancy progran~s; employment/vocational programs; shoplifting • Allow local autonomy and flexibility in addressing juvenile crime programs; law-related education; anger management; parenting • Encourage public and private partnership in the design and delivery" skills; life skills; recreation and wilderness programs; and of services individually purchased services to meet specific needs. • Emphasize parental responsibility through services that hold RESULTS OF VJCCCA juveniles and families accountable for their behavior • Judges have additional alternative sentencing options. • Facilitate a locally driven statewide planning process for allocating • Communities have received additional funding to create or state resources • Provide adequate service capacity enhance progra~m that they have needed for some time. • Localities have greater flexibility to design programs to meet This legislation changed the way Virginia administered community the needs of their con~nunities. programs and substantially increased funding for community-based • The number and variety of programs and services available for juvenile justice programs. Since January 1996, funding has been youth have increased in most communities. allocated to each local governing body (an independent city or count},) • Programs and services appear to be serving more youth in their through a formula based on a variety of factors including the nunlber own communities. and types of arrests in a locality and the average daily cost for serving • In FY 01, over 50% of youth served were eligible for conmxitment a child. To ensure that localities did not renege on their prior to a Juvenile Correctional Center and nearly 83% were eligible commitment to youth, they must maintain the same level of for placement in secure detention. contributions to these programs as they made in FY 1995 in order to • Of youth released from VJCCCA programs and services in FY receive state funding. 00, 60% had no new criminal or status offenses within 12 months. LOCALITIES DEVELOP PLANS • In FY 01, nearly 83% of the placements into VJCCCA programs Participation in VJCCCA is voluntary. In order to receive funding, and services were completed successfully. the locality must contribute the same amount of funding it did in FY The third annual VJCCCA Report will be released in January 1995, and it must have a plan for how it will use the funding approved 2003 providing information for each VJCCCA local plan. by the Board of Juvenile Justice. All 134 cities and counties in Virginia During the 2002 Session of the General Assembly, funds for participate in VJCCCA. Some localities have combined programs and funding across jurisdictions. Development of the plan requires VJCCCA were reduced by 51%. As a consequence, community- consultation with judges, court service unit directors, and based programs and services under this Act will be significantly Comprehensive Services Act Community Policy and Management reduced, and commitments to the Juvenile Correctional Centers Teams (an interagency body that manages the expenditure of state will probably increase. Virginia -, I O i,ii ill Data Resource Guide FF2002 VJCCCA FUNDING, BY LOCALITY im FY 2002 Im Accomack $68,030 Dlckcnson $29,668 Lancastcr S58,360 Pulaski $60,606 Albcmarlc $202,444 Dimviddie $55,570 Lee $77,489 P,adford $28,989 S Alexandria $525,95 Emp()ri:l $179,371 l..cxin~ton $18,784 Rappahannock $27,498 Allegheny $52,520, ESSCX $64,882 I ,oudoull $414,185 Richnlond S988,330 Amelia S28,178 Fairfiix $35,187 Louisa $28,158 Richmond County $30,559 Im 'A mhcrst $105,238 Fairfax County $1,708,391 Luncnbur.< $37,721 Roanoke $1 ,I 20,584 Appomatt{}x $25,782 Falls Church $343,043 l.vnchbur,~ $704,I59 Roanoke County $511,617 A rlin~uin $767,668 Fauquicr $104,709 Madison $18,722 P,ockbridge $41,502 Au,l~usla S76,206 Floyd $18,722 Manqssas $170,195 Rockin.~ham $127,541 Bath $18,722 Fluvanna $18,722 Manassas Park %9,108 Russell $80,6(14 Ill 13cdfi:,rct (],untv $182,40 Frankhn $44,119 Martinsville $204,883 Salem $150,234 Bcdt-ord Ciw $18,722 Franklin County $60,637 Mathcws $64,782 Scott S65,656 131and $18,722 Frederick S150,746 Mecklenburg S89,144 Shcnand~iah %8,702 Im 13otctourt $37,345 l%cdcricksburg S156,273 Middlesex S18,722 Smvth $84,670 Bristol $7%754 Galax S37,984 M otl t,~oill e rv S140,404 Southampton $29,804 Brunswick $33,268 Giles $26,273 Nelson $29,459 Spotsvlvania S240,60 I m t3uchanan $191,742 Glouccstcr S127,141 New Kcnt $30,008 Stafford $305,606 ,Buckin, Service Areas for Virginia's Juvenile Detention Homes ,._ No~t.hweste_c~ and.Loudotm Vir#a Italics indicate that an area is served P riJtce Willlaml by m ore than one detention home. /-/'e_o_rlco and Riclmxond Ja_m,z u 2L-'v~c D/gs Shenandoah 1-17g.ht a_rzd s and New .Rive." Vat t e y .D.I"Cz J' / Chesterfi[eld New'port News Ik Tidewater W.W. Moore G Cheste~dd fltvenile Detention Home - City of Colonial Heights No~folk Detention Home - City of Norfolk, and counties of and Chesterfield County Accomackmad North~unpton Craterfltvenile Detention Home- Cities of Hopewell, Petersburg Northern Virginia Detention Home- Cities of Alexandria and and Emporia, and counties of Brunswick, Dinwiddie, Greensville, Falls Church, mad ArlingtonCount T Prince George, Surry, and Sussex Northwestern Regional Juvenile Detention Center- City, of OdpeperfltvenileDetention Center- Owned by the Commonwealth Winchester,and Countiesof Frederick, Clarke, Page, Shenandoah, and can be utilized by all CSUs. and Warren Fabfax County fltvenile Detention Center- Fairfax City; and County Piedmont Regional Detention Center - Counties of Amelia, Henrico Detention Home - Henrico County, Buckingham, Cumberland, Lunenburg, Nottoway, and Prince Edward H(ghlandsfllvenileDetention Center- Cities of Bristol and Norton, and counties of Washington, Smyth, Lee, Scott, Wise, Dickenson, Prince William Detention Home- Cities of Manassas, Manassas Russell, Buchanan, and Tazewell Park, and Prince William County James River Regional Detention Center - Counties of Powhatan, Rappahannock Juvenile Detention Center- City, of Goochl~md,~md Henrico Fredericksburg, and counties of Spotsyh:ania, Stafford, Madison, Orange, Louisa, and King George Loudoun Juvenile Detention Home - Counties of Loudoun, Fauquier, Rappahannock, Page, Shenandoah, and Warren RichmondJuvenileDetention Home- City, of Richmond L ynchburq Regional Detention Center - Cities of Lynchburg and Roanoke Valley Juvenile Detention Center- Cities of Roanoke Bedford, and counties of Amherst, Appomattox, Bedford,Campbell, and Salem, counties of Roanoke, Botetourt, and Franklin Charlotte, and Nelson Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Home- Cities of Staunton, Merrimac Regional Detention Home - Cities of Williamsburg and Harrisonburg, Le.,fin~on,Charlottesville, Waynesboro, Buena Poquoson, and counties of Caroline, Charles City, Essex, Vista, and Covington, and counties of Augusta, Albemarle, Gloucester, Hanover, James City, King & Queen, King William, Rockingham, Alleghany, Bath, Craig, Rockbridge, and Lancaster, Mathews, Middlesex, New Kent, Northumberland, Highland Richmond, Westmoreland, and York Tidewater Detention Home - Cities of Virginia Beach, New River Valley fltvenile Detention Home- Cities of Radford and Portsmouth, Chesapeake, Franklin, and Suffolk, and counties Galax, and counties of Giles, Pulaski, Montgomery, Wythe, Carroll, of Isle of Wight, and Southampton Floyd, Grayson, Bland, Tazewell, Buchanan, Russell, and iV. W.. Moore Home for flfveniles - Cities of Danville and Dickenson Martinsville, and counties of Pittsylvania, Patrick, Henw, Newport News Secure Detention Home - Cities of Newport News Mecklenburg,~md Halifmx and Hampton. i Data Resource Guide F}2002 Statewide Activity for Detention Homes nl ADMISSIONS FY 1999-2002 • In FY 2002, Virginia detention homes had 21,727 total admissions. This represents 12,703 juveniles, 8,078 of whom were admitted only one time. B 24,000 • Admissions to Virginia's detention homes have increased 6% between 22,000 FY 1999 and FY 2002, including a 3% increase between FY 2001 and FY 20,000 2002. m 18,000 • A juvenile at admission in FY 2002 was most likely to be a black 17 yea," 16,000 old male. This has been consistent across the last four fiscal years. II! • 10% of FY 2002 admissions were between ages 8-13. 14,000 • Violation of probation/parole and assault were the most serious cha,ges 12,000 alleged to have been committed by over one-third of the juveniles i 10,000 admitted in FY 2002. Although violation of probation/pa,ole instigated 8,000 detention, the juvenile is being detained for the charge leading to parole or probation. Ii 6,000 • After decreasing 6% between FY 2000 and FY 2001, average daily 4,000 population (ADP) increased 1°/,, in FY 2002. The total capacity of the 2,000 homes increased 26% between FY 1999 and FY 2002. ADP exceeded I! 0 * capacity until FY 2001. FY99 FYO0 FYO 1 FY02 • For FY 2002, the total number of child care days was 403,975. This II shows an increase of 1% from FY 2001. • Statewide, there were 17,515 juveniles admitted as p,e-dispositional, ADMISSIONS BY RACE, SEX, AND AGE 3,911 who were admitted as post-dispositional without inclusion in Iii FY 1999-2002 p,'ograms, and 301 post-dispositional with programs during FY 2002. See 'Terms and Concepts' for the diffe,'ence between types of detention admissions. Iii Black 50.8%] 51.5% 50.8% White 43.6°£' 42.5% 43.1% I O the r 5.7% 6.0% 6.1% ADMISSIONS BY DETAINING DISTRICT'S GEOGRAPHIC REGION .D FY 2002 iii 50% tge i; i) Ii 40% 6.9% 6.30/,, 6.4% I11 14 14.6°/,, 14.0% 13.4% 30% 1 21.8% 22.3% 20.9% 1 25.4% 25.8% 27.1% 20% Im 17 26.8% 27.1% 28.0% 18 0.5% 0.5% 0.4"/,, 10% Ii 1%20 O. 1% O.1% 0.0% Erro,/Missin I 0.4% 0.6°/`, 0.2% 0% Ii Total 22,026 21,020 21,727 Eastern Northern Western Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. lie Data Resource Gtdde 1.12002 ADMISSIONS BY DETAINING CHARGE AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION VS CAPACITY FY 2002 FY 1999-2002 1,300 -I 1,200 1,100 1,000 0.1% Abusive Language 900 Alcohol 1.1% 800 Arson 1.3% 700 600 Assault 17.6% 500 Burglary 4.8% 400 300 Contempt of Court 10.8% 200 Custody 0.0% 100 0 l)esertion/Support 0.0% 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Disorderly Conduct 1.2% A I) P 1,134 1,166 1,091 1,107 Escapes 0.3% r-----I Capacity 932 959 1,141 ] 1,171 ] ] Extortion 0.4% Forecast I ! 1,152 I 1,160 ] 1,167 Failure to Appear 2.6% Family Off;ense 0.0% Fraud 0.8% Use of the new Detention Assessment Instrument began in November 2002. This instrument is expected to make detention decisions statewide more consistent, by Gangs 0.0% using standard criteria for detention decisions made by an intake officer. An Kidnapping 0.2% evaluation of the instrument will be conducted in FY 2003-04. See Appendix K for a Larceny 12.3% copy of the instrument. Misc/Other 2.6% FY 2002 marks the first full year in which detention data were collected using the new Detention Home Module on the Juvenile Tracking System. This enhanced data Missing Information 2.6% system allows the Department to track juveniles on many aspects of detention that Murder 0.3% were not consistently identified in the old system. Using this data, the Department Narcotics 4.4% can more accurately analyze detention placements within individual court districts (see the court service unit section, beginning on page 18). Obscenity 0.1% Obstruct Justice 0.6% ADMISSIONS BY DISPOSITIONAL STATUS Prob./Parole Violation 21.6% FY 2002 301 Robbery 3.1% Sexual Assault 1.8% Spousal Abuse 0.0% ~ /"~ I • Pre-dispositional Status Offense 2.1% Telephone Law 0.2% [] Post-dispositional (no programs) Traffic 1.2% [] Post-dispositional Trespass 0.7% (p,'ograms) Vandalism 3.0% Weapons 1.9% 7btal 21,727 Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. SECTIONIh COMMUNITYPROGRAMS 95 [ .- In Data Resource Gu Me ~]2002 m Chesterfield Juvenile Detention Home 9700 Krause Road m Superintendent: Joe Campbell Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Capacity: 33 beds 804-748-1460 m • The Chesterfield Juvenile Detention Home is owned by Chesterfield County and utilized primarily by the City of Colonial Heights and ADMISSIONS FY 1999-2002 Chesterfield County. 2,800 • Over 99% of admissions were from the 12 'h District. See pages 44-45 for Ii data pertaining to this CSU. 2,400 " • In FY 2002, Chesterfield Juvenile Detention Home had 1,019 admissions. This represents 653 juveniles, 444 of whom were admitted only one m tilne. 2,000 - • Admissions decreased 15% between FY 2000 and FY 2002 and 10% between FY 2001 and FY 2002. m 1,600 • A juvenile at admission in FY 2002 was most likely to be a white 17 year 1,196 old male. 1,200 1 no 1 1.126 m • 14('/,, of FY 2002 admissions to Chesterfield Juvenile Detention Home were between ages 8-13. 800 • Assault and violation of probation/parole were the most serious charges D alleged to have been committed by over one-third of the juveniles admitted m FY 2002. Although violation of probation/parole instigated 400 detention, the juvenile is being detained fo," the charge leading to parole or probation. m 0 • After a decrease of 22% between FY 2000 and FY 2001, ave,age daily FY99 FYO0 FY01 FY02 population (ADP) remained the same between FY 2001 and FY 2002, Im despite the decrease in admissions. This indicates that although fewer juveniles are coming in, they are staying fo, more time. ADP ADMISSIONS BY RACE, SEX, AND AGE consistently exceeded capacity. FY 1999-2002 • For FY 2002, the total number of child care days was 17,191. This D shows a decrease of less than 1% from FY 2001. • Chesterfield Juvenile Detention Home had 796 juveniles admitted as pre-dispositional, and 223 who were admitted as post-dispositional B Bla& 36.4°/,, 38.5% 41.4°/,, without inclusion in programs. See 'Terms and Concepts' for the White 59.4% 58.5% 54.9°/`, difference between types of detention admissions. @ Other 4.3"/,, 3.0% 3.7"/,, ADMISSIONS BY COURT DISTRICT F, 2oo2 Male 75.4% 73.1% 72.2% 99.7% Im 100% Female 24.6% 26.9% 27.8% g¢ 80% m 8-12 3.5% 4.4% 5.5% 13 6.9% 4.9% 8.1% 60% 14 14.5% 11.6% 12.3% R 15 23.2% 20.2% 17.6% 16 25.8% 27.9% 26.1% 40% Igll 17 23.7% 29.8% 30.2% 18 1.8% 0.8% O. 1% 20% lib 1%20 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% E nx)r/Missing; 0.4°/,, 0.3°/,} O. 1°/,7 00/~1 t I I Total 1,196 1,126 1,019 12th All Other CSUs D Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. lid Data Resource Guide 13"2002 ADMISSIONS BY DETAINING CHARGE AVERAGE DALLY POPULATION VS CAPACITY FY 2002 FY 1999-2002 150 120 Alcohol 0.8% Arson 1.7% 90 Assault 20.0% Burglary 4.7% 60 Contempt of Court 10.6% Custody 0.0% 30 Desertion/Support 0.0% Disordcrly Conduct 0.7% 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 Escapes 0.0% Extortion 0.0% IADI ) ..... 50-- __ 60 47 47 _ Failure to Appear 3.7% U1Cmpadtvl 33 33 33 I 33 Family Offense 0.0% In FY 2002, 23 indMdual juveniles were admitted as weekenders. Fraud 1.9% Use of the new Detention Assessment Instrument began in November 2002. This Gangs 0.0% instrument is expected to make detention decisions statewide more consistent, by Kidnapping 0.1% using standard criteria for detention decisions made by an retake office,'. An evaluation of the instrument will be conducted m FY 2003-04. See Appendix K for a Larccny 13.7% copy of the instrument. Misc/Other 1.4% FY 2002 marks the first full year in which detention data were collected using the Missing Information 1.8% new Detention Home Module on the Juvenile Tracking System. This enhanced data Murder 0.2% system allows the Department to track juveniles on many aspects of detention that were not consistently identified in the old system. Using this data, the Department Narcotics 4.9% can more accurately analyze detention placements within individual court districts Obscenity 0.3% (see the court seMce unit section, beginning on page 18). Obstrtict Justice 0.1% ADMISSIONS BY DISPOSITIONAL STATUS Prob./Parole Violation 18.8% FY 2002 0 Robbery 1.9% Sexual Assault 2.4% Spousal Abuse 0.0% • Pre-dispositional Status Offense 0.7% Telephone Law 0.3% [] Post-disposifional (no programs) Traffic 2.1% Post-dispositional Trespass 0.9% [] (programs) Vandalism 3.9% Weapons 2.6% ~)tal 1,015 Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. Virginia ,-, i//a a¢ M Data Resource Guide f'}2002 I Crater Juvenile Detention Home 6102 County Drive m Superintendent: Jack Scott Disputanta, Virginia 23942 Capacity: 22 beds 804-732-3803 @ • The Crater Juvenile Detention Home is owned by a commission of the ADMISSIONS FY 1999-2002 cities of Hopewell, Petersburg and Emporia, and counties of Dinwiddie, @ 2,800 Prince George, Surry and Sussex. The detention home is utilized, primarily, by members of the commission, as well as Greensville and Brunswick counties. 2,400 • Over 99% of admissions were from the 6 ~h and 11 'h Districts. See pages B 32-33 and 42-43, respectively, for data pertaining to these CSUs. 2,000 • In FY 2002, Crater Juvenile Detention Home had 901 total admissions. This represents 431 juveniles, 214 of whom were admitted only one m 1,600 time. • Admissions at Crater Juvenile Detention Home are slightly higher due @ 1,200 -' to the transfer of juveniles to and from Piedmont Regional Detention 901 vo, 827 Center. 800 • Admissions increased 29% between FY 1999 and FY 2002 and 9% I between FY 2001 and FY 2002. 400 • A juvenile at admission in FY 2002 was most likely to be a black 17 year old male. m • 12% of FY 2002 admissions to Crater Juvenile Detention Home were FY99 FY00 FY01 FYO2 between ages 8-13. I • Assault and larceny, were the most serious charges alleged ~o have been committed by over one-third of the juveniles admitted in FY 2002. ADMISSIONS BY RACE, SEX, AND AGE FY 1999-2002 • Average daily population (ADP) decreased by 31% between FY 1999 i and FY 2002. This trend is inconsistent with the overall increase in admissions. This indicates that although more juveniles are coming in they, are staying less time. ADP consistently exceeded capacity,. I • For FY 2002, the total number of child care days was 11,402. This shows a decrease of 11% from FY 2001. • Crater Juvenile Detention Home had 796 juveniles admitted as pre- m Other...... t ...... 1.0%1 1.0%1 0.6% dispositional and 105 who were admitted as post-dispositional without inclusion in programs. See 'Terms and Concepts' for the difference between types of detention admissions. m ADMISSIONS BY COURT DISTRICT FY 2002 D 8-12 3.8% 2.3% 4.0% 60% 13 7.30/o 10.0% 7.8% 50% m 14 14.7% 15.7% 14.9% 40% I 24.6% 26.1% 23.4% 1 24.6% 23.8% 24.6% 30% m 1 24.2% 21.5% 25.0% 20% 18 0.6% 0.5% 0.3% m 19-20 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10% 0.2% E fro r/Mis sin 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0% Total 781 827 901 6rh 1 Ith All Other CSUs m Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. i Data Resource Guide fT2002 ADMISSIONS BY DETAINING CHARGE AVERAGE DALLY POPULATION VS CAPACITY FY 2002 FY 1999-2002 150 Abusive Language 0.1% 120 Alcohol 1.0% Arson 1.8% 90 Assault 18.3% Burglary 10.0% 60 Contempt of Court 4.7% Custody 0.0% Desertion/Support 0.0% Disorderly Conduct 1.7% 0 Escapes 0.0% 1999 2000 2001 I 2002 Extortion 0.2% ADP 45 46 35 31 Failure to Appear 0.4% I~Caoadtv 22 22 22 22 Family Offense 0.0% • In FY 2002, 14 individual juveniles were admitted as weekenders. Fraud 1.0% • Use of the new Detention Assessment Instrument began in November 2002. This Gangs 0.0% instrument is expected to make detention decisions statewide more consistent, by, Kidnapping 0.0% using standard criteria for detention decisions made by an intake officer. An Larceny 17.4% evaluation of the instrument will be conducted in FY"2003-04. See Appendix K for a copy of the instrument. Misc/Other 0.3% • FY 2002 marks the first full year in which detention data were collected using the Missing Information O. 1% new Detention Home Module on the Juvenile Tracking System. This enhanced data Murder 0. I% system allows the Department to track juveniles on many aspects of detention that Narcotics 7.7% were not consistently identified in the old system. Using this data, the Department can more accurately analyze detention placements within indMdual court districts Obscenity 0.0% (see the court service unit section, beginning on page 18). Obstruct Justice 0.8% ADMISSIONS BY DISPOSITIONAL STATUS Prob./Parole Violation 16.6% EY 2002 0 Robbery 4.9% ]05 Sexual Assault 2.3% Spousal Abuse 0.0% • Pre-dispositional Status Offense 2.3% Telephone Law O. 1% [] Post-dispositional lYaffic 0.9% 01o programs) Trespass 0.3% il Post-dispositional (programs) Vandalism 3.8% Weapons 3.1% Total 901 Percentages may not add to [00% due to rounding. M m Data Resource GuMe FY2002 Culpeper Juvenile Detention Center 12240 Coffewood Drive m Mitchells, Virginia 22729 Superintendent: Carla White 540-727-3321 Capacity: 50 beds ! • Culpeper Juvenile Detention Center, which opened in March 1999, is ADMISSIONS FY 1999-2002 owned by the Commonwealth and can be utilized by all CSUs. 2,800 B • Because the Culpeper Juvenile Detention Center is owned by the state, admissions are more evenly distributed among CSUs. Howeve,', over 2,400 half of admissions were from the 16 'h CSU. See pages 52-53 for data I pertaining to this CSU. 2,000 • In FY 2002, Culpeper Juvenile Detention Center had 618 admissions. This represents 465 juveniles, 369 of whom were admitted only one J 1,600 time. • Admissions decreased 35% between FY 2000 and FY 2002 and 32% m 1,200 -- - between FY 2001 and FY 2002. 951 915 • A juvenile at admission in FY 2002 was most likely to be a black 17 year 800 old male. m • 8% of FY 2002 admissions to Culpeper Juvenile Detention Center were 400 between ages 8-13. • Violation of probation/parole and assault were the most serious charges I 0 alleged to have been committed by over one-third of the juveniles admitted in FY 2002. Although violation of probation/parole instigated lmr'99 FY00 FY01 FY02 detention, the juvenile is being detained for the charge leading to pa,'ole B or probation. ADMISSIONS BY RACE, SEX, AND AGE • Average daily population (ADP) decreased 33% between FY 2000 and @ FY 199(.)-2002 FY 2002. The decrease in ADP is consistent with the dec,'ease in admissions. ADP has consistently been below capacity. • For FY 2002, the total number of child care days was 9,576. This shows m a decrease of 30% from FY 2001. Bla& 38.7%! • Culpeper Juvenile Detention Cente," had 560 juveniles admitted as pre- @ White 60.0% 48.7O/oi49.2% 44.7%52.8% dispositional and 58 who were admitted as post-dispositional without Other 2.1% 2.6% inclusion in programs. See 'Terms and Concepts' for the diffe,'ence 7 I-- between types of detention admissions. Male 74.0% 73.9 76.4% ADMISSIONS BY COURT DISTRICT I Female 26.0% 26.1% 23.6% FY 2002 57.9% m d|" 60% -I I 8-12 3.6% 2.2% 2.6% 50% 13 6.6% 6.0% 4.9% M 14 14.8% 13.7% 13.8% 40% 15 21.6% 23.7% 19.4% 30% 16 26.2% 27.2% 28.0% 17.3% m 20% 17 27.0% 26.7% 29.3% 11.8% --6.0% 18 0.0% 0.1% 0.3% 10% 2.9% -4700/0-- R 19-20 0.0% O.1% 0.0% 0% E m)r/Missin~ 0.2% 0.3% 1.8% 16th 6th 11 th 10th 30th All Other I Total 951 915 618 CSUs Pcrcenta,ges may not adt{ to 100% due to rounding. R Data Resource Guide t']2002 ADMISSIONS BY DETAINING CHARGE AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION VS CAPACITY FY 2002 FY 1999-2002 150 Abusive Language 0.0% 120 Alcohol 0.6% Arson 2.8% 90 Assault 16.8% Burglary 7.8% 60 Contempt of Court 14.4% Custody 0.0% 30 Desertion/Support 0.0% Disorderly Conduct 0.5% 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 Escapes 0.8% Extortion 0.0% [mADP 26 39 . 38 26 Failure to Appear 1.3% Capadtvl 50 I 50 I 50 t 50 Family Offense 0.0% In FY 2002, 7 individual juveniles were admitted as weekenders. Fraud 0.6% Use of the new Detention Assessment Instrument began in November 2002. This Gangs 0.0% instrument is expected to make detention decisions statewide more consistent, by Kidnapping 0.0% using standard criteria for detention decisions made by an retake officer. An evaluation of the instrument will be conducted in FY 2003-04. See Appendix K for a ka rccny 9.5% copy of the instrument. M isc/Other 0.3% FY 2002 ma,'ks the first full year in which detention data we,'e collected using the Missing Information 3.6% new Detention Home Module on the Juvenile Tracking System. This enhanced data Murder 0.2% system allows the Department to track juveniles on many aspects of detention that were not consistently identified in the old system. Using this data, the Department Narcotics 6.0% can more accurately analyze detention placements within individual court districts Obscenity 0.0% (see the court service unit section, beginning on page 18). Obstruct Justice 0.6% ADMISSIONS BY DISPOSITIONAL STATUS Prob./Parole Violation 21.7% FY 2002 Robbery 2.4% 58 0 Sexual Assault 2.8% Spousal Abuse 0.0% • Pre-dispositional Stares Offense 1.3% Telephone Law {3.3% [] Post-dispositional Traffic 2.3% (no programs) "l}espass 0.3% [] Post-dispositional (profarams) Vandalism 2.6% Weapons 0.5% Total 618 l}erceutages may not add to 100% due to rounding. m Data Resource Guide D'2002 B Fairfax County Juvenile Detention Center 10650 Page Avenue m Superintendent: George Corbin Fairfax, Virginia 22030 Capacity: 12l beds 703-246-2844 Ill • The Fairfax County Juvenile Detention Center is owned by Fairfax ADMISSIONS FY 1999-2002 County and utilized primarily by Fairfax City and County. m 2,800 • Over 99% of admissions were from the 19 '1' District. See pages 60-61 for data pertaining to this CSU. 2,400 ...... • In FY 2002, Fairfax County Juvenile Detention Center had 1,450 total J admissions. This represents 986 juveniles, 688 of whom were admitted 2,000 ...... only one time. II • Admissions have remained fairly stead), with an increase of 1% between 1,535 .... 1,600 FY 2001 and FY 2002. • A juvenile at admission in FY 2002 was most likely to be a white 17 yea," 1,200 old male. I • 7% of FY 2002 admissions to FaMax County Juvenile Detention Center 800 were between ages 8-13. m • Violation of probation/parole and assault were the most se,ious charges 400 alleged to have been committed by over one-third of the juveniles admitted in FY 2002. Although violation of p,'obation/parole instigated detention, I the juvenile is being detained for the charge leading to parole or probation. • Average daily population (ADP) deo'eased 11% between FY 1999 and FY99 FYO0 FY01 VY02 FY 2002 and increased 3% between FY 2001 and FY 2002. ADP was @ consistently below capacity. ADMISSIONS BY RACE, SEX, AND AGE * For FY 2002, the total number of child care days was 33,021. This shows FY 1999-2002 an increase of 4% from FY 2001. I ° Fairfax County Juvenile Detention Center had 1,405 juveniles admitted as pre-dispositional, 5 who we,'e admitted as post-dispositional without @ inclusion in programs, and 40 post-dispositional with programs. See 'Terms and Concepts' for the difference between types of detention admissions. i ADMISSIONS BY COURT DISTRICT -.! FY 2002 Male 71.9°/ 75.0°/,, 73.0% 99.8% m 100% Female 28.1% 25.0% 27.0% ge i 80% 8-12 2.4% 3.1% 2.1% 13 6.1% 4.2% 4.4% m 14 12.6% 13.4% ~9 ~{v 60% 15 18.5% 20.2% 23.3% 16 29.2% 23.5% 27.9% 40% i 17 30.4% 28.8% 29.4% 18 0.2% 0.5% 0.1% 20% I 19-20 0.0%1 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% E nor/Missin~ 0.7°/,) 5.9% 0.2% 0% ~ --r Toud 1,5.-35 1,429 1,450 19th All Other CSUs t [)crcemages may not add to 100% clue to roundhlg. S Fireinia , Dala Resource Guide ~T2002 ADMISSIONS BY DETAINING CHARGE AVERAGE DALLY POPULATION VS CAPACITY FY 2002 FY 1999-2002 150 Abusive Language 0.0% 120 Alcohol 2.0% Arson 1.2% 90 Assault 15.6% Burglary 3.4% 60 Contempt of Court 5.5% Custody 0.0% 30 Desertion/Support 0.0% Disorderly Conduct 0.8% 0 1999 2000 200 l 2002 Escapes 0.2% Extortion 0.6% IADP 101 106 87 90 Failure to Appear 1.0% HCapadtvl 121 ] 121 I 121 ] 121 Family Offense 0.0% In FY 2002, 3 individual juveniles were Mmitted as weekenders. Fraud 1.3% Use of the new Detention Assessment Instrument began in November 2002. This Gangs 0.0% instrument is expected to make detention decisions statewide more consistent, by: Kidnapping 0.2% using standard criteria for detention decisions made by, an intake officer. An evaluation of the instrument will be conducted in FY 2003-04. See Appendix K for a copy, of the Larceny 15.1% instrument. 2.8% Misc/Other FY 2002 marks the first full year in which detention data were collected using the new Missing Information 8.5% Detention Home Module on the Juvenile Tracking S),stem. This enhanced data system Murder 0.2% allows the Department to track juveniles on many aspects of detention that were not consistently, identified in the old system. Using this data, the Department can more Narcotics 2.3% accurately, analyze detention placements within individual court districts (see the Obscenity 0.1% court service unit section, beginning on page 18). Obstrtict Justice 0.4% ADMISSIONS BY DISPOSITIONAL STATUS Prob./Parole Violation 26.3% FY 2002 5 40 Robbery 3.4% Sexual Assault 0.8% Spousal Abuse 0.0% • Pre-dispositional Status Offense 0.7% Telephone Law 0.2% [] Post-dispositional (no programs) Traffic 0.3% [] Post-dispositional Trespass 1.0% (programs) Vandalism 3.8% Weapons 2.3% 7btal 1,450 35 Percentages may not add to 100% due to roundhlg. m m Data Resource Guide F12002 Henrico Detention Home P.O. Box 27032 m Superintendent: Michael Bingham Richmond, Virginia 23273 Capacity: 20 beds 804-501-4329 W • The Henrico Juvenile Detention Home is owned and utilized by Henrico ADMISSIONS FY 1999-2002 County. • Over 99% of admissions were from the 14 'h District. See pages 48-49 for 2,800 J data pertaining to this CSU. • In FY 2002, Henrico Juvenile Detention Home had 1,104 admissions. 2,400 This represents 521 juveniles, 242 of whom were admitted only one time. m • Admissions have increased 64% between FY 1999 and FY 2002 and 2,000 ' increased 14% between FY 2001 and FY 2002. @ • Admissions at Henrico Juvenile Detention Home are slightly higher 1,600 - due to the transfer of juveniles to and from James River Regional Detention Center. @ __1.104-- 1,200 " • A juvenile at admission in FY 2002 was most likely, to be a black 17 year old male. 800 • 13% of FY 2002 admissions to Henrico Juvenile Detention Home were D between ages 8-13. 