Mohawk Valley Regional Juvenile Justice

Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ...... i The Juvenile Justice System in NY State: Where Are We Now? ...... 1 What Constitutes a ‘Good’ or Effective Juvenile Justice System at the State and Local Level? ...... 2 The Juvenile Justice System in NY State: Where Are We Now? ...... 2 The ‘Mohawk Valley Region’ as defined by NYS and the Division of Criminal Justice Services ...... 3 Characteristics of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System: National Overview ...... 4 Characteristics of Youth in the Mohawk Valley Region Who Become Involved in the Juvenile Justice System ...... 5 The Community Context: Children, Youth, and Families in Poverty in the MV Region ...... 7 How Does Poverty Affect Juvenile Crime and Outcomes for Juveniles Who Enter the Criminal Justice System in the MV Region? ...... 9 Lead Exposure, Child Development, and Juvenile Crime ...... 10 The School Context for Children and Youth in the Juvenile Justice System in the MV Region ..... 15 Juvenile Arrest by Police Agencies: Entry into the Juvenile Justice Pipeline ...... 21 Attention: Please Read Before Reviewing the Analysis of County-Level Arrests Data ...... 26 Arrests for Juvenile Crime in Mohawk Valley Region: ...... 27 Juvenile Arrests by County for the MV Region: Fulton County ...... 32 Juvenile Arrests by County for the MV Region: Herkimer ...... 35 Juvenile Arrests by County for the MV Region: Montgomery ...... 38 Juvenile Arrests by County for the MV Region: Oneida...... 41 Juvenile Arrests by County for the MV Region: Otsego ...... 44 Juvenile Arrests by County for the MV Region: Schoharie ...... 47 Detention of Juveniles ...... 50 Mohawk Valley Detention Admissions and Releases: 2014 ...... 53 Diversion Opportunities: Points in the Juvenile Justice Process Where Diversion Occurs ...... 64 Community-Based Opportunities for Juvenile Justice Prevention and Diversion: “Slim Pickings” for Much of the MV Region ...... 67 Juveniles and Effective Policing ...... 70 Probation Intake/Pre-Court Diversion: ...... 71 Family Engagement in the Diversion Process ...... 74 Community-Based Services Available to Support the Diversion Process: A Key Piece of the Juvenile Justice System for Counties in the Mohawk Valley Region ...... 75 Diversion Program Availability Capacity Survey Results ...... 77 Diversion Challenges and Recommendations ...... 81 Juvenile Delinquent Youth in Multiple Systems: County Departments of Social Services (DSS) and County Probation Departments ...... 84 County Department of Social Services’ Capacity to Meet to Provide Diversion Services for Juvenile Delinquents and PINS Cases ...... 86 Family Court ...... 89 Out-of-Home Residential Placement of Juveniles ...... 95 Returning Home to Family, School, and Community after Time in a Residential Facility ...... 100 Reconnecting With Family After Residential Placement ...... 101 Reentering the Public Education System After Discharge from Placement ...... 102 Re-entry After Placement: Best Practices ...... 103 Recommendations to Strengthen the Juvenile Reentry Process and Improve Outcomes ...... 104 Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) in the Juvenile Justice System ...... 107 Disproportionate Minority Contact in the Juvenile Justice System in NY State and in the Mohawk Valley Region ...... 110 Gender, Juvenile Crime, and the Increasing Involvement of Girls in the Juvenile Justice System ...... 115 Female Youth/Girls in the Juvenile Justice System in the Mohawk Valley Region ...... 116 Including 16 and 17 Year Olds in the Juvenile Justice System in NY State ...... 117 Summary and Recommendations ...... 117 References ...... 117 Photo Credits ...... 117

Table of Figures: Tables

Table 1. Population by County: Total and Juveniles Only ...... 3 Table 2. Overall Poverty, Under 18 Years, and Age 5-17 in Families in Poverty by County ...... 7 Table 3. Incidence of Confirmed High Blood Lead Level - (10 micrograms per deciliter or higher) Rate per 1,000 Tested Children Age less than 72 months...... 12 Table 4. Incidence of Confirmed High Blood Lead Level - rate per 1,000 Tested Children Age less than 72 months (6 years): 2012 Data Only ...... 13 Table 5. High Lead Levels Relative to Arrest Rates for Selected MV Region Counties ...... 13 Table 6. Public High School Graduation Rates: 2013-2014 School Year ...... 16 Table 7. Public High School Graduation Rates: 2013-2014 School Year ...... 16 Table 8. Graduation and Poverty Rates; Population and Juvenile Arrests for Selected Areas ...... 17 Table 9. Juvenile Arrests Nationwide (Includes 16 and 17 year olds in 48 states) ...... 24 Table 10. Juvenile Reported Arrests in NYS Counties (not counting NY City) from 2010 to 2014 ...... 25 Table 11. MV Region Juvenile Reported Arrests from 2010-2014 ...... 28 Table 12. Juvenile Reported Arrests in 2014: NYS, MV Region and MV Region Counties ...... 30 Table 13. Juvenile Reported Arrests by County: Fulton County ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 14. Juvenile Reported Arrests by County Jurisdiction: Fulton County ...... 33 Table 15. Juvenile Reported Arrests by County: Herkimer County ...... 35 Table 16. Juvenile Reported Arrests by County Jurisdiction: Herkimer County ...... 36 Table 17. Juvenile Reported Arrests by County: Montgomery County ...... 38 Table 18. Juvenile Reported Arrests by County Jurisdiction: Montgomery County ...... 39 Table 19. Juvenile Reported Arrests by County: Oneida County ...... 41 Table 20. Juvenile Reported Arrests by County Jurisdiction: Oneida County ...... 42 Table 21. Juvenile Reported Arrests by County: Otsego County ...... 44 Table 22. Juvenile Reported Arrests by County Jurisdiction: Otsego County ...... 45 Table 23. Juvenile Reported Arrests by County: Schoharie County...... 47 Table 24. Juvenile Reported Arrests by County Jurisdiction: Schoharie County ...... 48 Table 25. New York State Detention Admissions: 2014 ...... 52 Table 26. Mohawk Valley Region Detention Admissions: 2014 ...... 53 Table 27. Mohawk Valley Region Detention Releases: 2014 ...... 53 Table 28. Detention: Fulton County ...... 54 Table 29. Detention: Herkimer County ...... 55 Table 30. Detention: Montgomery County ...... 56 Table 31. Detention: Oneida County ...... 57 Table 32. Detention: Otsego County...... 58 Table 33. Detention: Schoharie County ...... 59 Table 34. Probation Intakes, Referral to Presentment Agency, and Diversion Data ...... 62 Table 35. Probation Intakes Relative to Juvenile Population and Referral to Presentment Agency, and Probation Adjustment Data ...... 63

Table 36. Community-Based Diversion Program Capacity and Resources: Part 1 ...... 77 Table 37. Community-Based Diversion Program Capacity and Resources: Part 2 ...... 78 Table 38. Summary of Juvenile Crime Prevention and Diversion Capacity and Resources Survey Findings...... 79 Table 39. Capacity Challenges in the Six-County MV Region by Program Type ...... 80 Table 40. NYS Flexible Fund for Family Services Allocations Relative to the Juvenile Population in MV Region Counties ...... 87 Table 41. MV Region Counties-Juveniles Referred for Prosecution in Family Court ...... 90 Table 42. Family Court Dispositions for the Mohawk Valley Region, 2014 ...... 93 Table 43. Rate of Initial Dispositions Ordered as Probation by Family Court ...... 94 Table 44. Juveniles Sent to an Out-of-Home Residential Facility in the MV Region, 2014 ...... 96 Table 45. Placement Rates Relative to All Probation Intakes for the MV Region ...... 98 Table 46. Placement Rates Relative to Initial Petition Dispositions for the MV Region ...... 98 Table 47. MV Region County Placement Numbers: 2010 to 2014 ...... 99 Table 48. NYS Relative Rate Index (RR) for select jurisdictions with data available: 2011(?)* ...... 110 Table 49. Juvenile Delinquency Contact by Race and Ethnicity in the Mohawk Valley Region, 2014 ...... 111 Table 50. Family Court Initial Petitions filed in 2014: Number of Petitions Filed on Black Non- Hispanic Youth and Hispanic Youth (of any race) Only ...... 114 Table 51. Mohawk Valley Region Female Reported Arrests: 2010 to 2014 ...... 116

Table of Figures: Figures (Charts)

Figure 1. System Involvement: School-Related Factors Connected with Juvenile Justice ...... 20 Figure 2. Upstate NY Juvenile Crime by Category of Offense ...... 27 Figure 3. Mohawk Valley Regional 2014 Reported Arrests/Criminal Activity ...... 29 Figure 4. Fulton County 2014 Reported Arrests/Criminal Activity ...... 32 Figure 5. Fulton County by Jurisdiction: 2014 ...... 33 Figure 6. 2014 Herkimer County Reported Arrests/Criminal Activity ...... 35 Figure 7. Herkimer County by Jurisdiction: 2014 ...... 36 Figure 8. Montgomery County: 2014 Reported Arrests/Criminal Activity ...... 38 Figure 9. Montgomery County by Jurisdiction: 2014 ...... 39 Figure 10. Oneida County 2014: Reported Arrests/Criminal Activity ...... 41 Figure 11. Oneida County by Jurisdiction: 2014 ...... 42 Figure 12. Otsego County: 2014 Reported Arrests/Criminal ...... 44 Figure 13. Otsego County by Jurisdiction: 2014 ...... 45 Figure 14. Schoharie County: 2014 Reported Arrests/Criminal Activity...... 47 Figure 15. Schoharie County by Jurisdiction: 2014 ...... 48 Figure 16. Fulton County Reported Arrests and Detention ...... 54 Figure 17. Herkimer County Reported Arrests and Detention Admissions ...... 55 Figure 18. Montgomery County Reported Arrests and Detention Admissions ...... 56 Figure 19. Oneida County Reported Arrests and Detention Admissions ...... 57 Figure 20. Otsego County Reported Arrests and Detention Admissions ...... 58 Figure 21. Schoharie County Reported Arrests and Detention Admissions ...... 59 Figure 22. Juvenile Violent Crime Trends by Hour on School Days and Non-school Days ...... 68 Figure 23. Placements by County in the MV Region for 2014 ...... 97 Figure 24. Minority Detention Rates, 2014: Black non-Hispanic and Hispanic of any race only ...... 112 Figure 25. Family Court Initial Petitions filed in 2014: Percent of Petitions Filed on Black Non-Hispanic Youth and Hispanic Youth (of any race) Only ...... 114

INTRODUCTION This assessment of the juvenile justice system in what NY State calls “the Mohawk Valley Region” was funded by the Oneida County Probation Department as the lead agency for a NYS Division of Criminal Justice (DCJS) initiative designed to “further New York State’s goal to promote public safety through the reduction of juvenile crime.”

In the summer of 2014, DCJS issued a Request for Applications (RFA) “as part of a broader and coordinated approach developed by the New York State Juvenile Justice Advisory Group (JJAG), the Juvenile Justice Strategic Planning Action Committee (SPAC) and the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) that seeks to enhance the juvenile justice system’s effectiveness by challenging local system professionals to identify their emerging or chronic issues in juvenile delinquency and develop innovative – and, when appropriate, cross-systems – strategies for resolving them.”

DCJS accepted one application from each region represented by what DCJS calls a “Regional Youth Justice Team” (RYJT). The regions include:

1. Capital Region: Albany, Columbia, Delaware, Greene, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, Warren, Washington

2. Central New York: Broome, Cayuga, Chenango, Cortland, Madison, Onondaga, Oswego, Tompkins, Tioga

3. Finger Lakes: Chemung, Livingston, Monroe, Ontario, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben, Wayne, Yates, Genesee, Orleans, Wyoming

4. Long Island: Nassau, Suffolk

5. Mid-Hudson: Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Westchester, Sullivan, Ulster

6. Mohawk Valley: Herkimer, Oneida, Fulton, Montgomery, Otsego, Schoharie

7. New York City: Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens, Richmond

8. North Country: Clinton, Essex, Franklin, Hamilton, St. Lawrence, Jefferson, Lewis

9. Western New York: Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Erie, Niagara

Oneida County Probation in partnership with Kids Oneida, Inc. (their community-based partner on this project) selected Social Science Associates of New Hartford, NY to conduct the system assessment. Social Science Associates has a successful history of doing local DCJS-funded research on youth violence, juvenile crime, youth gangs, and prisoner reentry in the Mohawk Valley Region.

The report that follows is the result of collaborative planning and careful research design using both quantitative and qualitative research methods. SSA staff participated in numerous Regional Youth Justice Team (RYJT) planning meetings that included county probation directors, DSS Commissioners and community-based agencies throughout the fall of 2014 into 2015 to discuss the assessment and to solicit input on the juvenile justice system issues, barriers, and concerns.

The assessment itself involves the analysis of a large volume of juvenile crime data and juvenile justice system indicator data for each of the six counties in the Mohawk Valley Region. This data, supplied by DCJS, was invaluable and is a key component of this assessment. However, the DCJS data in raw form (complex spreadsheets with large volumes of data in many hundreds of tiny cells) was difficult for local juvenile justice practitioners (Probation and DSS personnel, Family Court personnel and key community partners) to make sense of in ways that would improve their ability to identify and address system issues at either the regional or county level. This report presents the data in a way that is both visually and conceptually accessible to local practitioners.

Additionally, we collected and analyzed and present here data from the US Census Bureau, the NYS Education Department, and the NYS Department of Health to unpack some of the contextual factors related to juvenile crime in the counties in our region.

Assessing our local juvenile justice system(s) also involved an examination of the various process components (e.g. arrest, detention, probation and diversion, Family Court and adjudication, residential placement, etc.) in each of the six counties in the region. To get closer to the everyday reality of how our county-level system functions, we conducted on-site interviews in all six counties with Probation Directors and juvenile probation officers. We also interviewed several County Social Services (DSS) Commissioners, Family Court Judges, County Attorneys, and Police Officers who have arrested and processed juveniles in their city, town, or village. Additionally, we conducted key informant interviews with staff from several local not-for-profit organizations that serve a large number of youth who are currently involved the juvenile justice system.

These interviews employed a number of open-ended questions designed to elicit frank responses from those who are as close to the “system” as the youth who are arrested for juvenile crimes in our region. In each county we visited, we found a group of juvenile justice practitioners who were knowledgeable, professional, and fully committed to both community safety and to supporting youth in ways that would reduce the likelihood of reoffending and we would like to publicly thank them for their work and for the time and attention they have given to the Regional Youth Justice Team and to this assessment.

We also found that the social and economic conditions in these largely small town and rural communities posed enormous challenges that directly and indirectly impacted families, youth, neighborhoods, public schools, and the juvenile justice system itself.

What we call the “juvenile justice system” is of course connected to other systems (public schools, county social services). And all our local education, healthcare, criminal justice and social service systems are embedded in the social and economic conditions surrounding them. The first section of this report looks in some depth at key pieces of the community social context related to juveniles and juvenile crime.

This report was largely written from March to August of 2015 and a draft was submitted to Oneida County Probation in August 2015 for release to the other five counties in the MV Region for review, comments, corrections, and additions. Feedback from all RYJT partners via email and in-person communication along with feedback from “Juvenile Justice Summit Meetings” held in all six counties will be incorporated in the final report.

Parents, public schools, police, probation, family court judges, social service staff, and youth themselves are affected by the social and economic conditions in their community, their county, their state and in the nation as a whole. Understanding and addressing the barriers to improving our local Ifjuvenile you have justice any system(s)questions, must concerns, account comments, for the key or contextual corrections factors related that to thiseither DRAFT increase report or pleaseinhibit the contact:prevalence of juvenile crime in our region.

If you have any questions, concerns, comments, or corrections related to this DRAFT report please contact:

Steve Darman, Director Social Science Associates [email protected] 315.316.0114

“It’s Not Working”

Chapter title (Chapter II) in the Report to the Governor and Legislature on NY State’s juvenile justice system by the NYS Juvenile Justice Advisory Group, 2010.

iii

The Juvenile Justice System in NY State: Where Are We Now?

The state’s juvenile justice “system,” [is] a patchwork collection of governmental, non-profit and private entities which operate outside of any coherent set of common goals or measurements.”

There is no single point of accountability, no standard way to measure performance, no common criteria by which to define high, medium or low risk juveniles, and no generally accepted and effective way of matching services to risk and need.

Further complicating the development of a foundation for an accountable and effective juvenile justice system is the almost complete absence of accessible, real-time data to answer key questions such as: is juvenile crime going up or down, are system efforts reducing reoffending, and what is driving the disproportionate minority representation in the state juvenile justice system?