400 • Violation of probation/parole and larceny were the most serious charges alleged to have been committed by over half of the juveniles admitted in i 0 ' FY 2002. Although violation of probation/parole instigated detention, FY99 FY00 FYO l FY02 the juvenile is being detained for the charge leading to parole or probation. i • Average daily population (ADP) has decreased 57% between FY 1999 and FY 2002 and decreased 51°/,, between FY 2001 and FY 2002. The ADMISSIONS BY RACE, SEX, AND AGE overall decrease in ADP is inconsistent with the increase in admissions. i FY 1.999-2002 This indicates that although mo,'e juveniles are coming in they are staying less time. ADP has exceeded capacity for three of the last four years. • For FY 2002, the total lmmber of child care days was 6,669. This shows @ I a decrease of 51% f,'oln FY 2001. Bla& 54.3% 61.1% 60.1% • Henrico Juvenile Detention Home had 812 juveniles admitted as pre- White 42.7% 37.3% 37.7% @ dispositional, 280 who we,'e admitted as post-dispositional without Other 3.0% 1.7% 2.3% inclusion in programs, and 12 post-dispositional with programs. See 'Terms and Concepts' for the difference between types of detention I m Male 76.2% 72.9% 73.4% admissions. Female "'=W23.8% 27.1% 26.6% ADMISSIONS BY COURT O,srR,cr ge,. FY 2002 i 8-12 4.6% 4.7% 5.4% 99.7% 100% 13 7.6% 6.4% 7.4% g 14 13.4% 12.2% 12.0% 80% 15 23.1% 23.2% 19.7% 60% 16 23.8% 22.5% 25.0('/0 Ill 17 27.1°/, 30.9% 29.7% 40% 18 0.1% 0.1% 0.5% B 19-2C 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20% 9o/ 0.3O/o E nor/Missin~ ,--/o 0.0% 0.3% 0% I Total 866 969 1,104 14 th All Other CSUs Pcrccntagca may 11Ol ;lltl] lO 100(~, all.it to rOLIllt{i[l~. @ Data Resoume Guide FY2002 ADMISSIONS BY DETAINING CHARGE AVERAGE DALLY POPULATION VS CAPACITY FY 2002 FY 1999-2002 150 120 Alcohol 0.9% Arson 1.5% 90 Assault 15.9% Burglary 2.2% 60 Contempt of Court 6.7% Custody 0.0% 30 Desertion/Support 0.0% Disorderly Conduct 0.5% 0 1999 2000 2001 Escapes 0.0% • ADP 42 ~ 54 37 18 Extortion 0.5% V1Capadt;, I 20 I 20 ] 20 20 Failure to Appear 0.3% Family Offense O. 1% Iia FY 2002, 17 individual juveniles were admitted as weekenders. Fraud 0.0% Use of the new Detention Assessment Instrument began in November 2002. This Gangs 0.0% instrument is expected to make detention decisions statewide more consistent, by Kidnapping 0.4% using standard criteria for detention decisions made by an intake officer. An evaluation of the instrument will be conducted in FY 2003-04. See Appendix K for a cop); of the 17.8% Larceny il]st rtnllell[. Misc/Other 0.6% FY 2002 marks the first full year in which detention data were collected using the new Missing Information 0.6% Detention Home Module on the Juvenile Tracking System. This enhanced data system Murder 0.2% allows the Department to track juveniles on many aspects of detention that were not consistently identified in the old system. Using this data, {he Department can more Narcotics 1.6% accurately analyze detention placements within individual court districts (see the Obscenity 0.8% court service unit section, beginning on page 18). Obstruct Justice 0.7% ADMISSIONS BY DISPOSlTIONAL STATUS Prob./Parole Violation 33.5% FY 2002 12 Robbery 4.0% Sexual Assault 0.9% Spousal Abuse 0.0% • Pre-dispositional 1.6% 280- Status Offense Telephone Law 0.2% [] Post-dispositional Traffic 1.7% (no programs) Trespass 1.0% [] Post-dispositional Vandalism 3.4% (programs) Weapons 2.3% 7btal 1,104 Percentages may not add to 100% due to rom~din~. D Data Resource Guide F12002 B Highlands Juvenile Detention Center P.O. Box 248 m Superintendent: Richard Hagy Bristol, Virginia 24203 Capacity: 30 beds 276-466-7800 • The Highlands Juvenile Detention Center is owned by a commission D consisting of Washington and Smyth counties, and the City of Bristol. ADMISSIONS FY .1-999-2002 This home is utilized primarily by members of the commission as well 2,800 as the City of Norton and the counties of Lee, Scott, Wise, Dickenson, U Russell, Buchanan, and Tazewell. 2,400 • Over 99% of admissions were from the 28% 30% and 29 'h Districts. See pages 82-83, 86-87, and 84-85, respectively, for data pertaining to these m 2,000 CSUs. • In FY 2002, Highlands Juvenile Detention Center had 606 admissions. @ This represents 423 juveniles, 308 of whom were admitted only one time. 1,600 • Admissions have increased 31% between FY 1999 and FY 2002 and increased 41% between FY 2001 and FY 2002. @ 1,200 • A juvenile at admission in FY 2002 was most likely to be a white 17 year old male. 800 • 14"/,, of FY 2002 admissions to Highlands Juvenile Detention Center were @ between ages 8-13. 400 • Violation of probation/parole and assault were the most serious charges alleged to have been committed by nearly half of the juveniles admitted R in FY 2002. Although violation of probation/parole instigated detention, the juvenile is being detained for the charge leading to parole or probation. FY99 FYO0 FYO 1 FY02 • Average daily population (ADP) has increased 29% between FY 1999 and m FY 2002. The overall increase in ADP is consistent with the inc,'ease in ADMISSIONS BY RACE, SEX, AND AGE admissions. ADP has exceeded capacity until the capacity increased FY 1999-2002 from 20 to 30 juveniles. m • For FY 2002, the total n unlber of child care days was 9,895. Tiffs shows an increase of 21% from FY 2001. • Highlands Juvenile Detention Cente," had 416 juveniles admitted as pre- B dispositional, 153 who were admitted as post-dispositional without inch, sion in programs, and 37 post-dispositional with programs. See "Terms and Concepts' for the difference between types of detention I xl; admissions. Male 71.0% 71.2% 63.7% ADMISSIONS BY COURT DISTRICT m Female 29.0% 28.8% 36.3% FY 2002 gege.|, il /~ 5O% lid 8-12 2.8% 6.3% 4.6°/, 13 7.3% 3.7% 8.9% 4O% 14 14.6%: 10.9% 11.4% S 30% 15 16.4% 16.0% 16.3% 16 23.7% 31.3% 27.1% 20% Ill 17 34.9% 31.1% 31.7% 18 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 10% W 19-20 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% E Evor/Miss in~, 0.4% 0.5% 0.0% 0% Total 507 431 606 28th 30tll 29th All Other CSUs I D Fi rgima, Data Resource Guide FI2002 ADMISSIONS BY DETAINING CHARGE AVERAGE DALLY POPULATION VS CAPACITY FY 2002 FY 1999-2002 150 120 Abusive Language 0.2% Alcohol 2.5% Arson 1.8% 90 Assault 18.8% Burglary 1.2% 60 Contempt of Court 14.0% Custody 0.0% 30 Desertion/Support 0.0% Disorderly Conduct 1.0% 0 1999 2000 [ 2001 2002 Escapes 0.2% • ADP 21 24 22 27 Extortion 0.3% I--I Capadtv I 20 I 20 I 20 30 Failure to Appear 0.7% Family Offense 0.2% • In FY 2002, 16 individual juveniles were admitted as weekenders. Fraud 1.8% • Use of the new Detention Assessment Instrument began in November 2002. This instrument is expected to make detention decisions statewide more consistent, by Gangs 0.0% using standard criteria for detention decisions made by an intake officer. An Kidnapping 0.0% evaluation of the instrument will be conducted in FY 2003-04. See Appendix K for a Larceny 9.9% copy of the instrument. Misc/Other 1.0% • FY 2002 marks the first full )rear in whicla detention data were collected using the new Detention Home Module on the Juvenile Tracking System. This enhanced data Missing Information 0.3% system allows the Department to track juveniles on many aspects of detention that Murder 0.2% were not consistently identified in the old system. Using this data, the Department Narcotics 2.6% can more accurately analyze detention placements within individual court districts Obscenity 0.0% (see the court service unit section, beginning on page 18). Obstruct Justice 0.0% ADMISSIONS BY DISPOSlTIONAL STATUS Prob./Parole Violation 27.7% FY 2002 Robbery 0.2% 37 Sexual Assault 1.0% Spousal Abuse 0.0% • Pre-dispositional Status Offense 9.6% Telephone Law 0.0% 15 [] Post-dispositional Traffic 0.8% (no programs) Trespass 0.5% [] Post-dispositional (programs) Vandalism 2.6% Weapons 1.0% 7btal 606 Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. m Data Resource Guide 1:}2002 R James River Regional Detention Center P.O. Box 880 I Supe,'intendent: Patricia Carrington Goochhmd, VA 23063 Capacity: 60 beds 804-556-8123 • James River Regional Detention Center opened in April 2001, therefore I ADMISSIONS FY 1999-2002 historical trends are unavailable. 2,800 • James River Regional Detention Center is owned by a co,nmission of Powhatan, Goochland, and Henrico counties. The detention home is 18 used primarily by the members of the commission. 2,400 • 97% of admissions were from the 14% 2 ''t, and 11 'l' Districts. See pages 48- I 49, 22-23, and 42-43, respectively, for data pertaining to these CSUs. 2,000 • In FY 2002, James River Regional Detention Center had 521 admissions. This represents 348 juveniles, 240 of whom were admitted only one time. 18 1,600 • Admissions at James River Regional Detention Center are slightly higher due to the transfer of juveniles to and from Henrico Juvenile Detention 1,200 -- Home. I • A juvenile at admission in FY 2002 was most likely to be a black 17 year 800 - old male. 18 • 11% of FY 2002 admissions to James River Regional Detention Center 400 were between ages 8-13. • Violation of probation/paroh and larceny were the most serious charges D alleged to have been committed by nearly half of the juveniles admitted in FY99 FY00 DWO1 FY02 FY 2002. Ahhough violation of probation/parole instigated detention, the juvenile is being detained for the charge leading to pa,ole o," probation. 18 • Average daily population (ADP) has been below capacity since James ADMISSIONS BY RACE, SEX, AND AGE River Regional Detention Center opened. FY 1999-2002 • For FY 2002, the total number of child ca,'e days was 13,221. I • James Rive," Regional Detention Center had 323 juveniles admitted as pre- dispositional, 154 who were admitted as post-dispositional without m inclusion in programs, and 44 post-dispositional with programs. See 'Terms and Concepts' for the difference between types of detention mmmm admissions. Q ! ADMISSIONS BY COURT DISTRICT mm~wm~ FY 200:2 80% -, 77.0% U ~ ~~mmml I t " " I I - I I 60% 1119mm~m~w ~~lilMmmlm I mIll 18 I II D 40% 16 N/A 21.4% 25.0% 81 17 N/A 35.1% 34.4% 20% --14v8% 1 N/A 0.0% 0.0% 1%20 N/A 0.0% 0.0% 5.2% 3.1% m E nx)r/Missin N/A 0.0% 0.0% 0% I 1 --~ ~---- Toud N/A 131 521 14th 2rid 11 th All Other CSUs II! Percelltages may not add to 100% due to rounding. B Fi-r j l)ala Reso/trce Guide F}7002 ADMISSIONS BY DETAINING CHARGE AVERAGE DALLY POPULATION VS CAPACITY FY 2002 FY 1999-2002 150 120 Abusive Language 0.2% Alcohol 1.2% 90 Arson 1.7% Assault 15.2% 60 Burglary 4.4% Contempt of Court 5.8% Custody 0.0% 30 Desertion/St, pport 0.0% Disorderly Conduct 0.2% 1999 2000 I 2001 2002 Escapes 0.0% NADP 0 0 32 36 Extortion 0.4% HCapadtv 0 I 0 I 60 I 60 Failure to Appear 1.2% Family Offense 0.0% • In FY 2002, one juvenile was admitted as a weekender. Fraud 0.0% • Use of the new Detention Assessment Instrument began in November 2002. This Gangs 0.0% instrument is expected to make detention decisions statewide more consistent, by using standard criteria for detention decisions made by an intake officer. An evaluation Kidnapping 0.4% of the instrument will be conducted in FY 2003-04. See Appendix K for a copy of the Larceny 16.5% instrument. Misc/Other 0.4% • FY 2002 marks the first full year in which detention data were collected using the new Missing Information 1.2% Detention Home Module on the Juvenile Tracking System. This enhanced data system allows the Department to track juveniles on many aspects of detention that were not Murder 0.2% consistently identified in the old system. Using this data, the Department can more Narcotics 2.9% accurately analyze detention placements within individual court dist,icts (see the court Obscenity 1.2% service unit section, begi,ming on page 18). Obstruct Justice 0.8% ADMISSIONS BY DISPOSITIONAL STATUS Prob./Parole Violation 33.0% FY 2002 Robbery 4.4% 44 Sexual Assault 1.3% Spousal Abuse 0.0% • Pre-dispositional Status Offense 1.3% Telephone Law 0.2% [] Post-dispositional ~l}affic 0.6% (no programs) 154 "l}espass 0.2% [] Post-dispositional Vandalism 2.7% (prog.rams) Weapons 2.7% ~23 7btal 52/ Percemages may not add to 100% due to rounding. M Data Resource Guide FY2002 m Loudoun Juvenile Detention Home 42020 Loudoun Center Place M Superintendent: Michael Ward Leesburg, Virginia 22075 Capacity: 24 beds 703-771-5200 m ADMISSmNS FY 1999-2002 • Loudoun Juvenile Detention Home is owned by Loudoun County and utilized primarily by Loudoun, Fauquier, Rappahannock, Page, 2,800 m Shenandoah and Warren counties. • Over 99% of admissions were from the Districts 20L and 20W. See pages 2,400 62-63 and 64-65, respectively, for data pertaining to these CSUs. m • In FY 2002, Loudoun Juvenile Detention Home had 445 admissions. This 2,000 --- ,'epresents 269 juveniles, 180 of whom were admitted only one time. • Admissions decreased 14% between FY 1999 and FY 2000 and also @ 1,600 - decreased 3% between FY 2001 and FY 2002. • A juvenile at admission in FY 2002 was most likely to be a white 16 year @ 1,200 .... old male. • 9% of FY 2002 admissions to Loudoun Juvenile Detention Home were 800 .... between ages 8-13. @ • Contempt of court and assault were the most serious charges alleged to have been committed by, nearly two-thirds of the juveniles admitted in 400 FY2002. I • After increasing 27°/,, between FY 2000 and FY 2001, average daily population (ADP) decreased 16"/,, in FY 2002. This FY 2002 decrease is FY99 FYO0 FrY'O 1 FY02 consistent with the decrease in admissions. ADP was consistently below capacity. m • For FY 2002, the total number of child care days was 5,842. This shows ADMISSIONS BY RACE, SEX, AND AGE a decrease of 15°/,, from FY 2001. FY 199q-2002 B • Loudoun Juvenile Detention Home had 347 juveniles admitted as pre- dispositional, 88 who were admitted as post-dispositional without inclusion in programs, and 10 post-dispositional with programs. See I 'Terms and Concepts' for the difference between types of detention admissions. White i :,7l65.9% :02.7Y5%I .3.62.5% • In FY 2002, 11 individual juveniles were admitted as weekenders. S Other 10.4% 6.3% 92% ADMISSIONS BY COURT DISTRICT FY 2002 Male [ ~ ' ~ 7~.5% i 100% Female 19.4°/,~ 24.6%[ 22.5% ' .q i t . 'p'., ge '"~ - I.dl " " -I ,--- 80% m 8- 12 2.7% 1.1% 4.9°/(, "13--- 5.0% 4.3% 4.5% 60% i4 9.5°/,, 12.8% 11.2% m l 5 17.6% 19.8% 22.5% 40% 16 30.2O/o 27.4% 31.7% W 17 35.0% 34.6% 25.2% 20% 18 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Ill 19-:~ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% E xroror/Missin~r/Miss ing I 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0% Total 443 460 445 20L 20W All Other CSUs m Percentages may trot add to 100% clue to rounding. I Data Resource Guide I.T2002 ADMISSIONS BY DETAINING CHARGE AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION VS CAPACITY FY 2002 FY 1999-2002 150 120 Abusive Language 0.0% Alcohol 0.2% 90 Arson 0.0% Assault 15.3% 60 Burglary 1.6% Contempt of Court 44.7% Custody 0.0% 30 Desertion/Support 0.0% Disorderly Conduct 0.0% 0 1999 2000 2001 Escapes 0.2% IADD , 15 ..... 15 _ _ 19 16 Extortion 0.2% IF-I Capadt ~, I 24 I] 24 I 24 24 Failure to Appear 3.4% Family Offcnsc 0.0% Use of the new Detention Assessment Instrument began in November 2002. This Fraud 0.0% instrument is expected to make detention decisions statewide more consistent, by: Gangs 0.0% using standard criteria fo, detention decisions made by an intake officer. An Kidnapping 0.0% evaluation of the instrument will be conducted in FY 2003-04. See Appendix K for a cop3: of the instrument. Larceny 9.0% FY 2002 marks the first full year in which detention data were collected using the Misc/Other 0.2% new Detention Home Module on the Juvenile Tracking System. This enhanced data Missing Information 5.4% system allows the Department to track juveniles on many aspects of detention that were not consistently identified in the old system. Using this data, the Department Murder 0.0% can more accurately analyze detention placements within individual court districts Narcotics 1.8% (see the court service unit section, beginning on page 18). Obscenity 0.0% Obstruct Justice 0.2% ADMISSIONS BY DISPOSITIONAL STATUS Prob./Parole Violation 10.8% FY 2002 10 Robbery 1.3% Sexual Assault 1.1% Spousal Abuse 0.0% • Pre-dispositional Status Offense 1.1% Tdephonc Law 0.2% [] Post-dispositional (no programs) qYaffic 0.4% [] Post-dispositional Trespass 0.0% (programs) Vandalism 2.0% Weapons 0.7% ~tal 445 Percentages may not ad(] to 100% clue to roundmv,. I Data Resource Gnide F12002 m Lynchburg Regional Detention Center 1400 Florida Avenue m Superintendent: Frank T. Currier Lynchburg, Virginia 23501 Capacity: 48 beds 434-847-1635 B • Lynchburg Regional Detention Center is owned by the city of ADMISSIONS FY 1999-2002 Lynchburg and utilized primarily by the cities of Lynchburg and 2,800 Bedford, as well as the counties of Amherst, Appomattox, Bedford, I Campbell, Charlotte and Nelson. 2,400 • 94% of admissions were from the 24 '1' District. See pages 74-75 for data pertaining to this CSU. m 2,000 ..... • In FY 2002, Lynchbu,g Regional Detention Center had 843 admissions. This represents 562 juveniles, 382 of whom were admitted only one time. m 1,600 ...... • Admissions have increased 6% between FY 1999 and FY 2002, and also increased 4% between FY 2001 and FY 2002. 1,200 B • A juvenile at admission in FY 2002 was most likely to be a black 17 year old male. 800 • 12% of FY 2002 admissions to Lynchburg Regional Detention Center i were between ages 8-13. 400 • Contempt of court and assault were the most serious charges alleged to have been committed by over half of the juveniles admitted in FY 2002. m • Average daily population (ADP) has been decreasing, showing a 10% FY99 F:YO0 FY01 FY02 decline between FY 1999 and FY 2002. The overall decrease in ADP is inconsistent with the overall increase in admissions. This indicates R that although more juveniles are coming in they a,e staying less time. ADMISSIONS BY RACE, SEX, AND AGE ADP has consistently been below capacity. FY 1999-2002 • Fo, FY 2002, the total number of child care days was 13,540. This B shows a decrease of 4% from FY 2001. ' 2006 " 2601 2002 • Lynchburg Regional Detention Center had 692 juveniles admitted as m Ra!c i pre-dispositional, 130 who were admitted as post-dispositional without inclusion in prog,ams, and 21 post-dispositional with programs. See ~U 'Terms and Concepts' for the difference between types of detention admissions. I h'lllll ! ADMISSIONS BY COURT DISTRICT ! FY 2002 100% i 80% II ~,ml ml m i 14 12.8% 15.4% 15.9% 60% 15 20.5% 20.2% 21.1% 16 21.0% 23.4% 24.4% 40% B 17 28.2% 26.4% 26.5% 18 0.3% O. 1% 0.0% 20% B 19-2C 0.2% O. 1% u.-B 9{v/(1 0.4% E ,to)r/Miss in 1.1% 1.7% O. 1% 0% Total 891~ 813 843 24th 10th All Other CSUs m Percent a,g,es may ,lot add to 100% due to rounding. m I l)ala Resource Guide F12002 ADMISSIONS BY DETAINING CHARGE AVERAGE DALLY POPULATION VS CAPACITY FY 2002 FY 1999-2002 150 Abusive Language 0.0% 120 Alcohol 0.2% Arson 1.5% 90 Assault 23.0% Burglary 5.2% 60 Contempt of Court 27.8% Custody 0.0% 30 Desertion/Support 0.0% Disorderly Conduct 1.1% O 1999 2000 2001 2002 Escapes 0.6% Extortion 0.5% [] ADP I 41 41 I 38 I 37 Failure to Appear 0.5% UICapadtvl 48 48 I 48 I 48 Family Offense 0.0% • In FY 2002, 8 individual juveniles were adnaitted as weekenders. Fraud 0.6% • Use of the new Detention Assessment Instrument began in November 2002. This Gangs 0.0% instrument is expected to make detention decisions statewide more consistent, by Kidnapping 0.7% using standard criteria for detention decisions made by an intake officer, kal evaluation of the instrument will be conducted in FY 2003-04. See Appendix K for a copy of the Larceny 7.0% instrument. Misc/Other 0.2% • FY 2002 marks the first full year in which detention data were collected using the new Missing Information 1.4% Detention Home Module on the Juvenile Tracking System. This enhanced data system 'Murder 0.0% allows the Department to track juveniles on many aspects of detention that were not consistently identified in the old system. Using this data, the Department can more Narcotics 6.3% accurately analyze detention placements within individual court districts (see the court Obscenity O. 1% service unit section, beginning on page 18). Obstruct Justice 0.5% ADMISSIONS BY DISPOSITIONAL STATUS Prob./Parole Violation 12.5% FY 2002 Robbery 1.3% 21 Sexual Assault 2.6% Spousal Abuse 0.0% [] 1 rc-dispositional Status Offense 1.5% Telephone Law 0.0% [] Post-dispositional Traffic 0.2% 01o programs) Trespass 0.5% [] Post-dispositional Vandalism 2.8% (pr%rams) Weapons 1.3% 7bta/ 843 D~Z Percentages may not add to 100% due to roumting. m Data Resource Guide FY2002 i Merrirnac Regional Detention Home 9300 Merrimac Trail m Superintendent: JoAnne Smith Williamsburg, Virginia 23185 Capacity: 48 beds 757-887-0225 m • Merrimac Regional Detention Home is owned by a commission of the ADMISSIONS FY 1999-2002 cities of Williamsburg and Poquoson, and Caroline, Charles City, Essex, 2,800 Gloucester, Hanover, James City, King 8: Queen, King William, Lancaster, B Mathews, Middlesex, New Kent, Northumberland, Richmond, Westmoreland and York counties. The detention home is utilized by the 2,400 members of the commission. • Over 99% of admissions were from the 9% 15% 6% and 11 'l' Districts. See 2,000 pages 38-39, 50-51, 32-33, and 42-43, respectively,, for data pertaining to these CSUs. I 1,600 • In FY 2002, Merrimac Regional Detention Home had 928 admissions. This represents 645 juveniles, 457 of whom were admitted only one time. 1,200 --- • Admissions have remained fairly stead), with an increase of 7% between B 96:3 897 864 928 FY2001 and FY 2002. • A juvenile at admission in FY 2002 was most likely to be a white 17 ),ear old male. Iii • 9% of FY 2002 admissions to Merrimac Regional Detention Home were 400 between ages 8-13. • Violation of probation/parole and assault were the most serious charges I °°/I0 i I n alleged to have been committed by over one-third of the juveniles admitted FY99 FYO0 FY01 FY02 in FY 2002. Although violation of probation/parole instigated detention, the juvenile is being detained for the charge leading to parole or probation. m • Average daily population (ADP) has been fairly stead), with a 4% decrease ADMISSIONS BY RACE, SEX, AND AGE between FY 1999 and FY 2002. The FY 2002 decrease in ADP is inconsistent FY 1999,-2002 with the increase in admissions. This indicates that although more juveniles i are coming in the); are staying less time. ADP has equaled or exceeded capacity within the last four years. • For FY 2002, the total number of child care days was 17,488. This shows a m decrease of 6% from FY 2001. White 54.5% 56.7% 54.5% • Merrimac Regional Detention Home had 708 juveniles admitted as p,'e- m Other 1.4% 0.8% 1.6% dispositional, 201 who were admitted as post-dispositional without inclusion in programs, and 19 post-dispositional with programs. See 'Terms in- ,m mE- and Concepts' for the difference between types of detention admissions. m ,~m == =m =. ADMISSIONS BY COURT DISTRICT m i=ui=n, FY 2002 ~go I 2-" ", ~i: " i- ': i,i l ''..... i 8-12 2.7% 3.4% 1.7% 60% 13 5.7% 7.8% 6.9°£ 50% 14 13.3°/o 12.3% 11.6% m 40% 15 21.7% 20.6% 19.6% 16 26.0% 28.8% 27.5% 30% I 17 30.0% 26.9°/(, 32.3% 20% 18 0.6°/. 0.2% 0.3% 10% 3.0% 2.8% m 19-2C 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% E rm,'/Missin~ 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0% All Other 897 864 928 9th 15th 6th 11 th Total CSUs m Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. I l)ata Resource Guide I:Y2002 ADMISSIONS BY DETAINING CHARGE AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION VS CAPACITY FY 2002 FY 1999-2002 150 120 'Abusive Language 0.0% Alcohol 1.6% 90 Arson 2.4% Assault 20.0% 60 Burglary 7.5% Contempt of Court 6.4% 30 Custody 0.0% Desertion/Support 0.0% Disorderly Conduct 1.9% Escapes 0.0% • ADP 50 48 51 48 Extortion 0.5% H Capadtvl 48 I 48 I 48 I 48 Failurc to Appear 0.9% Family Offense 0.0% "In FY 2002, 10 individual juveniles were admitted as weekenders. Fraud 1. 1% ° Use of the new Detention Assessment Instrument began in November 2002. This Gangs 0.0% instrument is expected to make detention decisions statewide more consistent, by Kidnapping 0.2% using standard criteria for detention decisions made by an intake officer. An evaluation of the instrument will be conducted in FY 2003-04. See Appendix K for a copy, of the Larceny 12.8% instrument. Misc/Other 0.8% • FY 2002 marks the first full },ear in which detention data were collected using the new Missing Information 0.5% Detention Home Module on the Juvenile Tracking System. This enhanced data system Murder 0.1% allows the Department to track juveniles on many aspects of detention that were not consistently identified m the old system. Using this data, the Department can more Narcotics 5.0% accurately analyze detention placements within individual court districts (see the Obscenity 0.0% court service unit section, beginning o,1 page 18). Obstruct Justice 0.3% Prob./Parole Violation 21.1% ADMISSIONS BY DISPOSITIONAL STATUS Robbery 2.8% FY 2002 19 Sexual Assault 2.4% Spousal Abuse 0.0% 201/- [] Pre-dispositional Status Offense 3.1% Telephone Law 0.3% [] Post-dispositional "lYaffic 3.0% L (no programs) Trespass 0.3% [] Post-dispositional Vandalism 2.9% (programs) Weapons 1.9% Total 928 Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. U II Data Resource 6'uMe FY2002 New River Valley Juvenile Detention Home 650 Wades Lane, N.W. ! Superintendent: Robert S. Hall Christiansburg, Virginia 24073 Capacity: 20 beds 540-381-0097 ! ADMISSIONS FY 1999-2002 • New River Valley, Juvenile Detention Home is owned by a commission 2,800 of the City, of Radford and Giles, Pulaski, and MontgommT counties. Ill The detention home is utilized by the members of the commission, as well as the City of Galax, and Wythe, Carroll, Montgomery, Floyd, 2,400 Grayson, Bland, Tazewell, Buchanan, Russell, and Dickenson counties. I • Over 99% of admissions were from the 27 *h and 29 a' Districts. See pages 2,000 80-81 and 84-85, respectively, for data pe,-taining to these CSUs. • In FY 2002, New River Valley Juvenile Detention Home had 448 B 1,600 --- - admissions. This represents 279 juveniles, 180 of whom were admitted only one time. 1,200 -- • Admissions have been steadily, decreasing, showing an 18% decrease m between FY 1999 and FY 2002. 800 --- • A juvenile at admission in FY 2002 was most likely, to be a white 16 year old male. m 400 • 11% of FY 2002 admissions to New Rivet" Valley Juvenile Detention Home were between ages 8-13. B • Assault and violation of probation/parole were the most serious charges FY99 FY00 F~01 FY02 alleged to have been committed by over one-third of the juveniles a&nitted in FY 2002. Although violation of probation/parole instigated detention, m the juvenile is being detained for the charge leading to parole o," probation. ADMISSIONS BY RACE, SEX, AND AGE • After an initial increase of 16% between FY 1999 and FY 2000, average FY 1999-2002 daily population (ADP) continued to decrease until 2002, ,esulting in a B 12% decrease over the four years. This trend is consistent with tile overall decrease in admissions. ADP consistently exceeded capacity. • For FY 2002, the total number of child care days was 7,984. This shows m a decrease of 12% from FY 2001. White 84.6% 83.4% 83.7% • New River Valley Juvenile Detention Home had 350 juveniles admitted m Other 1.3% 1.3% 42% as pre-dispositional, 89 who were admitted as post-dispositional without inclusion in programs, and 9 post-dispositional with programs. See 'Terms and Concepts' for the difference between types of detention 70.1% 74.4% 76.3% admissions. m Female 29.9% 25.6% 23.7% -- r ADMISSIONS BY COURT DISTRICT ge:,e': .. [ I I; 7 FY 2002 @ 8-- 12 2.4% 0.9% 4.0°/,, 100% 13 6.3% 5.0% 7.1°/,, 14 14.9% 17.5% 12.5% 80% D 15 21.6% 25.2% 21.2% 60% 16 24.0% 23.9% 29.7°/,, II!1 17 30.7% 26.9% 24.8% 40% 18 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% I 19-20 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20% E rro,V Missing 0.2% 0.4% 0.7°/,, 0.2% 0% Total 538 457 448 I 27th 29th All Other CSUs Percentages lllay IlOt add to 100% due to rounduvg, W Data Resource Guide FY2002 ADMISSIONS BY DETAINING CHARGE AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION VS CAPACITY FY 2002 FY 1999-2002 150 120 Abusive Language 0.2% Alcohol 0.9% 90 Arson 0.9% Assault 22.5% 60 Burglary 6.0% Contempt of Court 12.3% :Custody 0.2% 30 -- Desertion/Support 0.0% Disorderly Conduct 2.7% 0 .... 1999 2000 2001 2002 Escapes 0.0% m ADP 25 29 25 22 Extortion 0.4% [] Capadtv _,0 i 20 I 20 I 20 Failure to Appear 0.9% Family Offense 0.0% • Ill FY 2002, 6 individual juveniles were admitted as weekende,s. Fraud 0.2% • Use of the new Detention Assessment Instrument began ill November 2002. This instrument is expected to make detention decisions statewide more consistent, by 0.0% Gangs using standard criteria for detention decisions made by all intake officer. An Kidnapping 0.0% evaluation of the instrument will be conducted in FY 2003-04. See Appendix K for a Larceny 10.5% copy of the instrument. Misc/Other 1.3% • FY 2002 marks the first full year in which detention data were collected using the new Detention Home Module on the Juvenile Tracking System. This enhanced data Missing Information 0.2% system allows the Department to track juveniles on many aspects of detention that Murder 0.4% were not consistently identified m the old system. Using this data, the Department Narcotics 1.3% can more accurately analyze detention placements within individual court districts (see the court sea, ice unit section, beginning on page 18). Obsccnity 0.2% Obstruct Justice 1.1% ADMISSIONS BY DISPOSITIONAL STATUS Prob./Parole Violation 18.3% FY 2002 9 Robbery 0.4% Sexual Assault 1.6% Spousal Abuse 0.0% "~ ~--~ • Pre-dispositional Slams Offense 10.0% ~ [] Post-dispositional Telephone Law 0.4% 01o programs) q}affic 0.9% [] Post-dispositional 0.70,4: ~li'cspass (programs) Vandalism 4.5% Weapons 0.7% Total 448 Percemages may Hot a&t to 100% due to roundhlG. m l)ala Resource Guide FY2002 m Newport News Secure Detention Home 228 25th Street IR Superintendent: LarrT Robinson Newport News, Virginia 23607 Capacity: 40 beds 757-926-8848 B ADMISSIONS FY :1.999-2002 • Newport News Secure Detention Home is owned by the City of Newpo,'t News and utilized primarily by the cities of Newport News and Hampton. 2,800 • Over 99% of admissions were from the 7 'h and 8'h Districts. See pages 34-35 B and 36-37, respectively, for data pertaining to these CSUs. 2,400 • In FY 2002, Newport News Secure Detention Home had 1,260 admissions. This represents 881 juveniles, 646 of whom were admitted only one time. m 2,000 1,669 • Admissions have been steadily decreasing, showing a 25% decrease between FY 1999 and FY 2002. 1,600 m • A juvenile at admission in FY 2002 was most likely to be a black 16 or 17 year old male. 1,200 • 12% of FY 2002 admissions to Newport News Secure Detention Home m were between ages 8-13. 800 • Violation of probation/parole and larceny were the most serious charges m alleged to have been committed by nearly one-third of the juveniles admitted 400 in FY 2002. Although violation of probation/parole instigated detention, the juvenile is being detained for the charge leading to parole or probation. m 0 ' • Average daily population (ADP) increased by 10% between FY 1999 and FY99 FYO0 FY01 FY02 FY 2000 to reach its highest point in all four years. Overall, ADP has increased 2%. ADP consistently exceeded capacity, by a substantial amount. ADMISSIONS BY RACE, SEX, AND AGE • For FY 2002, the total number of child care days was 32,662. This shows FY 1999-2002 an increase of 3% from FY 2001. B • Newport News Secure Detention Home had 1,152 juveniles admitted as pre-dispositional, 107 who were admitted as post-dispositional without inclusion m programs, and 1 post-dispositional with programs. See 'Terms i and Concepts' for the difference between types of detention admissions. • In FY 2002, 19 individual juveniles were admitted as weekenders. @ ADMISSIONS BY COURT O,sm,cr Male 74.7% 77._"~" '/,, 77.8% FY 2002 @ Female 25.3% 22.8% 22.2% 80% gel I i 8-12 3.5% 4.8% 4.2% m 60% 13 7.3% 8.4% 7.3% 14 13.9% 15.4% 16.6% Im 15 24.1% 22.4% 23.0% 40% 16 26.7% 21.2% 24.4% Inl 17 24.4% 27.6°/. 24.4% 18 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2( )% @ 19-5!0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% E re)r/Missing 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% O. 1% ()% Total 1, 530 1,297 1,260 7rh 8th All Other CSIJs m Pcrccmages may not add to 100% due to rounding. g 1)ata Resource Guide D2002 ADMISSIONS BY DETAINING CHARGE AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION VS CAPACITY FY 2002 FY 1999-2002 150 120 Abusive Language 0.2% Alcohol 1.0% 90 Arson 0.8% Assault 13.3% 60 Burglary 6.5% Contempt of Court 0.3% 30 Custody 0.2% Desertion~Support 0.0% 0 Disorderly Conduct 1.4% 1999 2000 2001 2002 Escapes 0.6% • AIDP 87 96 87 89 _ Extortion 0.8% D C_apadty 40 40 40 40 Failure to Appear 2.6% Family Offense 0.0% Use of the new Detention Assessment h~strument began in November 2002. This Frat,d 0.6% inst,ument is expected to make detention decisions statewide more consistent, by Gangs 0.0% using standard criteria for detention decisions made by; an retake officer. An evaluation of the instrument will be conducted in FY 2003-04. See Appendix K for a Kidnapping 0.6% copy of the instrument. Larceny 14.4% FY 2002 marks the first full year in which detention data were collected using the Misc/Other 6.9% new Detention Home Module on the Juvenile Tracking System. This enhanced data Missing Informadon 7.9% system allows the Department to track juveniles on many aspects of detention that were not consistently identified in the old system. Using this data, the Depamnent Murder 0.6% can more accurately analyze detention placements within individual court districts Narcotics 5.6% (see the court service unit section, beginning on page 18). Obscenity 0.0% Obstruct Justice 0.6% ADMISSIONS BY DISPOSlTIONAL STATUS FY 2002 Prob./Parole Violation 16.9% 107 1 Robbery 5.5% Sexual Assault 2.1% • Prc-dispositional Spousal Abuse O. 1% Status Offense 3.0% U} Post-dispositional Tdephone Law 0.1% 01o programs) Traffic 0.6% g Post-dispositional Trespass 0.9% (programs) Vandalism 3.1% Weapons 2.7% ~:tal 1,260 Percemages may uot add to 100% due to rounding. Data Resource 6'uide FY2002 Norfolk Detention Home 1260 Security Lane m Supe,intendent: Pete Withers Norfolk, Virginia 23502 757-441-5667 Capacity: 80 beds m • Norfolk Detention Home is owned by the City of Norfolk and utilized ADMISSIONS FY 1999-2002 primarily by the City, of Norfolk, as well as Accomack and Northampton 2,800 counties. m • Over 98% of admissions were from Districts 2A and 4. See pages 24-25 2,400 and 28-29, respectively, for data pertaining to these CSUs. • In FY 2002, Norfolk Detention Home had 1,158 admissions. This M 2,000 ...... represents 743 juveniles, 481 of whom we,'e admitted only, one time. • Admissions have been steadily; decreasing, showing a 21% decrease m 1,600 between FY 1999 and FY 2002. • A juvenile at admission in FY 2002 was most likely to be a black 16 year 1,200 old male. I • 8% of FY 2002 admissions to Norfolk Detention Home were between 800 ages 8-13. • Violation of p,'obation/parole and assault were the most serious charges m 400 alleged to have been committed by, over one-third of the juveniles admitted m FY 2002. Although violation of probation/parole instigated detention, the juvenile is being detained for the charge leading to parole or probation. m 0 FT'99 FY00 FY01 FY02 • Average daily population (ADP) decreased by: 10% between FY 1999 and FY 2000. Overall, ADP has decreased 6%. This t,end is consistent with m the overall decrease in admissions. ADP consistently exceeded capacity. ADMISSIONS BY RACE, SEX, AND AGE • For FY 2002, the total number of child care days was 31,319. This shows FY 1999-2002 an increase of 2% f,om FY 2001. i • Norfolk Detention Home had 816 juveniles admitted as pre-dispositional, 303 who were admitted as post-dispositional without inclusion in programs, and 39 post-dispositional with programs. See 'Terms and m Bla& 80.5% 79.0% 80.1% Concepts' for the difference between types of detention admissions. White 17.0% 19.8% 18.4% Other 2.5% 1.2% 1.6% i ADMISSIONS BY COURT DISTRICT FY 2002 Male 74.7% 77.1% 76.2% 100% i Ferule 25.3% 22.9% 23.8% ./nil IIImn 80% m 8-12 4.1% 2.6% 1.7% 13 7.9% 6.6% &7% 60'¼, ! 14 19.4% 16.4% 17.1% 15 22.0% 26.1% 23.4% 16 23.6% 22.9% 26.1% 40% I 17 21.7% 24.7% 24.6% 2(}% 18 O.Y'/o 0.3% 0.3% 9.1% @ 19- 2C 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1 E mgr/Missin~ 0.8% 0.3% 0.1% i ~--1-- -- Total 1,271 1,210 1,158 4 rh 2A All {-)thor CSIJs RI Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. B Data Resource GuMe f:}I2002 ADMISSIONS BY DETAINING CHARGE AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION VS CAPACITY FY 2002 FY 1999-2002 150 Abusive Language 0.0% 120 Alcohol 0.6% Arson 0.3% 90 Assault 18.0% Burglary 2.8% 60 Contempt of Court 16.9% Custody 0.1% 30 Desertion/Support 0.0% Disorderly Conduct 2.0% Escapes 0.5% • ADP 92 82 84 86 Extortion 1.2% Failure to Appear 5.2% [] Capadtv I 80 80 I 80 I 80 Family Offense 0.1% • In FY 2002, 3 individual juveniles were adnaitted as weekenders. Fraud 0.4% • Use of the new Detention Assessment Instrument began in November 2002. This Gangs 0.0% instrument is expected to make detention decisions statewide more consistent, by' using standard criteria for detention decisions made by an intake officer. Aal evaluation Kidnapping 0.7% of the instrument will be conducted in FY 2003-04. See Appendix K for a copy of the Larceny 9.3% instrument. Misc/Other 0.9% • FY 2002 marks the first full year in which detention data were collected using the new Missing Information 1.3% Detention Home Module on the Juvenile Tracking System. This enhanced data system allows the Department to track juveniles on many aspects of detention that were not Murder 0.2% consistently identified in the old system. Using this data, the Department can more Narcotics 4.8% accurately analyze detention placements within individual court districts (see the court Obscenity 0.0% service unit section, beginning on page 18). Obstruct Justice 0.8% ADMISSIONS BY DISPOSITIONAL STATUS Prob./Parole Violation 18.0% FY 2002 39 Robbery 3.4% Sexual Assault 1.9% Spousal Abuse 0.1% 303 • Pre-dispositional Status Offense 2.4% Telephone Law 0.3% [] Post-dispositional (no programs) Traffic 1.6% • Post-dispositional Trespass 0.9% (pro~;rams) Vandalism 3.6% Weapons 1.6% Total I, 158 Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. Virg#ea" l)ala Resource Guide ~17002 Northern Virginia Detention Home 200 South Whiting Street Superintendent: Krystal Kimrey Alexandria, Virginia 22304 Capacity: 70 beds 703-751-3700 1711 ADMISSIONS FY 1999-2002 ° Northern Virginia Detention Home is owned by a commission of the cities of Falls Church and Alexandria, and Arlington County. The 2,800 detention home is utilized primarily by the members of the commission. I1 ° Over 98% of admissions were from Districts 17, 18, and 17F. See pages 2,400 54-55, 58-59, and 56-57, respectively, for data pertaining to these CSUs. ° In FY 2002, Northern Virginia Detention Home had 1,249 admissions. 2,000 This represents 617 juveniles, 342 of whom were admitted only one time. ° Admissions increased 9% between FY 1999 and FY 2001 and decreased 1,600 - t% in FY 2002. 1,249 1,157 1,213 1,259 ° A juvenile at admission in FY 2002 was most likely to be a black 16 );ear I 1,200 , o old male. o o Q , o ° 12'/o of FY 2002 admissions to Northern Virginia Detention Home were 800 Oo between ages 8-13. > a , i rill d© • Violation of probation/parole and la,'ceny were the most se,ious charges 400 i° t:,,° ,"° ° alleged to have been committed by nearly two-thirds of the juveniles o • I I"a 3 admitted in FY 2002. Although violation of probation/parole instigated o , detention, the juvenile is being detained for the charge leading to parole I11 0 or probation. FY°9 FY00 FY01 FY02 ° Average daily population (ADP) fluctuated 6% or 7% between given years, and overall, ADP decreased 6'Vo between FY 1999 and FY 2002. I1t] ADP was consistently below capacity. ADMISSIONS BY RACE, SEX, AND AGE FY 1999-2002 ° For FY 2002, the total number of child care days was 22,241. This shows a decrease of 6% from FY 2001. rill °'i:::., [:.,~ .>~J ° Northern Virginia Detention Home had 726 juveniles admitted as pre- dispositional, 503 who were admitted as post-dispositional without !~.}4g.! ~ !a~il : '° inclusion in programs, and 20 post-dispositional with programs. See I11 Bla& 52.8% 46.7% 50.0% 'Terms and Concepts' for the difference between types of detention White 13.0% 14.1% 14.2% admissions. Other 34.1% 39.2% 35.9% ° In FY 2002, 39 individual juveniles were admitted as weekenders. ' o ADMISSIONS BY COURT DISTRICT Male 74.3% 74.4% 70.1% rill FY 2002 Female 25.7% 25.6% 29.9% 70'¼, o. , n, ,l| 61.0% 8-12 3.0% 2.4% 4.9% 60% I, 1$ 6.4% 7.1% 7.0% 50% 1,t 15.0% 13.3% 11.2% N 40% 15 19.5°/,, 23.5% 20.4% 16 25.0% 23.4°/,, 29.1% 30% 17 30.8°A, 30.3% 26.8% 20% 18 0.2% 0.2% 0.6% 10% 3.4% 19-2(3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% |! il : :I ~I E rror/Missine 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0% 17th 18th 17V All Odlcr CSUs Total 1,213 1,259 1,249 N] Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. l] Data Resource Guide FY2002 ADMISSIONS BY DETAINING CHARGE AVERAGE DALLY POPULATION VS CAPACITY FY 2002 FY .1.999-2002 150 120 Abusive Language 0.2% Alcohol 0.9% 90 Arson 0.6% Assault 10.3% 60 Burglary 2.0% Contempt of Court 3.8% Custody 0.0% 30 Desertion/Support 0.0% Disorderly Conduct 0.6% 1999 2000 2001 2002 Escapes 0.0% • ADP 65 61 65 61 Extortion 0.2% d H Capadty 70 I 70 70 70 Failure to Appear 0.2% Family Offense 0.0% • Use of the new Detention Assessment Instrument began in November 2002. This Fraud 0.4% instrument is expected to make detention decisions statewide more consistent, by Gangs 0.3% using standard criteria for detention decisions made by an intake officer. An Kidnapping 0.2% evaluation of the instrument will be conducted in FY 2003-04. See Appendix K for a copy of the instrument. Larceny 13.2% • FY 2002 marks the first full year in which detention data were collected using the Misc/Other 1.3% new Detention Home Module on the Juvenile Tracking System. This enhanced data Missing Information 1.2% system allows the Department to track juveniles on many aspects of detention that Murder 0.1% were not consistently identified in the old system. Using this data, the Department can more accurately analyze detention placements within individual court districts Narcotics 2.2% (see the court service unit section, beginning on page 18). Obscenity 0.1% Obstruct Justice 0.6% ADMISSIONS BY DISPOSlTIONALSTATUS Prob./Parole Violation 48.7% FY 2002 20 Robbery 4.9% Sexual Assault 2.2% Spousal Abuse 0.0% • Pre-dispositional Status Offense 1.5% Telephone Law 0.0% [] Post-dispositional 503 (,lo programs) Traffic 1.8% U Post-dispositional Trespass 0.6% (pro[~rams) Vandalism 1.0% 726 Weapons 1.0% Total 1,249 Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. I Data Resource Guide D2002 m M Northwestern Regional Juvenile Detention Center 145 Fort Collier Road Superintendent: Robert Hurt Winchester, Virginia 22603 Capacity: 32 beds 540-722-6174 B • Northwestern Regional Juvenile Detention Center is owned by a commission of ADMISSIONS FY 1999-2002 the city of Winchester, and Frederick, Clarke, Page, Shenandoah, and Warren m 2,800 counties. The detention home is utilized primarily by the members of the conllllission. • Over 96% of admissions were from the 26 'h District. See pages 78-79 for data 2,400 @ pertaining to this CSU. • In FY 2002, Northwestern Regional Detention Center had 335 admissions. This 2,000 represents 220 juveniles, 149 of whom were achnitted only one time. Im • After an initial increase of 9°/, between FY 1999 and FY 2000, admissions have 1,600 decreased until 2002 resulting in a 29% decrease over the four years. • A juvenile at admission in FY 2002 was most likely to be a white 16 or 17 ),ear old i 1,200 male. • 6% of FY 2002 admissions to Northwestern Regional Detention Center were 800 I between ages 8-13. Ill 45'0 511 I • Violation of probation/parole, larceny, and assault were the most serious charges alleged to have been committed by over half of the juveniles admitted m FY 2002. Although violation of probation/parole instigated detention, the juvenile is being i 4oo N In Ii n detained for the charge leading to parole or probation. O, • Average daily population (ADP) decreased 15% between FY 2000 and FY 2001, FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 and over all fou,"years showed an 11% decrease. This trend is consistent with the I overall decrease m admissions. ADP was consistently below capacity. ADMISSIONS BY RACE, SEX, AND AGE • For FY 2002, the total number of child care days was 7,256. This shows a decrease I FY 1999-2002 of nearly 1% from FY 2001. • Northwestern Regional Detention Center had 197 juveniles admitted as pre- dispositional, 118 who were admitted as post-dispositional without inclusion in g programs, and 20 postdispositional with programs. See 'Terms and Concepts' for the difference between types of detention admissions. m @ ~m ADMISSIONS BY COURT DISTRICT ! FY 2002 96.1'7, m 100% ~!~~ ~~, Im !,- L 80% 8-12 2.0% 1.0% 0.6% 13 4.7% 2.4% 5.1% II 14 14.1% 13.1% 12.5% 60'V. 15 29.2'~ 29.1% 20.0% 16 21.5% 29.9% 30.1% 40% m 17 27.4% 22.8% 30.4% ]8, 0.0% 1.YY,, 19v 2f1% i 19-2C 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 3.9% E nx)r/Missin~ 1.0% 0.3% O.O°lo fl'¼, i TotW 511 381 335 26th /\11 C)thcr CSI Js Perccmagcs may not add to 100% due to rounding. m Data Resource GuMe 1q2002 ADMISSIONS BY DETAINING CHARGE AVERAGE DALLY POPULATION VS CAPACITY FY 2002 FY 1999-2002 150 120 90 Assault 16.4% 60 Burglary 8.1% Contempt of Court 7.2% Custody 0.0% 30 _.~____ Desertion/Support 0.0% Disorderly Conduct 0.9% 0 1999 2000 2001 Escapes 0.0% I ADP 22 ._ 24 20 20 Extortion 0.0% H Capadtv 32 32 32 Failure to Appear 1.2% l 32 Family Offense 0.0% • In FY 2002, 13 individual juveniles were admitted as weekenders. Fraud 0.9% • Use of the new Detention Assessment Instrument began in November 2002. Tiffs instrument is expected to make detention decisions statewide more consistent, by Gangs 0.0% usi,~g standard criteria for detention decisions made by an intake officer. An Kidnapping 0.0% evaluation of the instrument will be conducted in FY 2003-04. See Appendix K for a Larceny 16.4% copy of the instrument. Misc/Other 0.3% • FY 2002 marks the first full year in which detention data were collected using the new Detention Home Module on the Juvenile Tracking System. This enhanced data Missing Information 0.3% system allows the Department to track juveniles on many aspects of detention that Murder 0.6% were not consistently identified in the old system. Using this data, the Department Narcotics 3.6% can more accurately analyze detention placements within individual court districts (see the court service unit section, beginning on page 18). Obscenity 0.0% Obstrtict Justice 0.6% ADMISSIONS BY DISPOSlTIONAL STATUS Prob./Parole Violation 23.9% FY 2002 Robbery 3.0% 20 Sexual Assault 2.1% Spousal Abuse 0.0% • Pre-dispositional Status Offense 6.3% Telephone Law 0.0% [] Post-dispositional "l¥affic 0.0% (no programs) 118 Trespass 1.5% [] Post-dispositional (prosra,ns) Vandalism 4.2% 197 Weapons 1.5% ~tal 335 [Jercentagcs lnav not add to 100% due to rouiidhi~. J Dala Resource Guide 112002 m Piedmont Regional Detention Center PO Box 344 Iii Farmville, Virginia 23901-0344 434-392-3834 m ADMISSIONS FY 1999-2002 • Piedmont Regional Detention Center opened in October 2001. All data 2,800 here refer to October 2001-June 2002. m • Pie&nont Regional Detention Center is owned by a commission of Amelia, 2,400 Buckingham, Cumberland, Lunenburg, Nottoway, and Prince Edward counties. The detention home is utilized primarily by the members of the i commission. 2,000 • Over 99% of admissions were from the 10% 6% 11% and 13' h Districts. See pages 40-41, 32-33, 42-43, and 46-47, respectively, for data pertaining to J 1,600 these CSUs. • In FY 2002, Piedmont Regional Detention Center had 277 admissions. 1,200 This represents 222 juveniles, 183 of whom were admitted only one time. m • Admissions at Piedmont Regional Detention Center are slightly higher 800 due to the transfer of juveniles to and from Crater Juvenile Detention I Home. 27~ 400 • A juvenile at admission in FY 2002 was most likely to be a black 17 year old male. m • 9% of FY 2002 admissions to Piedmont Regional Detention Center were FY99 FYO0 FY01 FY02 between ages 8-13. • Larceny and assault were the most serious charges alleged to have been m committed by over one-third of the juveniles admitted in FY 2002. ADMISSIONS BY RACE, SEX, AND AGE FY 1999-2002 • ADP for Piedmont Regional Detention Center was below capacity D between October 2001 and June 2002. • For FY 2002, the total number of child care days was 4,614. • Piedmont Regional Detention Center had 263 juveniles admitted as pre- U dispositional and 14 who were admitted as post-dispositional without inclusion in programs. See 'Terms and Concepts' for the difference between types of detention admissions. m ADMISSIONS BY COURT DISTRICT FY 2002 m 50% i 8-12. N/A N/A 4.7% 13 N/A N/A 4.7% 40% 14. N/A N/A 17.3% J 3O'¼, 15 N/A N/A 16.6% 16 N/A N/A 23.5% 20'¼, @ 17' N/A N/A 31.8% 18 N/A N/A 0.0% 10'¼, @ 19-2C) N/A N/A 0.0% 0.4% 0% E zror/Missin~ N/A N/A 1.4% 10th 6th 11 th I3th All Other Total N/A N/A 277 CSUs I Percemages may not add to 100% due to rounding. m l)ata Resource GuMe FY2002 ADMISSIONS BY DETAINING CHARGE AVERAGE DALLY POPULATION VS CAPACITY FY 2002 FY 1999-2002 150 120 90 Assault 19.5% 60 Burglary 5.8% Contempt of Court 9.4% Custody 0.0% 30 Desertion/Support 0.0% Disorderly Conduct 1.4% 1999 2000 2001 2002 Escapes 0.0% 0 0 0 17 Extortion 0.4% Capadtv I 0 0 0 20 Failure to Appear 0.4% Family Offense 0.0% • In FY 2002, 3 individual juveniles were admitted as weekenders. Fraud 0.0% • Use of the new Detention Assessment Instrument began in November 2002. This instrument is expected to make detention decisions statewide more consistent, by Gangs 0.0% using standard criteria for detention decisions made by an intake officer. An Kidnapping 0.0% evaluation of the instrument will be conducted m FY 2003-04. See Appendix K for a Larceny 15.9% copy of the instrument. Misc/Other 1.4% • FY 2002 marks the first full year in which detention data were collected using the new Detention Home Module on the Juvenile Tracking System. This enhanced data Missing Information 5.4% system allows the Department to track juveniles on many aspects of detention that Murder 0.0% were not consistently identified in the old system. Using this data, the Department Narcotics 6.1% can more accurately analyze detention placements within indMdual court districts (see the court service unit section, beginning on page 18). Obscenity 0.0% Obstruct Justice 0.7% ADMISSIONS BY DISPOSITIONAL STATUS Prob./Parole Violation 11.6% FY 2002 14 o Robbery 2.5% Sexual Assault 2.5% • Pre-dispositional Spousal Abuse 0.0% Status Offense 5.4% [] Post-dispositional Telephone Law 0.0% 01o programs) Traffic 0.7% • Post-dispositional "l}espass 1.1% (programs) Vandalism 4.7% Ill Weapons 3.2% 7btal 277 Percentages may not add to 100% due to roundh~g. I m Data Resource GMde 1:1"2002 B Prince William Detention Home 14873 Dumfries Road i Superintendent: Curtis Harstad Manassas, Virginia 20112 703-791-3181 Capacity: 40 beds I • Prince William Detention Home is owned by Prince William Cot, nty ADMISSIONS FY 1999-2002 and utilized primarily by the cities of Manassas and Manassas Park, as 2,800 well as P,'ince William County. @ • Over 99% of admissions were from the 31 ~' District. See pages 88-89 for 2,400 " data pertaining to this CSU. • In FY 2002, Prince William Detention Home had 769 admissions. This B 2,000 represents 491 jt, veniles, 324 of whom were admitted only one time. • After an initial increase of 8% between FY 1999 and FY 2000, admissions D 1,600 " have decreased until 2002 resulting in a 25% decrease ore," the four years. • A juvenile at admission in FY 2002 was most likely to be a white 17 year 1 l(~q old male. 1,200 @ • 6% of FY 2002 admissions to Prince William Detention Home were between ages 8-13. 800 • Violation of probation/pa,'ole and contempt of cou,'t were the most serious m charges alleged to have been committed by, nearly one-third of the juveniles 400 admitted in FY 2002. Although violation of p,obation/parole instigated detention, the juvenile is being detained for the charge leading to parole or m 0 probation. FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 • After an initial increase of 17% between FY 1999 and FY 2000, average daily population (ADP) decreased until 2002, rescdting in a 22% decrease i over the four years. This trend is consistent with the trend for admissions. ADMISSIONS BY RACE, SEX, AND AGE ADP exceeded capacity until FY 2002. FY 1999-2002 • For FY 2002, the total number of child care days was 11,994. This shows I a decrease of 27% from FY 2001. • Prince William Detention Home had 606 juveniles admitted as p,e- dispositional and 163 who were admitted as postidispositional without B inclusion in programs. See 'Te,'ms and Concepts" for the diffe,ence White 50.2% 47.3%...... 47.5% i between types of detention admissions. Other 9.0% 11.0% 10.7% S ADMISSIONS BY COURT DISTRICT ai,, I! , FY 2002 IVlalc 77.1% 78.5% 78.8% g 99.7% Fernale ....97 9)/,/( 21.5% 2191/ 1()(1% ti ge' I ' B 8-12 2.0% 1.0% 2.7% 80% 13 6.6% 4.9% 3.6% 14 13.6% 14.0% 10.1% 6()% B 15 23.5% 23.3% 19.9% 16 26.6% 24.3% 29.9% 4()'¼, ill 17 27.1% 31.9% 33.6% 18 0.1% 0.5% 0.0% 2{)'¼, m 19.-20 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% I £:~) , ,. *" <7. 0.3% E m),/Missing 0.5% 0.0% 0.1% t, 2~.. . )]' . 0% F i Totd l, 105 926 769 31st All Other CSUs I! Percentages may [lot add to 100% due to rol.llldilll2 ,. B Data Resource Guide t:}:2002 ADMISSIONS BY DETAINING CHARGE AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION VS CAPACITY FY 2002 FY 1999-2002 150 120 Alcohol 0.0% Arson 1.2% 90 Assault 11.3% Burglary 5.6% 60 Contempt of Court 16.0% Custody 0.0% 30 DesertionISupport 0.0% Disorderly Conduct 0.5% 1999 2000 2001 2002 Escapes 0.7% Extortion 0.4% n ADP 42 49 45 33 Failure to Appear 10.5% I-ICapadtyl 40 40 40 40 Family Offense 0.0% In FY 2002, 16 individual juveniles we,e adnaitted as weekenders. Fraud 2.9% Use of the new Detention Assessment Instrument began in November 2002. This Gangs 0.0% instrument is expected to make detention decisions statewide more consistent, by; using standard criteria for detention decisions made by an intake officer. An Kidnapping 0.1% evaluation of the instrument will be conducted in FY 2003-04. See Appendix K for a Larceny 10.5% copy of the instrument. Misc/Other 3.3% FY 2002 marks the first full year in which detention data were collected using the Missing Information 4.8% new Detention Home Module on the Juvenile Tracking System. This enhanced data system allows the Department to track juveniles on many aspects of detention that Murder 0.0% were not consistently identified in the old system. Using this data, the Department Narcotics 2.1% can more accurately analyze detention placements within individual couFt districts Obscenity 0.0% (see the court service unit section, beginning on page 18). Obstruct Justice 0.9% ADMISSIONS BY DISPOSITIONAL STATUS Prob./Parole Violation 16.0% FY 2002 0 Robbery 5.1% Sexual Assault 2.0% Spousal Abuse 0.0% • Pre-dispositional Status Offense 1.2% "l%lcphone Law 0.0% [] Post-dispositiona[ (no programs) "l}aff]c 0.7% [] Post-disposidonal Trespass 1.0% (programs) Vandalism 2.1% Wcapons 1.3% 7btal 769 .12.9 Virginia ,-/ ID Data Resource Guide F17002 B Rappahannock Juvenile Detention Center P.O. Box 1480 m Superintendent: William F. Burke Stafford, Virginia 22555 Capacity: 80 beds 540-658-1691 ID ADMISSION.'; FY 1999-2002 • The Rappahannock Juvenile Detention Center is owned and utilized by a 2,800 comlnission of the City of Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania, Stafford, Madison, Orange, Louisa and King George counties. i 2,400 - --- • Over 97% of admissions were from the 15% 16% and 6'~' Districts. See pages 50-51, 52-53, and 32-33, respectively, for data pertaining to these CSUs. B 2,000 -i- • In FY 2002, Rappahannock Juvenile Detention Center had 1,316 admissions. Tiffs represents 803 juveniles, 527 of whom were admitted only one time. 1,600 • Admissions have steadily increased since FY 1999, resulting in a 29% increase J 1,316 over the four reported years. 1 91A 1,200 • A juvenile at admission in FY 2002 was most likely to be a white 16 year old male. D • 7% of FY 2002 admissions to Rappahannock Juvenile Detention Center 800 were between ages 8-13. m • Violation of probation/parole and assault were the most serious charges 400 alleged to have been committed by over one-third of the juveniles admitted in FY 2002. Although violation of probation/parole instigated detention, II 0 the j Cwenile is being detained for the charge leading to parole or probation. FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 • Average daily population (ADP) has been steadily increasing, showing an increase of 72% across the four years. This trend is consistent with the I overall increase in admissions. ADP exceeded capacity until the capacity ADMISSIONS. BY RACE, SEX, AND AGE increased in FY 2001. FY 1999--2002 • For FY 2002, the total number of child care days was 24,269. This shows an D increase of 23"/,, from FY 2001. • Rappahannock Juvenile Detention Center had 1,061 juveniles admitted as D Bla& 27.0% 34.2% 36.9% pre-dispositional, 240 who were admitted as post-dispositional without White 68.6% 62.7% 59.0% inclusion in programs, and 15 post-dispositional with programs. See 'Terms and Concepts' for the difference between types of detention admissions. I 4.4% 3.1% 4.1% @ ADMISSIONS BY COURT DISTRICT Male 76.9°/`, 77.3% 75.1% FY 2002 @ Female , 23.1% 22.7% 24.9% 100% -T ~3.1% @ 8-1"! 3.4% 3.5% 3.0% 8{)% 13 7.0% 5.7% 4.4% 14 14.3% 17.3% 14.1% 60% U 15 20.8% 19.8% 20.1% 16 27.9% 27.8% 29.7% 40'¼, 17 25.3% 25.2% 28.0% S I~! 0.8% 0.3°/,} 0.5% ~.9 o//( 19-2(i 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 1 1.2"/. @ E n~o,'/Missing 0.4% 0.YYo 0.0% 3.6% 2.1'¼, 0'¼, r Total 1,112 1,214 1,316 15t h 16t 11 6th All Other CSUs Ila PerceHtage~ 111,l)" 1101. add to 100% duc to roundiHg. M l)ata Resource Guide D2002 ADMISSIONS BY DETAINING CHARGE AVERAGE DALLY POPULATION VS CAPACITY FY 2002 FY 1999-2002 150 120 Abusive Langt,age 0.0% Alcohol 2.3% 90 Arson 1.0% Assault 14.5% 60 Burglary 4.9% Contempt of Court 13.5% Custody 0,0% Desertion/Support 0.0% Disorderly Conduct 2.1% 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 Escapes 0.4% • AD1 ) 39 41 34 66 Extortion 0.5% D Capadtv I 21 ] 21 ] 80 I 80 Faih.re to Appear 1.2% Family Offense 0.0% In FY 2002, 13 individual juveniles were admitted as weekenders. Fraud 0.8% Use of the new Detention Assessment Instrument began in November 2002. This instrument is expected to make detention decisions statewide more consistent, by 0.0% Gangs using standard criteria for detention decisions made by an intake officer. An Kidnapping 0.2% evaluation of the instrument will be conducted in FY 2003-04. See Appendix K for a Larceny 10.7% copy: of the instrument. M isc/Other 0.8% FY 2002 marks the first full year in which detention data were collected using the new Detention Home Module on the Juvenile Tracking System. This enhanced data Missing Information 1.9% system allows the Department to track juveniles on many aspects of detention that Murder 0.2% were not consistently identified in the old system. Using this data, the Department Narcotics 6.0% can more accurately analyze detention placements within individual court districts (see the court service unit section, beginning on page t8). Obscenity 0.0% Obstruct Justice 0.5% ADMISSIONS BY DISPOSITIONAL STATUS Prob./Parole Violation 25.5% FY 2002 ]5 Robbery 1.4% Sexual Assault 1.4% Spousal Abuse 0.0% • Pre-dispositional Status Offense 1.9% Telephone Law 0.3% 2< [] Post-dispositional (ilo programs) Traffic 1.4% [] Post-dispositional qYespass 0.4% (pr%rams) Vandalism 4.9% II Weapons I. 1% 7bml 1,316 I Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. I D Data Resource Guide FY2002 I Richmond Juvenile Detention Home 1700 North 17th Street S Superintendent: Dalee Thomas Richmond, Virginia 23919 Capacity: 60 beds 804-646-2937 M • The Richmond Juvenile Detention Home is owned and utilized by the ADMISSIONS FY 1999-2002 City of Richmond. 