SOURCE: December 2010. Tough on Crime: Promoting Public Safety By Doing What Works. Report to the Governor and Legislature (Executive Summary) by the NYS Juvenile Justice Advisory Group.

The NYS juvenile justice system must better deliver on its responsibilities to keep the public safe and to rehabilitate young people. The current system is often ineffective, inefficient, and unsafe. Despite state annual placement costs that are among the highest in the nation, the vast majority of youth who pass through the deep-end of the system (less than 3% of youth who encounter the system) return as adult offenders.1

In NYS, over 60% of youth are rearrested within two years of release from state custody.2 Parts of the state placement system are under U.S. Department of Justice oversight and are the subject of a lawsuit for brutal conditions of confinement, and the system does not ensure the safety of all youth and system professionals. In the face of a historically punitive and highly complex system and a severe budget crisis in the state, we must move to a more effective model.

SOURCE: Safe Communities Successful Youth: A Shared Vision for the NYS Juvenile Justice System. NYS Juvenile Justice Steering Committee, 2011.

1 State of New York Juvenile Justice Advisory Group, “State of New York, 2009–2011: Three-Year Comprehensive State Plan for the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Formula Grant Program,” http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/ofpa/pdfdocs/ jju3yearplan2010.pdf.

2 Susan Mitchell-Herzfeld, Vajeera Dorabawila, Leigh Bates, and Rebecca Colman, “Juvenile Recidivism Study: Patterns and Predictors of Reoffending Among Youth Reentering the Community from OCFS Facilities and Voluntary Agencies,” PowerPoint presentation at the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, April 27, 2010.

What Constitutes a ‘Good’ or Effective Juvenile Justice System at the State and Local Level?

In 2011, the NYS Juvenile Justice Steering Committee outlined a vision for the NYS Juvenile Justice System in a report titled Safe Communities Successful Youth: A Shared Vision for the NYS Juvenile Justice System. Their strategy and action plan rests on four components of system excellence outlined in their “Vision for 2016”. These components are:

1. System Governance and Coordination 2. An Effective Continuum of Diversion, Supervision, Treatment and Confinement 3. Accountability of System[s] and Organizations and Within the System[s] 4. Shared Data and Information-Driven Decisions and Policy

These components must be operational at both the state and local (county and regional) levels. This report will focus on all four aspects of what NYS considers an effective juvenile justice system.

We examine the operation and outcomes for the juvenile justice system at each stage in the process from arrest to final disposition for the six counties that comprise the Mohawk Valley Region as defined by NYS to include the counties of Fulton, Herkimer, Oneida, Otsego, Montgomery, and Schoharie.

Additionally for this report, we examine some of the key contextual factors and other public/private systems that touch the lives of youth in the juvenile justice system in NY State at the county level. These include schools, county social service departments, and private agencies serving youth with behavioral health, arrest diversion, afterschool, and other community-based programs designed to address youth delinquency and reinforce pro-social behavior for youth who commit crimes, or are at high-risk of involvement in the juvenile justice system.

Diversion and the Juvenile Justice System: The juvenile justice system here in NY State and here in the MV Region is ‘diversion-centric”, i.e. much of the work in this system is focused on two goals: 1.) preventing further criminal activity, and 2.) minimizing the level of involvement in the system itself so that low and medium risk youth are not channeled to higher level sanctions like residential placement in secure facilities away from family, school, and community and where high-risk youth are concentrated.

There is a strong research base to supporting this diversion focus. However, it is apparent when looking at it from the outside as a sociologist and human service system analyst that the system design does not lend itself easily to the current system goals and objectives. For example, county probation departments which are at the center of the juvenile justice system in NY State do not have the funding, the training, the organizational culture, the legal authorization, or the organizational capacity to provide behavioral health, educational intervention, family therapy or social recreation, job training or other services that are pieces of the diversion plan for many juveniles in the system.

In short, county probation departments and to a lesser extent county attorneys and family court judges are charged not only with maintaining community safety but also with doing everything they can to divert youth from further criminal involvement and further juvenile justice system involvement. And they have to accomplish the diversion of juvenile probation cases without- to a greater or lesser extent-

having the resources, training, programs, personnel, programs, and policy tools needed to accomplish this goal. By current design, County Probation Departments must rely on and work with other county departments (DSS) and with school and community partners with different commissions and directors and different funding streams and different organizational mandates, goals, and performance measures. Given this fact, coordination with other systems is absolutely necessary and critical.

The ‘Mohawk Valley Region’ as defined by NYS and the Division of Criminal Justice Services

This region consists of six counties located in central Upstate, NY. The Mohawk River and NYS Barge Canal flow through three of these counties (Oneida, Herkimer, and Montgomery). Three additional counties are contiguous to these Mohawk Valley communities either to the north (Fulton County) or south (Schoharie and Otsego Counties) of the Mohawk River in roughly the same region. Total population for this region is just under half a million (497,242) and the total juvenile population is about 10% of this total (52,432). Oneida County, on the western border of this region is by far the most populous county accounting for nearly half (47%) of the total population for this region. Herkimer and Otsego Counties in the center of this region are similar in size (61 to 64K); Fulton and Montgomery Counties on the eastern side of this region are slightly smaller and also very similar in size (55 and 50K) and Schoharie County in the southeast corner of the region has only half the population as Herkimer and Otsego Counties and with less than thirty-three thousand total residents is by far the smallest county in this region. However, there are some interesting differences in the size of the juvenile population living in these counties that is not reflected entirely in the total population numbers. For example there are very small differences in the number of juveniles in Fulton, Montgomery and Otsego Counties in spite of total population differences of up to nearly 12,000 total persons. The difference in juvenile populations in these three counties is very small ranging from 5,396 in the most populous county in this group (Otsego) to approximately 5,800 juveniles in Fulton and Montgomery Counties.

Table 1. Population by County: Total and Juveniles Only Total Juvenile Population Juveniles as a Percent County Population as a County Population (Age 7-15) of Total Population Percent of the Region Oneida 233,856 25,097 10.7% 47.0% Herkimer 64,442 7,051 10.9% 13.0% Fulton 54,941 5,898 10.7% 11.0% Montgomery 49,932 5,813 11.6% 10.0% Otsego 61,879 5,396 8.7% 12.4% Schoharie 32,192 3,177 9.9% 6.5% TOTAL/Avg 497,242 52,432 10.5% SOURCE: Population stats are from the 2011-2013 American Community Survey (ACS us Census Bureau Estimates)

This region is home to many small towns and villages and a very few small urban centers clustered along the Mohawk River and other waterways used for transportation and power since the area was settled over 300 years ago. The local agricultural economy was supplemented by a growing industrial economy

after WW II when the region peaked in population and industrial output, but over the past 30+ years there have been major population declines and an out-migration of educated youth in pursuit of a foothold in the American economy and class structure. Labor market participation, wages from work, and family and household income have all declined or stagnated and are substantially below both state and national averages.

Characteristics of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System: National Overview

National research using a very large sample of youth (n=7,073) in residential placement for a criminal offense reveals that:

Age, Sex, and Race • Juveniles younger than 16 years old accounted for 53% of juvenile delinquency cases. (In NYS, juveniles younger than 16 years account for all (100%) of JD cases by current law.) • Males account for nearly three-fourths (72%) of JD cases. • White youth account for 64% of delinquency cases. • White youth account for a larger proportion of drug offense cases (77%).than non-white youth • Black youth account for a larger proportion of person cases (40%) than white youth.

Family Support: Weak or non-existent for many of these youth. • Nearly half of all youth in custody (46%) report that they were raised by both parents- but their parents were often in separate households. • Over forty percent (42%) reported that they had only one parent taking care of them while they were growing up. At the time they were taken into custody: • One of every four youth (25%) report that they were not living with either biological parent. • Nearly half (45%) were living with one parent. • About a third (30%) were living with both (two) parents.

Weak school ties for many: Three quarters of this group was still enrolled in school when they entered custody, however…. • Over half the youth in custody (53%) reveal that they skipped classes in the previous year. • Over half (57%) were suspended from school in the same year. • A quarter of these youth (26%) report that they repeated a grade the year prior to entering custody.

SOURCE: Hockenberry, Sarah and Charles Puzzanchera. December 2014. US Department of Justice Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention National Report Series, “Delinquency Cases in Juvenile Court, 2011.”

Characteristics of Youth in the Mohawk Valley Region Who Become Involved in

the Juvenile Justice System

Even basic demographic data on age, sex, race/ethnicity, family status, geographic location type (city/suburb/small town or village/rural) is currently not available at the state, county, or city level on youth who get involved in the criminal justice system in NYS at any level- from arrest to residential placement. County probation departments, family courts, and city, county, and local police agencies do not collect, use, or report on many demographic indicators.

Beyond this gaping information gap that impedes our ability to have a basic understanding of the characteristics of youth in the system we are working to improve, there is scant data on the characteristics of the families and communities that these youth grow up in. Some data on family structure and family dynamics (including a history of abuse, neglect, and/or domestic violence) is collected by probation officers who interview both youth and parents upon intake or by juvenile probation officers who receive information from DSS Staff on families and youth involved with DSS Preventative Services or Child Protective Services or in foster care.

The limited data we have on youth in the MV Region involved in the juvenile justice system largely reflects the national profile. Youth in our region involved in the juvenile justice system are nearly all white youth (with the exception of our few small urban centers); most are male (about three out of four); nearly all have weak school ties; unstable families and inadequate parental support, supervision, and involvement.

To get a better picture of the characteristics of the youth in our region touched by the JJ system we used key informant interviews with probation officers and others who have direct contact with these youth.

Juvenile Probation Officers and other key informants (including DSS personnel, juvenile police officers, etc.) interviewed for this project report that:

Oneida County • Most of the kids we see are 13-14 years old. • Many of the kids on probation are ‘repeaters’- a previous PINS (Persons in Need of Supervision) case or previously arrested and/or on probation. • In Utica (Oneida County) there are more kids now who do not speak English. • Many youth have mental health problems.

Herkimer County • Most kids have parent/family issues- many with single parents or no parents. • We are seeing more mental health issues with the younger kids. • A lot of mental health issues overall: including kids with ADHD, mood disorders, Asperger’s Syndrome • Mostly males, but seeing more females in recent years. • Kids have little to do and often no place to go after school and on weekends

Schoharie County • Most youth have a long history of poor school bonding, e.g. “we are seeing kids who have been absent for up to 55 days”. • Kids feel ignored and neglected. • Kids are often bored. • Parents are not involved in the lives of many of these kids- and many kids live in single parent homes. • Parents are often drinking and using drugs themselves. • Parents do not have the basic parenting skills necessary to manage their children and youth. • Many youth have mental health problems.

Otsego County • A lot of the kids we work with have a history of domestic violence • Many have witnessed violence and abuse. • Many youth have mental health problems- some have committed a sexual offense.

Fulton County • Youth are mostly 13-15 years old, but we have two 7-year olds and some other younger kids recently. • We had a really big problem with homeless youth here recently, but things are improved after a series of meetings between DSS and law enforcement. • Many youth on probation are from alternative schools • Kids are struggling in school

Montgomery County • Most youth on probation are in alternative education and have poor attendance. A lot have been suspended ‘long term’ and schools don’t want to deal with them. • Kids are “giving up on things” are “hopeless and angry”. • Most of the kids on probation are in Alternative School [in Amsterdam] for only two hours a day- many not attending. • We are seeing more domestic violence in the home along with more substance abuse [by parents/adults at home]. • Many families “are capable people” but it is difficult to connect with them and they are often really struggling with poverty. • There is a very high unemployment rate here (9-10% overall- and much higher for youth [so many families are poor, and many youth lack work opportunities]. • About three-fourths of youth on probation have “mental health issues”. Many show symptoms at an early age and as they get older they become very difficult to deal with. • We are seeing more “street-hardened kids”, more crews and youth gangs [in Amsterdam]. • About 3 of every 4 kids [on probation] have mental health issues- and many of these kids had symptoms at an early age [that were not dealt with].

The Community Context: Children, Youth, and Families in Poverty in the MV

A very high proportion of youth and families with children and youth are living in poverty in our region. Recent Census data (below) reveals that in Herkimer, Otsego and Schoharie Counties, approximately one of five children age 5-17 in families are living below the poverty line. In Fulton, Montgomery and Oneida Counties the poverty proportion is even higher- close to or exceeding one in four kids in families in these counties are living in poverty.

Table 2. Overall Poverty, Under 18 Years, and Age 5-17 in Families in Poverty by County

All Ages in Under Age Ages 5 to 17 in Poverty 18 in Poverty Families in County Percent Percent Poverty Percent Fulton County 15.7 25.1 24.1 Herkimer County 16.4 25.4 22.2 Montgomery County 17.3 28.5 26.9 Oneida County 17.6 25.6 23.8 Otsego County 17.1 21.6 19.8 Schoharie County 13.7 18.8 17.4 SOURCE: US Census Small Area Income and Poverty Estimate Data 2014

The statistics above also reveal how children bear the burden of poverty more than the general adult population, i.e. children and youth in families are much more likely to be poor than adults without children at home.

Effects of Poverty on Children and Youth What these statistics mask, however, is the reality of what it means to be poor, or ‘near poor’ for the many children and youth here in our region who live at or near the poverty level.

Here are some well documented conditions associated with child and youth poverty identified by the American Psychological Association:

Psychological research has demonstrated that living in poverty has a wide range of negative effects on the physical and mental health and wellbeing of our nation’s children. Poverty impacts children within their various contexts at home, in school, and in their neighborhoods and communities.

Poverty is linked with negative conditions such as substandard housing, homelessness, inadequate nutrition and food insecurity, inadequate child care, lack of access to health care, unsafe neighborhoods, and under resourced schools which adversely impact our nation’s children.

Poorer children and teens are also at greater risk for several negative outcomes such as poor academic achievement, school dropout, abuse and neglect, behavioral and socio-emotional problems, physical health problems, and developmental delays. These effects are compounded by the barriers that children and their families encounter when trying to access both physical and mental health care services.

Poverty and physical health Children and teens living in poorer communities are at increased risk for a wide range of physical health problems including:

• Poor nutrition which is manifested in the following ways: o Inadequate food which can lead to food insecurity/hunger o Lack of access to healthy foods and areas for play or sports which can lead to childhood overweight or obesity • Chronic conditions such as asthma, anemia, and pneumonia • Risky behaviors such as smoking or engaging in early sexual activity • Exposure to environmental contaminants, e.g., lead paint and toxic waste dumps • Exposure to violence in their communities which can lead to trauma, injury, disability, and mortality

Poverty and psychosocial outcomes • Children living in poverty are at greater risk of behavioral and emotional problems. • Some behavioral problems may include impulsiveness, difficulty getting along with peers, aggression, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and conduct disorder. • Some emotional problems may include feelings of anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem. • Poverty and economic hardship is particularly difficult for parents who may experience chronic stress, depression, marital distress and exhibit harsher parenting behaviors. These are all linked to poor social and emotional outcomes for children. • Unsafe neighborhoods may expose low-income children to violence which can cause a number of psychosocial difficulties. Violence exposure can also predict future violent behavior in youth which places them at greater risk of injury and mortality and entry into the juvenile justice system.

Poverty and academic achievement • Poverty has a particularly adverse effect on the academic outcomes of children, especially during early childhood. • Chronic stress associated with living in poverty has been shown to adversely affect children’s concentration and memory which may impact their ability to learn. • The National Center for Education Statistics reports that in 2008, the dropout rate of students living in low-income families was about four and one-half times greater than the rate of children from higher-income families (8.7 percent versus 2.0 percent). • The academic achievement gap for poorer youth is particularly pronounced for low-income African American and Hispanic children compared with their more affluent White peers. • Under resourced schools in poorer communities struggle to meet the learning needs of their students and aid them in fulfilling their potential. • Inadequate education contributes to the cycle of poverty by making it more difficult for low- income children to lift themselves and future generations out of poverty.

Source for Poverty Effects Section Above: American Psychological Association Effects of Poverty, Hunger, and Homelessness on Children and Youth http://www.apa.org/pi/families/poverty.aspx

How Does Poverty Affect Juvenile Crime and Outcomes for Juveniles Who Enter the Criminal Justice System in the MV Region?

There are many direct and indirect links between poverty and juvenile crime at all levels and in all contexts that children and youth inhabit: home, neighborhood, school, and community. There is scant national research available that can isolate or rank risk factors related to living in a poor family – and no research available on this topic for our region. That said, if our goal is to improve our juvenile justice system in the counties in our region, it is still worth exploring and discussing these relationships as an effective system must by definition address the problems this system is designed to change or improve.