2,800 • Over 98% of admissions were from the 13 'h Dist,ict. See pages 46-47 for m data pertaining to this CSU. 2,400 ...... • In FY 2002, Richmond Juvenile Detention Home had 1,219 total admissions. This rep,esents 770 juveniles, 503 of whom we,'e admitted m 2,000 " only one time. 1,654 • Admissions decreased 26% between FY 2000 and FY 2002 and 11% between B 1,600 FY 2001 and FY 2002. • A juvenile at admission in FY 2002 was most likely to be a black 15-17 @ 1,200 year old male. • 12% of FY 2002 admissions to Richmond Juvenile Detention Home we,e 8OO between ages 8-13. @ • Assault and violation of probation/parole were the lnOSt serious charges 400 alleged to have been COlnmitted by over one-third of the juveniles admitted in FY 2002. Although violation of probation/parole instigated detention, II the juvenile is being detained for the charge leading to parole o," probation. 0 • After an initial decrease of 25% between FY 1999 and FY 2000, average FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 daily population (ADP) continued to decrease until 2002, resulting in a @ 44% decrease over the four yea,s. This t,end is consistent with the overall ADMISSIONS BY RACE, SEX, AND AGE decrease m admissions. ADP consistently exceeded capacity. FY 1999-2002 • For FY 2002, the total number of child care days was 28,380. This shows m a decrease of 5% from FY 2001. • Richlnond Juvenile Detention Home had 1,166 juvelliles admitted as pre- dispositional, 51 who were admitted as post-dispositional without inclusion D Bla& 95.8% in p,'ograms, and 2 post-dispositional with prog,'ams. See 'Terms and White 3.7% Concepts' for the difference between types of detention admissions. Other m~ ADMISSIONS BY COURT DISTRICT FY 2002 Male 76.2% 98.5% g 100% li Female 23.8% 22.8% 21.3°/,, g( 80'7,, m 8-12 4.0% 4.8% 4.4% 13 7.9% 7.3% 7.3% 60% a 14 16.6% 15.0% 15.5% )~ Oiv 15 --V.O ~1 21.0% 23.0% 40% 16 24.1% 22.8% 24.0% m 17 -~,.-9" 3,,::,, 26.5% 23.4% 18 1.7% -.'~9.,o,/,, 1.9% 20% IJ 19- 20 0. I'Y. 0.0% 0.2% .. 1.5% E ,for/Missing 0.6% 0.2% 0.3% 0% ~ ' F-- Total 1,654 1,358 1,219 I 3ttl All Oilier CSUs S t l)ata Resource Guide F)2002 ADMISSIONS BY DETAINING CHARGE AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION VS CAPACITY FY 2002 FY 1999-2002 150 120 Alcohol O. 1% Arson ] .4% 90 Assault 21.2% Burglary 3.8% 60 Contempt of Court 5.1% Custody 0.1% 30 Desertion~Support 0.0% Disorderly Conduct 1.0% 0 Escapes 2.1% Extortion 0.9% 82 78 Failurc to Appear 4.2% 60 I 60 Family Offense 0.1% In FY 2002, one juvemle was admitted as a weekender. Fraud 0.2% Use of the new Detention Assessment hlstrmnent began in November 2002. This Gangs 0.0% instrument is expected to make detention decisions statewide more consistent, by using standard criteria for detention decisions made by an intake officer. An I Kidnapping• 0.2% evaluation of the instrument will be conducted in FY 2003-04. See Appendix K for a Larceny 12.3% cop), of the instrument. Misc/Other 1.7% FY 2002 marks the first full year in which detention data were collected using the Missing Information 0.0% new Detention Home Module on the Juvenile Tracking System. This enhanced data system allows the Department to track juveniles on many aspects of detention that Murder 1.4% were not consistently identified in the old system. Using this data, the Department Narcotics 10.7% can more accurately analyze detention placements within individual court districts Obscenity 0.0% (see the court sea, ice unit section, beginning on page 18). Obstruct Justice 0.6% ADMISSIONS BY DISPOSITIONAL STATUS Prob./Parole Violation 17.3% FY 2002 Robbery 4.3% 5l 2 Sexual Assault 2.1% Spousal Abuse 0.0% • Pre-dispositional Status Offense 0.3% "telephone Law 0.0% [] Post-dispositional Traffic 1.4% (I1o programs) Trespass 0.4% • Post-dispositional (programs) Vandalism 2.0% Weapons 5.2% ~tal 1,219 PercentaKes ma',' not add to 100% due to roundine. Virgini il Data Resource Guide D2002 ill Roanoke Valley Juvenile Detention Center 498 Coyner Springs Road m Superintendent: Alan Hullette Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Capacity: 81 beds 540-561-3840 m • Roanoke Valley Juvenile Detention Center is owned by a commission of ADMISSIONS FY 1999-2002 the cities of Roanoke and Salem, as well as Botetourt, Franklin, and 2,800 Roanoke counties. The detention home is utilized primarily by the members of the commission, and will accept placements from other i 2,400 localities if the population is below 48. • Over 99% of admissions were from the Districts 23A, 23, 22, 25, and 30. m 2,000 See pages 72-73, 70-71, 68-69, 76-77, and 86-87, respectively, for data pertaining to these CSUs. °In FY 2002, Roanoke Valley Juvenile Detention Center had 1,021 1,600 ' I admissions. This represents 664 juveniles, 455 of whom were admitted only one time. 1,200 • Admissions have steadily increased showing a 102% increase over the I four yea,'s, and a 20% increase between FY 2001 and FY 2002. 800 • A juvenile at admission in FY 2002 was most likely to be a white 16 year old nlale. m 400 • 11% of FY 2002 admissions to Roanoke Valley Juvenile Detention Center were between ages 8-13. 0 • Assauh and violation of probation/parole were the most serious charges I FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 alleged to have been committed by nearly one-third of the juveniles admitted in FY 2002. Although violation of probation/parole instigated detention, the juvenile is being detained for the charge leading to parole or probation. I ADMISSIONS BY RACE, SEX, AND AGE • Average daily population (ADP) increased 87% between FY 1999 and FY FY 1999-2002 2002, and 18% between FY 2001 and FY 2002. This increase is consistent with the increase in admissions. Capacity of the home increased in 2000 i and again in 2001, and ADP has been below capacity since the first expansion. @ • For FY 2002, the total number of child care days was 19,385. This shows I White 44.4% 62.2°/,, 67.4°/, ] an increase of 18% from FY 2001. I Other 0.4% ~._/,, 9o/ 1.1°/` • Roanoke Valley Juvenile Detention Center had 854 juveniles admitted as @ | pre-dispositional, 159 who were admitted as post-dispositional without ilmm inclusion in programs, and 8 post-dispositional with programs. See 'Terms Male 78.1% 78.3<}/,, 76.9% and Concepts' for the difference between types of detention admissions. @ Female 21.9% 21.7% 23.1% ADMISSIONS BY COURT DISTRICT g~,,,'!1 illl/I FY 2002 @ 8-12 4.4% 4.4% 3.9% 511% 13 8.5% 5.9% 7. i% 4 1.2"/i, 14 18.1% 17.1% 12.3% 4l 1% U 15 23.7% 22.5% 22.7% 311'¼, I "2~ o 16 22.2% 25.3% 27.5% 17 23.0% 24.5% 26.2% 2{ }U4~ S 11L7% 18 0.0% O. 1% O. 1% 10% 4.7% 19-20 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 11'¼, W E n'or/Missing 0,0% 0.2% O. 1% 23A 23M 22nd 25th 30th All Othcr Tota] 540 849 1, 021 CSUs m Percentages may not add to 100% du~ to rounding. I m FI m Data Resource Guide ADMISSIONS BY DETAINING CHARGE AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION VS CAPACITY FY 2002 FY 1999-2002 !'" , Most Se~riousC~arge 150 ffens4 ". i ' Percent n 120 Abusive Language 0.4% Alcohol 1.7% Arson 1.0% 90 Assault 18.1% Burglary 4.0% 60 "- Contempt of Court 8.7% Custody 0.0% 30 Desertion/Support 0.0% Disorderly Conduct 1.9% 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 Escapes 0.5% _mAQp_ , 28 28 . _ 45 . 53_ _ Extortion 0.4% rF1C_apadt; 21 48 ] 81 81 Failure to Appear 6.5% Family Offense O. 1% • In FY 2002, six individual juveniles were admitted as weekenders. Fraud I. 1% • Use of tile new Detention Assessment Instrument began in November 2002. This Gangs 0.0% instrument is expected to make detention decisions statewide more consistent, by using standard criteria for detention decisions made by an intake officer. An evaluation of the Kidnapping O. 1% instrument will be conducted in FY 2003-04. See Appendix K for a copy of tile instrument. Larceny 10.9% • FY 2002 marks the first full year in which detention data were collected using the new Misc/Other 10.6% Detention Home Module on the Juvenile Tracking System. This enhanced data system Missing Information 2.4% allows the Department to track juveniles on many aspects of detention that were not consistently identified in the old system. Using this data, the Depal'tnlent can more Murder 0.4% accurately analyze detention placements within individual court districts (see the court Narcotics 4.8% service unit section, beginning on page 18). Obscenity 0.3% Obstruct Justice 1.1% ADMISSIONS BY DISPOSITIONAL STATUS Prob./Parole Violation 12.6% FY 2002 8 Robbery 1.7% , Sexual Assault 1.8% i Spousal Abuse 0.0% • Preodisposidonal Status Offense 2.5% Telephone Law O. 1% [] Post-dispositional (no pr%rams) "l}affic 1.8% [] Post-dispositional ~l}espass 1.1% (programs) Vandalism 2.4% Weapons 1.4% Total 1, 021 Perccmav~es may uot add to 100% due to roLmdin~. D B nenanooan Valley Juvenile Detention Home 1110 Montgomery Avenue n Superintendent: Timothy J. Smith Staunton, Virginia 24401 540-886-0729 Capacity: 32 beds D ADMISSIONS FY 1999-2002 • Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Home is owned by a commission 2,800 of the cities of Staunton, Harrisonburg, Lexington, Charlottesville, and Waynesbo,'o, as well as the counties of Augusta, Albemarle, and m Rockinghanl. The detention home is used by the members of the 2,400 --- commission, as well as tile cities of Buena Vista and Covington, and Alleghany, Bath, Craig, Rockbridge and Highland counties. B 2,000 .... • Over 99% of admissions were from the 25% 16 'h, and 26'" Dist,icts. See pages 76-77, 52-53, and 78-79, respectively, for data pertaining to these B 1,600 CSUs. • In FY 2002, Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Home had 846 1,200 admissions. This represents 595 juveniles, 423 of whom wel'e admitted m only one time. 800 • Adlnissions decreased 10% from FY 1999 to FY 2002, and also decreased by 10% between FY 2001 and FY 2002. m 400 • A juvenile at admission in FY 2002 was most likely to be a white 16 year old lnale. m 0 • 9% of FY 2002 admissions to Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 Home were between ages 8-13. • Assault and violation of probation/parole were the most serious charges D alleged to have been committed by nearly half of the juveniles admitted ADMISSIONS BY RACE, SEX, AND AGE in FY 2002. Although violation of probation/parole instigated detention, FY 1999-2002 tile juvenile is being detained for the charge leading to parole or U probation. • Average daily population (ADP) has decreased 6% between FY 1999 gl and FY 2002, and 4% between FY 2001 and FY 2002. This is consistent with the trend in admissions. ADP has consistently exceeded capacity. White 62.7% 64.7% 64.5% • For FY 2002, the total number of child care days was 13,274. This @ Other 2.3°/, 2.7% 3.5% shows a decrease of 4% from FY 2001. ADMISSIONS BY COURT DISTRICT Male 71.5% 71.8% 74.5% FY 2002 m Female 28.5% 28.2% 25.5% 50% 48,0% @ 8- 12 5.0% 2.1% 3.8% 40% 13 6.4% 7.6% 5.0% 14 14.1"/,) 13.7% 17.5% g 30% 15 25.8% 24.3% 18.6% 16 25.3% 27.2% 30.3% 20% B 17 22.8°/,, 24.5% 24.8% 18 0.4% 0.4% 0.1% 10% 19-2C 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% B E n~or/Missing, 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0% Total 1,011 939 846 25th 16th 26th All Other CSUs m Percentaees may not add to 100% due to rounding. Iil Data Resource Guide r'T2002 ADMISSIONS BY DETAINING CHARGE AVERAGE DALLY POPULATION VS CAPACITY FY 2002 FY 1999-2002 150 120 - Alcohol 0.6% 90- Arson 0.5% Assault 18.8% 60- Burglary 4.1% Contempt of Court 14.8% 30 Custody 0.1% Desertion/Support 0.0% 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 Disorderly Conduct 1.3% • ADP 39 42 38 36 Escapes 0.4% i [] Capadtv I 32 32 32 32 Extortion 0.4% Failure to Appear 2.0% • Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Home had 743 juveniles admitted as pre- dispositional and 103 who were admitted as post-dispositional without inclusion in Family Offcnse 0.0% programs. See "Terlns and Concepts" for the difference between types of detention Fraud 0.7% adnfissions. Gangs 0.0% • There were no juveniles admitted in FY 2002 as weekenders. Kidnapping 0.2% • Use of the new Detention Assessment Instrument began in Novenaber 2002. This instrument is expected to make detention decisions statewide more consistent, by Larceny 12.1% using standard criteria for detention decisions made by: an intake officer. All evaluation M isc/Other 1.3% of the instrument will be conducted in FY 2003-04. See Appendix K for a copy of the instrument. Missing Information 0.4% • FY 2002 ma,ks the first full year in which detention data were collected using the new Murder O. 1% Detention Home Module on the Juve,aile Tracking System. This enhanced data system Narcotics 2.5% allows the Department to track juveniles on many aspects of detention that were not Obscenity 0.2% consistently identified in tile old system. Using this data, the Department can more accurately analyze detention placements within individual court districts (see the Obstrtict Justice 0.9% court sen, ice unit section, begilmiug on page 18). Prob./Parole Violation 24.5% ADMISSIONS BY DISPOSlTIONAL STATUS Robbery 1.7% FY 2002 o Sexual Assault 1.8% 103 Spousal Abuse 0.0% • Pre-dispositional Status Offense 4.6% Telephone Law O. 1% [] Post-dispositional +l]affic 1.4% (no programs) Trespass O. 2% 88 Post-dispositional Vandalism 4.0% (proFrams) Weapons 0.4% Tara/ 846 m Octtct Resottrce Guide F12002 m Tidewater Detention Home 420 Albenaarle Drive m Superintendent: Sammie Taylor Chesapeake, Virginia 23320 Capacity: 100 beds 757-382-6364 m ADMISSION.(; FY 1999-2002 • Tidewater Detention Home is owned by Chesapeake City and utilized 2,755 ) 735 primarily by the cities of Virginia Beach, Portsmouth, Chesapeake, 2,800 Franklin, and Suffolk, as well as Isle of Wight and Southampton counties. • Over 99% of admissions were from the 2 ''d, 1% yd, and 5'h Districts. See 2,400 pages 22-23, 20-21, 26-27, and 30-31, respectively, for data pertaining to I these CSUs. 2,000 • In FY 2002, Tidewater Detention Home had 2,466 admissions. This =tin represents 1,658 juveniles, 1,127 of whom were admitted only one time. 1,600 • Admissions decreased 14% between FY 1999 and FY 2001, and then increased 4% in FY 2002. Over the four years, admissions have decreased 1,200 10%. Ill • A juvenile at admission in FY 2002 was most likely to be a black 17 year 800 old male. • 9% of FY 2002 admissions to Tidewater Detention Home were between 400 ages 8-13. • Assault and violation of probation/parole were the most serious charges ~1 alleged to have been committed by over one-third of the juveniles admitted FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 in FY 2002. Although violation of probation/parole instigated detention, mm the juvenile is being detained for the charge leading to parole or probation. • Average daily population (ADP) decreased 14°/,) between FY 1999 and FY ADMISSIONS BY RACE, SEX, AND AGE 2002. This decrease is consistent with the decrease in admissions. ADP FY 1999-2002 laas consistently exceeded capacity by a substantial amount. mm 2000i , 1200 1. < 2002 • For FY 2002, the total number of child care days was 46,472. This shows Race an increase of 1% from FY 2001. 52.6% °Tidewater Detention Home had 1,965 juveniles admitted as pre- White 4~ 40.6% 43.3% dispositional and 501 who were admitted as post-dispositional without inclusion in programs. See 'Terms and Concepts' for the difference i 2.6%[ Other i between types of detention admissions. ~X i 74.7'~, 74.8% 73.0% ADMISSIONS BY COURT DISTRICT I1~ i FY 2002 60"/. g( i 8 3.7% 2.8°/, 3.3% 5()'¼, 7. 1% 6.4% 5.2% 13) ?o/, ,ll 1'¼, I 13.8% 12.0(>/o .... /0 75 212% 22.0°/) 21.4% 3O% 16 25.7% 30.6% 27.9% 2( 1% I T7 27.6% 25.4% 29.2% 18 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 10'/,, 0.3% i 19-2C 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% ( ),¼, --r E n'or/Miss in]~ 0.3% O. 1% 0.0% 2rid I Sl 3rd 51h All Other Toted 2,735 2,374 2,466 CSUs i Per¢'eiltages may llot add to 100% due to rouHdmg. nn Data Resource Guide 1"312002 ADMISSIONS BY DETAINING CHARGE AVERAGE DALLY POPULATION VS CAPACITY FY 2002 FY i 999-2002 150 • Most Serioust Ch!arge Offense Percent I I 120 Abusive Language 0.1% Alcohol 1.7% Arson 1.6% 90 Assault 20.5% Bu rglary 4.5% 60 Contempt of Court 14.0% Custody 0.0% 30 Desertion/Support 0.0% Disorderly Conduct 0.9% 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 Escapes O. 1% i IIADP 148 I 142 126 127 Extortion O. 1% D Capadtv 100 ] 100 100 100 Failure to Appear 3.8% Family Offense 0.0% In FY 2002, 12 individual juveniles were admitted as weekenders. Fraud 0.8% Use of the new Detention Assessment Instrument began in November 2002. This Gangs 0.0% instrument is expected to make detention decisions statewide more consistent, by Kidnapping O. I% using standard criteria for detention decisions made by an intake officer. An evaluation of the instrument will be conducted in FY 2003-04. See Appendix K for a Larceny 11.0% cop); of the instrument. Misc/Other 2.4% FY 2002 marks the first full year in which detention data were collected using the Missing Information 3.9% new Detention Home Module on the Juvenile Tracking System. This enhanced data Murder 0.4% system allows the Department to track juveniles on many aspects of detention that were not consistently identified in the old system. Using this data, the Department Narcotics 3.9% can more accurately analyze detention placements within individual court districts Obscenity 0.2% (see the court service unit section, beginning on page 18). Obstruct Justice 0.8% ADMISSIONS BY DISPOSITIONAL STATUS Prob./Parole Violation 18.0% FY 2002 o Robbery 3.7% ;cxual Assault 1.5% Spousal Abuse 0.0% • 1) re-dispositional ;tams Offense 0.60/0 Telephone Law 0.0% [] Post-dispositional 01o programs) Traffic 0.7% B Post-dispositional Trespass 1.1% (pr%rams) Vandalism 2.3% Weapons 1.4% 7btal 2,466 Percemages may not add to t00% due to rounding. Firgi, n, i6 j-i Data Resource Guide N'2002 W.W. Moore Home for Juveniles 603 Colquohoun Street Superintendent: Jim Rosenbaum Danville, Virginia 24541 Capacity: 60 beds 434-799-5295 ° W. W. Moore Home for Juveniles is owned by the City of Danville and ADMISSIONS FY 1999-2002 utilized primarily by the cities of Danville and Martinsville, and Pittsylvania, Patrick, Hen~,, Mecklenburg, and Halifax counties. 2,800 ° Over 99% of admissions were from the 22% 21% and 10'h Districts. See Nil pages 68-69, 66-67, and 40-41, respectively, for data pertaining to these 2,400 CSUs. ° In FY 2002, W. W. Moo,'e Home for Jvveniles had 928 admissions. This represents 595 juveniles, 390 of whom were admitted only one time. 2,000 ° Admissions have steadily increased showing a 32% inc,ease from FY 1999 to FY 2002, and a 17% increase between FY 2001 and FY 2002. 1,600 ° A juvenile at admission in FY 2002 was most likely to be a black 17 year old male. 1,200 928 ° 12% of FY 2002 admissions to W. W. Moore Home for Juveniles were between ages 8-13. • Assault and miscellaneous/other offenses were the most serious charges II alleged to have been committed by over one-third of the juveniles admitted 400 in FY 2002. Although violation of probation/parole instigated detention, the juvenile is being detained for the charge leading to parole or probation. 0 ° Average daily population (ADP) increased 22°/,, between FY 1999 and FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY 2002, and 15% between FY 2001 and FY 2002. This increase is consistent with the increase in admissions. ADP has been below capacity ADMISSIONS BY RACE, SEX, AND AGE since the capacity was increased in FY 2001. FY 1999-2002 ° For FY 2002, the total number of child care days was 16,280. This shows 1t an increase of 15% from FY 2001. ° W. W. Moore Home for Juveniles had 761 jt,veniles admitted as pre- dispositional, 163 who were admitted as post-dispositional without [l 60.1% inclusion in programs, and 4 post-dispositional with p,'ograms. See 38.4% 'Terms and Concepts' for the difference between types of detention admissions. 1.5% ° In FY 2002, 7 individual juveniles were admitted as weekenders. 78.2% ADMISSIONS BY COURT DISTRICT FY 2002 21.8% 7()'/,, 61.7% 8 12 3 5% 3 8% 4.2% 60% 3 4.9% 6.3% 7.9% 50% 4 17.5% 11.9% 12.8% i 4()% 5] 21.8% 22.5% 19.3% 30% 25.0% 31.4% 26.1% -3.1)¼) 26.9% 23.3% 29.4% 20'¼) 0.3% 0.4% 0.2% I()')A) 19-20 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% ]¼t:711, 0.4'¼ 0% Error/Missing 0.0% 0.4% 0.1% 22rid 21 st l()tla All Other CSUs 7btal 739 791 .928 I)crcentages may 11ot add to 100% clue to rouudmg. ' " !i l] Data Resource Guide #12002 ADMISSIONS BY DETAINING CHARGE AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION VS CAPACITY FY 2002 FY 1999-2002 150 120 Abusive Language 0.0% Alcohol 0.6% Arson 2.5% 90 Assault 21.9% Burglary 9.1% 60 Contempt of Court 8.3% Custody 0.1% 30 Desertion/Support 0.0% Disorderly Conduct 3.2% Escapes 0.0% • ADP 37 37 39 45 Extortion 0.2% i [] Capadty I 30 Failure to Appear 3.8% Faro ily Offense O. 1% Use of the new Detention Assessment hastrument began in Novenaber 2002. This Fraud 0.8% instrument is expected to make detention decisions statewide more consistent, by Gangs 0.0% using standard criteria for detention decisions made by an intake officer. An Kidnapping 0.0% evaluation of the instrument will be conducted in FY 2003-04. See Appendix K for a copy of the instrument. Larceny 8.4% FY 2002 marks the first full year in which detention data were collected using the Misc/Other 13.0% new Detention Home Module on the Juvenile Tracking System. This enhanced data Missing Information 0.9% system allows the Department to track juveniles on many aspects of detention that Murder 0.6% were not consistently identified in the old system. Using this data, the Department can more accurately analyze detention placements within individual court districts Narcotics 2.2% (see the court service unit section, begin,ring on page 18). Obscenity 0.0% Obstruct Justice 0.4% ADMISSIONS BY DISPOSITIONAL STATUS Prob./Parole Violation 12.0% FY 2002 4 P,obbery 1.8% Sexual Assault 1.6% Spousal Abuse 0.0% • Prc-dispositional Stares Offense 0.6% Telephone Law 0.4% [] Post-dispositional (no programs) Traffic 1.2% [] Post-dispositional Trespass 0.8% (programs) Vandalism 3.2% Weapons 2.3% Tota[ 928 Perccmagcs may not add to 100% duc to rou,lding. m I)ata Resource GuMe 10"2002 i Camp Kenbridge Boot Camp 215Hicko~,Ro:,dllli Kenbridge, VA 23944 Program Director: Colonel Thomas Hoefer (434) 676-1631 Camp Kenbridge is a ten-month direct challenge/boot camp program consisting of a residential phase (4 months) and an intensive B aftercare phase in the community (6 months). The program began operating in January of 1998, and is currently ope,'ated under contract with Cornerstone, a private firm based in Denve,, Colorado. The program serves as an intermediate sanction for use by the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Judges, providing a sentencmg alternative for male and female juveniles ("recruits") B who have never been committed to a juvenile correctional center and who have never committed a serious violent offense. The residential phase involves placement of youth in a secure facility, with non-climable fencing, and 24-hour youth supervision. While in aftercare, the recruit is monitored by an aftercare case manager who is located in the recruit's geographic area. B ADMISSIONS BY RACE, SEX AND AGE NEEDS ASSESSMENT RESULTS FY 2002 FY 2002 ADMISSIONS* . ,.~°°° ~,oo J I I ' m High / ~ 52.5% 50.7"/,, 43.8% 44.4% ,[ 1 ; r : 3.7 Yo 4.9% Mode,me 13 m i , 4 Male 78.9°/,, II Female 21.1% Low 132 12 0.9% II 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 13 2.5% 14 7.1% *Data weremlssingfor7juveniles. 15 24.2% I 16 30.7% 17 33.9% PROGRAM COMPLETIONS 18 Z 0.6% PLATOONS COMPLETING AFTERCARE DURING FY 2000-2002 ! I i i I RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS 268 FY 2002 ADMISSIONS* FY2000 8 m I I High 94 FY 2001':" i $1 Moderate 185 FY 2002" 1159 B • Remfits entering program Low 17 1 [] St, messfullytr.msitioned to aftemu~e m [] Sumessfullymmpleted aftemlm 0 50 100 150 200 *Completion data were unavailable for fewer than 5°/° of *Data weremissing for7juveniles. juveniles admitted during FY 2001 and FY 2002. Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. I Data Resource Guide F12002 • The age of recruits dropped each year between FY 2000 and FY 2002. The proportion of recruits who were 17 years ADMISSIONS TO CAMP KENBRIDGE old decreased from 34% to 26%, while FY 2000-2002 14 year-olds increased from 7% to 11%. • Between FY 2000 and FY 2002, the racial characteristics of recruits changed slightly. In 2000, white recruits represented the clear majority, but by 2002 the number of black and white )eake recruits was ahnost equal. Recruits who inia Bcach were neither white nor black remained 2A Accomack 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 1.0% a small proportion of recruits. 3rd Portsmouth 5 1.6% 0 0.0% 3 1.0% • Program completion data is taken from 4th Norfolk 2 0.6% 2 0.7% 3 1.0% the juveniles eligible for program 5th Suffolk 9 2.8% 12 3.9',/', 10 3.3% completion in a given fiscal }:ear. 6th Hopewcll 0 0.0% 4 1.3',/,, 2 0.7% • For recruits whose platoons completed 7th Newport News 20 6.2"/,, 17 5.6% 20 6.6',/', their aftercare phase in FY 2000-2002: 8th Hampton 8 2.5% 4 1.3% 7 2.3',/', oOver 90% of recruits transitioned 9th Williamsburg 8 2.5% 9 2.9',/', 3 1.0% from the residential phase to aftercare 10th Charlotte 18 5.6% 9 2.9% 14 4.6% each year. I 1th Petersbur,~ 2 0.6% 8 2.6',/', 4 1.3"/,, o60% of FY 2000 recruits, 59% of FY 27 8.8% 31 10.2% 12th Chesterfield 27 8.4% 2001 recruits, and 52% of FY 2002 13th Richmond 2 0.6% 5 1.6% 23 7.6% recruits completed the aftercare phase 14th Henrico 3 l 9.6% 22 7.2% 20 6.6% and the 10-month program. 15th Fredericksburg 30 9.3% 42 13.7% 31 10.2% • Needs Assessment Scores measure the 16th Charlottesville 6 1.9% 4 1.3('/') 3 1.0% needs a juvenile may have, inclt,ding 17th Arlington 3 0.9% 1 0.3% 2 0.7% peer relationships and school 17F Falls Church 0, 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% adjustment. Over 87% of FY2002 recruits 18th Alexandria 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% had either a low or moderate score. 19th Fairfax 3 0.9% 2 0.7% 1 0.3% • Risk Assessment Scores are a measure 201. l,oud()un 5 1.6% 1 0.3% 1 0.3% of risk of reoffending. They are also used 20W Warrenton 1 0.3% 2 0.7% 2 0.7% by the CSUs. Of FY 2002 recruits, two- 21st Martinsville 01 0.0% 3 1.0% 0 0.0% thirds had either a low or moderate score. 22nd Rocky Mount I 0 3.1% 9 2.9% 11 3.6% • During FY 2002, nearly half of the 23rd Salem 16 5.0% 11 3.6% 7 2.3% recruits placed were from Region III J & 23A Roanoke 3 0.9% 6 2.0''/', 4 1.3% DR courts. However, during FY 2001 24rh I..ynchbur,g 2 0.6% 2 0.7''/') 7 2.3% and FY 2000, the majority of the recruits were from Region II. 25th Staunton l0 3.1% " 3 1.0% 5 1.7% 26th Winchcstcr 0 0.0% 10 3.3% 6 2.(_)% • Of the 35 CSUs, 66% (23) sent fewer than 27dl Pulaski 5 1.6% 4 1.3% 0 0.0% 8 juveniles to Camp Kenbridge during FY 2002. 28th Abingdon 6 1.9% 9 2.9% 14 4.6% 29th Pearisburg 8 2.5% 5 1.6% 6 2.0% • Fredericksburg and Chesterfield each sent 10% of the FY 2002 recruits. 30th Gate City 14 4.3% 18 5.9°/,, 6 2.0% 3lst Manassas 39 12.1% 26 8.5% l 7 5.6% • Falls Church and Alexandria have not Tola] Ntttnber o['Ju vemiles 322 30G 303 sent any juveniles to Camp Kenbridge between FY 2000 and FY 2002. • Historically, the most freqt,ent offenses, of an}, severity level, were assault and larceny. Percentages may not add to 100% due to roundi. D I I)ala Resource Guide FY2002 m Halfway Houses I Iri FY 2002 the Department of Juvenile Justice operated three state-run halfway houses, and one operated by private contract, to D meet the trartsitional needs of juveniles released from juvenile correctional centers. DJJ operated Hampton Place located in Norfolk, Abraxas House in Staunton, and Discovery House in Roanoke. Harriet Tubman House, located in Richmond, was operated under contract for DJJ by United Methodist Family Services. Discove D, House was the only facility with bedspace for i female ,'esidents. While in residence at a halfway house, juveniles remain on parole. The pu,pose of a halfway house is to provide transitional 1Mng for juveniles who are unable to return home or whose service needs make this type of placement beneficial. While in residence at a halfway house, juveniles learn independent living skills, and are required to enroll in school, work towards a GED, and/or be gainfully employed. If a juvenile is in need of special treatment while I committed, these services are continued through the use of transitional service funds to provide services with public and private provide,'s. Upon completion of residence at a halfway house, juveniles either return to their families or live independently. B ADMISSIONS FY 2000-2002 • Overall admissions to halfway houses have ha,dly fluctuated ip, B 140 I the past three fiscal years. However, since FY 2000, Abraxas 120 House admissions have steadily increased, while Hampton Place admissions have decreased. B 100 • All four halfway houses operated under capacity i,a FY 2002. 80 • A juvenile adnfitted to a halfway house during FY 2002 was most likely to be a black 18 year old male. m 60 • 73% of juveniles in halfway houses during FY 2002 came from 40 the Eastern Region. However, the Eastern Region is ,'esponsible for nearly half of the commitments to the state. J 20 • For both FY 2002 and FY 2001, Hampton Place had the highest 0 average length of stay. In FY 2002, Hampton Place's average 2000 2001 2002 LOS was 61 days longer tlaan Abraxas House. m • Between FY 2001 and FY 2002, the average LOS at DiscovmT 38 38 34 [] Tu b rnan House decreased 34"/,, while Hampton Place saw an increase of Q Ha,]lpton 40 31 28 27°/,,. Ill • Larceny, burglar), and sexual assault account for 57% of most [] Dismverv 32 28 32 _ _ F se,ious committing offenses for juveniles admitied to the halfway • Abmxas 18 25 33 houses during FY 2002. Ila AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION VS CAPACITY FY 2002 II 14 12 JUVENILES ADMITrED TO HALFWAY HOUSES* IR 10 FY 2002 8 ! 6 ~.e~io'n' ' 4 I 2 i 0 16 Northern 17 0 Abmxas Discovery Hampton Tubman 33 I 45 7 12 9 • AI)P 9 33 Eastern 93 [] Capadty 10 *Includes data for all halfway houses. Ii I Data Resource Guide FY2002 AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY BY HALFWAY HOUSE TOTAL ADMISSIONS, RELEASES, AND AVERAGE FY 1999-2002 LENGTH OF STAY BY COMMITTING COURT 180 - FY 2002 160 7 140 120 100 2.4'7,, 4 126 2nd 8.7"/,, 9 136 80 2A 0.8% 1 245 60 3rd 3.1% 2 151 40 4th 16.5% 21 79 20 5th 0.t)% 1 122 0 ' , I , 6th 1.6% 2 50 Ab,'axas Dismvery Hampton Tubman 7th 20.5<7,, 31 121 8th 8.7% 7 65 FY 1999 [] FY 2000 [] FY 2001 [] FY 2002 ] 9th 1.6% 1 122 10th {.). 8 7', ) 271 • The 4 u' and 7 u' District CSUs, combined, contributed over 35% of l ltla 3.9% 4 123 halfway house admissions for FY 2000, FY 2001, and FY 2002. 12th 2.4% 3 165 Seven of the 35 CSUs did not have any halfway house admissions 4J fo," FY 2002. 13th 3.1 ~, 3 88 • The 4 th and 7 + CSUs also had the highest number of releases during 14th 1.6% 3 108 FY 2002, accounting for 41% of all halfway house releases. 15th 0.8% 2 88 16th 0.8% 1 28 TOTAL ADMISSIONS*, BY OFFENSE 17th 0.0% 0 0 FY 2002 171: 0.0'7', 0 0 18th 0.8% 1 28 19tin 0.8% 3 140 Arson I 0.8% 201., 2.4'7', 3 29 Assault 9.4% 20W 0.0% 0 0 B u tglaw 15.7% 21st 0.0% 0 0 Contempt of Court 0.8% 22nd 2.4 Data Resource Guide FY2002 Im Offices on Youth m This State and Local Partnerships program is an excellent example of state and local collaboration that works. With training, DI technical assistance, and financial support provided through the Department, local Offices on Youth facilitate the delivery of services to children and families in ways that are cost efficient, effective, and responsive to the needs of individual localities. Offices on Youth: 40 I Localities Served: 52 State Budget: $2,080,891 m GOAL Reduce the number of juveniles entering the juvenile justice system and maximize opportunities for positive youth development. I KEY COMMUNITY ROLES The following list of diverse community focus areas includes the percentage of Offices on Youth involved in these activities in m individual localities across the state. Locality-specific Youth Advocacy and Support Services B • Needs assessment/100% • Volunteer initiatives/78% • CommunkyResourceDirectory/93% • Grantwriting/83% Ill Positive Youth Development • Recreation. programs/73% • Parent education/60% • Substance abuse programs~70% • Life skills training/60% • Mentoring/68% • Adolescent pregnancy prevention/58% i • Youth Councils/65% • After-prom activities/38% • Youth employment/63% • Truancy prevention/35% • Tutoring/63% • Teen centers/18% U Delinquency Prevention • Community service programs/68% • Electronic monitoring/8% m • Shoplifting diversion/25% Statewide Initiatives @ • Right Choices for Youth/28% • Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act (VJCCCA) • Comprehensive Services Act • Planning/70% • Community Policy and Management Team/68% • Coordination/35% m • Family Assessment and Planning Team/65% • Court-Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) Programs/18% Planning and Coordination Strategies: All Offices on Youth I • Provide comprehensive assessment of the community while analyzing juvenile risk and protective factors • Assist localities in establishing and modifying programs and services to youth including the Virginia Juvenile Comlnunity Crime Control Act (VJCCCA) and the Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) Ill • Collaborate with public and private entities to maintain and disseminate an annual inventory of youth and parenting related services and programs available in the locality • Collaborate with public and private entities to identify gaps in program services and identify potential funding sources to assist in developing programs to respond to those gaps m • Facilitate interagency initiatives ! U il J s / ¢/ k fJ i \ ,,.J~ £ / L. -.,f \ .}." f • J .,\ / \ . .- /.-/ b :, "~ / I / / ('J / / < / / J \ / f.- f / __. C / 1 f l. J /- J , /, / / i ,, / o ,_,.,0 Oommi(lme (l ~o She $IaSe / /; i / Data Resource Guide F}2002 Introduction to Institutional Programs The DMsion of Institutional Programs has direct responsibility for CAPACITY AND AVERAGE DALLY POPULATION juvenile offenders who have been committed to the state. It operates FY 2002 the juvenile correctional centers (JCCs) and contracts with private providers to hold these juveniles and ensure that they receive treatment and educational services while in a safe and secure setting. Barrett 104 Beaumont 322 282 6 288 There are seven JCCs and a Reception and Diagnostic Center Bon Air 280 268 6 274 (RDC), which, in FY 2002, had a combined operating capacity of Culpcpcr 112 94 1 95 1,243 beds. Beginning in FY 2003, capacity was reduced to 1,143. RDC, Behavioral Services Unit, Central Infirmai3,, and Food Services Hanover 154 133 1 134 Unit provide support to the correctional centers. The Department Natural Bridge 71 58 0 58 of Correctional Education also helps by meeting tile educational Oak Ridge 40 38 1 39 needs of the committed juveniles. To supplement the number of RDC 166 143 4 147 juvenile correctional center beds, DJJ contracts with private [CC Total 17243 1~120 19 1~139 providers. These contractors provide direct-care community Wildemess (VWI 32 30 0 30 residential beds and treatment services for committed youth. In FY Tidewater (TE P) 10 9 0 9 2002, Djj contracted with two residential private providers: the Tidewater Environmental Program and the Virginia Wilderness Ah. Placements N/A 10 0 10 In st it ute. State Total 1,285 1,169 19 1,188 In FY 2002, the average daily population was 8% below capacity. RECEPTION AND DIAGNOSTIC CENTER (RDC) The first encounter a juvenile has with a correctional center occurs and dental examinations in addition to a psychological at RDC, the central intake facility for committed youth. It was screening and evaluation. Sex offender evaluations are also established in 1968 and currently consists of seven housing units; six performed at RDC. Each juvenile receives a battery of tests for males and one for females. The juveniles range in age from from the Department of Correctional Education staff to eleven to twenty, and the average length of stay at RDC is identify the appropriate educational level, vocational aptitude, approximately four weeks. Tile primary function of RDC is the and any special educational needs. RDC counselors are evaluation and classification of juveniles. All youth receive medical responsible for coordination of the evaluation process, ADMISSIONS, RELEASES, CAPACITY, AND AVERAGE DALLY POPULATION OF THE JOGs 2,000 -FY 1995-2002 1,800 1,60(} 1,400 1,200 1,000 8O0 600 400 200 0 2002 ~ Capacity 1,243 [/ 995 1,163 1,221 1,207 1,278 1,322 1,171 1,139 ADP ~Adrnissions 1,843 1,734 1,701 1,674 1,594 1,450 1,242 1,220 [l ~ Rcleascs 1,513 1,609 1,655 1,688 1,380 1,574 1,397 1,227 ] Between FY 2001and 2002, the average daily population of the juvenile correctional centers decreased 3%. Private providers are not included above. / L l)ala Resource Gu#1e ~32002 JUVENILES ADMITTED TO DJJ PSYCHOTROPIC MEDICATION HISTORY AND FY 2002 DIAGNOSED MENTAL HEALTH NEED • '1 i FY 2002 ADMISSIONS, FEMALES AND MALES 100% 86% Male 1,01 Under ll4 44 80% 68% rp'T-'-! 1 57% Female 1, 14 11C Westem 239 60% '. 50% t! 15 22~ "~ b -- p 40% Bla& 7~ 16 361 Northem 410 .iz - ,, I \v~ite 4i 17 416 20% - 18 60 0%- I 19 or older 3 Eastem 571 Psychotropic Medication Mental Health Need A juvenile admitted to the JCCs in FY 2002 was most likel to be a black male age 15-17. from the Eastern Region. History individual ar, d crisis counseling, completion of social history, D Females [] Males and case management. RDC operates under the LEADER program, emphasizing development in areas of Leadership, Over half of the wards admitted to the JOGs have a history of using Education, Achievement, Discipline, Empowerment, and psychotropic medications. The majority of admissions also have a Responsibility. The program is designed to have juveniles diagnosed mental health need. take respom;ibility for their own actions, and allows their it was named "Mobile Psychiatric Clinic" as it was originally behavior to determine their quality of life, in terms of composed of a core of centralized staff who traveled to each of tile privileges. At the conclusion of the evaluation process, "training schools" to perform diagnostic assessments and p,'ovide individual evahlators meet to discuss each case to determine therapy services. By the earl), 1970s, the staff had grown to 20 treatment needs, length of stay, classification, and placement professionals who were assigned to full-time staffing of the facilities. recommendations. From there, wards are sent to their designated correctional facilities. The staff has continued to grow in response to the ever-increasing mental health treatment needs of the wards and the assumption of BEHAVIORAL SERVICES UNIT (BSU) sex offender and substance abt,se treatment. The curreut staff Tile mental health service needs of incarcerated adolescents includes 75 full-time positions. Psychiatric services are provided have recently become a topic of national importance. Virginia through a contractual arrangement of a minimum of 48 hours per is very fortunate to have both a well-established organizational week, spread out among the seven JCCs and RDC. All BSU system for the delivery of mental health services and adequate therapists are supervised by licensed clinicians, and in fact, even resources to meet the mental health needs of the youth though BSU staff are exempt from licensure requirements by law, committed to the Department. The Behavioral Services Unit 60% of BSU clinicians are licensed in their respective professions. (BSU) was established by COgm 1950 (~66-19). Up until 1981, StatewideCommitments Darker a Teas i nclicate that a greater number of commitments come CulpeperJCC9 @ from this locality. The map also indicatesthe locationsof the JCCs • and RDC. arrett J CC Natural BridgeJCC/ / Bon Air JCC, Oak Ridge JCC, Beaumont JCC and RDC Number of Commitments [] 0 [] 1-9 [] 10-24 [] 25-49 [] 50-101 h Data Resource Guide D~2002 ~ Half of the unlicensed staff are in residency working toward licensure. TREATMENT NEEDS BSU staff provide a variety of mental health services within the juvenile FY 2002 ADMISSIONS correctional centers, including: individual, group and family therapy; 800 crisis intervention; sex offender treatment; substance abuse treatment; 700 diagnostic assessments; staff training; and 24 hour a day on-call 600 services for each facility, as well as supervision of the anger 500 / management counseling program. Over 60% of the youth housed 400 within tile JCCs receive some type of services from BSU. 300 Ant, mber of states around the country have come under legal scrutiny 200 114 for failing to provide adequate mental health services within their 100 juvenile correctional centers. Virginia's juvenile correctional system 0 , has never had a lawsuit alleging inadequate mental health services; ~and, in fact, the Virginia approach to providing mental health services Anger Substance Abuse Sex Offender has served as a model for other state systems. Management HEALTH SERVICES • Mandatory [] Recommended All medical, dental, nursing and related health services are provided Although sex offender treatment is the least common treatment need, to youth confined within the iuvenile correctional centers. These it can have the greatest impact on a ward's length of stay within the youth typically have a wide range of medical and dental care needs, juvenile correctional centers. ~ which result from being medically underserved prior to admission. To meet the needs of confined youth, the Department maintains a service, maintenance, and business office responsibilities that staff of board-certified physicians, dentists and nurses. Services by involve all personnel, families of the juveniles, volunteers, ~this dedicated staff of professionals are provided at all JCCs to ensure and the public. They handle all routine and emergency issues tile medical and dental care needs of youth are met during that arise within the JCCs and ensure that all operations are confinement. Additionally, the Department has entered into a contract in proper order. On the security side, the facilities are operated ~with TRIGON to process medical invoices for Detention Centers in a paramilitary style utilizing the military ranking and title and JCCs. This contract will ensure all health care services provided system. Security involves public safety as well as the safety of to confined youth, exterior to these confinement facilities, are the juveniles themselves, and is addressed by tile correctional ~ delivered in a cost-effective fashion by qualified practitioners. This officers in the field. They operate under standard operating contract continues the efforts of Health Services to provide quality procedures that set forth proper techniques for dealing with care using the most efficient and economical service deliver?, models various situations. available. TREATMENT AND PROGRAMS SECURITY AND OPERATIONS The Treatment and Programs section works in conjunction The Security and Operations section of the Division of Institutional with the Security and Operations section in an advisory and I Programs incorporates functions that support tile facilities and allow monitoring capacity. This section monitors how treatment them to operate properly. On the operations side, this includes food and programs are operated, assesses progress made in programs, sets parameters for the programs, and deals with READING, WRITING, AND MATH GRADE LEVELS broad regulations on classifications as well as the residential FY 2002 ADMISSIONS, MALES AND FEMALES location of juveniles from different classifications. The?, ensure that all needed services are available and operational Math at the facilities. They also serve as a liaison from the field to the administrative offices, and vice versa, for procedures and resources. Treatment services in the JCCs include mental Writing health, substance abuse, sex offender, anger management, and independent living skills development. Reading YOUTH INDUSTRIES Recognizing that many youth returning to the community from tile JCCs are not prepared to enter tile work force, the 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Youth Industries Program was designed to help participants Average Grade Level overcome barriers to employment. The program was designed as a partnership with the Department of Correctional • Female [] Male Education and the Department of Labor and Industry. Female offenders consistently test at higher reading, writing, and / math grade levels. The discrepancy is greatest for writing. B Data Resource Guide D2002 W Wards are .,.elected for Youth Industries based on institutional adjustment, satisfactory progress toward service plan m objectives, and demonstrated ability to work independently and with limited supervision. Youth selected for the program receive vocational and academic instruction; hands-on, work- m based training; on-going counseling services; transitional skills and services; and long-term follow-up. They also receive a modest wage, or an established piecework rate. Fields of study, D such as hon:icult ure, silk screening, offset printing, food service, woodworking, and computer repair, may be integrated with an Apprenticeship Program. In the Program, youth can develop positive work habits and pro-work values, while receiving guidance on using newly acquired skills in entering T-shirts printed by Youth Industries. the job market. objectives. The program provides leadership opportunities and ~I~ This program has rewards positive achievement on both a group and individual level. successfully trained COMMITTING OFFENSES juveniles in these areas and CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ! FY 2002 ADMISSIONS has assisted, upon their The Board of Juvenile Justice Policy 19-00 states, "the Department B in u,a-ccawi_ release, with their has no higher duty than to provide for the safety of juveniles in its Abusive Language 0.1% placement in the facilities and of the staff who supervise and care for them. i111m Alcohol 0.6% community workforce. In Classification is essential to the operation of an orderly and safe juvenile correctional system. Classification enables the Arson 1.5% addition, creative artwork Department to gauge the proper custody level of a juvenile, to Assault 15.4 % by wards throughout Djj is collected for an annual identify the juvenile's educational, vocational and psychological 13.0% Burglary exhibit and sale at the needs, and to separate violent and non-violent juveniles." Contempt nfCourt 0.5% General Assembly In 2001, the Department implemented an objective classification Disorderly Conduct 0.7% Building when the system to enable staff to assess wards' appropriate security and WB 0.3% Escapes legislative session begins. custody levels, determine the most appropriate services and Extortion 0.7% programs for all wards, assign juveniles to appropriate housing Failure to Appear 0.1% LEADER The majority of the placements within a facility, and assess wards for placement in [[]]tl~ 1.6% Fraud Department's juvenile community transition programs and for special needs. The Gangs 0.0% correctional centers use the classification system also provides for periodic reviews of security, Kidnapping 0.7% Leadership, Education, custody, and program placement in light of juveniles' needs and Larceny 23.9% Achievement, Discipline, progress and for the re-classification of wards as appropriate. Misc/Other 0.3% Empowerment, and Missing Information 2.3 % Responsibility (LEADER) I Murder 0.6 % training program as the basic behavior Narcotics 9.0 % management approach. Obscenity 0.1% Nil This program provides a SECURITY CLASSIFICATION LEVELS Obstruction of Justice 0.6% military school-style FY 2002 ADMISSIONS Prob./Parole Violation 5.7% structure designed to instill 800 ! Robbery 8.5 % responsibility and self- discipline within the Sexual Assauh 7.5 % 600 Status Offense O. 1% juveniles. Telephone Law 0.1% Juveniles graduate from 400 Traffic 0.9 % RDC as cadets first class Trespass 0.6 % and progress through 200 /a " Vandalism 2.5 % various ranks at the JCCs Weapons 2.2 % based on their behaviors 0 and their levels of [ Tom/ 1,220 participation in service Admissions 149 i 71 The majority of wards have either a plan and treatment 1_ larceny, assault, or burglary charge as 66% of wards admitted to the JCCs in FY 2002 had a low or medium initial g their most serious committing offense. classification level. II:1117 I Data Resource Guide 1,32002 Wards are classified according to their need for structure: ACTUAL LENGTH OF STAY Level I - low structure FY 2002 RELEASES Level II - medium structure Level III- high structure Level IV - intensive structure 3-6 rags. 5.96 10.9% Facilities are classified according to the level of security they 6-9 rags. 6.71 0.5% provide: 6-12 raGS. 7.89 23.5% 9-15 raGS. 8.73 2.9% Level I - low security, structure, and st, pervision 12-18 raGS. 12.03 28.5% Level II - medium security, structure, and supervision Level III - high security, structure, and supervision 15-21 rags. 13.96 6.3% Level IV - intensive security, structure, and supervision l 8-24 raGS. 16.60 5. 1% 18-36 raGS. 19.22 9.5% Wards are assigned to facilities based on these classification levels, 21-36 rags. 19.93 2.0% age, sex, and other factors identified in the table in Appendix D. 24-36 raGS. 20.37 0.7°/,, LENGTH OF STAY (LOS) Total lncletevminate 11.56 91.0% Using guidelines issued by the Virginia Board of Juvenile Justice, Determinate 23. 42 9. 096 the Department establishes the length of stay for indeterminately *LOS categories representing less than 1% of releases are not included. committed juveniles based on the severity of a juvenile's offense(s), The actual length of stay for most wards is close to the minimum of chronicity of criminal behavior, and any aggravating or mitigating their assigned LOS categories. factors associated with the criminal behavior, with due stay between 3 and 6 months.) The actual length of stay may consideration given to the youth's treatment needs and vary from this range, due to institutional offenses or failure to demonstrated behavior while under the Department's supervision. complete mandatory treatment. The guidelines and LOS LOS categories are defined by an anticipated minimum and categories can be found in Appendix E. maximum number of months that the ward will remain with DJJ. (For example the LOS category 3-6 indicates a ward is expected to PROJECTED GROWTH IN THE INSTITUTIONAL. POPU- LATION LENGTH OF STAY ASSIGNMENTS Each year the Department of Juvenile Justice, in conjunction FY 2002 ADMISSIONS with the Governor's Inmate Population Forecasting Committee, produces a projection of the state responsible I q I 3-6 ~125 juvenile average daily population. The most recent forecast projects the institutional population to increase by 16% 6-9 between FY 2002 and FY 2005. This projected increase is due 6-12 ~86 primarily to the reduction of alternative programs in the community. 9-12 ), 9-15 AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION - HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED FY 1998-2005 12-18 3? 1,600 -[ 15-21 1,40 -) 18-24 18-36 130 1,0002oo8O0 -3! 1 21-36 ml8 600 24-36 119 400 q 200 -- -- Determinate o ; ,c Noln~rmation ~tistorical ADI: __. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 rojcction __ 1,21611,337 1,376 10% of wards admitted to the JOGs in FY 2002 had a determinate Thestate responsiblejuvenile offender population is expectedto sentence. Of those with an indeterminate sentence. 21~o were assigned increaseby 16% between FY 2002 and 2005. Thepopulation an LOS range with a minimum of .1.8 or more months. includes wards in private provider programs. Yifgini @ Data Resource 6uide 1:)I2002 m Barrett JCC P.O. Box 527 I Hanover, Virginia 23069 Superintendent: Donald W. Driscoll 804-746-2135 PROGRAMS AVAILABLE D Anger Management and Substance Abuse Treatment Programs The Substance Abuse Program at Barrett provides comprehensive services to a male population that is experiencing significant life problems ,'elated to the use of alcohol and other drugs. The Program was funded as a national demonstration project by a grant from Im the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, an agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. M1 wards participate in a modified LEADER program, the Gateway, Therapeutic Community, and group and individual counseling. The Program, provided by the Gateway Foundation at Barrett, was selected as the Virginia Association of Drug and Alcohol Programs' Program of D Excdlence award winner for 1999. Additionally, in July 1999, Barrett received a three-year certification from the Rehabilitation Accreditation Commission, making Barrett the only juvenile correctional facility in the countr}, to be certified as a treatment program. It is the largest and most comprehensive substance abuse treatment program in the countr}, for juvenile offenders in a D correctional setting. JUVENILES PLACED AT BARRETT • Barrett's average daily population increased 35% between 1995 FY 2002 and 1997, but dropped 27% by 2002. @ • Barrett's utilization rate increased from 105% in FY 1995 to 142% in FY 1997; however, it has since decreased to 106% of capacity in FY 2002. m 3 • A juvenile placed at Barrett in FY 2002 was most likely to be a 4 Westem 52 male age 16-17. 48% of juveniles placed at Barrett were black and 47% were white. 22 m • The 203 juveniles placed at Barrett in FY 2002 were conamitted 78 Northern 65 for a combined total of 769 offenses, an average of 3.8 offenses 85 per juvenile. @ 10 • The four most common committing offense types were Larceny, 1 Eastern 86 Burglar},, Narcotics, and Assault (when looking at juveniles' most serious committing offense). I TREATMENT NEEDS • Of the 203 juveniles placed in FY 2002, 97% had a substance FY 2002 PLACEMENTS abuse treatment need (82% mandatory); 63% had a mandatory anger management treatment need; and only 1% had a sex 350 m offender treatment need. Barrett had the highest percentage of juveniles with a substance abuse treatment need, among the seven 300 JCCs. This is due to its nationally-recognized substance abuse program. 250 CUSTODY CLASSIFICATION LEVELS FY 2002 PLACEMENTS B 18% 200 166 B 150 127' 13% I [] Low [] Medium S 1°°--/t mHigh 2 0 0 l-- [] Intensive Anger SubstanceAbuse Sex Offender B Management [I Mandatory [] Recommended m S Data Resource Guide F}2002 me ASSIGNED LENGTH OF STAY COMMITTING OFFENSE II FY 2002 PLACEMENTS FY 2002 PLACEMENTS 1 3-6 • 1.5% q 6-9 II 0.5% t i 6-12 19.7% Arson 1.0% 9-12 0.0% Assault 11.8% J Burglary 23.6% 9-15 II 3.0% t Contempt of Court 0.0% __ I 12-18 39.4% Disorderly Conduct 0.0% Escapes 0.0% 15-21 9.9% Extortion 0.0% Failure to Appear 0.5% 18-24 ~ 7J4'/) Fraud 1.0% Gangs 0.0% 18-36 10.3% Kidnapping 0.0% 21-36 [] 2.0% Larceny 28.1% Misc./Other 0.5% 24-36 I I.o% Murder 0.5% Narcotics l 4.3% Dercrminate ! Obscenity 0.0% Obstruction of Justice 1.5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Prob./Parole Violation 1.0% • Over half of FY 2002 placements had an assigned LOS of either 6-12 or 12-18 months. Robbery 6.9% • Of the 192 juveniles placed at Barrett with an indeterminate sentence, 22% (42 wards) had Scxual Assault 1.5% i an LOS with a minimum of 18 or more months. Stares Offensc 0.0% *The information on juveniles placed at Barrett includes only those wards who arrived Telephonc Law 0.0% i during the fiscal ),ear. Wards already at Barrett at the beginning of the fiscal year are not Traffic 1.5% included. Wards transferred between facilities are counted once for ever), placement. Trespass 1.0% Vandalism 2.5% I AVERAGEDAtLY POPULATION, CAPACITY, AND PLACEMENTS Weapons 1.5% FY1995-2002 7btal 203 350 300 250 200 Jt -- 150 100 50 0 -I I--I" I_- I'1 I1 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 I-""-ICapacity 100 100 100 98 98 98 98 98 +ADP 105 139 142 127 126 106 101 104 Placements 230 330 3O8 258 224 182 195 203 Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. Ill Oala ICesource Guide FY2002 ia P. O. Box 491 Beaumont JCC Beaumont, Virginia 23014 Superintendent: H.L. Noble 804-556-3316 PROGRAMS AVAILABLE m Anger Management, Sex Offender, and Substance Abuse Treatment Programs The Beat, n-tont facility houses specialized programs such as sex offender treatment, substance abuse treatment, and anger management. Beaumont also houses the older, more aggressive male offenders, ages 15-20, in a close custody facility and a medium security facility. The Department of Correctional Education offers College Bound and SAT Testing Programs. m m JUVENILES PLACED AT BEAUMONT • Beaumont's average daily population increased 17% between FY 2002 1995 and 1996, but dropped 27% by 2002. • Beaumont's utilization rate increased from 134% in FY 1995 to 157% in FY 1996; however, it has since decreased to 89% of ~e~ion I capacity in FY 2002. • A juvenile placed at Beaumont in FY 2002 was most likely to be a black male age 16-17. • The 365 juveniles placed at Beaumont in FY 2002 were committed for a combined total of 1,138 offenses, an average of 3.1 offenses per juvenile. ml • The four most common committing offense types were Larceny, Assault, Robber),, and Sexual Assault (whe,l looking at jt,veniles' most serious committing offense). TREATMENT NEEDS • Of the 365 juveniles placed in FY 2002, 71% had a mandatory FY 2002 PLACEMENTS anger management treatment need; 44% had a mandatory substance abuse treatment need; and 18% had a mandato,'y sex B 350 i offender treatment need. Beat, mont had the highest percentage of juveniles with a mandatoo, ange, management need, among the seven JCCs. ]l~ 300 - 260 eS01 -I CUSTODY CLASSIFICATION LEVELS FY 2002 PLACEMENTS ll~ 16% 200 -i 159 IE 150 % 95 100 [] LOW B 70 ~i ] 65 42% [] Mcdiu,n ---1 liB I 50 O t4igh @ I • Intensive Anger Substance Abuse Sex Offender m Management Ill Mandatory I-I Recommended @ Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. Ill ;Virgini CORRECTION PAGE Data Resource Guide ~3"2002 Appendix B JCC STAFFING AS OF JUNE 30, 2002 1 1 1 1 1 Assistant Superintendent 2 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 17 Captam 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Lieutenant 4 6 6 4 4 3 3 3 53 Serge:mr 15 28 27 12 18 7 6 12 125 ICO/,JCO Sr. 58 172 137 70 74 35 27 68 641 Treatment Staff 8 20 21 5 11 8 5 20 98 Medical Staff 2 4 0 5 2 2 0 0 15 Maintenance Staff 4 14 0 8 8 3 0 0 .)/ Food Service Staff 0 16 0 12 14 8 0 0 50 Clerical/Administrative Staff 8 19 14 12 9 4 7 14 87 BSU Staff 1 20 15 5 11 I 2 14 69 Appendix C JCC EXPENDITURES, FY 2002 Contractual Services 17023~256 634,324 1,4007849 619,195 86,735 658,402 574,465 157,293 5 5.154,519 Supplies & Materials 331,797 17530,756 2827401 660,628 305296 316,363 550,288 139,070 S 4.116,599 Continuous Charges 236,430 345,976 1167133 1587388 43,482 204.001 184,484 48.567 S 1.337.461 Equipment 175.738 249,460 125,916 207.261 64,446 185,420 105~746 42,867 S I. 156,.$54 Transfer Payments 11~066 167276 27485 7,980 27932 101 10,960 S 51.6'00 Property' and Improvements 11,423 0 0 1,803 0 4.882 5 16'. 1¢18 Plant and Improvements 3,276 1282 0 12.200 13.775 1.994 .)~,D~ / Total 510.314.298 514.6L~5.134 $6.201.¢)50 SZ576.443 S 3.724.755 5 6,595.571 S 7..~65. 