Key informant interview data from a wide variety of sources in our region reflects many of the national findings cited above. Summarized below are the most common conditions cited related to youth in the juvenile justice system in our region that are closely related to youth in poverty:

• Children and youth involved with Probation and DSS (half or more of the kids on Probation) are living in families with unstable residential histories that include multiple moves from one apartment or location to another – and often from one school to another.

• Parents of these youth live in unstable households with higher levels of domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse.

• Poor youth have little or no money for basic needs like food, transportation, or clothing that is appropriate for local weather conditions and for acceptance by peers in their school.

• Youth in poor families lack the knowledge, support or other resources like transportation to find and participate in the few pro-social programs available during the weekend or after school.

• Some of our poorest youth do not have a regular place to live, eat, maintain their personal hygiene and do their homework and bounce from day to day or week to week from one household to another.

• Poor youth struggling with school do not live in families with the resources to provide the extra support they need to keep their grades above failing.

• Many poor youth involved in the juvenile justice system in the counties in our region are living in or near the centers of the region’s towns and villages- or in one of our small urban centers (Amsterdam, Oneonta, Canajoharie, Utica, Rome, etc.).

• Poor youth living in these town and village centers or in cities:

o Are almost always living in rental apartments without basements and backyards they can congregate in without coming to the attention of local police. o Are more likely to spend their afterschool, evening, and weekend time out in the streets in their neighborhood than suburban youth or youth who live in larger homes. o Are more likely to live in close proximity to other youth and young adults who are not attending school or working and who are involved in criminal activities.

o Are more visible to law enforcement because they are more likely to be outdoors in public places during late weekday hours or on the weekend. o Have more opportunities to commit crimes like shoplifting, burglary, larceny, damaging public property, and trespassing,

In short, poverty exposes children and youth to situations and environments that 1.) Make involvement in criminal activity more likely and 2.) Lack the protective factors necessary for youth to avoid the behaviors that will get them arrested and involved in the juvenile justice system.

Lead Exposure, Child Development, and Juvenile Crime

Among the many risk factors associated with growing up in poverty noted above, is that children in poor families in communities with older housing stock that has not been well maintained (like many communities in the MV Region) can have higher levels of lead exposure.

Lead poisoning is most common in communities with a high proportion of low-income children who live in residential housing built prior to the 1978 federal ban on lead in residential paint. …Pockets of high rates of lead poisoning remain….

The lifelong effects of childhood lead exposure to even small amounts of lead are well established by medical research and include learning and behavior problems, hypertension, osteoporosis, and kidney disease.

SOURCE: Korfmacher Katrina S. and, Michael L. Hanley. 2013. “Are local laws the Key to Ending Childhood Lead Poisoning?” Journal of Health Politics Policy Law. 2013 Aug;38(4):757-813.

Children exposed to even small amounts of lead as infants or young children when their brain and central nervous system are developing can manifest learning, behavior, and social adjustment problems that set them up for school failure and later involvement in the juvenile justice system.

The body of evidence cited in this document demonstrates the effects that low-level lead exposure has on the brain’s learning systems: overall intellectual ability, speech and language, hearing, visual- spatial skills, attention, executive functions, social behavior, and fine and gross motor skills. It details the significant negative consequences of lead on learning and educational attainment found in study after study and the costs associated with those consequences. It describes the challenges children face as they advance through the school system and how lead interferes with development and learning.

SOURCE: Educational Services for Children Affected by Lead Expert Panel. “Educational interventions for children affected by lead”. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2015.

Is Childhood Lead Exposure Related to Involvement in the Juvenile Justice System?

As part of a DCJS-funded research project on youth violence, juvenile crime, and youth gang activity in Utica, NY a decade ago, Social Science Associates explored the records of Utica students enrolled in Lincoln Academy, one of two “alternative schools” in the Utica School District where students who were expelled from the local high school were sent to receive mandatory public education. A case by case review of student records revealed a disturbing pattern. A significant group of students at Lincoln Academy were ejected from Proctor High School due to conflicts involving physical contact with a teacher or other school staff person or with other students. And while the records were not comprehensive, case notes for many of these students indicated that they had been ‘lead poisoned’ or had been identified as having high lead levels when younger. Absent good national research on this topic in 2004-2005, we hypothesized at the time that lead exposure contributed to academic and social difficulties for young children and these difficulties contributed to low levels of school bonding and frustration with the academic environment- and was also associated with behavior and social interaction difficulties.

Since that time, both public health science and social science have progressed substantially with regard to the physical and social/behavioral effects of lead exposure on children. In brief, it is bad news. In 2012 the CDC, our nation’s public health authority, lowered their estimates of how much lead exposure causes significant harm and there is a growing body of research linking childhood lead exposure with both juvenile and adult involvement in the criminal justice system.

Even moderate levels of lead in the bloodstream of an infant or toddler significantly increase the

odds that he will suffer behavioral disorders in childhood, and will engage in delinquency and criminal behavior later on. (Lead seems to affect boys more than girls.) A study published in 2008 tracked 250 children born in low-income Cincinnati neighborhoods between 1979 and 2004. It found that children with elevated levels of lead exposure (either in utero, or in early childhood) were significantly more likely to be arrested for both violent and nonviolent crimes than children with lower lead exposure. Earlier studies in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh also found a significant

correlation between early childhood lead exposure and later conduct problems.

“We now have studies at the international level, the national level, the state level, the city level, and even the individual level,” writes Drum [a journalist who has investigated the lead-crime connection]. “Groups of children have been followed from the womb to adulthood, and higher childhood blood lead levels are consistently associated with higher adult arrest rates for violent crimes.”

SOURCE: Juvenile Justice Information Exchange. 2014. Analysis: Is Lead Exposure the Secret to the Rapid Rise and Fantastic Fall of the Juvenile Crime Rate? By Dick Mendel, May 19, 2014 http://jjie.org/analysis-is-lead-exposure-the-secret-to-the-rapid-rise-and-fantastic-fall-of-the-juvenile- crime-rate/#

Childhood Lead Exposure for Children in the Mohawk Valley Region

The NYS Department of Health tracks and report childhood blood levels in NY State counties as well as by zip code. Table * below reveals that three of the six counties in the MV Region have extremely high blood level rates and in fact of the 57 NY State Counties and the 5 Boroughs of NY City, Oneida, Montgomery, and Fulton Counties have (by far) the highest blood lead level rates in the state and they rank number one, two, and three of the 63 county-level jurisdictions in the entire state.

Table 3. Incidence of Confirmed High Blood Lead Level - (10 micrograms per deciliter or higher) Rate per 1,000 Tested Children Age less than 72 months. Cases: Elevated Children Rate Per 1,000 State Rank - County Levels 2010 to 2012 Tested Children All Counties Fulton County 71 861 27.5 #3 Herkimer County 33 1,002 11.0 Montgomery County 85 950 29.8 #2 Oneida County 430 4,230 33.9 #1 Otsego County 14 818 5.7 Schoharie County 10 412 8.1 MV Region Counties 643 8,273 17.6 #1 by Region All NY State 7,849 555,328 4.7 SOURCE: NY State Department of Health 2010-2012 data as of May 2014

However, exposure to lead contamination is not evenly distributed within counties and is in fact highly concentrated in three small urban centers located in three of the six counties in the MV Region that exhibit rates up to nearly 10 times the state average as Table * (below) illustrates.

For example, the City of Gloversville in Fulton County and the City of Amsterdam in Montgomery County have lead level rates of 40 and 39 per 1,000 children tested in 2012, the most recent year for which data is available from the NYS Department of Health. West Utica (represented by zip code 13502) is the only area in the MV Region (and possibly in all of Upstate NY) with a higher rate (44/1000).

In 2012, 124 of the 166 or 75% of the total number of cases of elevated blood lead levels in Oneida, Fulton, and Montgomery Counties are accounted for by three small cities in these three counties (Utica, Gloversville, and Amsterdam)

The lead poisoning of children less than six years old in the MV

region is concentrated in the cities of Utica, Amsterdam and Gloversville in areas with low- income rental housing.

Table 4. Incidence of Confirmed High Blood Lead Level - rate per 1,000 Tested Children Age less than 72 months (6 years): 2012 Data Only Cases: Elevated Rate Per 1,000 Places Rank - County Levels 2012 Children Tested Children MV Region Fulton County 22 933 24.0 *Gloversville 19 475 40.0 #2 Montgomery County 30 956 31.0 *Amsterdam 20 517 39 #3 Oneida County 114 4,794 24.0 *Utica-East (13501) 48 1,365 35.0 #4 *Utica-West (13502) 37 850 44.0 #1 *Rome 14 851 17.0 #5 All NY State 7,849 4 4.7 SOURCE: NY State Department of Health: 2012 Data only (not a three year average).

Juvenile Delinquency and Lead Exposure in the MV Region

Do the children who have been exposed to high concentrations of lead in their home or their community wind up in the juvenile justice system in our region? We do not have the data to support this conclusion, but there is evidence that there is a link, perhaps a strong link, in specific cities.

Table 5. High Lead Levels Relative to Arrest Rates for Selected MV Region Counties Level of Number of Percent of Correlation High Juvenile County Juvenile Rate Per between Lead School Arrests - Arrests in This 1,000 Poisoning and Graduation County 2013 Specific City Children Juvenile Arrests Rate Fulton County 250 24.0 *Gloversville 233 93.2% 40.0 very high 55% Montgomery County 68 31.0 *Amsterdam 41 60.3% 39 high 67% Oneida County 702 24.0 weak to *Utica 135 19.2% 40.0 moderate 70% weak to *Rome 334 47.6% 17.0 moderate 70% All NY State 4.7 SOURCES: NY State Department of Health: 2012 Data only (not a three year average); NYS DCJS Juvenile Arrest Data for 2013, and NYS Dept. of Education Data for 2013-2014School Year .

The data presented above does not show that lead exposure contributes to juvenile justice involvement for youth in the MV Region. The correlation between high arrest rates and high lead levels in a few specific cities in our region does, however, strongly suggest that there may be a connection for children in specific communities, in particular in Fulton and Montgomery Counties, and to a lesser extent in Oneida County. Our PINS and Juvenile Justice Systems at the state and local levels lack a policy framework and the specific cross-system records management tools for either individual youth or family records that include public health information on lead exposure along with DSS, Public School, and Probation data on children’s behavior and their family issues related to juvenile arrests and involvement in the juvenile justice system.

To properly investigate how many children who have been exposed to high lead levels were arrested as juveniles in our region requires separate research. But given that three of the counties in our six-county region are the top three of fifty-seven Upstate NY Counties when it comes to the proportion of children who have been poisoned by lead, this may be worth pursuing. At the moment, our recommendation to Probation Departments in the MV Region is to look closely at ways to collect data on childhood lead exposure for children and youth on your current and future caseload and to participate in county-level planning efforts to reduce lead exposure in areas with high contamination rates.

Three of the six counties in the MV Region have extremely high blood lead level rates for children under six years old.

In fact, of the 57 NY State Counties and the 5 Boroughs of NY City, Oneida, Montgomery, and Fulton Counties have (by far) the highest blood lead level rates in the entire state.

Nearly all the lead exposure in these counties is confined to the small urban communities of Gloversville, Amsterdam, and Utica where there is a concentration of poor families who live in rental housing built before 1978.

The School Context for Children and Youth in the Juvenile Justice System in the MV Region

There is a research consensus that the relationship between school performance and juvenile delinquency is complex- and often reciprocal. Our local research indicates that Probation officers, DSS personnel and community agencies working with JD youth in our six-county region are well aware of this relationship and its complexities: many of the youth in our juvenile justice system have ‘weak ties’ to school as indicated by their attendance and academic achievement records. And many have ‘broken ties’ in that they have a history of multiple school suspensions and in some cases school expulsion related to behavior issues.

The current dialogue about a “School to Prison Pipeline” for a segment of our youth population is a reflection of the growing awareness of the important role that public schools play in shaping the developmental pathways for youth.

Disentangling the causal ordering of exclusionary discipline, school arrest, juvenile justice involvement, and school drop-out is exceedingly difficult. For this reason, there is no unidirectional model for which phenomenon causes which; rather, studies have found that as students begin involvement in the juvenile justice system, exclusionary discipline, and begin leaving school, these policies are mutually reinforcing and push the student further into the school to prison pipeline.

SOURCE: School of Criminal Justice University at Albany “Narrowing the School‐to‐Prison Pipeline in New York State: Two Innovative Approaches” by Jamie J. Fader, PhD Victoria Schall, MA Benjamin Stokes, MA, 2012

Public Schools and Youth in the Juvenile Justice System in Counties in the Mohawk Valley Region

Public schools play multiple roles and intersect in critical ways with youth at risk of involvement in the juvenile justice system as well as with youth who are already involved and on probation.

It is well beyond the scope of this report to attempt to disentangle the relationships between youth behavior, juvenile crime and what happens to youth in their school, home, and community. However, an assessment of the effectiveness of a juvenile justice system at the county or regional level must include a look at the school domain as it remains a primary site for the development of social attitudes and social behavior (both positive and negative) of juveniles age 7-15. Schools and school grounds are also where youth spend a large portion of their waking hours, and consequently where a significant proportion juvenile crime and juvenile arrests occur.

To get an initial look into the school domain for juveniles in the six counties in our region, we examined the most recent available data from the NYS Department of Education on high school graduation rates for all students, male and female, and for students classified as “economically disadvantaged”.

Table 6. Public High School Graduation Rates: 2013-2014 School Year Economically County All Students Female Male Disadvantaged Fulton County 72% 72% 72% 63% Herkimer County 78% 85% 71% 71% Montgomery County 74% 74% 75% 64% Oneida County 79% 80% 77% 70% Otsego County 83% 86% 80% 75% Schoharie County 81% 85% 76% 75% SOURCE: NY State Education Department Performance Measurement Data

Summary of highlights from the table above: • Between one in five and one in four students in our region do not graduate from high school. • In all counties except Fulton and Montgomery, the male graduation rate is lower than the female graduation rate. • Over one third of the students in Fulton and Montgomery Counties who are economically disadvantaged did not graduate from high school. NOTE: Fulton and Montgomery Counties have the highest poverty rate in the region for families with children age five to seventeen. • Regardless of which county a young person attends school in, too many do not graduate, setting the stage for a difficult life ahead.

We also examined data from select school districts (see table below) within the MV Region based in part on the number of juvenile arrests in the corresponding jurisdiction.

Table 7. Public High School Graduation Rates: 2013-2014 School Year Selected Public Economically School Districts All Students Female Male Disadvantaged All NYS Public Schools 76% 80% 73% 67% Gloversville 55% 50% 59% 51% Amsterdam 67% 68% 66% 52% Herkimer 71% 84% 53% 64% Little Falls 78% 87% 71% 67% Oneonta 78% 84% 72% 67% Cobleskill 77% 82% 74% 66% Rome City 70% 75% 66% 71% Utica City 70% 75% 66% 71% SOURCE: NY State Education Department Performance Measurement Data

Summary of highlights from the table above:

• Gloversville High School had by far the lowest graduation rate (55%) relative to other jurisdictions we examined and unlike most other high schools; their female graduation rate (50%) was substantially lower than their male graduation rate (59%).

NOTE: Gloversville Police Department also accounted for over 90% (233 of 250) of all juvenile arrests in Fulton County in 2013. The population of the City of Gloversville is 15,315. This small city is located within Fulton County (pop. 54,941) so Gloversville is home to 28% of the County’s population.

• Gloversville also has an overall poverty rate of 26.2 %, nearly twice the national average and among the highest rates in NY State for a city its size, but other jurisdictions in our region have similar high poverty rates, but much lower juvenile arrest rates and much higher school completion rates.

• The City of Oneonta, located in Otsego County 73 miles southwest of Gloversville, is just slightly smaller than Gloversville (13,901 vs. 15,665). Oneonta has a slightly higher poverty rate (28.9%) than Gloversville (26.2%). However, high school graduation rates and juvenile arrest rates are dramatically different as the table below reveals.

• In the Herkimer school district, the high school graduation rate for males (53%) is substantially lower than the rate for females (84%). While most school districts have lower rates for males, none in our region have such a large difference.

• Students in schools designated as “economically disadvantaged” have lower graduation rates that the general student body as expected. On average about two-thirds (66-67%) of these students graduate. However, in two school districts identified, only half the economically disadvantaged students graduated (51% in Gloversville and 52% in Amsterdam School Districts).