002 S Z 6.H,292 S59.233.545 PER CAPITA COSTS, FY 2002 $59,403.00 DJJ Per Capita Cost $17,910.00 Department of Correctional Education Per Capita Cost $77,313.00 Total cost to hold one juvenile for one year CORRECTION PAGE Data Resource Gttide I:}2002 ASSIGNED LENGTH OF StAY COMMITTING OFFENSE FY 2002 PLACEMENTS FY 2002 PLACEMENTS I I 3-6 ~6.6]'/o Most Serious Offense- Offense i i -. Percent. 6-9 I 0.0% Abusive Language 0.0% Alcohol 0.0% 9-196-121~17.0% Arson 1.6% Assault 17.8% Burglary 8.5'¼, 9-15 j~ 1.9¼, Contempt of Court 0.3'70 l)isorderlv Conduct I. 1% 12-18 m 23.3% Escapes 0.0% 15-21 lExtortion 0.3% Failure to Appear 0.3% 18-24 Fraud 1.1% I-- I (7;angs 0.0% 18-36 15.6 ¼, Kidnapping 1.1% 21-36 III 1.9% Larceny 18.4% Misc./Other 0.0% 24-36 10.8% q M urdcr 1.6'¼, Narcotics 10.1'¼, Determinate 19.7% I I Obscenity 0.0% Obstruction of Justice 0.3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Prob./Parole Violation 6.8% ° Ahnost half of FY 2002 placements had an assigned LOS of 3-6, 6-12, or 12-18 months. Robbery 14.8"/o ° Of the 293 juveniles placed at Beaumont with an indeterminate sentence, 32% (93 Sexual Assault 13.2''/o wards) had an LOS with a minimum of 18 or more months. Status O ffcnse 0.0% Tclcphonc Law 0.0% ° The information on juveniles placed at Beaumont includes only those wards who Traffic 0.8% arrived during the fiscal year. Wards already at Beaumont at the beginning of the fiscal year are not included. Wards transferred between facilities are counted once Trespass 0.0% for ever?, placement. Vandalism 0.5% \Vcapons 1.4% AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION, CAPACITY, AND PLACEMENTS To[a~ 365 FY1995-2002 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 r---i Capacit3 , 250 250 250 322 322 322 322 322 ADP 334 392 369 357 367 360 290 288 + Placements 582 457 287 310 339 323 300 365 Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. 81 Data Resource GuMe F170()2 iJ Bon Air JCC 1900 Chatsworth Avenue Bon Air, Virginia 23235 Bll Superintendent: Linda S. McWilliams 804-323-2550 PROGRAMS ,AVAILABLE W Anger Management, Sex Offender, and Substance Abuse Treatment Programs In FY 2002, the Bon Air facility was the only co-ed correctional center, housing both males and all females comnaitted to the Department. Typically, the male offenders placed here are 11 to 16 ),ears of age and have less serious committing offenses. The B females were of all ages and offense levels. Specialized programs include sex offender treatment, substance abuse treatment, and anger management. Beginning in June 2002, female offenders were removed from Bon Air JCC, and CulpeperJCC was converted to a female-only facility. I U JUVENILES PLACED AT BON A~R • Bon Air's average daily population increased 46% between 1995 FY 2002 and 1997; it also increased 89% by 2002. h.tj • . " D )riles, ., • Bon Air's utilization rate increased from 62°/,, in FY 1995 to b 117°/,, in FY 2000; howeve,, it has since decreased to 98% of ] ...- ' Re~ion capacity in FY 2002. a 29 • A juvenile placed at Bon Air in FY 2002 was most likely to be a 82 Western 76 black male age 15. 131 • The 445 juveniles placed at Bon Air in FY 2002 were comnaitted m 101 No,them 135 for a combined total of 1,513 offenses, an average of 3.4 offenses 87 per juvenile. @ 15 • The four most common committing offense types were Larceny, C Eastem 234 Assault, Burglar3,, and Sexual Assault (when looking at juveniles' most serious committing offense). m TREATMENT NEEDS • Of the 445 juveniles placed in FY 2002, 68% had a mandator3, FY 2002 PLACEMENTS anger management treatment need; 38% had a mandatory substance abuse treatment need; and 11% had a mandator3, sex 350 I offender treatment need. 303 • Just over two-thirds of FY 2002 placements had an assigned LOS 300 of 3-6, 6-12 or 12-18 months. g 250 CUSTODY CLASSIFICATIONLEVELS FY 2002 PLACEMENTS Iil 200 2")0/.. III 150 ,% 100 [] Low ] B [] Medium [ 49 50 • High [ Ii • Intensive ] Anger Substance Abuse Sex Offender U Management Mandatory [] Remmmended j 52% S l)erccntages may not add to 100% due to rounding, I Data Resource Guide t;}2002 ASSIGNED LENGTH OF STAY COMMITTING OFFENSE FY 2002 PLACEMENTS FY 2002 PLACEMENTS 3-6 _~14.8' l, Abusive Language 0.2% 6-9 Alcohol 0.2% 6-12 ~26.1 :% Arson 1.1% Assault 18.9% 9-12 I0.2% Burglary 14.8% Contempt of Court 0.2% 9-15 i1.3% Disorderly Conduct 1.1% 12-18 25.4 Escapes 0.2% Extortion 1.8% 15-21 Failure to Appear 0.0% Fraud 3.4% 18-24 •J•'3'•.2% Gangs 0.0% q I 18-36 11.2% Kidnapping 0.9% i Larceny 22.2% 21-36 [] 2.5% Misc/Other 0.2% Murder 0.4% 24-36 10.7% Narcotics 4.7% Dctcrminate ~5.80~ Obscenity 0.0% -I Obstruction of Justice 0.2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40"/,, 50% Prob./Parole Violation 7.2% Robbery 6.3% • Of the 419 juveniles placed at Bon Air with an indeterminate sentence, 23% (96 Sexual Assault 9.7% wards) had an LOS with a minimum of 18 or more months. Status Offense 0.0% Telephone Law • The information on juveniles placed at Bon Air includes only those wards who 0.0% arrived during the fiscal year. Wards already at Bon Air at the beginning of the fiscal Traffic 0.7% year are not included. Wards transferred between facilities are counted once for Trespass 0.4% every placement. Vandalism 3.4% Weapons 1.6% AVERAGE DALLY POPULATION, CAPACITY, AND PLACEMENTS Total 445 FY1995-2002 1,000 800- 600- 400- 200 I 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 002- I [---1Capacity 160 160 160 280 280 280 280 280 ---i-- AD P 99 144 145 222 320 327 256 274 I Placements 470 436 407 746 770 554 533 445 Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. M g Data Resollrce Gll#le I3"2002 m Culpeper JCC 12240 Coffeewood Drive Mitchells, Virginia 22729 Superintendent: Carmen J. Bria 540-727-3333 PROGRAMS AVAILABLE m Anger Management, Sex Offender, Substance Abuse Treatment, and Independent Living Programs During FY 2002, Culpeper JCC was a military school-style training program for older males, ages 14 to 20. Several opportunities for work were available to qualified wards. The Department of Correctional Education offers, throt,gh Cedar Mountain High lJ School, a full high school curriculum, SAT preparation and testing, GED preparation and testing, Armed Services Vocatio,ml Aptitude Battery testing, Distance Learning for future college courses, and Cognitive Skills Training. The following vocational training subjects are also available: Career Pathways - The World of Work, Computer Assisted Drafting, and Commercial and a Residential Cleaning. Beginning in June 2002, Culpeper JCC was converted to a female-only facility. IJ JUVENILES PLACED AT CULPEPER • Culpeper's average daily population decreased 7% from FY FY 2002 2000 to 2001; it also decreased 7% during FY 2002. lJ • Culpeper's utilization rate increased from 21% in FY 1999 to 98% i,3 FY 2000; however, it has since decreased to 85% of capacity , "' /;~..~ ;-% ~i ;5.::!; ' ' in FY 2002. Male 113 Under 14 4 • A juvenile placed at Ct, lpeper in FY 2002 was most likely to be Female 101 14 7 Western 34 a black male age 17. i " ~ 15 32 Jl ,e" • The 214 juveniles placed at Culpeper in FY 2002 were committed Black 123 16 53 Northern 67 for a combined total of 648 offenses, an average of 3.0 offenses White 85 17 82 per juvenile. Other 61 18 25 • The four most common committing offense types were Assat,lt, Larceny, Robbery, and Burglar): (when looking at juveniles' ~]~Li ~:elI°.~{10 19or older 11 Eastem 113 most serious committilag offense). I11 TREATMENT NEEDS • Of the 214 juveniles placed in FY 2002, 67% had a mandatory FY 200;! PLACEMENTS anger management treatment need; 48% had a mandatory 350 substance abuse treatment need; and 6% had a mandatory sex offender treatment need. • About one-half of FY 2002 placements had an assigned LOS of 300 either 6-12 or 12-18 months. 250 CUSTODY CLASSIFICATION LEVELS FY 2002 PLACEMENTS 200 - 9% 14"3 150 m 103 100 [] Low 18% HMedium 50 mHigh 12 2 [] Intensive Anger Substanoe Abuse Sex Offender Maaaagement I rl Mandatory I-I Recom mended I 47% lti Percentages may not add to 100% clue to roundhlg. m II Data Resottrce Guide 1"12002 ASSIGNED LENGTH OF STAY COMMITTING OFFENSE FY 2002 PLACEMENTS FY 2002 PLACEMENTS I I 3-6 12.1% 6-9 1 0.5% Abusive Language 0.5% Alcohol 0.5% 6-12 I~1 ~ 22.0°/" Arson 2.3% 9-12 0.0% Assault 23.8% Burglar}, 7.5% 9-15 [] ]9% Contempt of Court 0.9% Disorderly Conduct 1.9% 12-18 1 (~) Escapes 0.0% Extortion 0.9% 15-21 Failure to Appear 0.0% 18-24 Fraud 4.2% Gangs 0.0% I~l 10.7% 18-36 Kidnapping 0.0% L.arcenv 21.0% 21-36 [] 1.9% Misc/Other 0.5% 24-36 1 0.5% Murder 1.4% Narcotics 6.1% Determinate I~lil 14.0'y, I Obscenity 0.5% Obstrtlction of Justice 1.4°/`, 0% 10% 20% 30o/° 40% 50% Prob./Parole Violation 5.1% Robbery 12.1% • Of the 184 juveniles placed at Culpeper with an indeterminate sentence, 23% (42 Sexual Assault 4.7% wards) had an LOS with a minimum of 18 or more months. Status Offense 0.0% • The information on juveniles placed at Culpeper includes only those wards who Telephone Law 0.0% arrived during the fiscal year. Wards already at Culpeper at the beginning of the Traffic 0.0% fiscal year are not included. Wards transferred between facilities are counted once Trespass 0.0% for every placement. Vandalism 2.3% Weapons 2.3% AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION, CAPACITY, AND PLACEMENTS Total 214 FY1995-2002 25O 200 150 100 / / 50 m 1/ 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 [----'1Capacit3' 112 t12 112 112 +ADP 24 110 102 95 +Placements 64 209 97 214 Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. Vi-rgavia ,-, g l)ala Resource 6"1title1~2002 U Hanover JCC P. O. Box 507 Hanover, Virginia 23069 Superintendent: Sharon P. Havens R 804-537-5316 PROGRAMS AVAILABLE g kalger Management, Sex Offender, and Substance Abuse Treatment Programs The Hanover facility houses male offenders, ages 14 to 18, with moderate to serious committing offenses. Specialized programs include JROTC, anger management, sex offender treatment, and substance abuse treatment. To participate in JROTC, wards must B be in the 9 'h grade and on a GED or high school diploma track. Participants can be 18 if they are working toward their GED or high school diploma. Q D JUVENILES PLACED AT HANOVER • Hanover's average daily population increased 63% between 1995 FY 2002 and 1997, but dropped 57% by 2002. lU I I • 2hics. • Hanover's utilization rate increased from 128% in FY 1995 to (egion 149% in FY 1999; however, it has since decreased to 87% of I capacity in FY 2002. 6 • A juvenile placed at Hanover in FY 2002 was most likely to be a B 3O black male age 16-17. 49 • The 253 juveniles placed at Hanover in FY 2002 were committed I 87 for a combined total of 831 offenses, an average of 3.3 offenses 74 per juvenile. 7 • The four most common committing offense types were Larceny, IN Narcotics, Burglar5,, and Assault (when looking at juveniles' 0 most serious committing offense). TREATMENT NEEDS • Of the 253 juveniles placed in FY 2002, 58% had a mandatory R FY 2002 PLACEMENTS anger management treatment need; 34% had a mandato,'y 350 substance abuse treatment need (an additional 34% had a recommended substance abuse treatment need); and 13% had a M mandators; sex offender treatment need. 300 -' U 250 CUSTODY CLASSIFICATIONLEVELS FY 2002 PLACEMENTS n 200 29% 146 2% 150 U 100 .o=_.__R7 12% [] Low R [] Medium 50 [] High U mmIntensive 0 , Anger Substanoe Abuse Sex Offender U Management [ "Mandatory H Recommended ] B Percentages may not add to 100% clue to rounding. U I II Data Resource Guide FY2002 ASSIGNED LENGTH OF STAY COMMITTING OFFENSE FY 2002 PLACEMENTS FY 2002 PLACEMENTS T • Most Serious Offen~e 3-6 3.2% Offense I-i Percent 6-9 0.8% Abusive Language 0.0% Alcohol 0.0% 6-12 21.3% Arson 2.8% Assault 11.5% 9-12 0.0% Burglary 12.3% 9-15 I 1.6% Contempt of Court 0.0% Disorderly Conduct 0.8% 12-18 -I I ~ Escapes 0.4% Extortion 0.8% 15-2l Failure to Appear 0.0% 18-24 Fraud 0.4% Gangs 0.0% 18-36 19.0% Kidnapping 1.2% Larceny 26.1% 21-36 • 2.4"/,) q Misc./Other 0.0% 24-36 I 1.2% Murder 0.8% q Narcotics 13.4% Determinate 12.3% Obscenity 0.0% J J Obstruction of Justice 0.0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Prob./Parole Violation 2.8% Robbery 9.1% ° Half of FY 2002 placements had an assigned LOS of 3-6, 6-12, or 12-18 months. Sexual Assault 10.7% • Of the 222 juveniles placed at Hanover with an indeterminate sentence, 34% (75 Status Offense 0.0% wards) had an LOS with a minimum of 18 or more months. Telephone Law 0.0% • The information on juveniles placed at Hanover includes only those wards who Traffic 1.6% arrived during the fiscal year• Wards already at Hanover at the beginning of the Trespass 1.2°/,) fiscal year are not included• Wards transferred between facilities are counted once Vandalism 1.6% for every placement. Weapons 2.8% AVERAGE DALLY POPULATION, CAPACITY, AND PLACEMENTS Yolal 253 FY1995-2002 350 300 250 200 150 100 ! -- 50 0 U> 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 200l 2002 I-"-I Capacity 150 222 222 200 154 154 154 154 +ADP 192 235 313 260 230 174 167 134 Placements 314 306 322 167 150 130 159 ! 253 Percentages may IlOt ad(] tO 100% due to rounding. IJ Data Resource Guide FY2002 IJ Naturall Bridge JCC 1425 Arnolds Valley Road Natural Bridge Station, Virginia 24579-3051 Ill Superintendent: William E. Hepler 540-291-2129 PROGRAMS AVAILABLE 18 Anger Management, Substance Abuse Treatment, and Independent Living Programs The Natural Bridge facility houses male offenders, ages 15-20, who are lower security risks with all types of committing offenses. ! However, the Department places only a limited number of major and serious offenders at Natural Bridge as a step down or transition placement prior to release. m B JUVENILES PLACED AT NATURAL BRIDGE • Natural Bridge's average daily population increased 12% FY 2002 between 1995 and 1997, but dropped 33% by 2002. I ia'ics ' i • Natural Bridge's utilization rate increased fi'om 110% in FY l:,t" [ 1995 to 123% in FY 1996 and FY 1997; however, it has since ReRi6In dec,eased to 82% of capacity m FY 2002. 0 n • A juvenile placed at Natural Bridge in FY 2002 was most likely 3 Westem 38 to be a black male age 17. 19 • The 177 juveniles placed at Natural Bridge in FY 2002 were 81 39 Nol,hem 6~ committed for a combined total of 716 offenses, an average of 57 4.0 offenses per juvenile. 49 • The four most common committing offense types were Larceny, Burglary, Narcotics, and Robbe D , (when looking at juveniles' 10 Eastem 73 most serious committing offense). TREATMENT NEEDS • Of the 177 juveniles placed in FY 2002, 49% had a mandato U FY 2002 PLACEMENTS anger management treatment need; 46% had a mandatory 350 substance abuse treatment need; and only 1% had a man&to W sex offender treatment need. m • Nearly half of FY 2002 placements had an assigned LOS of 3-6, 300 6-12, or 12-18 months. g 250 CUSTODY CLASSIFICATIONLEVELS FY 2002 PLACEMENTS m 200 36% /..------.%,% a 150 100 [] Low m [] Medium 50 m H igh m 2 0 • Intensive Anger Substance Abuse Sex Offender g Management E Mandatory [] Recommended } 63% m Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. II Data Resource Guide 1"32002 ASSIGNED LENGTH OF STAY COMMITTING OFFENSE FY 2002 PLACEMENTS FY 2002 PLACEMENTS 3-6 MOSt SerioUs iOffense Offense , . [ Percent 6-9 0.0% Abusive Language 0.0% Alcohol 1.7% 6-12 III 9.6% Arson 0.0% 9-12 0.0'Y,, Assault 5.6% Burglary 21.5% 9-15 [] 2.3% Contenlpt of Court 0.6% Disorderly Conduct 0.0% 12-18 24.9% Escapes 0.0% 15-21 I~1 ~0.2"/, I*~xtortion 0.0% Failure to Appear 0.6% 18-24 III 10.2% Fraud 1.7% Gangs 0.0% 18-36 16 4% l Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. I ' ' SECTIONIIh COMMITMENTTO. THE STATE 165 I V-igg,i nfa ,-, Data Resource Guide FY2002 N1 Oak Ridge JCC 1801 Old Bon Air Road Bon Air, Virginia 23235 Superintendent: KathrTn B. Dickerson 804-323-2335 PROGRAMS AVAILABLE M Behaviorial, t.ife Skills, Sex Offender, Anger Management, and Substance Abuse Treatment Programs The Oak Ridge facility houses male offenders of all ages with developmental disabilities and severe behavior disorders. The IRI population has measured intelligence scores in the borderline to moderately retarded range. Offenders typically have an extensive histozT of maladaptive behavior and are committed for serious offenses. The facility operates a behavioral "token economy" program and offers sex offender, anger management, and substance abuse treatment programs. JUVENILES PLACED AT OAK RIDGE • Between 1995 and 2002, the Oak Ridge average daily population FY 2002 ranged between 38 and 40 wards. a • Oak Ridge's utilization rate increased from 98% in FY 1995 to 100% in FY 1997; however, it has since decreased to 98% of i Male 40 Under 14 2 capacity in FY 2002. U Female 0 14 2 Westem • A juvenile placed at Oak Ridge in FY 2002 was most likely to be a black male age 17. ~11 ' . I[ .. ,5 • The 40 juveniles placed at Oak Ridge in FY 2002 were committed m Bla& 32 16 7 Northern 14 for a combined total of 116 offenses, an average of 2.9 offenses White 8 17 14 per juvenile. Other 0 18 7 • The four most common committing offense types were Sexual M ~ll ....' II ~ 19orolder 0 Eastem 20 Assault, Burglar),, Larceny, and Robber), (when looking at juveniles' most serious comnfittmg offense). TREATMENT NEEDS • Of the 40 juveniles placed in FY 2002, 60% had a mandatory M FY 2002 PLACEMENTS anger management treatment need; 35% had a mandatory 35O substance abuse treatment need; and 30% had a man&toTT sex g offender treatment need. Oak Ridge had the highest percentage of juveniles with a sex offender treatment need of the seven 300 JCCs. 250 CUSTODY CLASSIFICATIONLEVELS FY 2002 PLACEMENTS 200 150 100 13% [] Low [] Medium 5O 24 14 11 12 H High W 1 r--73 I I El Intensive Anger Substance Abuse Sex Offender m Management 121 Mandatory [] Recommended ] W Percentages may not add to 100% clue to rounding. gin i= ° J! m Data Resource GuMe 1:}2002 ASSIGNED LENGTH OF STAY COMMITTING OFFENSE FY 2002 PLACEMENTS FY 2002 PLACEMENTS 3-6 [] 2.5% Most Serious Offense 6-9 0.0% Dffense I I Percent Abusive Language 0.0% 6-12 ~ ~ 15.0 ~/o Alcohol 0.0% Arson 2.5% 9-12 0.O% Assault 0.0% 9-15 0.0% Burglary 20.0% Contempt of Court 0.0% 12-18 ~ll ~2; 5% Disorderly Conduct 0.0% Escapes 0.0% 15-21 ~ 5.0CA Extortion 0.0% 18-24 ~ 10.0% Failure to Appear 0.0% Fraud 2.5% 18-36 ~~ .22.5% Gangs 0.0% Kidnapping 0.0% 21-36 []2.5% Larceny 17.5% 24-36 0.O% Misc/Other 2.5% Murder 0.0% Determinate ~ ~ 15.0~6 Narcotics 10.0% Obscenity 0.0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Obstruction of Justice 0.0% Prob./Parole Violation 2.5% "Nearly half of FY 2002 placements had an assigned LOS of 3-6, 6-12, or 12-18 months. Robber), 12.5% • Of the 34 juveniles placed at Oak Ridge with an indeterminate sentence, 41% (14 Sexual Assault 25.0% wards) had an LOS with a minimum of 18 or more months. Status Offense 0.0% • The information on juveniles placed at Oak Ridge includes only those wards who Telephone Law 2.5% arrived during the fiscal year. Wards already at Oak Ridge at the beginning of the Traffic 0.0% fiscal year are not included. Wards transferred between facilities are counted once Trespass 2.5% for every placement. Vandalism 0.0% AVERAGE DALLY POPULATION, CAPACITY, AND PLACEMENTS Weapons 0.0% FY1995-2002 Total 4O 60 50 40 " --i / 30 m / -'-x-" 20 m 10 m 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 [""-lCapacig, 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 +ADP 39 39 40 39 39 39 38 39 Placements 37 31 23 36 39 34 52 1 40 Percentages may not add to 100% clue to rounding. m Data Resource Guide 1.32002 ill P~ivate P~ovide~ Programs I VIRGINIA WILDERNESS INSTITUTE (VWI) m The Virginia Wilderness Institute (VWI) is a thi,'ty-two bed facility that serves committed offenders. Remotely located in Grundy, Virginia, VWI is a highly structured, disciplined, residential program for males ages 13 to 18. The program focuses on accountability I!ill and competency. VWI emphasizes work ethics, education, self-discipline, responsibility, and accountability th,ough pa,'ticipation in rigorous work and daily structure. VWI offers a full range of academic and vocational instruction. A community coordinator wo,'ks with each ward both before and after release from the facility to assist in transition to the commt, nity. The community coordination includes assistance with job search, school re-enrolhnent, and locating othe," support services in the conamunity. During recent flooding, wards at V\VI assisted Virginia State Police with recove, T efforts in Grundy, Vi,'ginia. JUVENILES PLACED AT VWI V%4/I ADP vs CAPACITY IIill FY 2002 FY 2000-2002 40 , .30 '~ II \~(lestem 20 i 7 9 Nolxhem 11 10 -r il 18 0 i- 3 E astem 19 2000 2001 Ii i l ADP i 30 31 30 I' H Capadty if 32 .32 32 LENGTH OF STAY ASSIGNMENTS Ill FY 2002 PLACEMENTS 6-12 Months 6 9-15 Months 3 .'. o ~ ,-----"~',' '~ = ' ' . -~rQ~';_ 1'1 ~ ~-~ a 12-18 Months 15 15-21 Months 3 , . a ~. ~;--:-=-~ - 18-24 Months 6 18-36 Months 6 Total 39 <, ~, - .... o,% ( ...... -- ~ , ..'~ ! ~ - , . , . -- ~I.'_~'-.~U , / .,~,~'~.':'-,-.,~,~'.':,. ~'~'" Z~ ~ ,' !il .m~" >.~ .- * • " b, < \ ? (~---~ DIN -, ~- .-- - ..-L ~'~'KJ %-<--- ,-~ B • - '. ' <-."%./ , , - /--~- ---~.. .I - { /. " _ .~, -... ~ . /c,~..~) ~," "< ~.'-3/-" ~.~ --- ~" - - ....._.__...-... /.,,,..--..J. / \.L- -Z" _~ ,,?~ :,. B 7' " - ~'Lq ,. ~ % >/ II z , , , ' ,,/ -- I II Dala Resource Guide 1:Y2002 TIDEWATER ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM (TEP) The Tidewater Environmental Program (TEP) houses offenders committed to the Department between the ages of 15 to 19 on a retired naval vessel docked in Norfolk, Virginia. The program is a highly structured, militarT-style residential program. Treatment services offered include independent living skills, substance abuse treatment, employability skills, and educational services. The program emphasizes work ethics, education, self-discipline, and accountability. The goal of the program is for each resident to have obtained his GED or high school diploma, and have a job or be enrolled in college classes, upon release. While residing in the program, residents that have demonstrated a positive adjustment, completed their GED, and demonstrated a high level of accountability have the opportunity to continue their education at a community college. JUVENILES PLACED AT TEP TEP ADP vs CAPACITY FY 2002 PLACEMENTS FY 2000-2002 40 m 30 - --- 20 ' m 10 0 2000 2001 2002 m • ADP 11 I0 LENGTH OF STAY ASSIGNMENTS 10 I0 I0 FY 2002 PLACEMENTS Determinate 6 -12 12-18 15-21 7 18-24 ! "*u"'~j i~ 18-36 Total 15 , '/191 / z ',L! ; ,, , ,. II .# ,Y-z~ginta " ,-/ m Data Resoto'ce Guide F)2002 3 m m m U R H g M @ -" L~ I x b /. ijj r !! \ ",, / / / - ,, '. ,f'* , / " ('i ~e i~/!' i . r t 8, " :~ ,/ / Ir it' i J -, : // J ~ s IL . \ t ((/ L / t i ,/'X t ~ .,J ii s \ t ; \ De:to: Resom'ce Guide F) 2002 l\?lessu 'ing Rleof i:ense AsSes Recidivism, or reoffending, is an important concept for juvenile The ,-eport by Ostrom et al. (2002) also emphasized that the and adult criminal justice systems because it provides a means to way recidivism is defined has an impact on tile interpretation measure outcolne success. In terms of public awareness, this is of study results. According to their report, there are strengths usually the primary measure of concern when evaluating criminal and weaknesses associated with each measure of recidivism. or delinquent activity. Use of a standardized measure of recidivism Use of rearrest as a measure of recidivism has the advantage of allows evaluation across different types of programs and facilitates not being influenced by court proceedings (offense reduction, comparison to program outcomes from other states. plea bargainitlg, diversion) but may over-estimate the level of reoffendi,ag because arrest criteria are less st,ingent than While there are many studies on offender recidivism, comparison conviction criteria. Rearrest rates represent the maxim,m of results is often difficult because the evaluation methodologies rate for reoffending. used may vary widely. Definitions of recidivism often differ from stud), to study. The len~h of time used to measure recidivism may Use of reconviction as a measure of recidivism lessens the range from as little as three months to ;is long as five years. likelihood of over-inflating reoffending rates. It should be Characteristics of the juveniles studied may not be adequately noted that time to reconviction is best measured as the "number identified. These and other issues surrounding reoffense analysis of days until a new arrest for which the offender will be were discussed in a 2002 report prepared by."the National Center subsequently convicted," so that any discrepancies in court fo*"State Courts (Ostrom et al., Offender Risk Assessment in Vb~inia: procedures will not influence the measurement of time to A Three-Stage Evaluation). The authors suggested measurement criteria that should be addressed by any study of recidivism - including different ways to define reoffending and length of follow- 7 up for offenders after release. J I [~EFINITIONS OF [~EOFFENDING i The American Correctional Association (ACA) has stated that the definition of recidivism is one of the prinaary issues for juvenile and advlt correctional organizations/agencies. According to the ACA, "...there are numerous ways to measure recidivism...[d]epending on what perspective is taken, statistical / 1 J outcomes may vary." / There are three commonly accepted definitions used to measure [" ./ reoffending: / / / ° Rearrest refers to a petition filed at intake for a new delinquency / / i' I' complaint or an adult arrest for a new criminal offense. Rearrest is an important measure of reoffending because it represents the initial /fl ,/' official contact with the criminal justice system. Uses of rea,rest rates / are limited as a gauge of reoffending because rearrest measures police \, activity, and juveniles may be rearrested for offenses they did not • . // actuAlycommit. 5 / ° Reconviction refers to a ~iltT adjudication for a delinquent or criminal offense. This measure represents a more stringent way to measure i reoffending. Because reconviction rates are based on the final disposition for an offense, only cases with an admission of guilt or J a court adjudication of guilty are counted. (Note: only reconviction meets the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice definition of } recidivism as defined below). i-" 5 I ° Recommitment refersto any return to aJCC, after having,,been previously released from a JCC. This measure indicates that the new guilty offense is serious enough to warrant a return to state incarceration. Data Resource Guide FY2002 @ reoffense. Therefore, reconvictions represent a subset of than male offenders to have been admitted for a non-felony. A rearrests. recent study by Oregon on juvenile recidivism found that juveniles N! ages 13-16 were most likely to reoffend within the juvenile justice Recommitment rates offer the most stringent measure of system. reoffending. Juveniles recommitted to a juvenile correctional center iN have been coral&red by judges to have conmaitted offenses serious Finally, few studies have examined the impact of chronic offending enough to justify return to a correctional facility. The measure on reoffense rates. Studies such as TheEight Percent Solution suggest represents a further subset of rearrests - reoffending that has that most reoffenses are committed by a few individuals who N been adjudicated guilty and resulted in re-entr T into a juvenile participate in multiple cri,nes. Results from this longitudinal study correctional facility. of juvenile recidivism in California indicate that most juveniles do not reoffend, or reoffend only once or twice. These researchers LENGTH OF TIME USED TO FOLLOW-UP found that most new offenses were committed by only a few N REOFFENDING juveniles. A thorough stud), of recidivism should include an examination of the subset of chronic offenders. Ost,om et al. (2002) ;also mention that studies of reoffending Ni (recidivism) differ in terms of the length of time used for follow- DJJ's STUDY OF .JUVENILE REOFFENDING up after release from a correctional center or some other type of judicial actio,a. Length of follow-up in these studies has ranged We are fortunate in Virginia to have access to a data tracking system an)~vhere from three months to five ),ears. Most studies use a one- (Djj Juvenile Tracking System) that includes information on year follow-u F, period to assess reoffending. juvenile intakes, comnaitments to juvenile correctional centers, and probation placements for all localities within Virginia. This While reoffending rates are often highest within the first year after information allows us to examine juvenile reoffending patterns in release or judicial action, limitation of follow-up to one year does a standardized way. Also, we have the capability to obtain not allow for a comprehensive analysis of reoffending patterns. statewide adult arrest and conviction infomaation from the Virginia Studies of ,'eoffending should use longer follow-up periods in State Police. Information from these two sources enables us to W order to get a better idea of the recidivism process. The report by study statewide juvenile reoffending patterns with long-tema follow- Ostrom et al. (2002) recommends that studies of reoffending use up periods. a follow-up period of at least one to three 5'ears. For this resource guide, we examined juvenile reoffending patterns OTHER ISSUES WITH THE STUDY OF REOFFENDING for FY 1998 through FY 2001. Juvenile and adult arrest data on juveniles released from our juvenile correctional centers, placed l There are other issues relevant to the examination of reoffending, on probation, or released from our largest intermediate sanction particularly for juveniles. First, most studies have focused on program during these years were examined. The follow-up period offenders who have been released from correctional centers. ranged from a minimum of one-year to a maximum of three-years, [~ Focusing on this group limits understanding of reoffendmg rates depending on the date the juvenile was released or placed. because it does not allow for examination of all individuals who Demog,'aphic information for reoffenses was ;also included. have contact with the justice system and eliminates the possibility of comparison between individuals who have been incarcerated in Although we included all three measures of reoffending in this 1~ 5ecLne facilities versus individuals who 111115:have been sent to resource guide, it is impommt to note that the official DJJ recidivism diversion programs or placed on probation. definition is based on measures of reconviction. In Februa, T 2000, the Director of the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice issued 1~ Also, few studies of reoffending have tracked offenses through an administrative directive (07-710) that established an official both the juvenile mad adult justice systems. While it is understmadable definition for recidivism to be used by the Department. that studies of adult reoffending cannot access juvenile ilfformation, most st L,dies of juvenile reoffending do not track offenses into the For the pm?oses of reporting recidiv#m rates of juveniles as [~ adtllt justice system. A complete ex,unination of juveMe reoffendmg required by, Code of Virginia ~2.1-51.17. C, the Department will is not possible ttnless all juvenile and adult contacts with the justice use the following definitions: s)~tem are included. A recidivist is a person who is fottnd by a court to tZE Additionally, studies of reoffending should include information have committed, after being (a) placed on probation on gender and age differences when presenting reoffense data, or (7)) released from confinement, a delinquent or particularly evaluations of juvenile reoffending. There are well criminal act other than violation of probation or documented nomaal developmental differences between males and parole. females, as well as juveniles in early adolescence versus late As the recidivism definition currently stands, all instances of delinquent adolescence. Therefore, reoffending patterns should not be ccv~umed ;and adult criminal activity (for which a juvenile has been adjudicated to be the same for all juveniles. For example, a 2002 study by Djj guilD,) that occurs ~fftera juvenile is released from a JCC or boot ciunp, or found that female offenders admitted to JCCs were more likely is placed on probation, are collected by DJJ. Tracking infomaation on all subsequent offenses provides a better measure of reoffending than simply gathering information from the juvenile justice system alone. li ] : ' ° ° ' 0 ...... t n ,'~, Data Resource GuMe D2002 REOFFENSE RATES FOR AGENCY PROGRAMS This procedure makes the length of time for all three reoffense types comparable. For this Data Resource Guide, reoffense data were examined for FY The data collection methodology was further refined for the FY 1998 through FY 2001: 2002 Data Resource Guide in the following ways: o JCC Releases - all juveniles released from juvenile correctional • Sampling for the Probation Placements groups was significantly centers; exp~mdedso that adequate, representative samples were obtained ° Probation Placements- a randomly selected, representative san~pte for each District CSU. of the population of juveniles placed on probation; and • Reconviction data were collected forall fiscal years included ha the ° Boot Camp Releases - all juveniles released from the four-month study (for the JCC Releases and Boot Camp Releases groups). residential phase of the Camp Kenbridge Intermediate Sanction Boot The addition of data from previous years allows for long-term Cunp. follow-up of reconviction patterns, wt~ch may be different from Tables on the following pages include the following reoffense data: patterns found with shorter lengths of follow-up. Because of the new procedure and the large size of the probation samples, • Rearrest rates are presented for each year, for all three groups; reconviction data were only, collected for the FY 2001 probation • Reconviction rates are presented for each year for the JCC Release placements. and Boot Camp Release groups (only FY 2001 data are available for • Reconmlitment data were added to this year's data collection. Probation Placements) and • Information on final case dispositions for all intakes and adult • Reconmitment rates for each year are presented for the JCC Rele~tse arrests were researched, including c~tsesfrom previous years that groups only and refer to reincarcerations back into theJCCs. may have been pending or on appeal. This information was Reoffense data did not include the following offenses: violation of obtained for each case through data from the JTS, the Virginia probation or parole, contempt of court, failure to appear, or traffic Criminal hlformation Network, District CSU files, and court offenses (other than felony or misdemeanor level offenses). Only records (/&DR coui*s ,ecords, general district courts, ~md circuit offenses that involved new delinquent or criminal acts were counted. COLI~S). When the length of time to reoffend is reported, it indicates the time hnprovements in methodology resulted in slight changes in between the date the juvenile was rele~tsedfrom a JCC or boot camp or reoffense rates from those reported in the FY 2001 Data Resource placed on probation, and the date of a new arrest. When reconviction or Guide. These changes were due to the addition of longer follow- recomnlitment is the measure of reoffending, the date of the arrest for up periods, the inclusion of final dispositions for cases that were an offense for which the juvenile was convicted or committed is used. previously still active m the courts, and better data collection. TWELVE-MONTH REOFFENSE RATES FY 1998-2001 Twelve-month Reoffense Rates - FY 1998-2001 The following reoffending patterns were noted for each group at 12-months: • Recidivism rates for FY 2001 (defined by DJJ as reconviction rates) at 12-months were: o ForJCC Releases, there was a sli~t increase in both rearrest and reconviction rates between FY 1998 and FY 2001. o 38.8% for juveniles released from theJCCs; Reconm~mnent rates remained steady between FY 1998 and o 24.8% for juveniles placed on probation; and FY 2000, then fell slightly, in FY 2001. o 28.5% for juveniles released from Boot Camp. o For Probation Placements, rearrest rates decreased between • When groups were compared on 12-month rearrest and reconviction FY 1998 and FY 2000, and then increased in FY 2001. rates for FY 1998 through FY 2001, juveniles released from theJCCs o For Boot Camp Releases, the rearrest rate increased between .had the highest rates, while juveniles placed on probation had the FY 1998 and FY 1999, and then dropped in FY 2000 and FY lowest rates. 2001; the reconviction rate rose between FY 1998 and FY 2000, then fell in FY2001. g Data Resource Gttide F12002 REARREST RATES m FY 1998-,2001 . . " ' .... ) k ,'1 : t~l Probatmn Placements : Illfl'~t Camp Kemases • ! I ,~ " 7, " ~ -! ' I 'l i 1',1 D Imm 1998 , ,1999t ~ 2000 2001. 1998 " 1999 '2000 i 2001 I 3 m()nths 14.0% 13.6% 14.6% 15.1% 13.9% 14.9% 17.6% 12.6% 12.3% 8.7% 6 tn(mths 28.9% 28.2% 23.7% 24.3% 23.2'7,, 24.5% 26.5'7,, 28.9% 26.7% 20.4% W 12 morn hs 46.7% 49.(}% 36.7'¼, 36.3% 35.5% ~ 37.2% 38.2% 47.9'¼, 44.0% 43.4% 24 momhs 67.0% 65.8% I 52.3% 50.4% 50.0% N/A 67.6% 66.8% 68.3% N/A 36 months 75.(}% 74.0% I 60.2% 59.3% N/A N/A 82.4'¼,' 72.6% N/A N/A m Rearrest Rates - FY 1998- 2001 • The following rearrest rate patterns were found foreach group: As mentioned earlier, rearrest rates do not meet DJJ's official o ForJCC Releases, the 3-month rearrest rate remained steady definition for recidivism. It is helpful to examine rearrest rates, B between FY 1998 and FY 2001; both the 6- and 12-month rea,'rest however, because these rates reflect the level of additional contact juveniles have with the justice system after ,elease or placement. rates showed a slight increase du,ing the same period; rearrest Evaluation of rearrest rates provides a sense of the maximum rate of rates for 24-months did not change significantly. m zeoffending that occm~ over time. Reconviction and reconmfitment o For Probation Placelnents, the 3-month rearmst rate fluctuated rates are subsets within rearrests. from year to year. The 6-and 12-month ,'earrest rates increased between FY 1998 and FY2001. m • Rearrest rates continued to rise considerably at each follow-up inte,'val for all g,oups across all fiscal years. o For Boot Camp Releases, 3- and 6-month rearrests declined significantly between FY 1998 and FY 2001; 12- and 24-month • While the,e is some variability in wlfich group h;ts the highest or rearrests increased over the same period, however. m lowest rear,'est rates when measured at 3- and 6-months, by 12- lllOllths the reaH'est patterlls were clearer. Twdve-Month Rearrest Rates by Race, Sex, and Age - FY 2001 o At 12-months, JCC Releases had the highest rearrest rate, Demographic data for 12-month ,'earrest rates are presented in the table m followed by Boot Camp Releases ;rod Probation Placements. below. o At 24-months .and beyond, Boot Camp Releases had the • Males had higher rearrest rates than females across all groups. hi~est rearrest rates, followed byJCC Releases :rod Probation m • Black juveniles had the highest rearrest rates for all three g,oups; Placements. juveniles of other races had the lowest rearrest rates. m ! I Black 841 442 52.6% 27384 996 41.8'7', 138 69 50.0% Wlutc 482 216 44.8% 3~017 1,045 34.6% 161 62 38.5% Other 51 13 25.5'7'/,, 323 89 27.6% 10 3 30.0% i U ndcr 12 0.0% 103 26 25.2'7', 0.0% Ii 12 66.7% 179 68 38.0% 2 1 50.(}'7', 13 11 36.4% 409 150 36.7% 8 3 37.5% 14 54 36 66.7'7', 795 311 39.1% 27 12 44.4% 15 14{) 68 48.6% 1,194 505 42.3% 61 25 41.0% Ill 16 274 135 49.Y¼, 1,354 549 40.5% 99 44 44.4% 17 425 220 51.8% 1,376 461 33.5% 93 40 43.0% II 18 or older 467 2(}6 44. I% 314 6{} 19.1% 19 47.4% Total 1,374 671 48. 896 5. 724 2.130 3Z2% 309 134 43. 496 m I Data Resource Guide t32002 RECONVlCTION RATES FY 1998-2001 ! ,Boot Camp Releases . 1998 1999 2000, 2001 10.3% 9.1% 17.60/,, 6.8% 8.Y¼, 23.2% 15.7% 20.6% 16.8% 18.7% 38.8% 24.8% 26.5% 32.1% 32.0% N/A N/A 61.8% 53.7% 54.7% N/A N/A 76.5% 60.0% N/A Reconviction Rates - FY 1998-2001 Boot Cimmp Releases1R showed a decrease in reconviction rates at 3, 6, 24, and 36 months. The 12-month reconviction rate The oMcial DJJ definition of recidivism requires a new conviction. This rose between FY 1998 and FY 2000, and then dropped in rate is preferred because it considers the fin~ adjudication ~md disposition of guilt. For this Guide, only offenses for which there has been a clear FY 2001. finM disposition of guilt are counted as reconvictions. Cases with offenses Twelve-Month Reconviction Rates by Sex, Race, and Age still pending or on appeal at the time this report was published will be - FY 2001 re-examined next year. Unfortunately, the large size of the probation Demographic data for 12-month ,econviction rates are presented in placelnent samples made it impractical to retrieve reconviction data for the table below. years prior to FY 2001. • Males had higher reconviction rates across all groups. • Reconviction rates, similar to rearrest rates, continued to increase at each follow-up interval for all groups• " Blackjt,veniles had the lai~lest reconviction rites forJCC Releases and Probation Placements, while both black m~d wlfite juveniles • With the exception of the 3-, 24-, and 36-month intervals in FY had about the same reconviction rates for Boot Camp Releases; 1998, the JCC Releases consistently had the hi~ler reconviction rates. juveniles of other races had the lowest rearrest rates for all th,'ee • Between FY 1998 and FY2001: groups. o JCC releases showed an increase in reconviction rates at all measurement intervals. TWELVE-MONTH RECONVlCTION RATES BY SEX, RACE, AND AGE FY 2001 I 511 91 17.6°/', 323 551 17.0% I l0 I 2 I 20.0"/,, ge; Under 12 I - - 0.0% 103 20 19.4% 1 - - 0.0% 12 3 2 66.7% 179 43 24.0% 2 1 50.0% 13 11 4 36.4% 409 112 27.4% 8 2 25.0% 14 54 30 55.6% 795 212 26.7% 27 9 33.3% 15 140 59 42.1% 1,1941_ 194 351 29.4% 61 17 27.9% ' f" .~lgra ii.]mm|pmi i*~': Ir~J l~-"--;.'. A! Ill ~ = -'--'----~ rol~, ~;.~ _~.'t~ nwlMJ ~IIVJ~J . ~L'4.I] ~ 8 Data Resource gu#le FY2002 m RECOMMITMENT RATES TWELVE-MONTH RECOMMITMENT RATES BY SEX, W FY 1998-2001 RACE, AND AGE, FY 1998-2001 • jCi: 19cJ8 "11999 U 3 iTlonths 3.7% i 3.3°/(, 4.7% 3.7% 6 months 7.5% 7.5% 8.1% 7.5% mo 12 months 11.4')/(, 11.2% l 1.4% 10.2°/(, 24 months 15.3°/(, 15.2% 14.3% N/A 36 months 18.3% 17.1% N/A N/A Ill Other 51 4 7.8% Reconmfitment Rates - FY 1998-2001 ~ge at Release or Piacement :i I. ';'! Becattse recomnfitment is defined its reincarcemtion at a correctional Under 12 0.0% W facility, these data are only applicable forJCC Releases. Again, it 12 3 "~ 66.7% should be noted that recommitment refers to a return to a JCC and 13 11 2 18.2% does not include any incarceration in an adult facility. 14 54 18 33.3% W • Recommitlnent rates increase over time, ,Is do rearrest and 15 140 36 25.7% recom,iction rates. The level of incre~tse is much lower, however. 16 274 52 19.0% For FY 1998, the rate increased from 3.7% at 3 months to 17 425 29 6.8% m 18.3% at 36 months. 18 or older 467 1 0.2% • The 3- and (>month recommitment rates were steady between Toga/ 1,374 140 10.2% m FY 1998 and FY2001; the 12-month rate was steady between FY 1998 and FY 2000, then dropped slightly in FY 2001. Twelve-Month Reconmfitment Rates by Sex, Race, and Age- FY 1998-2001 W Demographic data for 12-month recommitment rates fo,JCC Releases are presented in the table above. • Males had higher recommitment rates than females. IB • Black juveniles had the highest recommitment rates, followed by whites and juveniles of other races. m Twelve-month Rmrrest and Reconviction Rates by Court District - FY 2001 Reoffense data for i,ldMdual CSUs can be found in the table on the following page. II • The CSU District is identified by the court that conmfitted the juveMe to the JCCs, or the court that placed the juvenile on p,'obation. • JCC Releases FY 2001 includes all juveniles who were committed to DJJ. Probation Placements FY 2001 includes a randomly 81 ~enerated representative sample of juveniles who were placed on probation during the fiscal year, calculated for each CSU. • hi FY 2001, District 17F ll;id tile lo~,est rearrest illld recoxlx'iction r~ltes for botl~ tile JCC Rele:lses and Probittioll Place11~eIlts (o~xl)'oxle juvenile released from the JCCs in FY 2001 was from District 17F). District 20W also shared the lowest reconviction rate for the JCC W Releases. The 17 I' District CSU had the second lowest JCC Releases rearrest rate, as well as the second lowest rearrest and reconviction rates for Probation Placements. The 30~h District had the second lowest reconviction rate forJCC Releases. • The 3,a District CSU had the highest rearrest rate and the second highest reconviction rate for FY 2001JCC Releases. 81 • The lyh District CSU had the second highest rearrest rate and the highest reconviction rate forJCC Releases m FY 2001; this district also had the second highest rearrest and reconviction rates for Probation Placements m FY 2001. Ill • For Probation Placements in FY2001, the 12 ~' District CSU had the highest rearrest rate, and the 6 'h District CSU had the highest reconviction ~;lte. II m W l)ala Resource Guide t:)2002 TWELVE-MONTH REARREST AND RECONVlCTION RATES BY COURT DISTRICT FY 2001 50 46.0% 32.0% 132 51.5% 29.5% 2nd 97 38.1% 27.8% 211 41.7% 29.4% 2A 28 42.9% 39.3% 91 22.0'7', 16.5% 3rd 54 70.4'¼, 55.6% 142 49.3'7,, 33. l'7,, 4th 81 43.2% 38.3'7', 266 38.3'7', 24.8% 5th 38 39.5'7,, 34.2% 113 35.4% 23.9% 6th 48 64.6% 54.2% 78 50.0% 41.0'¼, 7th 100 45.0% 34.0% 208 37.0% 24.5% 8th 60 53.3'7,, 43.3% 98 44.9% 30.6% 9th 34 47.1% 44.1% 169 37.3% 24.9% 10th 33 54.5% 45.5% 121 33.1'7', 19.0% I 1th 35 60.0% 31.4% 163 40.5% 23.9% 12th 31 58.1% 45.2% 139 56.8% 35.3% 13th 74 70.3% 60.8% 252 53.2% 37.7% 14th 51 51.0'7', 45.1(7', 212 38.2% 30.7% 15th 66 47.0% 33.3'¼, 272 38.2'7,, 28.3% 16th 65 53.8''/,, 47.7% 25() 33.2'7,, 21.2% 17th 46 21.7'7,, 15.2'7,, 171 21.6'7,, 13.5% 17 F l 0.0% 0.0% 36 8.3% 5.6'7,, 18th 8 62.5'7', 37.5% 147 38.1% 25.2'7,, 19th 79 36.7% 27.8% 258 24.0% 14.7'7,, 20L 9 55.6% 44.4% 74 51.4% 24.3% 20W 4 25.0% 0.0% 115 33.0% 23.5% 21st 21 47.6% 38.1% 162 37.0% 25.9°/`, 22nd 44 40.9% 25.0% 130 32.3% 20.8% 23rd 20 55.0% 55.0% 131 31.3'7, 15.3% 23A 20 65.0% 35.0"/0 73 52.1% 32.9°/,, 24th 49 49.0% 44.9% 219 41.1% 28.3% 25th 42 50.0°/`, 40.5% 169 47.9% 28.4% 26th 18 50.0"/,, 44.4% 121 38.0% 30.6% 27th 19 36.8% 36.8% 215 34.0% 24.2% 28th 14 50.0% 42.9% 173 22.0°/`, 17.3% 29th 14 42.9% 28.6'70 163 30.1% 14.7% 30th 8 50.0% 12.50/,, 163 25.8% 16.00/,, 31st 13 46.2% 38.5% 287 34.1% 24.4% Total 1. 374 48 8% 38. 8% 5, 724 3Z 2% 24. 8o/6o Virgini .... 8 l)ala Resource 6'uide F}2002 R Chronic: Offenders m The problem of offenders who reappear in the system time and REARREST FREQUENCY time again has existed for re:my yeal~. These chronic offenders tend NEW ARRESTS WITHIN FIRST TWELVE MONTHS m to have early contact with the criminal justice system, and progress to more serious and violent crimes as they grow older (Schumacher FY 2001 and Kurz, 2000). The problems presented by these chronic 70% I offenders have been noted m several studies. In The 8% Solution (Schumacher and Kurz, 2000), the authors discuss the implication 60{}/{) [-- for society ofj uveniles who have multiple contacts xvqththe juvenile justice system. Juveniles who had fou," or more contacts with the -- 50% W justice system were identified as chronic offende,~. They represented O 8% of juvenile offenders, but were responsible for 55% of repeat 40% delinquent cases within a three-year period. Other studies have D used four or more arrests as the threshold for chronic offender 30% status (Sickmund, Suyder, and Poe-Yamagata, 1997). {D :" 20% __ B For this study, Djj has identified juveniles with four or more new arrests within the first twelve months of release from a JCC, release froln the boot camp, or placement on probation in FY 2001 as chronic offendeJs, hi the table tothe fight, the percentage of juveniles 0% W with no new arrests is the exact reve,'se of the twelve-month rearrest No 1 2 3 4+ rates slaown on page 175. That is, the twelve-month rearrest rate Mvests An'est AJ ms ts Amests Chronic) S for FY 2001 JCC Releases was 48.8%, so 51.2% had no new arrests ijcc 51.2% 13.9% 13.4% 9.0% 12.5% duringthis time period. Juveniles with one, two, three, or four or more new arrests make up the 48.8% of the JCC Releases who had [] Probation 62.8% 13.6% 10.5% 5.8% 7.4% an arrest within the first twelve months. [] Boot Camp 56.6% 15.5% 14.2% 7.4% 6.1% m • TheJCC Release group had the highest percentage of chronic offenders; the Boot Camp Release group has the lowest m percentage of ct;ronic offenders. • Chronic offenders had the following characteristics in each group: NUMBER OF OFFENSES FOR JUVENILES ARRESTED o Among the JCC Releases, 96% of chronic offe,aders were m male. 70% were black, and 78% were 16-years-old or older. WITHIN FIRST TWELVE MONTHS o Among the Boot Camp Releases, 95°/(, of chronic offenders FY 2001 60% were ma].e. 68% were black and 63% were 16-years-old or i older. 50% o Unlike the other two groups, a larger pe,centage of chronic R offender,; in the Probation Placements group were female O 40% - ..... (12%). Additionally, oMy 51% were black and only 37% were ?. 16-years-old or older. Z -- 30% R As tim next table makes clear, the sm~fllHLlnlber of chronic offenders were responsible for the greatest number of new offenses (charges), 1---4 I- among juveniles who were rearrested. (Note: these arrests may not ra i s I have led to convictio:ls.) For e~unple, chronic offende,~ represented 10% I only 12.5% of all juveniles released from the JCCs in FY 2001, but I they were responsible for ahnost half of the total offenses (48.2°/o) 0%-- I This was tree for Probation Placements as well; 7.4% of the juveniles 1 2 3 I 4+ in this sample were responsible for 41.7%, of new offenses at arrest. RemTest Rearrests Reanests ](Chronic) For Boot Camp Releases, however, juveniles with only two arrests were responsible for slightly more charges thmathe chronic ofi'ende,~. j~ 10.6% 20.5% 20.7% 48.2('/,, I However, given the small number of chronic offenders (6.1%), it's Probation 15.2% 23.6% 19.4% I 41.7% clear that they were responsible fo, a disproportionately large ntunber [] Boot Camp 16.6% 30.3% 23.8% 29.3% i of new offenses. I~ I Data Resource Guide FY2002 II TIME UNTIL NEW ARREST CHRONIC OFFENDERS FY 2001 RECIDIVISM STUDIES CITED IN THIS REPORT: I I i I I ] For more information about juvenile recidivism, please see these other studies: jcc 31O/o I 29% ] [ flcvenileRccidivL~" Oregon ~Report onfltzenile REcidivL~m, 1995 - 1998. Oregon Youth Authority, April 2001. Probation • ' ', 2 6% 2 5% I www.oya.state.or.us/data.html Offender Ri~k A~ex~mentin ~rginia."A Three-StageEvaluation. Boot Camp 470/0 I 260/0 ] I I I [ Brian J. Ostrom, Matthew Kleiman, Fred Chessman 1I, i Randall M. Hansen, and Neal B. Kauder, 2002. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% WillLmasburg, VA: National Center for State Courts. The 8% Solmion: Preventing Serious, Repeat fltvenile Crime. •0-3 months H4-6 months V17-12 months] Michael Schumachermad Gwen A. Kurz, 2000. Thomand Among chronic reoffenders,those placedon probation reoffendedmore qtfickly Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. tkm JCC Releases or Boot Camp Releases. 49% of chronic offendersplaced on fltvenile offendeT~_and viaims: 1997update on violence. Melissa probation were rearrested within three months of release. In contrast, 40% of Sickanund, Howard N. Snyder,~md Eileen Poe-Ymnagata, II chronic offenders releasedfrom the JCCs reoffendedwithin three months, ~md 1997. Washin~on, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, only, 26% of chronic offenders releasedfrom the boot c~u'npwere rearrested in Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. II three months. RECONVICTION RATES FOR REARRESTED OFFENDERS CHRONIC VS. NON-CHRONIC OFFENDERS FY 2001 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 8~ 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% jog ] Probation Boot Camp • Chronic offenders 87.2% 83.1% 68.4% [] Non-chronic offenders 76.8% ] 62.6% 65.2% For all three groups, non-chronic offenders (juveniles with one, two, or three arrests within the first twelve months) were less likely to be reconvicted, when compared with chronic offenders. The difference is greatest for FY 2001 I Probation Placements, and smallest for FY 2001 Boot Camp Releases. The difference in reconviction rates for chronic versus non-chronic offenders further supports the notion that a relatively small proportion of offenders is responsible for a disproportionately large amount of juvenile crime. 0 Q Dala Resom'ce Guide F}2002 m m D E B B m B I m S @ g R B @ a D J I J 1 <. i t< .... ,. , ¢ e ! , J ,J r', ,. t /,; \., Y 1 I 'X., . ,\ "t, ~.__) ~ t',; i J Data Resource Gttide FY2002 Appendix A CSU STAFFING AS OF JUNE 30, 2002 0 23 4 1 inia Beach 9.5 0 33 6 2A- Accomack 3 0 6 1 1 11 3 - Portsmouth 6 0 17 3 1 27 4 - Norfolk 15 0 61 11 1 88 5 - Suffolk 4 0 10 2 1 17 6 - Hopewell 6 0 11 2 1 20 7 - Newport News 9 0 32 5 1 47 8- Hampton 8 0 201 3 1 32 9- Williamsburg 5 0 14 2 1 22 10- Charlotte Court House 6 0 15 2 1 24 11 - Petersburg 6 0 13 3 1 23 12- Chesterfield 7 1 19 3 1 31 13 - Richmond 10.5 1 34 7 1 53.5 14 - Henrico 8 0 21 4 1 .34 15- Fredericksburg 8 1 26 4 1 40 16- Cha,'lottesville 7.5 0 16 3 1 2Z5 18- Alexandria 5 0 14 3 1 23 20L- Loudotm 3 1 7 2 1 14 20W- Warrenton 1 0 3 1 1 6 21 - Martinsville 3 0 12 2 1 18 22 - Rocky Mount 5.5 0 16 2 1 24.5 23 - Salem 2 0 9 2 1 14 23A - Roanoke 4 0 14.5 3 1 22.5 24 - Lynchburg 7 0 21 3 1 32 i25- Staunton 7 0 18 2 1 28 '26- Winchester 4 0 11 2 1 18 27- Pulaski 6 0 14.5 3 1 24.5 28 - Abingdon 4 0 10.5 1 1 16.5 29- Pearisburg 6.5 Ii 14 2 1 24.5 30- Gate City, 4 0 11 2 1 18 31 - Manassas 5 6 I I / m Data Resoltrce Gttide 1,32002 B Appendix B m JOG STAFFING AS OF JUNE 30, 2002 U 1 1 Assistant Superintendent 2 1 m Gptam 1 1 1 1 8 Lieutenant 4 m~~m 3 3 3 33 Sergeant 15 28 27 12 18 7 6 12 125 D lCO/lCO St. 58 172 137 70 74 35 27 68 641 Treatment Staff 8 20 21 5 11 8 5 20 98 Medical Staff 2 4 0 5 2 2 0 0 15 D Mahatenance Staff 4 14 0 8 8 3 0 0 37 Food Service Staff 0 16 0 12 14 8 0 0 50 Clefical/Administnmve Staff 8 19 14 12 9 4 7 14 87 lm BSU St~f 1 20 15 5 11 1 2 14 69 I W ~dix C W JOG EXPEl 2002 Im ii||m l)erso~lal Services 8,521,312 ' 12,~:'~_ 4,273,266 5,908,988 3,208,089 5,2.~'~ ;~,939,059 2,238,613 $47,365,677 Co, it ract ual Services 1,023,256 634,324 619,195 86,735 ~/¢ 8~402 574,465 157,293 ~¢, 5,154,519 W Supphes & Materials 331,797 1,530,756 282,401 ~,:~,628 ~~/ff'/ 316,363 550,288 139,070 $ 4,116,599 @ Cont it luous ~S C]~.~es 236,430 345,976 116033 ..~ 43,482 204,001 184,484 48,567 $ 1,337,461 l~quil)ment 175,738 249,460 125,916 21~£~4' " " 6 lg5,420 105,746 42,867 S 1,156,854 "l'nmsfer M Payments 11,066 16,276 2,4~[. ~80/~ 2,932 ~~ 101 10,960 0 S 51,800 Property .mid Improve,rants 11,423 0 1,803 0 ~ % 0 4,882 $ 18,108 I Plmat mid l,~}~rovenents 3,276 /~r#~.T ~ 0 12T200 13,775 1,994 $~'~<, ~"j~..~ 0 $ 321527 7~1 $10,314,298 .~.~c8,~517134 $6,201,050 $7,576,443 $3,724,755 6,595,57l ,'7,365,002~{8~,292 $59,233,545 W PER CAPITA Cos1 2002 W $59,403.00 Capita Cost $17 of Correctional Education Per Capita Cost $77,313. Total cost to hold one juvenile for one year W W I ~R3 W g Data Resource Guide FF2002 Appendix D FACILITY CLASSIFICATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR PLACEMENT - FY 2002 Classlf, cation A nge LOS! parameters ` ~cili 7. i; Level~l .)i i I i :: !. ~,}1I- '~ RDC I, II, III, IV 11-20 Indeterminate: Max. = 36 months MALES & Determinate: ALL FEMALES Major Offender: ALL Barrett I, II, III 15-18 Indeterminate: Max. = 18 months, Min. = 9 months Determinate: Max. = 12 months, Min. = 6 months Major Offender: Max. = 18 months~ Min. = 9 months Beaumont II, III, IV 15-20 Indeterminate: Max. = 36 months Determinate: ALL Major Offender: ALL Hanover II, III, IV 11-18 Indeterminate: Max. = 36 months Determinate: ALL Major Offender: ALL Bon Air MALES: 11-20 MALES: Indeterminate: Max. = 36 months I, II, III Determinate: Max. = 36 months Maior Offender: NONE FEMALES: FEMALES: Indeterminate: Max. = 36 months I, II, Ill, IV Determinate: ALL Major Offender: ALL Culpeper II, III, IV 16-20 Indeterminate: Max. = 36 months Determinate: ALL Major Offender: ALL Oak Ridge I, II, III, IV 11-20 Indeterminate: Max. = 36 months Determinate: ALL Major Offender: ALL qamral Bridge I, II 15-20 Indeterminate: Max. = 15 months Determinate: Max. = 12 months Major Offender: Max. = 6 months; CCRC may approve longer Note: Beginningin June 2002, Culpeper JCC becaaneVirginia's first female-onlyjuvenile correction'alcenter. All females at Bon AirJCC were moved to Culpeper, and males at Culpeper were distributed appropriately among otherJCCs. The facility classifications and guidelines were adjusted as part of this change. Ii Data Resource Gu#te FY2002 II Appendix E m LENGTH OF STAY GUIDELINES m SEVERITY LEVEL AND RELATED OFFENSES LOS iI.eve t OffefiseiType i .Example I Cl~tss 1 Ivlisdeme~mors Simple Assault ;rod und:tssified felonies c,ur)~lg a m ~L,zhn um sentence of one "~e~u" @ Class 4, 5 ~md 6 Felonies Unauthorized Use ~md undassified felonies C,UT3ing a Extortion @ Ill;.LXilll Ulll sentence of 10 xe~ Class 3 Felonies Bm~lary ;rod undassified felonies c,u~,mg a Gnmd Lm-ceny ! nl;Lxiln unl sentence of 20 -~ears Mrdido u s Wo u nd m Clxss 1 and 2 Felonies Armed Robbe O, ~md undassified felonies c,u'134ng a Rape D IlliLXilllLIIll sentence of more tll,m 20 )e;u~ al's Ol1 g INITIAL LOS STEPS AND ADJUSTMENTS TO DETERMINE FINAL LOS RANGE m 1-1:" Exceptional LOS of 3 - 6 months I 1-2, 1-3, 2-1, 2-2 6- 12 months + + 9- 15 monttxs g 1-4, 2-3, 2-4, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3 12 - 18 months + + 15 - 21 months Q + 18 - 24 months 3-4~ 4-11 4-2~ 4-3~ 4-4 18 - 36 months + 21- 36 months S + 24 - 36 monttas ::Numbers refer to Current and Prior Offense Severity respectively,, according to the Severity Level table above. For example, a juvenile has an initial LOS Step of 1-3. This means that the LOS level for the Current Offense is,l, and the I LOS level for the Prior Offense is 3. This juvm~le will have an LOS range of 6-12 months, barring any adjtlstments for a~ravating or mitigating circumstances. J m S m i Data Resource Guide FY2002 Appendix F INITIAL CLASSIFICATION CUSTODY DESIGNATION FORM INITIAL CUSTODY DESIGNATION FORM II SECTION A i]=h,doI¢.] ';~];,] I[~~~; L DATEt ASSESSMENT MM-DD-YYYY DATE' MM-DD-YYYY0. UV N, E[ 3 LAST NAME FIRST NAME 5 MIDDLEINITIAL 6 SUFFIX # 7 BIRTH DATE MM-DD-YYYY ]~ 9 SEX M=MALE F=FEMALE 10 COMMITTINGCOURT (FIPS) 2. PRIOR OFFENSE HISTORY / 100 = Person Felony with Injury Most serious prior offense (according to l 50 = Person Felony wdhout Injury, Weapons Felony, or Circuit Court Commitment for Non-Person the scale shown on the right, with Offense "Person Felony with Injury" being the 25 = Person Misdemeanor (with or without mlury) most serious) for which the ward has 10 = Other Felony been adjudicated guilty 5 = Non-Person Misdemeanor Offense 0 = Traffic Offense, Status Offense, or None 3 PRIOR COMMITMENTS 25 = More than One Prior Commitment to DJJ 15 = One Prior Commitment to DJJ 0 = No Prior Commrtments 4 ASSAULTIVE BEHAVIOR DURING 350 = One or More Instances of Assaultive Behavior wdh Injury PRIOR COMMITMENTS TO D J J, IN 175 = More than One Instance of Assaulhve Behavior without Injury SECURE DETENTION, OR PRIOR 50 = One Instance of Assaultive Behavior without Injury, or a Pattern of Aggressive Behavior ALTERNATIVE/SPECIAL PLACEMENTS 0 = None or No Prior Commitments Assaultive behavior refers to unprovoked assaults, not fights, Frequent fights may indicate a pattern of aggressive behavior. Does not include detention immediately preceding current commrtment 5. INSTITUTIONAL ADJUSTMENT 350 = Serious Threat to tnslilutional Security/Safety (pattern of predatory behavior; harassing peers, (RDC/DETENTION) physically aggressive) RDC Staffing Team Assessment 175 = Moderate Threat to Instduhonal Secunty/Safely (opposltlonal/defiant behavior, no pattern of Includes time at RDC and hme in detenhon predatory behavior, overtly resistant to authority; mild verbal or physical aggression) immediately preceding current 50 = Frequent Compliance Problems, Not a Threat to Institutional Security/Safety commdment 25 = Some Compliance Problems (slow to comply w~th authority) 0 = Good Adjustment 6 ESCAPE OR RUNAWAY HISTORY 350 = One or More Escapes or Attempts to Escape from Any Facility or Police Custody. With Force Against a Person 175 = One or More Escapes o~- Attempts to Escape from a Secure Facility or Pohce Custody 50 = One or More Escapes or Runaways from Non-secure Faclhty or Home 0 = None 7. CUSTODY TOTAL SUM OF ITEMS 1 thru 6 8 ASSIGNEDCUSTODY LEVEL r (Form-assigned) / I = 5-50 Points II = 55-245 Pomts III = 250-495 Points IV = 500-1425 Points 1 STATURE EXTRA SMALL SMALL MEDIUM LARGE EXTRA LARGE 2 SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CONCERNS - MARK "X" FOR ALL THAT APPLY' 3. RECOMMEND OVERRIDE OF FORM-ASSIGNED CUSTODY LEVEL NONE NO YES PENDING CHARGES - CUSTODY LEVEL (AFTER OVERRIDE)_ INSTITUTIONAL PREDATORY OFFENSE - REASON (REQUIRED) KNOWN MANAGEMENT PROBLEM __ Cnmlnal investigation ongoing ESCAPE RISK __ Pending court charges LOW FUNCTIONING __ Unusually vlolent/helnous/notonous current offense __ Predatory/manipulative behavior resulting in the form of mental MENTAL HEALTH RISKJ DISABILITY or physical abuse of others SUICIDE RISK __ Ward's behavior is significantly better than indicated by the SPECIAL EDUCATION form (reduce custody level) GANG MEMBER Other PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT 4 INSTITUTION RECOMMENDED SPECIAL MEDICAL NEEDS ENEMIES - INSTITUTION KNOWN ASSOCIATES - INSTITUTION OTHER 5 COUNSELOR SUPERVISOR PRINT SIGNATURE REVISED DATE: FEBRUARY 12, 2001 D Data Kesottrce Guide F12002 m Appendix G W RECLASSIFICATION FORM, PAGE 1 CUSTODY RECLASSIFICATION FORM - PAGE ONE W _ _ ...... j ...... ,. 