Table 8. Graduation and Poverty Rates; Population and Juvenile Arrests for Selected Areas High School Graduation Number of Rate All Juvenile Arrests Students Population 2013 Poverty Rate Gloversville 55% 15,665 233 26.2% Amsterdam 67% 18,206 41 23.5% Herkimer Village 71% 7,662 18 24.9% Little Falls 78% 4,887 18 n/a Oneonta 78% 13,946 13 28.9% Cobleskill Town 77% 6,451 14 12.6% Rome City 70% 32,837 334 16.7% Utica City 70% 61,808 135 29.6% SOURCES: NY State Education Department Performance Measurement Data for 2013-2014 School Year, DCJS Data On Juvenile Arrests and Census Quick Facts Data for 2013.

Note that high school graduation rates are more closely correlated with juvenile arrests than with overall poverty rates for these communities but again, exercise caution before making inferences from this data. There are complex reasons that go beyond what happens or does not happen in schools that account for school bonding, attendance, academic performance, and graduation. For example, it’s interesting to note that in the City of Oneonta in Otsego County—which has higher graduation rates and a much lower juvenile arrest rate—over 43% of adults over age 25 have a Bachelor’s degree or higher compared to 12.1% of adults with a this same level of education in Gloversville, NY, suggesting that parental education level might affect both school performance and juvenile delinquency for youth in these communities.

With that noted, it remains essential to examine all the system components of our local juvenile justice system relative to their impact on youth behavior, juvenile crime, repeat criminal behavior (recidivism) and public safety. At the process level, the school to prison pipeline begins at school.

The number and rate of school arrests have been increasing dramatically in recent years. Between 1990 and 2000, there were 4,563 school-arrests nationally; between 2006 and 2007, the number increased to 12,918, an increase of over 280%. Further, about two-thirds of these arrests are for misdemeanors, suggesting that the increase in school arrest is due in large part

to the re-labeling of non-serious behaviors as criminal (Advancement Project, 2010). The most

immediate and direct way that exclusionary discipline and school criminalization contribute to the school to prison pipeline is by creating direct links between school behavior and the juvenile justice system.

In a recent examination of potential strategies and programs to reduce or “narrow” the school to prison pipeline, NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services funded work by University at Albany School of Criminal Justice that involved an in depth evaluation of innovate programs in Syracuse and Utica in Central Upstate NY.

Upstate, NY Youth and Parent/Caregiver Focus Group Data collected in 2012 for the Juvenile Delinquency/Family Court Informational Project offers a look into how many youth and parents experience and perceive how what happens in school affects outcomes from youth related to involvement in juvenile justice system.

“…..young people and caregivers discussed a process which combined a negative school setting (that was sometimes ‘harder to enter than a maximum security prison’), inappropriate student (and staff) behaviors, confusion and miscommunication of staff roles and responsibilities. These factors often resulted in generic responses, which did not take individual risks and needs into account, like detention and both in and out of- school suspensions, placement in alternative programs and expulsions. Time away from ‘traditional classrooms’ make it nearly impossible to keep up with work and pass classes, frustration grows as does tardiness and absenteeism and youth become increasingly

disconnected from school. Project participants discussed this ‘flushing’ of young people out of schools and into the streets, where they become attracted to negative activities and other out-of-school youth who struggle with avoiding delinquency. Unfortunately, too many young people end up participating in criminal activities (for a variety of reasons) and find themselves at the front door of the juvenile justice system.”

The research team associated with this project coordinated by Courtney Ramirez, the DMC Coordinator for DCJS at the time, sum up how the school to prison pipeline leads to negative short and long term outcomes for youth, parents, community, and society:

“The over-reliance on exclusionary discipline has been found to have far-reaching negative implications for students, despite being ineffective at improving school climate or student outcomes. Overutilization of suspension, expulsion, police notification, and SROs negatively impacts students in three primary ways: 1) by increasing arrests and juvenile justice involvement; 2) by “pushing out” problematic students and making high school graduation unattainable (encouraging student dropout); and 3) by further disadvantaging already marginalized groups through the over-targeting of minority youth and youth with disabilities. Further, since these outcomes frequently happen simultaneously, the negative effects accrue and interact for students targeted by zero tolerance policies. This interaction of consequences manifests in a number of ways well into students’ adult lives. For example, some research suggests that zero tolerance policies may increase the likelihood of later adult criminal justice involvement, or harm chances for future employment.”

SOURCE: Youth and Parent/Caregiver Focus Group Data collected for the Juvenile Delinquency/Family Court Informational Project- a NYS DCJS Office of Juvenile Justice Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Project, February 2012.

Figure 1. System Involvement: School-Related Factors Connected with Juvenile Justice

Unclear Roles & Negative Inappropriate Responsibilities School Behaviors Climate “Blanket” Responses

Disconnection from School

Youth “Flushing”

System Involvement

The chart above is from the 2012 Juvenile Delinquency/Family Court Informational Project- a NYS DCJS Office of Juvenile Justice Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Project. It illustrates the relationships between the key school-related factors that contribute to the downward spiral toward involvement in the juvenile justice system for too many youth in our nation.

In assessing the state of our juvenile justice system here in the Mohawk Valley Region, we need to ask ourselves if these relationships exist in our region in general or in one or more school districts in one or more counties in our six-county region. The scant and largely anecdotal evidence we have indicates that the answer may be “yes”.

Probation officers working with juveniles in all six counties point to the fact that “many” of the youth they see are currently disconnected from school in that they have been absent or truant from for multiple days prior to entering the juvenile justice system. It is also evident that school districts in our region have widely varying policies and practices with regard to tracking, reporting, and dealing with truancy and chronic truancy, and in general, schools lack the capacity (staff and administrative resources/personnel and funding) to address school absence quickly and effectively. While we received mostly positive comments about the cooperation of schools with county probation officers working with juveniles enrolled in these schools, the school/probation institutional relationship relies largely on the efforts and good will of both school personnel and probation personnel. In addition, it lacks the institutional infrastructure needed to address the behavioral health of students struggling in schools and the need for more formal mechanisms that would allow probation officers and other juvenile justice practitioner’s access to data on school attendance and academic performance.

Juvenile Arrest by Police Agencies: Entry into the Juvenile Justice Pipeline

Formal entry into the juvenile justice system begins with an encounter with a police officer who arrests a youth age seven to fifteen in a school, home, or community setting.

How is data collected on juvenile criminal activity? Interpreting NY State juvenile arrest data is problematic. Police agencies within New York State are not mandated to report juvenile crime unless they are receiving NY State grant funding that requires they collect and report this data. For those that do report crime, reporting can either be done through Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) methods, or by using Incident Based Reporting (IBR).

There are more than 500 separate police agencies, each with a different department head and different protocols. What conduct is grounds for arrest and how it is reported vary considerably across the state.

As a result, we do not have accurate, real time information about patterns of arrest and offending. We are unable, except with extraordinary effort, to provide a basic understanding of what offending trends are – pieces of information that are a fundamental tool of adult crime control and prevention.

SOURCE: Tough on Crime: Promoting Public Safety by Doing What Works. NYS Juvenile Justice Advisory Group. 2010.

New York State follows the guidance set forth in the Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook (2004) published by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The UCR is the traditional summary crime reporting method within New York State. While New York State considers “juvenile” to include those ages 7-15 only, forty-eight other states in the nation considers 16 and 17 year olds as juveniles. The UCR Handbook (2004) applies to arrests made for anyone under the age of 18, regardless of the location.

The UCR program considers a juvenile to be an individual under age 18 years of age regardless of state definition. An agency must score a juvenile arrest when the circumstances are such that if the individual were an adult, an arrest would have been counted. SOURCE: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook, 2004.

Given the discrepancy in the definition of “juvenile”, NYS juvenile arrest statistics are not comparable with national juvenile arrest data.

Incident-based reporting (IBR) is a streamlined way of submitting a police department’s required crime reports. IBR replaces multiple reports with a single monthly computerized submission. Instead of summarizing key events, Incident Based Reporting records specific incident details, including information about the offender, victim, and property. Data are collected on all types of crimes, not just the most serious offenses. If multiple crimes occur during a single incident, they are all reported. DCJS then uses the computer –generated IBR files to classify the crimes into UCR categories.

SOURCE: www.criminaljustice.ny.gov, NYS Incident Based Reporting (IBR), accessed 7/15/2015.

Juvenile arrest information is categorized by the type of offense committed. The data reported through the UCR system does not include the number of crimes committed or the number of charges per person; rather only counts the top UCR charge for each person. This is determined using the Hierarchy Rule, which states “if a person is arrested for multiple offenses that were committed simultaneously, only the offense highest in the hierarchy of UCR Crimes is counted” (DCJS, 2013). Participation in using the UCR program is recommended, but agencies that seek grant funding from the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) may be required to participate with UCR.

Some, but not all, police departments within New York report juvenile arrests using the Incident-Based Reporting System (IBR). The IBR collects all of the reported offenses and arrests in an incident, not just the highest level charge.

What are the advantages of using IBR? DCJS lists a few advantages to using the IBR system; • IBR reduces police department crime report paperwork and saves staff time • IBR improves the accuracy of reported information • IBR expands the information on the local crime picture which is readily available to local departments

Currently in the Mohawk Valley Region, there are 29 total police agencies not including the NYS Police which operate in all six counties. Fifteen of these twenty-nine (about half) of police agencies use IBR reporting. For those that do use it, when monthly reports are sent, DCJS categorizes offenses from the IBR into UCR codes.

Also worth noting is that five of the six counties in the Mohawk Valley Region have a County Sheriff’s Office with deputies who work in the community and that report juvenile arrest statistics. Herkimer County is the only county in the region in which the Sheriff’s Office does not have a road patrol.

Arresting and what it means: Whichever reporting method is used by an agency, all information is sent in a monthly report to DCJS called the ASR (See Appendix for example of ASR Monthly Report). The ASR is the only indicator of juvenile crime within New York State and is used in policy and funding decision-making. The ASR counts the number of juveniles that were arrested, not the number of crimes committed.

To qualify as an arrest that is reportable on the ASR, a juvenile must be taken into custody by police or issued an appearance ticket. When a juvenile is taken into custody, they are no longer free to leave and could be:

1. Handcuffed 2. Placed in a police vehicle 3. Brought to a police station 4. Taken directly to Family Court or secure detention 5. Given an appearance ticket 6. Warned and released without further action

SOURCE: DCJS, Reporting Juvenile Crime: Measuring Criminal Behavior, 2013.

Certain demographics that are captured on the ASR include age, sex, race, and ethnic origin. These are the only indicators that are recorded for personally identifying information. Other information recorded is the offense committed and the police disposition for the juvenile.

There are 5 different dispositions that police can make with a juvenile who has committed a violation of the law: 1. Handled within the police department and released 2. Referred to juvenile court or probation 3. Referred to welfare agency 4. Referred to other police agency 5. Referred to criminal or adult court

SOURCE: DCJS, Reporting Juvenile Crime: Measuring Criminal Behavior, 2013.

The data that follows for juvenile arrests within NYS, the Mohawk Valley Region, and in each county is comprised of only those incidents for juveniles under 16 years of age that a police agency has disposed of. While national data and trends will be explained, it is important to remember that national information contains youth under the age of 18. It is also important to remember that criminal activity statistics are used to influence policy and decision making, and it is not practical or accurate to compare agencies or regions with this data.

Data users should not rank locales because there are many factors that cause the nature and type of crime to vary from place to place. UCR statistics include only jurisdictional population figures along with reported crime, clearance, or arrest data. Rankings ignore the uniqueness of each locale. Some factors that are known to affect the volume and type of crime occurring from place to place are:

• Population density and degree of urbanization. • Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration. • Stability of the population with respect to residents’ mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors. • Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability. • Modes of transportation and highway systems. • Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics. • Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness. • Climate. • Effective strength of law enforcement agencies. • Administrative and investigative emphasis on law enforcement. • Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational). • Citizens’ attitudes toward crime. • Crime reporting practices of the citizenry.

SOURCE: FBI, Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics: Their Proper Use, 2011.

Statistics are being gathered to measure criminal activity, not court activity or formal arrests SOURCE: DCJS, Reporting Juvenile Crime: Measuring Criminal Behavior, 2013

Youth Crime and Juvenile Arrests in the Nation: Significant Declines in Recent Year Youth arrest rates across the nation have declined significantly over the past decade, leading to historically low levels. Between 2011 and 2012, there was a 10 percent drop in recoded juvenile arrests. There has been a 37 percent reduction in youth arrests across the country since 2003.

The violent crime index arrest rate reached a historic low level in 2012. The drop in arrest rates has occurred amongst both males and females and all racial groups. The rate of female arrests however has not decreased at the same rate as males in several categories; aggravated and simple assault, larceny- theft, vandalism, and disorderly conduct.

The juvenile property crime index date has declined over the past 20 years, falling 32 percent overall since 2008. In 2012, the juvenile index property crime rate fell to the lowest levels since 1980. Source: Puzzanchera, Juvenile Arrests 2012, 2014

Nationally in 2012, over one-fifth (22%) of the youth arrested were handled by police agencies and were released. Two-thirds (68 %) of these youth were processed through the juvenile court system and fewer than one in ten (8%) percent were referred to criminal court. The remaining juveniles were referred to a welfare agency or another police jurisdiction. (Source: Puzzanchera, Juvenile Arrests 2012, 2014 (Crime in the United States 2012 (Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2013), table 68))

Table 9. Juvenile Arrests Nationwide (Includes 16 and 17 year olds in 48 states) National Arrests/Criminal Activity Arrest/Criminal 2012 juvenile Female (% of % Change % Change Activity arrests total activity) 2003-2012 2008-2012 Total 1,319,700 29% -37% -34% Simple Assault 173,100 37% -28% -25% Larceny 224,200 42% -30% -30% Drug abuse violations 140,000 17% -29% -22% Disorderly Conduct 120,100 35% -38% -36% Other 239,600 27% -37% -33% SOURCE: Puzzanchera, Juvenile Arrests 2012, 2014

Highlights: • Juvenile arrest rates across the nation have dropped dramatically over the past decade (37 percent reduction since 2003) • All index crime rates are at their lowest levels since 1980. • Females commit nearly one in three offenses and almost one out of every two simple assaults. • Simple assault and larceny account for 30 percent of all total juvenile arrests in 2012.

Juvenile Arrests in New York State: Mirroring the National Trend Juvenile criminal activity in New York State (excluding NYC) has declined as a whole over the past 5 years. Total arrest and criminal activity rates in NYS (excluding NYC) dropped 38 percent from 2010 through 2014. The number of occurrences in each category has also declined with the juvenile population over the past 5 years. Even with the reduction in criminal activity, there have not been any major shifts in the types of offenses that youth are committing.

The overall amount of criminal activity has dropped over the past five years, but percentages of crimes committed fluctuate. The percentage of person crimes has risen 5 points over the past 5 years, now accounting for 28 percent of all criminal activity. Property crime percentage remains where it was in 2010, accounting for 49 percent of all crimes committed. Source: NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services, Office of Justice Research and Performance, June 1, 2015

Table 10. Juvenile Reported Arrests in NYS Counties (not counting NY City) from 2010 to 2014

NY State (Non-NYC) Reported Arrests/Criminal Activity 2010-2014 2010 2012 2014 Change # % # % # % # % Juvenile Population 1,316,326 1,282,918 Arrest/Criminal Activity 14,891 100% 11,306 100% 9,210 100% -5,681 -38%

Female Arrests 4,355 29% 3,173 28% 2,543 28% -1,812 -42%

Person 3,365 23% 2,796 25% 2,534 28% -831 -25% Simple Assault 1,985 13% 1,564 14% 1,430 16% -555 -28% Sexual Offenses 453 3% 418 4% 359 4% -94 -21%

Property 7,298 49% 5,913 52% 4,533 49% -2,765 -38% Criminal Mischief 1,719 12% 1,625 14% 1,197 13% -522 -30% Larceny 3,771 25% 2,725 24% 2,156 23% -1,615 -43% Weapons 289 2% 243 2% 248 3% -41 -14% Drug 523 4% 426 4% 303 3% -220 -42%

Other 3,416 23% 1,928 17% 1,592 17% -1,824 -53%

Source: NYS DCJS, Office of Justice Research and Performance, June 1, 2015 Highlights:

• Overall arrest/criminal activity numbers have dropped 38% • Person crimes have dropped 25% in total, but make up 5% more of all arrests in 2014 than in 2009 • Property crimes have dropped 38% altogether, with minimal shifts in the proportion of offenses in each category • Female crime continues to make up nearly one-third of all juvenile activity

Attention: Please Read Before Reviewing the Analysis of County-Level Arrests

As this report was developed, we began to receive input from stakeholders in reference to the arrest and criminal activity numbers we obtained from DCJS not reflecting the nature and extent of juvenile criminal activity in all jurisdictions in the region. It is necessary to include the following disclaimer so that juvenile arrest data reported is not misinterpreted.

Every month, DCJS is supplied with juvenile arrest data from city and town police departments, county sheriff’s offices, and state police agencies within each county. The reporting tool used to transfer this data to DCJS is the Age, Sex, Race, and Ethnicity of Persons Arrested Report (ASR) (see appendix for copy of ASR). This report includes juveniles taken into custody and is codified by age, sex, race, ethnicity, and offense. Although “arrests” of juveniles on the ASR include youth who are age 16 and 17 (and therefore not classified as juveniles in NY State), the final disposition section only includes juveniles below the age of 16. DCJS is also able to separate the 16 and 17 year olds from the ASR for annual data reporting purposes.

The term “taken into custody” means that the juvenile is no longer free to leave, regardless of whether he or she is handcuffed, placed in a police vehicle, or brought into a police station. By extension, this would include cases in which a juvenile is a) taken directly to Family Court or secure detention, b) given an appearance ticket, or c) warned and released without further action.

Source: Instructions for Preparing the Age, Sex, Race and Ethnic Origin of Persons Arrested, Under 18 Years of Age Report, NYS DCJS-3290, March, 2013

Feedback from local law enforcement agencies in response to the DCJS stats in arrest section of an early draft of this report has raised questions pertaining to the way juvenile criminal activity is currently reported. Looking at county-level data, annual arrest numbers may appear to be consistent based upon past patterns. When exploring the jurisdictional level from city and town police departments, it becomes apparent that they may be reporting juvenile arrests and criminal activity differently in our region.

Some jurisdictions appear to be reporting every single juvenile contact with police that is reportable under UCR standards, while others may only be reporting juvenile contacts that result in some type of appearance or follow on actions like a probation referral. This leads to a discrepancy in reported data which in turn creates an unclear picture of juvenile criminal activity.

We have reached out to DCJS for comment about the compilation of data from the ASR’s received and we are awaiting response. It is our belief that juveniles that are warned and released are being included in the “arrest/criminal activity” counts. Not all jurisdictions include every juvenile that is warned and released for a UCR reportable offense, but some do. Without separation of these disposition categories at the county and regional level, the picture of juvenile criminal activity in any specific area is cloudy at best. Data presented in the pages to follow on “arrests/criminal activity” has been supplied by NYS DCJS and originated from what was reported by each jurisdiction to DCJS.

Figure 2. Upstate NY Juvenile Crime by Category of Offense

Highlights:

• Half of all juvenile crime is property crime • Drugs and weapons crimes comprise a very small proportion of all juvenile crimes • Over one in four juvenile crimes involves another specific person as the victim

Arrests for Juvenile Crime in Mohawk Valley Region:

Similar to New York State (excluding NYC) and the nation, juvenile crime rates (measured by juvenile arrests) in the Mohawk Valley region have fallen fairly significantly. However, the overall juvenile crime rate in our region, as well as sub-category rates, have not dropped as much as they have in the rest of the state or across the nation.

While the overall number of arrests has gone down in the MV Region, the number of person crimes has nearly stayed the same. The percentage of person crimes for all crimes committed has climbed from 22 percent to 27 percent during the last five years. Of those person crimes, simple assaults have risen to account for 22 percent of all criminal activity.

Property crimes have also risen one percentage point, accounting for 1 out of every 3 arrests. The number of larcenies across the region has gone up, accounting for 17 percent of all criminal activity, a rise in 4 percentage points.

The data table below validates what we learned from interviews with police agencies and probation departments across the region. Several police officers describe the youth that are committing crimes in their jurisdiction as being “unable to keep their hands to themselves”.

The large percentage of “other” crimes in the table below can be attributed to offenses under the UCR that do not match a specifically listed crime on the DCJS criminal activity statistics tables. The data tables are comprised of several key offenses, but there are still many that are not individually listed, grouping them together into the “other” category. One offense that is not individually listed is disorderly conduct. An interview with a police agency within Oneida County revealed that disorderly conduct is a common offense that youth are committing in the area.

The table below is a snapshot of regional juvenile criminal activity. Like the data for the nation and rest of the state, the information is not perfect, and it is not complete picture of juvenile crime. Also, while not every encounter with youth is always recorded and processed, it can help gain an understanding of what types of foci should be taken to reduce juvenile criminal activity. With a large percentage of offenses being larceny and assaults, programs to engage youth and curb this type of behavior could be beneficial.

Table 11. MV Region Juvenile Reported Arrests from 2010-2014 Mohawk Valley Regional Reported Arrests/Criminal Activity Change 2010- 2010 2012 2014 2014 # % # % # % # % Juvenile Population 55,007 53,222 Arrest/Criminal Activity 1,528 100% 1,467 100% 1,265 100% -263 -17%

Female 483 32% 470 32% 461 36% -22 -5%

Person 343 22% 307 21% 340 27% -3 -1% Simple Assault 278 18% 206 14% 284 22% 6 2% Sexual Offenses 47 3% 48 3% 30 2% -17 -36%

Property 482 32% 558 38% 422 33% -60 -12% Criminal Mischief 192 13% 190 13% 150 12% -42 -22% Larceny 199 13% 256 17% 210 17% 11 6% Weapons 26 2% 27 2% 19 2% -7 -27% Drug 36 2% 34 2% 31 2% -5 -14%

Other 644 42% 535 36% 523 41% -121 -19% Source: NYS DCJS, Office of Justice Research and Performance, June 1, 2015

Figure 3. Mohawk Valley Regional 2014 Reported Arrests/Criminal Activity

Highlights: • Overall criminal activity has dropped 17 percent in the past 5 years • Female criminal activity rates remain relatively high, and have climbed in the percentage of total crimes committed, accounting for more than 1 out of every 3 crimes committed • Person crimes, specifically simple assaults, have risen slightly over the 5 year period, making up 27 percent of all criminal activity in 2014 • Larceny crimes continue to climb, rising 6 percent over the past 5 years and accounting for 17 percent of all criminal activity

Arrest types by category of offense:

We have taken a look across the state and region at the 2014 juvenile criminal activities by types of crimes committed. The table below is designed to show the percentage of arrests by crime type in the state, region, and each county.

Table 12. Juvenile Reported Arrests in 2014: NYS, MV Region and MV Region Counties 2014 Reported Arrests/Criminal Activity by Type MV NYS Region Fulton Herkimer Montgomery Oneida Otsego Schoharie Arrest/Criminal Activity 9,210 1265 332 41 73 776 30 13

Female Arrests 28% 36% 28% 24% 29% 42% 27% 38%

Person 28% 27% 7% 37% 14% 36% 33% 46% Simple Assault 16% 22% 5% 17% 12% 32% 7% 31% Sexual Offenses 4% 2% 2% 15% 1% 1% 17% 8%

Property 49% 33% 34% 41% 78% 28% 53% 23% Criminal Mischief 13% 12% 14% 17% 27% 9% 30% 0% Larceny 23% 17% 14% 10% 34% 16% 20% 15% Weapons 3% 2% <1% 0% 4% 2% 3% 0% Drug 3% 2% 2% 12% 1% 2% 3% 0%

Other 17% 41% 57% 10% 3% 32% 10% 31% Source: NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services, Office of Justice Research and Performance, June 1, 2015

Highlights: • The Mohawk Valley Region’s percentage of female criminal activity is higher than the state average, affected primarily by Oneida and Schoharie Counties • Percentage of crimes in different categories, to include person, property, and other, vary widely throughout the region

County Arrest Data:

Criminal activity statistics are displayed for each county within the Mohawk Valley region. There is also a jurisdictional chart to show where arrests are being recorded within the counties. As stated before, this is not an attempt to compare the amount or types of arrests across counties or jurisdictions, as there are a multitude of factors that contribute to juvenile delinquency. This is displayed for the knowledge of what is being recorded in each location.

Jurisdictional tables have also been created for each county, but the data is displayed differently than the county tables. The jurisdictional tables include information from each arresting agency and are categorized into Index and Part II crime totals.

Index crimes are the top chargeable offenses and include murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft.

The remaining crimes under UCR definitions are comprised into the Part II category, which are as follows:

• Other assaults (simple) • Forgery and counterfeiting • Fraud • Embezzlement • Stolen property: buying, receiving, possessing, etc. • Vandalism • Weapons: carrying, possessing, etc. • Prostitution and commercialized vice • Sex offenses (except forcible rape, prostitution, and commercialized vice) • Drug abuse violations • Gambling • Offenses against the family and children • Driving under the influence • Liquor laws • Drunkenness • Disorderly Conduct • Vagrancy • All other offenses (except traffic violations) • Suspicion • Curfew and loitering laws (persons under the age of 18) • Runaways (persons under age 18)

SOURCE: FBI, Offense Definitions-Crime in the United States 2009, accessed 7/22/2015.

Juvenile Arrests by County for the MV Region: Fulton County

Table 13. Juvenile Reported Arrests by County: Fulton County Fulton County Reported Arrests/Criminal Activity Change 2010- 2010 2012 2014 2014 # % # % # % # % Juvenile Population 6373 6069 Arrest/Criminal Activity 508 100% 464 100% 332 100% -176 -35%

Female 147 29% 108 23% 93 28% -54 -37%

Person 99 19% 41 9% 22 7% -77 -78% Simple Assault 88 17% 22 5% 15 5% -73 -83% Sexual Offenses 5 <1% 12 3% 6 2% 1 20%

Property 117 23% 170 37% 112 34% -5 -4% Criminal Mischief 57 11% 78 17% 46 14% -11 -19% Larceny 46 9% 72 16% 47 14% 1 2% Weapons 3 <1% 5 1% 1 <1% -2 -67% Drug 9 2% 7 2% 8 2% -1 -11%

Other 280 55% 241 52% 189 57% -91 -33% Source: NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services, Office of Justice Research and Performance, June 1, 2015

Figure 4. Fulton County 2014 Reported Arrests/Criminal Activity

Table 14. Juvenile Reported Arrests by County Jurisdiction: Fulton County 2014 Juvenile Reported Arrests and Criminal Activity: Fulton County, NY Total Arrests/ Index Percent of Criminal Index Crime Part II Total: All Jurisdiction/Police Agency Activity Crimes Percent Crimes Activity Gloversville 287 44 15% 243 86% Johnstown 30 4 13% 26 9% NYS Police- Fulton County 12 8 67% 4 4% Fulton County Sheriff 3 3 100% 0 1% Northville 0 0 0% 0 0% Totals and Average Ratios 332 59 273 100% Source: DCJS, Uniform Crime/Incident-Based Reporting system as of 4/27/2015

Figure 5. Fulton County by Jurisdiction: 2014

Fulton County Highlights:

Overall recorded criminal activity is down 35 percent since 2010, from 508 in 2010 to 332 in 2014

• The majority of arrests fall under the “other” category, which could be for a variety of UCR chargeable offenses not specifically listed within the data tables • Criminal activity type of crime breakdown validates interviews conducted with local agencies, who describe juveniles being involved with a lot of property crimes, activity in public places, and disorderly conduct. • Recorded person crimes have fallen substantially over the past 5 years, comprising only 7 percent of all recorded criminal activity in 2014, which is the lowest in the region and well below the rest of the state average

• Criminal activity is concentrated in Gloversville, which accounts for 86 percent of all recorded arrests. Johnstown accounts for 9 percent of recorded arrests. Together, the two municipalities account for 95 percent of all recorded juvenile arrests. • The majority of criminal activity is recorded as Part II crimes (82 percent), which is comprised of simple assaults, stolen property, vandalism, disorderly conduct, curfew laws, etc.

Juvenile Arrests by County for the MV Region: Herkimer

Table 15. Juvenile Reported Arrests by County: Herkimer County Herkimer County Reported Arrests/Criminal Activity 2010 2012 2014 Change 2010-2014 # % # % # % # % Juvenile Population 7334 7193 Arrest/Criminal Activity 77 100% 81 100% 41 100% -36 -47%

Female 15 19% 29 36% 10 24% -5 -33%

Person 15 19% 18 22% 15 37% 0 0% Simple Assault 9 12% 6 7% 7 17% -2 -22% Sexual Offenses 5 6% 7 9% 6 15% 1 20%

Property 41 53% 40 49% 17 41% -24 -59% Criminal Mischief 17 22% 19 23% 7 17% -10 -59% Larceny 10 13% 16 20% 4 10% -6 -60% Weapons 6 8% 1 1% 0 0% -6 -100% Drug 7 9% 8 10% 5 12% -2 -29%

Other 8 10% 14 17% 4 10% -4 -50% Source: NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services, Office of Justice Research and Performance, June 1, 2015

Figure 6. 2014 Herkimer County Reported Arrests/Criminal Activity

Table 16. Juvenile Reported Arrests by County Jurisdiction: Herkimer County

2014 Juvenile Reported Arrests and Criminal Activity: Herkimer County, NY Total Arrests/ Index Percent of Criminal Index Crime Part II Total: All Jurisdiction/Police Agency Activity Crimes Percent Crimes Activity NYS Police-Herkimer County 17 7 41% 10 41% Herkimer Village 7 4 57% 3 17% Little Falls 6 0 0% 6 15% Dolgeville 6 0 0% 6 15% Ilion 4 0 0% 4 10% Frankfort Village 1 0 0% 1 2% Frankfort Town 0 0 0% 0 0% Totals and Average Ratios 41 11 30 100.0% Source: DCJS, Uniform Crime/Incident-Based Reporting system as of 4/27/2015

Figure 7. Herkimer County by Jurisdiction: 2014

Crimes by type:

• Overall recorded criminal activity is down 47 percent since 2010, from 77 arrests in 2010 to 41 in 2014 • Person and property crimes each made up nearly 40 percent of recorded criminal activity in 2014 • Drug offenses made up 12 percent of total arrests in 2014, which is the highest in the region and above the rest of the state average • Sexual offenses made up 15 percent, which is also the highest in the region and above the rest of the state average for 2014

Jurisdictional breakdown:

• The State Police recorded 41 percent of all juvenile arrests in 2014 • 73 percent of all recorded criminal activity was comprised of Part II crimes. Law enforcement officers interviewed claimed that a lot of juvenile criminal activity is made up of criminal mischief, simple assaults, and other offenses committed in public areas, many in the after- school hours • The only jurisdictions reporting Index crimes were the State Police and the Village of Herkimer

Juvenile Arrests by County for the MV Region: Montgomery

Table 17. Juvenile Reported Arrests by County: Montgomery County Montgomery County Reported Arrests/Criminal Activity Change 2010- 2010 2012 2014 2014 # % # % # % # % Juvenile Population 5992 5844 Arrest/Criminal Activity 85 100% 70 100% 73 100% -12 -14%

Female 22 26% 17 24% 21 29% -1 -5%

Person 23 27% 13 19% 10 14% -13 -57% Simple Assault 17 20% 10 14% 9 12% -8 -47% Sexual Offenses 1 1% 1 1% 1 1% 0 0%

Property 39 46% 45 64% 57 78% 18 46% Criminal Mischief 17 20% 15 21% 20 27% 3 18% Larceny 11 13% 23 33% 25 34% 14 127% Weapons 3 4% 0 0% 3 4% 0 0% Drug 0 0% 1 1% 1 1% 1

Other 20 24% 11 16% 2 3% -18 -90% Source: NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services, Office of Justice Research and Performance, June 1, 2015

Figure 8. Montgomery County: 2014 Reported Arrests/Criminal Activity

Table 18. Juvenile Reported Arrests by County Jurisdiction: Montgomery County 2014 Juvenile Reported Arrests and Criminal Activity: Montgomery County, NY Total Arrests/ Percent of Criminal Index Index Crime Part II Total: All Jurisdiction/Police Agency Activity Crimes Percent Crimes Activity Amsterdam 35 15 43% 20 48% Montgomery County Sheriff 20 11 55% 9 27% Fort Plain 6 1 17% 5 8% St. Johnsville 6 3 50% 3 8% NYS Police-Montgomery County 3 2 67% 1 4% Canajoharie 3 0 0% 3 4% Totals and Average Ratios 73 32 41 100% Source: DCJS, Uniform Crime/Incident-Based Reporting system as of 4/27/2015

Figure 9. Montgomery County by Jurisdiction: 2014

Montgomery County Highlights:

Crimes by type:

• Overall criminal activity has dropped 14 percent, from 85 arrests in 2010 to 73 arrests in 2014 • Only 14 percent of recorded arrests are from person type crimes, which is the second lowest within the region and below the rest of the state average • Property crimes have risen over the past 5 years and made up 78 percent of all recorded arrests in 2014, the highest in the region and above the rest of the state average • Of those property crimes, reported larcenies have increased the most, and made up 34 percent of all recorded arrests in 2014 • Lowest rate of all other recorded criminal offenses within the region

Jurisdictional breakdown:

• 44 percent of all arrests in 2014 were for Index crimes, which goes along with the rise in larcenies throughout the county • The City of Amsterdam recorded 48 percent of all arrests within the county in 2014, with 43 percent of those arrests being for Index crimes

©Richard Ross, www.juvenile-in-justice.com

Juvenile Arrests by County for the MV Region: Oneida

Table 19. Juvenile Reported Arrests by County: Oneida County Oneida County Reported Arrests/Criminal Activity 2010 2012 2014 Change 2010-2014 # % # % # % # % Juvenile Population 25,938 25,332 Arrest/Criminal Activity 772 100% 777 100% 776 100% 4 0.5%

Female 266 34% 289 38% 324 42% 58 22%

Person 187 24% 215 28% 277 36% 90 48% Simple Assault 155 20% 161 21% 247 32% 92 59% Sexual Offenses 14 2% 18 2% 11 1% -3 -21%

Property 236 31% 278 36% 217 28% -19 -8% Criminal Mischief 70 9% 69 9% 68 9% -2 -3% Larceny 123 16% 139 18% 126 16% 3 2% Weapons 14 2% 18 2% 14 2% 0 0% Drug 16 2% 16 2% 16 2% 0 0%

Other 319 41% 250 32% 252 32% -67 -21% Source: NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services, Office of Justice Research and Performance, June 1, 2015

Figure 10. Oneida County 2014: Reported Arrests/Criminal Activity

Table 20. Juvenile Reported Arrests by County Jurisdiction: Oneida County 2014 Juvenile Reported Arrests/Criminal Activity: Oneida County, NY Total Arrests/ Index Percent of Criminal Index Crime Part II Total: All Jurisdiction/Police Agency Activity Crimes Percent Crimes Activity Rome 491 37 8% 454 63% Utica 103 39 38% 64 13% New Hartford 54 44 81% 10 7% Oneida County Sheriff 50 10 20% 40 6% NYS Police- Oneida County 23 10 43% 13 3% Whitesboro 20 6 30% 14 3% Whitestown 16 2 13% 14 2% Boonville Village 12 3 25% 9 2% Vernon 6 6 100% 0 1% Kirkland 1 0 0% 1 0% Camden 0 0 0 0% New York Mills 0 0 0 0% Oriskany 0 0 0 0% Sherrill 0 0 0 0% Yorkville 0 0 0 0% Totals and Average Ratios 776 157 619 100% Source: DCJS, Uniform Crime/Incident-Based Reporting system as of 4/27/2015

Figure 11. Oneida County by Jurisdiction: 2014

Crimes by type:

• Overall criminal activity is up by 0.5 percent (4 arrests) since 2010 • Female criminal activity rates are increasing, with females accounting for 42 percent of all criminal activity in 2014, which is the highest rate in the region and above the rest of the state average • Person type crimes have climbed since 2010, with simple assaults making up 32 percent of all recorded arrests in 2014 • “Other” type arrests accounted for 32 percent of all 2014 activity, which a large amount of those were for disorderly conduct, according to law enforcement interviews

Jurisdictional breakdown:

• The City of Rome accounted for 63 percent of all activity in 2014, with 491 total recorded arrests • New Hartford recorded 54 total arrests in 2014, 44 of them, or 81 percent, were Index crimes. Index crimes include the sub-category of larceny, which could account for the high concentration, as New Hartford has a large shopping area that includes the local mall and large plazas • Part II crimes made up 80 percent of total 2014 arrests within Oneida County

Juvenile Arrests by County for the MV Region: Otsego

Table 21. Juvenile Reported Arrests by County: Otsego County Otsego County Reported Arrests/Criminal Activity Change 2010- 2010 2012 2014 2014 # % # % # % # % Juvenile Population 5938 5536 Arrest/Criminal Activity 62 100% 47 100% 30 100% -32 -52%

Female 29 47% 13 28% 8 27% -21 -72%

Person 12 19% 7 15% 10 33% -2 -17% Simple Assault 6 10% 2 4% 2 7% -4 -67% Sexual Offenses 2 3% 3 6% 5 17% 3 150%

Property 37 60% 15 32% 16 53% -21 -57% Criminal Mischief 26 42% 3 6% 9 30% -17 -65% Larceny 6 10% 5 11% 6 20% 0 0% Weapons 0 0% 3 6% 1 3% 1 Drug 3 5% 0 0% 1 3% -2 -67%

Other 13 16% 22 47% 3 10% -10 -77% Source: NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services, Office of Justice Research and Performance, June 1, 2015

Figure 12. Otsego County: 2014 Reported Arrests/Criminal

Table 22. Juvenile Reported Arrests by County Jurisdiction: Otsego County 2014 Juvenile Reported Arrests and Criminal Activity: Otsego County, NY Total Arrests/ Index Criminal Index Crime Part II Percent of Total: Jurisdiction/Police Agency Activity Crimes Percent Crimes All Activity Oneonta 13 5 38% 8 43% Otsego County Sheriff 9 0 0% 9 30% NYS Police-Otsego 8 4 50% 4 27% Cooperstown 0 0 0% 0 0% Totals and Average Ratios 30 9 21 100% Source: DCJS, Uniform Crime/Incident-Based Reporting system as of 4/27/2015

Figure 13. Otsego County by Jurisdiction: 2014

Otsego County Highlights:

Crimes by type:

• Criminal activity has dropped 52 percent since 2010, with 30 total arrests in 2014 • The number of person crimes has decreased slightly over 5 years, but this activity made up a higher percentage of total yearly crimes in 2014 • Property crimes accounted for 53 percent of all 2014 offenses, which is the second highest in the region • There is a low rate of criminal offenses that fall under the “other” category

Jurisdictional breakdown:

• Index crimes accounted for 30 percent of all criminal activity in 2014, with Oneonta and the State Police handling the 9 Index crimes • The City of Oneonta recorded 43 percent of total recorded criminal activity in 2014 • The Sheriff’s Office and State Police recorded 30 percent and 27 percent of crimes respectively

Juvenile Arrests by County for the MV Region: Schoharie

Table 23. Juvenile Reported Arrests by County: Schoharie County Schoharie County Reported Arrests/Criminal Activity Change 2010- 2010 2012 2014 2014 # % # % # % # % Juvenile Population 3432 3248 Arrest/Criminal Activity 24 100% 28 100% 13 100% -11 -46%

Female 4 17% 5 18% 5 38% 1 25%

Person 7 29% 13 46% 6 46% -1 -14% Simple Assault 3 13% 5 18% 4 31% 1 33% Sexual Offenses 2 8% 7 25% 1 8% -1 -50%

Property 12 50% 10 36% 3 23% -9 -75% Criminal Mischief 5 21% 6 21% 0 0% -5 -100% Larceny 3 13% 1 4% 2 15% -1 -33% Weapons 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Drug 1 4% 2 7% 0 0% -1 -100%

Other 4 17% 3 11% 4 31% 0 0% Source: NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services, Office of Justice Research and Performance, June 1, 2015

Figure 14. Schoharie County: 2014 Reported Arrests/Criminal Activity

Table 24. Juvenile Reported Arrests by County Jurisdiction: Schoharie County 2014 Juvenile Arrests and Criminal Activity: Schoharie County, NY Total Arrests/ Index Percent of Criminal Index Crime Part II Total: All Jurisdiction/Police Agency Activity Crimes Percent Crimes Activity NYS Police- Schoharie County 6 2 33% 4 46% Cobleskill 4 2 50% 2 31% Schoharie County Sheriff 3 0 0% 3 23% Schoharie Village 0 0 0% 0 0% SUNY at Cobleskill 0 0 0% 0 0% Totals and Average Ratios 13 4 9 100% Source: DCJS, Uniform Crime/Incident-Based Reporting system as of 4/27/2015

Figure 15. Schoharie County by Jurisdiction: 2014

Schoharie County Comments:

Crimes by type:

• Criminal activity is down 46 percent since 2010, with only 13 recorded arrests in 2014 • While the number of females arrested has not changed since 2010, females made up 38 percent of all arrests in 2014 • Person crimes made up 46 percent of all arrests in 2014, which is the highest rate in the region, and above the rest of the state average • Property crimes have decreased since 2010, accounting for 23 percent of all 2014 recorded criminal activity

Jurisdictional breakdown: • State Police recorded 46 percent of all 2014 arrests in Schoharie County • Cobleskill and the Sheriff’s Office accounted for the rest of the arrests, with 31 percent and 23 percent respectively • Part II (less serious) criminal offenses were 70 percent of all 2014 arrest activity

What Happens After a Juvenile is Arrested in NY State?

“Police are under no statutory obligation to notify the parent or guardian of a 16- or 17- year-old upon arrest. Youth may remain in police custody or jail for hours or days without a caregiver’s knowledge of their whereabouts, and may be detained in police lockups with adults.

By contrast, if an officer arrests a juvenile 15 years or younger, the officer must make an immediate attempt to notify a parent or another person legally responsible for the young person’s care. Under the Family Court Act, the officer must make “every reasonable effort” at notification prior to questioning or bringing the juvenile to Family Court.

While the Family Court Act stops short of requiring that parents be present during questioning of their children, it does require Miranda warnings for the child and his or her parent, if present, prior to questioning.

In addition, the statute requires the suitability of questioning a youth alleged to be a juvenile delinquent and the reasonable duration of that questioning to be determined after taking the age of the child, the presence or absence of a parent, and the required parental notification into consideration.

The Family Court Act also restricts the types of environments in which youth may be questioned. An officer may question a juvenile only in spaces approved by the Office of Court Administration (OCA) or, with consent of the parent, in the juvenile’s home.

OCA-approved juvenile questioning rooms must be office-like settings with a separate entrance for youth or a procedure to avoid mingling youth with adult detainees.

Juveniles are also protected by the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA), which provides that juveniles must be sight- and sound-separated from adult detainees in any adult lockup and that they cannot be held there for more than a total of six hours.

None of these protections are currently afforded to 16- and 17-year-olds at arrest. Instead, 16- and 17-year-olds are questioned and detained alongside other adult offenders in police lockups.”

SOURCE: Final Report of the Governor’s Commission on Youth, Public Safety and Justice: Recommendations for Juvenile Justice Reform in New York State. Governor’s Commission on Youth, Public Safety and Justice, 2015.

Detention of Juveniles

After a youth has contact with the police, and a formal arrest is conducted for a violation of a legally chargeable offense, the youth in most cases is released to the family with an appearance ticket to appear in a town, village, or city court at a later date. Depending on the criminal offense and other factors including the time of day and day of the week, a police officer may take the youth immediately to a Family Court in the county the youth lives in to appear before a family court judge or in some cases, directly to a detention facility.

A youth taken to Family Court may be remanded to a detention facility to await the filing of a petition. In many cases, this court-ordered detention stay is ordered specifically to conduct an inpatient mental health evaluation, which could last more than 2 weeks. Two-thirds (68%) of all detention stays in NYS in 2014 were the result of a Family Court order.

“A child whom a judge determines poses a significant serious risk of offending before the next court appearance or a substantial risk of not appearing at the next court date is sent to a local detention facility or to a detention facility for youth charged with a juvenile crime” (NYS Juvenile Justice Advisory Group. Tough on Crime, 2010 p.13).

Detention is also sometimes used if the youth does not have a safe place to remain within the community and/or the community lacks the resources to house the juvenile. Detention facilities are also used by police who arrest juveniles to hold and safely house youth who cannot be safely released to the family during times that Family Court is not in session. In NY State overall, nearly one-third (31%) of all juvenile detention admissions were police admissions in 2014.

NY State had a total of 54 detention facilities to hold youth changed with a crime while their cases were pending in Family Court in 2010. As of May 2015, there are now only 19 detention secure and non- secure detention facilities in Upstate, NY (not including NY City or Long Island).

There is now only one detention facility in the six-county Mohawk Valley Region. It is an eight-bed non-secure facility in Utica (Oneida County) managed by a community provider. All five of the other counties in this region must transport youth to an out-of-county facility when detention is required.

In system-assessment terms, thinking about the state and region’s detention capacity should follow the principles and practices of what an effective system looks and operates like. In the New York State Juvenile Justice Advisory Group’s 2010 report titled “Tough on Crime: Promoting Public Safety by Doing What Works”, the JJAG made several system-effectiveness recommendations based on solid research.

They recommend that our NYS Juvenile Justice System operate to “arrest, detain, and place only those who pose a risk to public safety”. To accomplish this recommendation, the JJAG outlined 4 steps to begin this process:

• Invest in understanding who the population is at each system point: who is being arrested, detained and placed • Provide early intervention to reduce the risk factors and build resiliency of youth who do not pose a danger to public safety • Reduce detention and improve public safety by implementing a reliable risk assessment instrument and post-disposition instrument statewide SOURCE: JJAG, Tough on Crime: Promoting Public Safety by Doing What Works, 2010

In response to legislation that was enacted in 2011, the Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) developed and validated a single risk assessment for full-state usage. After training, the Detention Risk Assessment Instrument (DRAI) was implemented in all areas and became mandatory to use.

SOURCE: www.OCFS.ny.gov/main/rehab/drai/ accessed 7/24/2015

The DRAI is made up of four sections:

• Demographics: Personal information about the youth including parent name(s) • Current Circumstances: Lists offense information, arresting police agency, who is completing the assessment and what time, and reason for completion • Risk Factors: Four questions pertaining to previous Family Court activity, prior PINS petition, any prior warrant, and if current charges include burglary, grand larceny, auto stripping, or motor vehicle theft. The four questions on the DRAI are scored as a 1 or a 0, and the total of the four is added up. The total risk score carries the following recommendations: o 0 points: release without restrictions (to parent/guardian) o 1 point: release with restrictions (alternative to detention program) o 2-4 points: detain • To be Completed For Detention/After Hours Screens Only: Checklist of options for the Outcome; whether DRAI recommendations were followed or if the youth was placed in a lower or higher level of supervision than recommended. Includes the final decision choices of release with or without supervision, non-secure detention, or secure detention. Also includes options for the reasons that the DRAI recommendations were not followed, if applicable, and the information of the person authorizing the decision not to follow the DRAI. SOURCE: NYS Juvenile Detention Risk Assessment Instrument (DRAI) worksheet

MV Region Juvenile Justice Partners Don’t Like the DRAI

We encountered widespread criticism of the DRAI among juvenile justice practitioners we interviewed for this assessment. One theme was universal throughout the region: the fact that the DRAI includes “auto-stripping” as an offense that will boost the DRAI score in a region of NY State where this crime is literally non-existent – while crimes like aggravated assault do not increase the DRAI score makes no sense to local juvenile justice professionals and contributes to a sense of the DRAI as a flawed risk assessment tool.

The following tables and charts display the detention admission and release rates for 2014 throughout New York State (excluding NYC), and the Mohawk Valley. Rates for 2014 include the admission type, or where the detention admission is being originated, whether it is police, family court, or other. Previous to 2014, this information was not available.

Table 25. New York State Detention Admissions: 2014 New York State (Excluding NYC)

# %

Total Arrests 9,210 100%

Detention Admissions 2,205 100%

Detention Rate 24%

Admission Type

Police Admissions 687 31%

Court Admissions 1,494 68%

Other Admissions 24 1%

Source: NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services, Office of Justice Research and Performance, June 1, 2015

Mohawk Valley Detention Admissions and Releases: 2014

Table 26. Mohawk Valley Region Detention Admissions: 2014 Mohawk Valley Detention Admissions: 2014 MV Regional Average Fulton Herkimer Montgomery Oneida Otsego Schoharie # % # % # % # % # % # % # % Total Arrests 332 41 73 776 30 13 Detention Admissions 1 5 18 48 3 0 Detention Rate 6% 0.3% 12% 25% 6% 10% 0% Detention Type Police Admissions 16% 1 100% 1 20% 6 33% 2 4% 2 67% Court Admissions 81% 0 0% 4 80% 12 67% 44 92% 1 33% Other Admissions 3% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 4% 0 0% Source: NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services, Office of Justice Research and Performance, June 1, 2015

• The Mohawk Valley Region as a whole has a substantially lower detention rate (6%) than that of New York State (excluding NYC) which has a 24% detention rate. • Fulton County has a high juvenile arrest number (and rate) but has the lowest detention rate in the region <1%). • Montgomery County’s detention rate of 24% is four times the regional average of 6%. • Herkimer County had 5 detentions for 41 juvenile arrests in 2014—twice the regional rate. The Oneida County rate matches the regional average. Schoharie County had no (0) detentions in 2014.