1 ASSESSMENT DATE: MM-DD-YYYY . 2. INSTITUTION 3. LAST NAME I 4. FIRSTNAME 5. MIDDLE INITIAL I 6. SUFFIX W i i 9. SEX M=MALE F=FEMALE 10. COUNSELOR 11 PREVIOUS IV= MAXIMUM Ill=HIGH 12 RECLASSIFICATION REASON, 1 = QUARTERLY REVIEW W CUSTODY" II = MEDIUM I = LOW 2 = INCIDENT 3 = INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFER 4 = REVISION/CORRECTION/OTHER i SECTION B q I[~ I[O] I]h'l~'~e] :( I ~[~ --~'"*"'~l BEHAVIOR PRIOR TO CURRENT COMMITMENT W 1. SEVERITY OF CURRENT 250 = Person Felony with Injury OFFENSE 150 = Person Felony without Injury, Weapons Felony, or Circuit Court Commitment for Most serious current offense (according Non-Person Felony to the scale shown on the right, with 50 = Person Misdemeanor (wdh or without injury) am "Parson Felony with Injury" being the 25 = Other Felony most serious) for which the ward has 10 = Non-Person M=sdemeanor Offense been adjudacated guilty, including any 5 = Parole Violation or Traffic Offense delainers. 2 PRIOR OFFENSE HISTORY 100 = Person Felony with Injury Most serious prior offense (according to 50 = Person Felony without Injury, Weapons Felony, or Circuit Court Commitment for W the scale shown on the right, with Non-Person Offense "Person Felony with Injury" being the 25 = Person Misdemeanor (with or without injury) most serious) for which the ward has 10 = Other Felony been adjudicated guilty 5 = Non-Person Misdemeanor Offense 0 = Traffic Offense, Status Offense, or None am 3 PRIOR COMMITMENTS 25 = More than One Pnor Comm=tment to DJJ 15 = One Prior Commitment to DJJ 0 = No Prior Commitments 4. ESCAPE OR RUNAWAY HISTORY 350 = One or More Escapes or Attempts to Escape from Any Facility or Police Custody, With Force Against a Person w 175 = One or More Escapes or Attempts to Escape from a Secure Facility or Police Custody 50 = One or More Escapes or Runaways from Non-secure Facility or Home 0 = None INSTITUTIONAL ADJUSTMENT w 5 ASSAULTIVE/ESCAPE BEHAVIOR 400 = One or More Instances of Assault (Major Offense) with Injury, or Only offenses for which the ward has Escapes/Attempts to Escape During Past 90 Days been found guilty. 300 = One or More Instances of Assault (Major Offense) with Injury During Past Year A ward displays a pattern of aggressive 200 = One or More Instances of Escapes/Attempts to Escape During Past Year behavior by having at least four 150 = One or More Instances of Assault (Major Offense) without Injury, During Past 90 w inslances of the following over a six- Days month period 100 = One or More Instances of Assault (Major Offense) without Injury, During Past Fighting Year, OR Displayed a Pattern of Aggressive Behavior Over Past Six Months Simple Assault (Moderate Offense) 0 = No Instances of Escape or Assault (Major Offense), or None Within the Past Verbal Threats/Physical Gesturing Year a Throwing Objects -100 = No Instances of Escape or Assault (Major Offense) During Past 18 Months (Not Abusive Language/Obscene Gesturing To Be Used Until Ward Has Remained With DJJ for at Least 18 Months) 6. FREQUENCY OF INSTITUTIONAL 300 = More Than Two Majors, During Past 90 Days OFFENSES 150 = Two or Fewer Majors, During Past 90 Days Only offenses for which the ward has 50 = More Than Ten Moderates, During Past 90 Days w been found guilty 0 = Ten or Fewer Moderates, During Past 90 Days -50 = No Offenses, During Past 90 Days -100 = No Institutional Offenses for Six Months or More 7 "I'REATMENT PROGRAM 200 = Expelled From Program for Disruptive Behavior, During Past 90 Days PARTICIPATION 100 = No Participation (Refuses to Participate, On Suspension), During Past 90 Days g 0 = Awaiting Services, During Past 90 Days -25 = Fair Participation, During Past 90 Days -50 = Good Participation, During Past 90 Days -75 = Good Participation for Six Months or More -100 = Completed All Programs 8. EDUCATION/WORK PROGRAM/ 200 = Behavior is Consistently Seriously Disruptive, During Past 90 Days w VOCATIONAL TRAINING 100 = No Participation, During Past 90 Days PARTICIPATION 0 = Is Not In an EducationalNocational Program -25 = Fair Participation, Dunng Past 90 Days -50 = Good Participation, During Past 90 Days -100 = Good Participation for Six Months or More, or Successfully Completed Program w 9. CUSTODY TOTAL SUM OF ITEMS 1 thru 8 10. FORM-RECOMMENDED RECLASSIFICATION I = 50 or Fewer Points II = 55-245 Points III = 250-495 Points IV = 500 or More Points w REVISION DATE: JULY 31, 2002 w B Data Resource GuMe F)2002 RECLASSIFICATION FORM, PAGE 2 CUSTODY RECLASSIFICATION FORM- PAGE TWO I ; SECTION C t t PLACEMENT CONSIDERATIONS 1 STATURE EXTRA SMALL SMALL MEDIUM LARGE EXTRALARGE 2. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CONCERNS - MARK "X" FOR ALL THAT APPLY: NONE SERVED 75% OR MORE OF MINIMUM LOS SUICIDE RISK SERVED 75% OR MORE OF MAXIMUM LOS SPECIAL EDUCATION NEEDS PAST MAXIMUM LOS DRUG TRAFFICKER PENDING CHARGES GANG MEMBER INSTITUTIONAL PREDATORY OFFENSE PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT KNOWN MANAGEMENT PROBLEM SPECIAL MEDICAL NEEDS ESCAPE RISK ENEMIES - INSTITUTION LOW FUNCTIONING KNOWN ASSOCIATES - INSTITUTION MENTAL HEALTH RISK/DISABILITY OTHER 3 TREATMENT NEEDS- CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY. 4. RECOMMEND OVERRIDE OF FORM-ASSIGNED CUSTODY LEVEL M = MANDATORY R=RECOMMENDED NO A =ANCILLARY YES - CUSTODY LEVEL (AFTER OVERRIDE),__ M R A ANGER CONTROL - REASON (REQUIRED): M R A SUBSTANCE ABUSE __ Criminal investigation ongoing M R A SUBSTANCE ABUSE - BARRETT __ Pending court charges THERAPEUTIC COMMUNITY __ Unusually violent/heinous/notorious current M R A SEX OFFENDER - PRESCRIPTIVE offense M R A SEX OFFENDER - SELF-CONTAINED UNIT __ Predatory/manipulative behavior resulting in R A INDEPENDENT LIVING SKILLS the form of mental or physical abuse of others __ Ward's behavior is s~gnificantly better than indicated by the form (reduce custody level) Other 5. INSTITUTION RECOMMENDED 6. COTTAGE RECOMMENDED (if the ward is not changing institutions). 7. NEXT REVIEW DATE" MM-DD-YYYY 8. CHAIR - Treatment Team PRINT SIGNATURE REVISION DATE: JULY 31, 2002 Ill Data Reso.rce Guide F)2002 B Appendix H Ill RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT B Virgini-i I)el)-irltnent of.luvenile ,hnslice Risk Assessment B Name: ,ITS#: A~si's~ nlCIll I)ale: / / Dale of Birth: / / Officer Name: W Score I. Age at Firsl Referral to CSU a. 14 or older...... 0 D b 13 or VOIIDgCI'...... I 2. Tolal Numher of Adjudicated Offenses (separate incidents) in Most Recent Disposition a. One ...... 0 b, Two ()r I~IOI'C...... I B 3. Total Nulnber (ff I)elith)ns for Violent Ol'fellses (separlite h|citlents) hi Yo|llh's Record a Two or less ...... 0 b. TJlrcc or I110rc ...... I B 4. Total Nlllllt)er of I)etitions for Drug or Conspiracy Offenses (sel)arale incidcnls) irl Youltlrs Record a. None ...... 0 b. One ...... I C -"[~-%O . OI. ll|Olt2,, ...... 9 m 5. Types of Petitions for Properly Offense (separate incidenls) in Youth's Record __ Burghu'y __ Larceny (inch]des auto theft) __ F'raud __ Arson __ Ti-cspass/ValldaliSlll a, NOlIC ...... 0 b. one type ...... I B c. Two lypcs ...... 2 d. Three types ...... 3 6. Slll)Stllnee Abuse B a, None ,,)r I'~xpcrlnicntalion Only/No I)r,ablclll ...... 0 b. Problematic use or alcohol and/or other drugs ...... i 7. School SIll| IIS a a. Attending regularly or altcndhlg btlt truancy problems ...... 0 b, l)rol~p~:d out/ExD.41¢d ...... 2 8. Peer Group a, No nggaliv¢ associations or _VOtl[h is a [Oiler ...... --2 b, Some delinquent peers ...... 0 B c. Mostly dclir..lucnt peers ...... 2 t), History of Rilliaways/Escape a. No ...... 0 B b. Yes ...... 2 I0. Youth a Victim of Child AI)lnse/Neglect a. No ...... 0 b. Yes, referred DSS for alleged or rounded CA/N complaint ...... 2 I II. Family Functioning a. No problem ...... -I b. Some disorganization ...... 0 c. M,Hor disorganization ...... Ill 12. Family Member (Parent/Sibling)on I)robation or Incarcerated in I)ast Three Years a. No ...... 0 b. Yes, Parent I:igure OR Sibline ...... I B c. Yes, I'arent Figure AND Sibling~" ...... o Risk Level: Low (-3 to I) iXloderale ( 2 to 7) tligh ( 8 to 21) TOTAL RISK SCORE In I 0/01/0(I (Reproduee Front-to-Back) I)JJ Form 9260 page / o1"2 D I Data Resoume Guide F} 2002 I RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUCTIONS RISK INSTRUMENT I)EFINITIONS I. Age at First Referral to CSU - I)ctcmline Itle )oudfs age at the thnc he/she yeas first rcrcrred to the CN[~ I'or a dclirLquerLt or status ol'lk'nse. I)o nut include referrals for dependent) or cusmd). The outcome {e.g.. di'+ertcd, petitioned} of the first referral doe.~ nnt matter. 2. Nomber of Adjndicated Offenses I)isposed of tit Cnrrenl Disposition - ]hL, is a count of the nun+her of AI)JUI)ICATIeD ()FFENSF+S that v, ere/arc to be Oh, posed tlfat the current di~,f,o+itional hearing. I)o not inchldc an.'. ol'[L'nscs/chargcs that ~+ err.' not adjudicated. Itl countln~ adludlea[cd olrcnses. CO[Itll t+nl) tho~,c Ihat represented :-,eparate hlc[delltS. If a youth was adjudicated l'{+r tx+o burglaries that occurred on tx~o d[frcrcnt l+ights that i5 lxxo a¢[+udicalion'.,, l lov+e,,cr+ il'a .x oulh x'.as involved it+ a robber}' and +tit chargcd/a¢[judicated ibr multiple Cotlnls el" le>,scr illcluded offense_,, (e.g.. robber), a>,>ault, theli) that ~,hould bc Cotlnlcd [IS lille ofli:nse, not three. 3. Total Petitioos for Violent Offenses - This is u count of all Iq~TI+I'I(INS Ii+r + iolcnt ol'rcnsc> in the )outh'b record+ Be >urc to count till}' {nld all petition~; li)r ;iolent orl'cnscs that occurred tip to the date oJ'the currcrlt dispo>,itlon (CXCll il'the) hate lie[ }el been a~[iudieatcd or disposed ol'L The pctilion++, nlubt rel]¢ct separate incidcnls, not nlultipl¢ chargc~, arising li+onl the same incident Violent oI'fcIlSCS include all Ol]+CI15CS[lgtllnM pcrson~, that are aSSalllti~.c ill nature including f~hltl) and nlibdelncanor as.:-,atllt>,+ kidnapping, mnrdcr, arnlcd robber}. [lilt] robber)+ ca@lcklng, bCXtKII tlSbauhs, etc. 4. Total Petitions for I)rug or Conspiracy Offenses - This is a COUTII of all l'l:l I I IONS in the '.onth's record fur drug charges (sales. possession x~ [th inlcnt ill +,ell try,c. p~+s~,ession) or for conspiracy charges. ('otnlt on[} Iho~,e pelt[ran>+ arising from +,cparate incldenls, not multiple charges arr+,ing I]'om the Mnnc incident. If[ +',ntllh gels arrC:+rtCd for drug '+ale!, [lilt] gel-~ three separate petitions a[leging sales tnld possess+ion, thai i5 one incident (nol ix'co) [nld should hc counted [is one petition. Be ~ure to count an) ~nld all drug or consplrac} pclitioils I]lat occurred tip to Ihc date oJ'the ctlrrellt disposition+ 5.Types of Petitions for I)roperly Offenses - I Ills i,, a eonnl of the number of dilTcrcnt I YPI]S of propert) el'tense petition,,. It is not a connt or the total number of petitions li~r propert) ol'lk'nscs. There arc a total of fix e difrcrcnt t'+ DeS of proper[+,, offenses thai are corlsidcred bllr~l[lO: hlrccn}: l'ratld: tirson; tllld trgs.pab~;/'~tlndaliSlll+ Check the \Ollth'y, entire record to dctellllillC ho~.'+ Ill{ill) tit these diffcretlt t)pcs tile }outh has hccll petllioilcd l+t+r. As ably+c, only COlllll peti[ion +, art,sing fi-onl ~,eparate incident',. If a '+Ollth connllittcd {lnc hurgkt~ during '++bich he stole bonlethlng+ lind 'd. tlS petitioned lilt hur tllal) and thel'L that'5 one petition. Ill StlCJl eases, count the InoM seriou:, t.,. pc. Be ',ure to cOtllll ;ill} rind all property of&'llsc petition +, that occurred up to tile current di~,ptv, ition. 6. SLI list[liCe A I)IlM.' - Indic{lie the degree to ++ hlch drug/alcohol ill ~. Oix ClllClll I1[1.~ [ll'l)clcd )otnh'b norlnBI l'tnlclililiillg ill tile 1V~II ) ears prior to I[lC ctlrrellt disposition Consider holh l'reqtlcnc} (e,g+. -occashlnar'. "l'ret]ucnl") [lid cFIL.cl of u~,e ["Sl)lne" or +st.'rio[P. disruptil)n/inler terence"). No Problem/experimentalion: no Jibe Or c~ccasional use that does not rcbllh I[1 disrllptlon or time[toning, uses less th[tn OllCe per then[t1: OR there frequcnl tlSC htil relationship<; x~ ilh pare[its nol strained oxer Jibe or in~ ol'~enlcnl t~ith using peers: ANI) no school problenls associated ~ ith use: ANI) no iirrcsts I'()r I)ii\ rclaled ol}'CllSe~ #.~LIlhin paM I~.to )ears). Problelllalie: use or substailccs is a.~soc[alcd with sonic or rattier disrnplion of ftnlctinning+ Fantil) rchition~hips in[) ha,,u' hccolnc slraincd over use; OI4 slroilg ties to I)/A in,,nhed peers: ()R deterioration ill school pcrforlnance believed Ill bc dru~/alcohol rclaled: OR one or more :,chool disciplina O' aclions related Io b,tlh.Mallce abtise; ()R one or inert ~,tlbMallee abtl~e- related arrests (past P.'+o +',ears): ()R {111) rcrcFral ill p(l$1 t'e+o .', cars f¢lr OLII-patietll or in-patieot Ireatlnent l'tlr I)'/\ abuse; ( )l~. admittctl or diagnosed depertdcnc_,.. 7. School Slalus- htdicate v. hethcr the 'south is enrolled and attending school, or hay bccn c\pelled or has dropped out. If the \ou01 has truancy problems, but is Mitt going'lo school, he/she shouM be gi,+'cn a score or--0". I Io,.'+c,.cr, if the ,+ oulh has been truani li~r lllllr¢ than half the days in the last 9 inolllhs o~" school collsider Ihclll Io htl ~. e "'dropped otll'" (and score "':Y'I. 8. Peer rehiiionships - Use tile definitions below to guide the scnring ilrthis henl No negative associations or yolJlh is a hmer: ['ricnch, ilol knov, n to bc clclinquent or to ha'~c inl]ucnced )tlulh'b invo]venlenl in delinquent beha,, ior- no nlorc Ihan one referral in','olving co-dcl)ndaills: OR .", oulh ha~. no'for+ friend++,: engages in solita~' pursuits and/or spends rnost tirnc WilI+Lmuch younger children. Some delinquenl peers: some companions involved in delinquenl behavior. Has had co-del+endanls in 2-3 arrests and/or some friends have been referred to jnvenile co[ft. Mostly delinquent peers: primacy peer group has a stnmg delinquent orientation and/or inost friends ha~ c been referred to juvenile eourl+ and/or f{lur or more arrests in ~, olving eodel'~ndanls: and or yO[llh [S [1 gang (it" posse mcnlbcr or al'filiatc. 9. Hislorv of Ruoaways/Eseapes - Indic[It whelhcr the youth has a history of multiple runa~a) s from home Idefined as being gone lilt 24 hours or more) OR had ever runav, ay or escaped I'rom a placelncnl lhcilit) (secure or non-sccurel. The lime frame l'~r this question is "'ever". 10. Referred to I)SS - Indicate v+hclher the youth '+Mls c~,cr referred to DSS +.is a viclim of child abuse of neglect. I1 does not matter if the allc+,ation ,.;'as foundcd/stibstantiated or not. I I. Family FunclionTog Characlerislics- Use the definitions below to determine the extent of family disorganization. No Problem: family llmctioning was basically stable and supportive Physical and cmotiorail need+,, td')ou01 ','+ere being met. Parental discipline and control ,,;ere generally clTcclivc. Some Disorganization: thm/ly problems niter[trod v, ith youth fnnctioning (or)Ollth problems interfered '+'+ith famil?. functioningh Parent-parent or parent-child conl]icl occnrred t~recluently and al Ihnc~ v, as disrtipti;e. (-)R parental disciphne and control ','+ere often ineffecti,.e or inconsistent, OR there v, as residential instability or financial problems, or there had been: recent disruptive event such [kq divorce, remarriage or a death ill the lhmil)'. Major Disorganizalion: problems severely inhibited Ihc youth's ability to fimction. Youth's ph)steal or emotional need.,, were not being met. OR parent rt~iecting of or refused responsibility lbr youlh, t)R chronic, serious paremal problems ~ rillancial. mental heal01, illness, criminality). OR parent-parent or parent-child conflict occurred consislenlly and created lurm,,fil. OR repeated iris[antes of l+anlily violence, OR parental discipline alltl conlrol wcrc ~i]tlll)sl non-¢xiblenl. ()R parents co/llributed to youth+s dehnquency. 1 7'. Family Criminality - Indicate ~hethcr a parent figure or sibling (or both) '.'.[is on probation/par'ole or incarcerated during the three years prior to the current disposition. Incarccnitcd [no[ins sentenced to incarceration (do not inchldc pre-triai jail or detention.) Ifa parent OR a sibling had been on probalion or mcareeratcd, score "" I-. If I~OTII had been. score "'2"'. Parent figure includes natural parents+ step-parents and It'+ e-in boyfriends/girlfriends. Do not lllcludc [nJills. uncles+ or other tel[IS.e5 unless tile} tire caretakers/parent figures. I 0/0 WOO (Back Side of Form 9260) DJJ Form 9260 page 2 of 2 Virginia -~ l Dala Resom'ce G#h'le FF2002 m Appendix 0 N! MISCELLANEOUS/OTHEROFFENSES The following offense categories were grouped into the combined category of"Miscell~meous/Other" in the offense distribution tables in this report. The), were selected to be collapsed into this category due to their low incidence. Abortion IN Accomplice Aircnfft/Aviation Artim~ds Arrests (for use by State Police) BarratU Boating Bribery, Computer Crime Conservation J Conspi,acy Dangerous Conduct Dog/Cat Offenses Drags/Cosmetics Misbranded Erosion Control Extortion IN Fedend Offense Gambling Game, Fish, Wildlife HeAth {ill Judici~ Reviews Juvenile & Domestic Court- Other Lottery iN Marriage Ltw Mental Health MiscellaneousCrime tN Ordinmme, CitT, or County Paraphernalia, Controlled g Patemit-y Peace, Conservator of the Perjury, Prisoners iN Professions and Occupations Psychiatric Inpatient Treatment Riot And Unlax~dul Assembly @ School- Student's Behavior School Attend~mce Sex Offenses J Solicitation T~x Ltxx,~ Trade And Commerce Traffic- Perjury Treason Venue Violent Activities iN Wire Cormnunications IN i[ " 'r ' , 1 , , I I Data Resource Guide FY2002 Appendix J I CODE OF VIRGINIA: CITATIONS PERTAINING TO DJJ ~16.1-222 Established; powers of Director [Virginia Juvenile Justice Information System] This code section establishes a separate infonnation system for collecting and maintaining information on juveniles who have had contact with the juvenile justice system. 16.1-246 When and how child may be taken into immediate custody This statute explains when and how a child may be taken into in~nediate custody and outlines the acceptable offense classifications ! and scenarios. 16.1-247 Duties of person taking child into custody This code section dictates the duties of an official taking a child into custody. It provides specific release options, mandates for parties to notify, and time-fr~unes for judicial review. It differentiates between instances when the court is open and the court is closed. This statute also indicates how long a juvenile that is not being transferred to a facility or institution may be held in custody and where that juvenile may be held. I 16.1-248.1 Criteria for detention or shelter care This statute specifies the criteria for placement in secure detention and shelter care, outlining the acceptable offense classifications and scenarios. 16.1-260 Intake; petition; investigation This code section explains the process for filing petitions for matters falling under the bailiwick of the J&DR court. It also establishes the modes of communication deemed acceptable to process a petition, defines when an intake officer may use his or her discretion to proceed irdonnally without filing a petition, dictates when a petitioi~ must be filed, and incltldes ]an~age about appealing an intake officer's decision. ~16.1-269.1 Trial in circuit court; preliminary hearing; direct indictment; remand This statute describes the procedure used to transfer cases (for juveniles age fourteen or older) deemed more appropriate for circuit court. The criteria used to detennine such appropriateness are ii1$odescribed. ~16.1-270 Waiver of jurisdiction of juvenile court in certain cases This section of the code establishes criteria used for juveniles fourteen years of age or older to have a case transferred to the appropriate circuit court. 16.1-278.5 Children in need of supervision (CHINSup) This statute spells out what reports and evaluations must be completed on CHINSup cases. It also specifies which public agencies are to be involved in the evaluation process and what dispositional options are available. 16.1-284.1 Placement in secure local facility (post-dispositional) This code section addresses the criteria (age, offense history, commitment history, response to past treatment efforts) for post- dispositional placement in a secure local facility. It ,also spells out the time-fr~unes for mandatory, judicial reviews, establishes the ma.ximtma length of a j uvenile's stay, and references the Department of Juvenile Justice's role in assisting localities. ~16.1-285 Duration of commitn~nts This section establishes DJJ's authority to con'unit a juvenile for an indeterminate period, as well as the time and age limits for such cormnitments. The section also specifies that the Department has the authority to discharge juveniles from its custody. ~16.1-285.1 Commitment of serious offenders This code section addresses conditions considered by the court when making a decision to determinately conmxit a juvenile to the DJJ. The court specifies the period of commitment. 16.1-292 Violation of court order by any person This statute provides the dispositional alternatives available to the court in contempt of court cases. It specifically spells out dispositions that can be utilized for juveniles found to have willfully and materially violated a court order pursuant to ~ 16.1- 278.5: Child in need of supervision (CHINSup). ~16.1-309.2 Purpose and intent [VirginiaJuvenile Community Crime Control Act] This section of code establishes the purpose and general goals for the VJCCCA, including assistance to local cormnunities for service planning and delivery. PRO P E RTY OF National Criminal dusticc. !8# S 0>v/ oD Box 6000 lqockvitle, MD 20849-6000 .... m Dala Resom'ce Guide F)2002 m Appendix 14 m DETENTION ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT, PAGE 1 el VIR(;INIA DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILF~ JUSTICE DETENTION ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT m .luvenile Name: I)OB: / / Juvenile #: ICN# Intake l)ate: / / Time: : IIIAM [--]1'51 Worker Name: CSU #: __ ('omlileled as l)art of l)etention Decision: [] Coml)leted ;is Folh)vv-Up (On-Call Intake): [] Score w Most Serious Alleged Offense (see reverse fl)r e,~amples (;f offenses in each calegory) Calegory A: Fel,.mics against persons ...... 15 Calegory B: Felony weapons and felony narcotics distribution ...... 12 Category C: Other felonies ...... 7 l Calegory I): Class ] misdemeanors against persons ...... 5 Calegory I-: Other Class I misdemeanors ...... 3 Category F: Vlolations of probation/parole ...... 2 __ Additional Charges in this Referral 11 Two ,ar more addilional currenl felon.',' ,.fl'l~'nses ...... 3 OrK' additional currcnl felony offense ...... 2 One or more additMnal misdemeanor ()R violalMn of p]obation/parolc ofl'cnses ...... I O11,2 Of 111OP2slalus OI'I'ClISCS OR No addilional current olTcns,.:s ...... 0 lid Prior Adjudications of Guilt (iu'ncludes continued adjudications with "'evidence sufficient to finding of guilt') Two or more prior adjudications of guilt Ibr felony offenses ...... 6 One prior ac!judication ofguih Ibr a felony ofl'cnse ...... 4 Two or more prior adjudications ofgui]l l~;r misdemeanor offenses ...... 3 m Two or more prior adjudlcalions of~uih for probation/parole violations ...... 2 One prior adjudication of guilt tilt anv misdemeanor or staltls ,.iI'l'cllsc ...... I No prior a~liudicauons ofguih ...... ~...... 0 l~'etitions Pemling Adjudication (exclude deferred adjudications) [I One or more pcrv.Jin~ petitions for a felony c, ffcnse ...... 8 Two c,r 111oi'12pcndillg pctilions fi~r other ofl'cllSCS ...... ~ One pending petition for an other offcn.,,¢ ...... 2 No pending petitions ...... 0 i Sl(pervisioll ~l;llllS Parole ...... 4 lh',abalion based on a F,..'lony or Class I misdemeanor ...... 3 Probation based on other ofl'enses OR CH[NSup OR Deferred disposi6on with conditions ...... 2 al Informal Supervision OR Imake Diversion ...... I None ...... 0 6. Ilislory of Failure to Appear (within past 12 mordhs) Iv,'o or more pclilions/vcarranls/delention orders for [:TA ill past 12 nlonlhs ...... 3 m One petition/warrant/detenlion order for FTA in past ]2 months ...... I No petition/warrant/detention order for I:TA in past 12 months ...... 0 7. llislory of F'.scape/ Riliitiways (within past 12 months) One or more escapes from secure confinerrtent or custody...... 4 I 01112 or more instaliCCs of absconding from llOl1-sectlr,~. ¢Otlrl-ordel'ed plact..'111cllls ...... 3 011¢2 or lnore i'tllla~vavs tFOIll ho111~2...... I NO cscapcs oi" rLIll;Jwavs w/in past 12 lllonlhs ...... 0 8. TOTAL SCO I,IE ...... __ II Indicated I)ecision: 0- 9 Release 10- 14 I)etcntion Alternative __ 15+ Secure Detention Mandatory Overrides: [] I. tJ~c of firearm in cLlrrcnt ot'fcnsc (must bc detained) [] 2. l-~capcc t'lOm a s...'cur,,." placement m [] 3. l,ocal court policy (Tmhcale applicable polio', ) l)isrrelionary Override: [] 1, Aggra'.ating factors (~wcrrklc to more r'cslrlcti;c placement 111{I11indicated l',~ guMelincs) [] 2. Mitigating filctors (override to less rcslrlcti;'e placement than indicated by guidelines) m [] 3. Approved local graduated sanction tbr probationlparole violauon I Actual Decision / Recommendation: __ Release ~ Alternative ~ Secure I)etenlion i I 0/01/02 (Reproduce Front-to-13ack) DJJ Form 9135 Page 1 of 2 into Ill I Data Resource Guide D2002 DETENTION ASSESSMENTINSTRUMENT, PAGE 2 Offense Categories and Included Offenses I Category A: Felonies Against Persons Category C: Other Felonies Abduction Arson of an unoccupied dwelling Aggravated assault Auto theft Aggravated sextml batter.',' Burglary/13reaking and enterin~ I Arson of an occupied dwelling Possess burglary tools Assault. law enforcement officer Escape from a correctional facility Burgla D' of an occupied dwelling (not detent ion) Carjacking l?.scape from secure juvenile detention Forcible sodomy by force/violence Malicious wounding Extortion Murder Failure to appear in court for a felony Manslaughter Fraud/bad checks/credit card > $200 haaninaate object sexual penetration Grand larceny/Larceny > $200 Rape Larceny > $5 I'ronl a person Reckless drivinJdisregard police with I.arceny o f ali rearm bodily' injury Receive stolen goods > $200 Robbery, Shoplift > $200 Take indecent liberties with a child Unauthorized usc of an autotnobile Vandalism > $1000 damage Category B: Felony Weapons & Felony Narcotics Category I): Misdemeanors Against Persons I)istribute Schedtfle I or II Assault, simple Distribute Schedule I, II, II, IV or Sexual battery' marijuana on school property Possess Schedule I or II with intent Category E: Other ~lisdemeanors to sell Possess Schedule I or II Brandish/point a firearm Sell Schedule I or II or > I oz. Marijuana Carry conce~.lled weapon to a minor 3 ",.'earsjunior Disorderly condncl Escape from secure juvenile detention Brandish/point a firearm on school property or without force/violence within 1000 ft. Fraud/bad checks/credit card < $200 Discharge fiream~ from motor vehicle Failure to appear for a misdenleanor l)ischarge firearm in/at an occupied building Larceny < $200 Possess a sawed-oft" shotgun Receive stolen goods < $200 Receive a stolen fireaml Common Aggravaling / Mitigating Factors (Known at the lime of Intake) Aggravating Mitigating llistory of 2+ violent/assaultive offenses Juvenile marginally involved m the offense Parent tmable/unwilling to provide appropriate f'arcnt able/willing to provide appropriate supervision supervision Juvenile has signifcant mental health problem/ Juvenile has significant mental health problem/ mental retardation mental retardation Juvenile has significant substance abuse problem Juvenile has significant substance abuse problem Juvenile does not regularly attend schoolAvork Juvenile regularly attends school/work Juvenile has violated conditions of a detention alternative Offense less serious titan indicated by charge Juvenile is charged ;vith a new (detainable) offense Juvenile has no/minor prior record while in a detention alternative Juvenile is an explicit threat to flee if released Jtlvenile is currently an absconder fronl a non-secure placement I 0/01/02 (Reproduce l:rom-to-t3ack) DJJ Form 9135 Page 2 of 2 r~ [E ~E ~E [i ~B r~ I ! i m~ u m m ii i i m~ m~ ! W m ii i ?