Table 27. Mohawk Valley Region Detention Releases: 2014

Mohawk Valley Detention Releases: 2014 MV Regional Average Fulton Herkimer Montgomery Oneida Otsego Schoharie # % # % # % # % # % # % # % Detention Releases 15 100% 1 100% 5 100% 15 100% 51 100% 3 100% 0 JO Releases 1 4% 0 0% 0 0% 1 7% 2 4% 1 33% Time in a secure facility 5 33% 1 100% 1 20% 4 27% 23 45% 1 33% Detention Stays 3 Days or less 2 11% 1 100% 0 0% 5 33% 3 6% 1 33% 4-14 Days 5 33% 0 0% 4 80% 4 27% 22 43% 0 0% 15-28 days 3 22% 0 0% 1 20% 3 20% 15 29% 1 33% 29-44 days 1 8% 0 0% 0 0% 2 13% 5 10% 0 0% 45 days or more 1 9% 0 0% 0 0% 1 7% 6 12% 1 33% Source: NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services, Office of Justice Research and Performance, June 1, 2015

• Detention stays varied across the region, but the most last between 4 to 28 days.

The following tables and charts show the detention admission and release data over time (2010-2014) in the six counties with the Mohawk Valley.

Table 28. Detention: Fulton County Fulton County Detention Admissions and Releases 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 # % # % # % # % # % Total Arrests 508 100% 403 100% 464 100% 250 100% 332 100% Admissions 2 100% 4 100% 2 100% 6 100% 1 100% Female 0 0% 2 50% 0 0% 1 17% 1 100% Detention Rate 0.4% 1% 0.4% 2% 0.3% Releases 2 100% 4 100% 2 100% 6 100% 1 100% Detention Stays 3 Days or Less 0 0% 2 50% 2 100% 2 33% 1 100% 4-14 Days 1 50% 0 0% 0 0% 3 50% 0 0% 15-28 Days 1 50% 2 50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 29-44 Days 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 45 Days or more 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 17% 0 0% Source: NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services, Office of Justice Research and Performance, June 1, 2015

Figure 16. Fulton County Reported Arrests and Detention

• Fulton County has high arrest numbers and a high arrest rate- but by far the lowest detention rate in the region for nearly the entire 5-year period and nearly all detention stays lasted 28 days or less

Table 29. Detention: Herkimer County Herkimer County Detention Admissions and Releases 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 # % # % # % # % # % Total Arrests 77 100% 86 100% 81 100% 85 100% 41 100% Admissions 7 100% 6 100% 8 100% 7 100% 5 100% Female 1 14% 1 17% 2 25% 1 14% 2 40% Detention Rate 9% 7% 10% 8% 12% Releases 7 100% 5 100% 9 100% 7 100% 5 100% Detention Stays 3 Days or Less 2 29% 0 0% 1 11% 0 0% 0 0% 4-14 Days 2 29% 4 80% 4 44% 3 43% 4 80% 15-28 Days 1 14% 0 0% 2 22% 2 29% 1 20% 29-44 Days 1 14% 1 20% 1 11% 2 29% 0 0% 45 Days or more 1 14% 0 0% 1 11% 0 0% 0 0% Source: NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services, Office of Justice Research and Performance, June 1, 2015

Figure 17. Herkimer County Reported Arrests and Detention Admissions

• Herkimer County exhibits relatively low detention numbers and rates through the 5-year period. The highest detention rate was 12 percent in 2014. • Detention stay lengths have varied over the period, but 2014 had none over 28 days

Table 30. Detention: Montgomery County Montgomery County Detention Admissions and Releases 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 # % # % # % # % # % Total Arrests 85 100% 57 100% 70 100% 68 100% 73 100% Admissions 14 100% 9 100% 9 100% 13 100% 18 100% Female 4 29% 4 44% 2 22% 4 31% 5 28% Detention Rates 16% 16% 13% 19% 25% Releases 14 100% 9 100% 8 100% 15 100% 15 100% Detention Stays 3 Days or Less 1 7% 2 22% 2 25% 4 27% 5 33% 4-14 Days 8 57% 5 56% 4 50% 5 33% 4 27% 15-28 Days 3 21% 0 0% 1 13% 4 27% 3 20% 29-44 Days 1 7% 1 11% 1 13% 1 7% 2 13% 45 Days or more 1 7% 1 11% 0 0% 1 7% 1 7% Source: NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services, Office of Justice Research and Performance, June 1, 2015

Figure 18. Montgomery County Reported Arrests and Detention Admissions

• Detention rates above regional average, and reached 25 percent in 2014 • Detention stay lengths vary over the 5-year period, but most are greater than 28 days

Table 31. Detention: Oneida County Oneida County Detention Admissions and Releases 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 # % # % # % # % # % Total Arrests 772 100% 780 100% 777 100% 702 100% 776 100% Admissions 101 100% 69 100% 77 100% 75 100% 48 100% Female 28 28% 30 43% 17 22% 20 27% 6 13% Detention Rates 13% 9% 10% 11% 6% Releases 101 100% 69 100% 74 100% 79 100% 51 100% Detention Stays 3 Days or Less 10 10% 6 9% 13 18% 9 11% 3 6% 4-14 Days 36 36% 32 46% 34 46% 28 35% 22 43% 15-28 Days 29 29% 15 22% 14 19% 16 20% 15 29% 29-44 Days 16 16% 11 16% 9 12% 11 14% 5 10% 45 Days or more 10 10% 5 7% 4 5% 15 19% 6 12% Source: NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services, Office of Justice Research and Performance, June 1, 2015

Figure 19. Oneida County Reported Arrests and Detention Admissions

• Relatively low detention rates over the 5-year period, with 2014 having the lowest rate at 6 percent (one quarter the overall NY State detention rate for this recent year). • A large proportion of the detention stays are short, (less than 14 days), but in recent years, Oneida County also has more long term detention stays than any other county in the region.

Table 32. Detention: Otsego County Otsego County Detention Admissions and Releases 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 # % # % # % # % # % Total Arrests 62 100% 44 100% 47 100% 42 100% 30 100% Admissions 4 100% 0 0 4 100% 3 100% Female 0 0% 0 0 1 25% 0 0% Detention Rates 6% 0% 0% 10% 10% Releases 4 100% 0 0 4 100% 3 100% Detention Stays 3 Days or Less 1 25% 0 0 3 75% 1 33% 4-14 Days 1 25% 0 0 1 25% 0 0% 15-28 Days 2 50% 0 0 0 0% 1 33% 29-44 Days 0 0% 0 0 0 0% 0 0% 45 Days or more 0 0% 0 0 0 0% 1 33% Source: NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services, Office of Justice Research and Performance, June 1, 2015

Figure 20. Otsego County Reported Arrests and Detention Admissions

• Very low detention rates across the 5-year period. • No more than four total detentions in any of the five years with two of these years (2011 and 2012) seeing no detentions at all.

Table 33. Detention: Schoharie County Schoharie County Detention Admissions and Releases 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 # % # % # % # % # % Total Arrests 24 100% 33 100% 28 100% 28 100% 13 100% Admissions 1 100% 3 100% 3 100% 0 0 Female 0 0% 0 0% 1 33% 0 0 Detention Rates 4% 9% 11% 0% 0% Releases 1 100% 3 100% 3 100% 0 0 Detention Stays 3 Days or Less 1 100% 1 33% 0 0% 0 0 4-14 Days 0 0% 1 33% 2 67% 0 0 15-28 Days 0 0% 1 33% 0 0% 0 0 29-44 Days 0 0% 0 0% 1 33% 0 0 45 Days or more 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 Source: NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services, Office of Justice Research and Performance, June 1, 2015

Figure 21. Schoharie County Reported Arrests and Detention Admissions

• Low detention rates across the 5-year period, with no admissions in 2013 and 2014 • Almost all youth detained were released within 28 days, with only 1 person being detained for 29-44 days in the 5-year period.

Because data was not available until 2014 on the detention admission type (police, family court, or other), the portion of youth that were sent to detention prior to appearing before a family court judge cannot be explored for previous years. Despite that, interview data with police departments within the Mohawk Valley have revealed that there are jurisdictions in our region that lack resources necessary to avoid detention (when appropriate) when family court is not in session.

If a youth is arrested and the arresting officer determines that it is not safe to release this youth to a parent or guardian, the officer has the option to take the juvenile directly to Family Court. However if it the court is closed (evenings, nights, weekends, holidays, etc.) that youth is remanded to a detention facility to wait for court to open.

Adult system processing is currently structured to arraign adults over the weekend in order for the court to make decisions about releasing individuals prior to trial. However, this kind of court access is not available in the juvenile detention setting outside of New York City. Instead, youth arrested and detained as juveniles must wait until Monday to see a Family Court judge if they are arrested

after the Family Court closes on Friday afternoon. These days are spent in a detention setting despite the fact that the youth may be released once they have the opportunity to see a judge.

Probation officers in some of the counties within the Mohawk Valley (e.g. Herkimer and Otsego Counties), report that alternatives to detention, such as respite facilities or foster care homes, are successful. Other counties in our region (e.g. Montgomery County) report that that there is a lack of resources in the community that could be effectively utilized to keep juveniles out of detention. If a youth is street homeless when arrested and there is no community shelter option detention may be the only option for police or a family court judge who determine it is not safe to release the youth back to the streets after an arrest. If youth appears to be having a mental health crisis and there are no community options for immediate emergency housing or crisis treatment, again, detention may be the only option for police or for a family court judge who determine it is not safe to release the youth after an arrest.

One strategy beyond weekend juvenile arraignments that would help ensure youth do not spend needless time in a detention facility to await appearance would be to have a facility within the county, or close by, where the youth can be taken if necessary. In Syracuse, NY the Salvation Army runs Booth House, an emergency shelter for homeless youth ages 10 to 17. During a recent site visit to Booth House in July 2015, we discovered that the Syracuse Police Department routinely brings homeless youth to this facility at all hours of the evening and night if they cannot be returned to their family home after an arrest. A facility like this is a key resource missing in all six counties in the MV Region.

While counties in the region lack community resources that could contribute to lower detention numbers and rates, overall, the county-level arrest and detention data for the MV Region indicate that, in alignment with NYS DCJS and national juvenile justice principles, detention rates are relatively low for most of the six counties.

Diversion: The Centerpiece of Juvenile Justice

Our achievement of the key objectives of our juvenile justice system—reducing juvenile crime, enhancing public safety, decreasing costs associated with policing, courts, and detention, and achieving long-term positive outcomes for youth, families, and communities—is dependent on timely, effective diversion strategies, processes, and programs.

Diversion is the heart and soul of juvenile justice system in New York State and the Mohawk Valley Region. Doing the right work at the right time to divert youth from further crime and from increased involvement in the justice system is also much cheaper.

The basic principles on which this focus on diversion rather than punishment or prosecution rests are:

• Children have different brains than adults. They have less self-control, are drawn to higher levels of risk, have underdeveloped decision-making abilities, and are bad predictors of consequences. • Children are particularly receptive to change…. Because they are still undergoing significant brain development. • The level of intervention must match the child’s risk (which is not necessarily the same as the child’s offense for which he or she was arrested).

SOURCE: “Tough on Crime: Promoting Pubic Safety by Doing What Works.” NYS Juvenile Justice Advisory Group Report to the Governor and Legislature, December 2010.

Overall, we found that the juvenile justice system in the MV Region—in each of its six counties—is very “diversion-centric”. Approximately half of all arrests that resulted in a probation intake were put into the diversion process managed by county probation departments. Additionally, over four of every five cases where diversion was attempted at the probation stage were successful, with the exception of Fulton County that adjusted (diverted) 64% of its cases.

However, county probation is not the only site that diversion can and does occur. Police agencies can “divert” cases by warning and releasing juveniles, and for all but the most serious offenses, county attorneys can divert at the petition stage. Finally, family court judges have the discretion to divert cases by declining to prosecute the youth or by mandating a youth back to probation or into a community- based program.

The tables below reveal how the flow of juvenile cases in the region is reduced to relatively small numbers of cases that wind up family court and (for even fewer youth) confinement in a state or county- funded residential facility.

Table 34. Probation Intakes, Referral to Presentment Agency, and Diversion Data

Mohawk Valley Region Probation Intake: 2014 Fulton Herkimer Montgomery Oneida Otsego Schoharie Processing Stage # % # % # % # % # % # % Arrest/Criminal Activity 332 100% 41 100% 73 100% 776 100% 30 100% 13 100%

JD Arrests resulting in Probation Intake (Cases Opened) 73 22% 49 120% 86 118% 310 40% 25 83% 11 85%

Probation Intake-JD Cases Closed 76 100% 66 100% 79 100% 229 100% 33 100% 14 100% Successfully Adjusted 44 58% 49 74% 40 51% 117 51% 13 39% 11 79% Referred to Presentment Agency 32 42% 17 26% 39 49% 112 49% 20 61% 3 21% Immediately 7 9% 7 11% 34 43% 92 40% 19 58% 1 7% Adjustment Terminated 25 33% 10 15% 5 6% 20 9% 1 3% 2 14% Successful Adjustment Rate (Excluding Immediate Referrals) 64% 83% 89% 85% 93% 85% Source: NYS DCJS, Office of Justice Research and Performance June 1, 2015

Summary/Highlights: • There is wide variation in the percent of juvenile arrests that result in probation intake. This is due primarily to differences between police departments in the way they handle juvenile arrests.

• Probation intakes also vary widely by county, and–Oneida County aside—there is little to no statistical relationship between a county’s youth population and the number of youth served by their probation department. The table below reveals that for every thousand youth in Otsego or Herkimer, or Schoharie Counties only 3 to 7 youth entered probation in 2014; while in Oneida, Fulton, and Montgomery Counties the rate was 12 to 15 youth per thousand—two to three times higher than the lower-rate counties.

NOTE: The table below provides selected data from Table 34 (above) in a different format for simplification and clarification.

Table 35. Probation Intakes Relative to Juvenile Population and Referral to Presentment Agency, and Probation Adjustment Data Number JD Arrests Percent Resulting in Referred to Juvenile Probation Probation Presentment Successful Population Intake Intakes/Per Agency for Adjustment County (Age 7-15) (2014) 1,000 Youth Prosecution Rate* Oneida 25,097 310 12.35 49% 85% Herkimer 7,051 49 6.95 26% 83% Fulton 5,898 73 12.38 42% 64% Montgomery 5,813 86 14.79 49% 89% Otsego 5,396 25 4.63 61% 93% Schoharie 3,177 11 3.46 21% 85% TOTAL/Avg. 52,432 554 10.57 83% * Does not include cases immediately referred to Petition without 60 days of Probation Diversion Services SOURCE: NYS DCJS Office of Justice Research and Performance June 1, 2015

Summary/Highlights (2014 Data): Rates of Referral to the Presentment Agency varied dramatically by county: • Herkimer County had the lowest proportion of probation cases referred for petition (17/66 or 26 percent, which is about one in four cases). • Otsego County had the highest proportion of probation cases referred for petition (20/33 or 61 percent). • Oneida, Montgomery, and Fulton County had rates in the middle (42 to 49 percent for referrals to petition). • Schoharie County referred just over one in five cases (21 percent) to the presentment agency.

Adjustment Rates—the proportion of probation intakes not immediately referred for petition—also varied widely by county ranging from 64 percent to 93 percent. The average adjustment rate for the region is 83%.

Why are there wide variations in these rates between the six counties in the MV Region? Earlier in this report, we examined the key contextual factors affecting juveniles and their families in the different counties in our region. In the report sections below, we look deeper into the details of what “diversion” is at various stages of the juvenile justice process and how it operates in our region and its various counties.

The logic of working to strengthen our diversion-centric system is based primarily on what works best for youth in terms of healthy development and the acquisition of social and life skills that support youth to become healthy, pro-social adults with the ability to survive in our economy and raise healthy children. The major driver of efforts to improve system accountability, efficiency, and overall

effectiveness is the fact that doing the right work at the right time to divert youth from further crime and from increased involvement in the justice system not only works to reduce juvenile crime and prevent future criminal activity—it is also much cheaper.

The cost of diversion is much lower than that of juvenile detention or out-of-home placement. Modeling by the Governor’s Commission suggests that diversion interventions can be provided for an average cost of $3,000 per case while the cost of out-of-home placement can reach over $200,000 per child annually. When coupled with research showing that many of the diversion interventions have a positive impact on public safety and youth outcomes, this cost comparison makes obvious the need for effective diversion tools in cases that do not present a meaningful risk to public safety.

Diversion Opportunities: Points in the Juvenile Justice Process Where Diversion Occurs

Pre-Arrest Diversion: Centered Primarily in Schools

Diversion services for youth begin before contact with law enforcement, starting in school and at home with the families. Persons In Need of Supervision (PINS) diversion services are a first line of defense for children that commit “status” offenses, (offenses that would not be crimes if they were committed by adults like running away, truancy, or being ungovernable or habitually disobedient), but which are negative behavior patterns that put youth at risk. Early detection, referral, and intervention of PINS services can help youth work through issues that, if continued, could lead to involvement in the juvenile justice system.

The intent of this system is to identify and address risk behaviors early and to prevent youth from engaging in high risk behaviors that are associated with criminal behavior and consequent involvement in the justice system.

There is a lot of pre-pre PINS diversion work that occurs, but there is no formal assessment done. This diversion work is done between the officer and the school social workers to assess the youth and identify any issues. (Interview data from Oneida County Probation Department)

Interviews with law enforcement personnel, probation officers, and family court judges conducted for this assessment indicated one common theme related to preventing PINS (or “pre-PINS”) youth from escalating involvement in criminal behavior and high-risk. There was consensus that having a knowledgeable, culturally competent probation officer, school resource officer, truancy officer, or other

related support staff embedded within the middle school(s) and high school(s) was an effective prevention and intervention strategy.

Youth spend a great deal of their lives in school and this is where they have most of their social interaction and influence from others. The success of having embedded officers in the schools has been noted, and while records can be kept, many of the positive impacts are those that cannot be measured. Whether it is providing a positive role model for children or helping to de-escalate situations in classrooms, the lunchroom, or hallway, schools benefit from having a properly trained officer inside.

Diversion often occurs at the school level. School Resource Officers (SROs) who are police officers working in the schools, or any probation officer stationed inside, work with school staff to identify youth that are having issues or need focus. Our interviews with experienced juvenile probation officers revealed that many of the youth presenting issues feel hopeless and helpless, and often times, it is the official in the school that can recognize the issue and provide support, guidance, or even just an ear to listen. These are the types of successes that cannot be measured by numbers or on paper; the impact that an officer has through day-to-day contacts. There are times though that the youth needs a formal diversion, which is where collaborations are the key to success.

Thoughtful and evidence-based decisions made by police officers during youth encounters, whether it be with a youth victim, suspect, or witness, can, in many instances, have far reaching benefits or unintended consequences for a young person, the community, and ultimately, public safety.

SOURCE: Youth Focused Policing: Agency Self-Assessment Tool. International Associations of Chiefs of Police, 2015.

There is a critical need for constant communication and collaboration within the schools to adequately address juvenile development and delinquency. No one person, agency, or office can solely address all of the needs of the youth. Constant conferencing and information sharing between school officials and probation officers, School Resource Officers (SROs), and/or truancy officers ensures that issues are addressed and handled as quickly and effectively as possible at the time.

There are times that a youth is diverted and it ties probation’s hands. Probation needs to be involved at every step to have an agency with the power behind it to hold the child accountable for sticking to a

diversionary plan. If probation is not brought in from the beginning, the youth can decide not to follow through with the plan, and there is no real recourse.

SOURCE: Interview data from Oneida County Probation Department

Interviews with probation and law enforcement officers indicate that there is mixed level of involvement within the schools across the region. While some counties have a strong presence and connection in local schools, other counties in our region lack strong partnerships with local schools and lack the school-based resources necessary to identify and serve youth at risk. For example, in Oneida County the probation department has juvenile officers serving in multiple schools on a part-time basis.

Although Montgomery County has one SRO assigned to Amsterdam High School and one to the middle school, in Oneida County, there are multiple SROs serving the county’s two largest high schools. No other county in the Mohawk Valley Region has this capacity which is related to the population size of Oneida County and to the level of funding that county departments and local not-for-profits organizations receive from NY State and other sources.

For the counties and school districts in the MV Region that have the need, capacity, funding and willingness to do the planning work there is some (albeit limited) support for strengthening the capacity of local law enforcement personnel to work effectively in school settings. The State of New York Police Juvenile Officers Association (SNYPJOA) provides periodic training for law enforcement agencies and SRO’s to help law enforcement best deal with the youth, issues, and the community. Regional representatives for the SNYJPOA recommend that every agency take advantage of any training available to help effectively address juvenile issues within the community. Training for SROs is time-limited however, as the SROs cannot get away for training during the school year.

The State of New York Police Juvenile Officers Association is committed to the development and implementation of quality training for all of its members and others in the field of juvenile justice. Through this training, law enforcement and other juvenile justice and human services professionals will ensure that our communities remain safe and that our young people have the opportunity to

develop into successful and productive citizens of every corner of New York State.

SOURCE: Our Mission, State of New York Police Juvenile Officers Association, Inc. http://www.snypjoa.org/About-Us.html

While most schools in the region do not have SROs or a juvenile probation officer on site, all school districts in the region do have school-based social workers who to a greater or lesser extent play a key role in helping to identify high-risk youth and work with probation on diversion plans. Other counties in our region, notably, Herkimer County, have a long history of developing integrated programs involving DSS and public schools (e.g. the School Intervention Partnership (SIP) Program that facilitates the ability to address youth issues prior to an arrest). However, the smaller counties our region lack even the limited capacity of Oneida and Herkimer counties to provide school-based prevention and intervention services to PINS and JD youth.

In spite of some creative and very hard work at the local level, system, program, and process integration for PINS and JD youth relative to public schools leaves much room for improvement in our region and around the state. The lack of institutional infrastructure—both policy and personnel—and the scant and uneven financial support for school-based prevention, intervention, and diversion services in our region’s schools leaves a huge gap and lost opportunities to work effectively with youth in the place they spend most of their childhood years.

Schools could be more proactive…they are not effectively dealing with juveniles; they are just placing them into alternative education, grouping them together. They don’t have to stay in school all day either, which leads to them being out in groups for periods of time during the day. SOURCE: Montgomery County Focus Group, 2015

Community-Based Opportunities for Juvenile Justice Prevention and Diversion: “Slim Pickings” for Much of the MV Region

Outside of school, after-school programs and community resources can play a crucial role in keeping youth off the streets and out of trouble. After-school programs that operate on research based methods and effectively promote positive life skills can be an asset to youth development and community safety. All areas within the region have identified that after-school programs and community resources to engage youth in a positive way in the afternoons and evenings are either non- existent or very lacking.

• There is nothing for youth to do after school, they congregate and can get into trouble (Herkimer) • There is nowhere for kids to go after school. They get together in groups in public places and get into trouble (Montgomery) • There needs to be community resources that give kids something to do. There is nothing within the community that is youth focused that positively impacts their life. There are some services in the area, but nothing beyond occasional appointment style services. (Rome) • There are no structured activities after school. There is a need for engaging activities for the youth and also good mentoring programs. (Herkimer)

Families that live in the more rural counties on the eastern side of the Mohawk Valley often have long commute times to work, which makes transportation an issue after school. After school activities within school or in the community do not usually provide transportation, which makes for a difficult choice. Youth can participate but not have a way to get home, go home after school and spend that time alone, or they can congregate with friends after school. It is the latter option which can lead to attention and police involvement.

Juvenile police officers within the region have explained that there is a great deal of contact with the youth directly after school hours. It is typically in the larger city areas and in public places, such as fast food places and public parks. With few options, the youth are congregating together and seeking acceptance from a larger group. This is a critical time to keep youth engaged in a positive way. The Underground Café in Utica, which is operated by Safe Schools, is an example of a program that gives the youth a place to get off the streets in the afternoons, be engaged in a positive way, and learn life skills.

The chart below highlights what we see here in our region: that on school days, juvenile violent crime spikes during the hours immediately after school providing reinforcement for targeting both public safety resources to reduce street-based conflicts and community-based resources to serve youth in the afterschool hours from 3PM to 5PM.

Figure 22. Juvenile Violent Crime Trends by Hour on School Days and Non-school Days

Note: Violent crimes include murder, violent sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. Data are from law enforcement agencies in 35 states and the District of Columbia. Source: OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book, 2014:http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/offenders/qa03301.asp?qaDate=2010

Arrest diversion is a chance for law enforcement to offer an alternative to entering the juvenile justice system. It is the officer’s discretion whether or not to arrest a juvenile. A few considerations in regards to arrest or not are if the youth has been in trouble before, the degree of the offense committed, and what the victim wants to do. There is a heavy emphasis placed on victim restitution in the process.

“It is the goal of the appropriate agency to ensure that the victim of an offense can feel whole again, whetherIt isthat important be through to differentiaterestitution, an between apology lowletter, and community high-risk service, delinquency or other and means. crime. Victim Status restitutionoffenses, is not infractions something thatthat onlywould happens not be at considered the local policing criminal level, if thebut youthcan follow were through an adult at any phase(e.g. throug truancy,h the underage juvenile justicedrinking, process.” running away, curfew violation), are typically low-risk.

The research is clear: youth processed through the justice system for status offenses are more likely to re-enter the juvenile or criminal system in the future2 and they may also be at greater risk for negative educational or mental health life outcomes. Furthermore, “…entering the

formal court system can have many damaging effects on a child and family that may cause them more harm and/or amplify the issues that brought them into the system…for low-level delinquency offenders, diversion programs have a more positive effect than formal court involvement and are more cost-effective.” As adolescents age, their risk of committing a crime or delinquent act lessens. Even high risk adolescent behavior is not necessarily indicative of future adult behavior. The prevalence of offending peaks in the teenage years (15-19) and then declines in the early 20’s.

Appropriate interventions for serious youth offenders are just as important as appropriate interventions for status and low-risk offenders. Both research and experience demonstrates that just a small percentage of youth offenders go on to re-offend and become serious and/or habitual offenders. These youth may benefit from corrective guidance to alter their life paths, helping to direct them out of a life of crime, delinquency, and victimization. Collaboration between law enforcement agencies and allied criminal/juvenile justice partners is the basis of cooperative case management processes that enable the juvenile justice system to focus informed attention on youth who repeatedly commit serious crimes. This would require multiple agency and stakeholder buy-in and information sharing to:

• “Provide relevant and complete case information for more informed charging, investigative, and sentencing decisions; • Avoid duplication of and filling gaps in services; • Plan for and support reintegration into family and/or community (where there is removal); and • Prevent juvenile recidivism and graduation to the adult criminal justice system.”

Early positive engagement by law enforcement can have significant impact on the growth and development of the youth. Police can find opportunities to impact youth through programs such as youth citizen academies and Police Athletic Leagues (PAL) or officers can directly provide guidance and mentoring by engaging with youth in the neighborhoods they serve.

“Other keys to positive youth engagement include the following:

• Understand ways to reach youth effectively. For example, use of social media to engage this unique group is imperative. • Educate department staff on differences in youth thinking and behavior, including how to de-escalate a situation in which youths are involved. • Model respectful relationships for youth to foster officer and community safety.”

SOURCE: Youth Focused Policing: Agency Self-Assessment Tool. International Associations of Chiefs of Police, 2015.

Juveniles and Effective Policing

The International Association of Chiefs of Police recently released the Agency Self-Assessment Tool which provides a comprehensive list of items in a number of domains for police agencies to assess their effectiveness with regard to addressing juvenile crime in their jurisdiction. This tool was designed to help larger police departments develop an action plan to effectively deal with youth in the community and includes items to assess the police agency’s:

• Level of concern and focus on youth and youth crime • Current policies and procedures related to supporting prevention efforts, collaboration with other government agencies to intervene with youth affected by crime/delinquency (both victims and suspects) • The policy agency’s capacity to address juvenile crime in the community (staff, trained juvenile officers, etc.) • The extent and quality of juvenile incident/crime information collection and the capacity to analyze juvenile crime data and share juvenile crime information with other law enforcement and community agencies • Other relevant domains related to the effectiveness of a police agency with regard to juveniles including collaborations and partnerships, use of best practices and evidence-based programs, and police involvement in juvenile diversion programs

SOURCE: Youth Focused Policing: Agency Self-Assessment Tool. International Associations of Chiefs of Police, 2015.

While it may be beyond the current capacity of most smaller town and village police agencies in our region to use this tool, it could be useful for our small city police departments.

A key issue hindering law enforcement in general and police in particular from making the best informed decisions for the juveniles they encounter in the MV Region is a lack of basic information on past police contacts and arrests. Because information on incidents and arrests of juveniles is not shared across most jurisdictional boundaries (even by police departments in neighboring communities) police officers are not able to quickly retrieve this important information and unless they have personal knowledge or their department had a record of prior incidents with the same youth, they have to rely on the information provided by the juvenile.

“There is nothing to track the youth; it becomes frustrating when you cannot communicate or find out any information on someone.”

SOURCE: Interview data from a key informant at the State of NY Juvenile Police Officer’s Association

Probation Intake/Pre-Court Diversion:

The majority of juveniles who are formally arrested are given an appearance ticket to appear at the county probation office and released to their family. A small percentage are detained for a variety of reasons, which will be covered in the detention section of this report.

Probation departments across the region outlined a similar process for how they receive appearance tickets for a probation intake. The arresting agency will send or drop off appearance tickets to probation with a pre-scheduled time and date for an intake. The current process for transferring appearance tickets to probation does not always work adequately. Interviews have revealed system issues with this process:

• Average time before probation notification (when the ticket arrives at the probation department office) is 2-3 weeks. There are times that the police department does not get information on the alleged offense to the probation department before the intake is scheduled (Oneida County) • Probation does not always receive all the necessary information along with the appearance ticket (Otsego County) • Unsure of what happens with juveniles whose tickets do not make it to probation (Otsego County) • Information is usually lacking or late from the New York State Police in all counties in the Mohawk Valley Region, many times coming in after the scheduled appointment (All Counties)

The Youth Assessment Screening Instrument (YASI) is completed during the first meeting with a youth and the parent(s) or guardian in the Probation Department office. This tool, along with other information gathered during the initial meeting between probation and the youth and their parent or guardian is added to the case record, and the juvenile probation officer—in most cases—puts a diversion plan together. Note however, that while appropriate diversion services through probation can greatly benefit the youth and prevent further penetration into the juvenile system, not all youth are appropriate for diversion, as certain offenses are ineligible, and public safety is an important factor in screening.

The YASI has a “pre-screen” outline and also a full assessment. The YASI was adapted from the Washington Association of Juvenile Court Administrators Risk Assessment Tool and is used by the New York State Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives. The pre-screen covers seven total sections, with each section having several sub-components:

• Legal History (Previous complaints, PINS or JD complaints, offense, etc.) • Family Environment • School • Community and Peer Relationships • Alcohol and Drugs • Physical/Mental Health • Attitudes

In addition to the items above that are on the pre-screen YASI, the full assessment also includes:

• Skills • Employment • Use of Free Time

The full assessment also goes into much deeper detail in each section than the pre-screen assessment. There have been mixed reviews among the juvenile probation officers that we interviewed with regard to assessing the risks and needs of youth using the YASI. Some officers believe that it is a good assessment, but still usually have additional questions for children and their parents. Some officers do not like to use it, citing it as being “too black and white” and that it is difficult to use as a re-assessment. Officers also say that the parents of the child can have a bearing and influence the results of administering the YASI.

Probation is directed to consider a range of factors when making suitability determinations including age; elements of the offense; likelihood of cooperation and success in timeframe; risk of re-offense or victim harassment during adjustment; history of offending; need for court removal from home; and whether there is an allegation against anyone else for acting jointly with the youth.

Source: Final Report of the Governor’s Commission on Youth, Public Safety and Justice: Recommendations for Juvenile Justice Reform in New York State. Governor’s Commission on Youth, Public Safety and Justice, 2015.

In one interview we conducted, a probation supervisor described having extensive training and a strong background as a social worker, which they felt was extremely helpful in conducting interviews with the youth and their family members. To the probation supervisor, this training helped them gather the relevant information, make good decisions on a case, and administer a thorough behavioral assessment in the intake interview.

While the YASI is performed by juvenile probation officers as required by NY State, a properly constructed in-depth interview that goes beyond the YASI allows for a more comprehensive picture of the youth and their issues. This experienced juvenile probation officer recommends that all probation officers, especially those serving as juvenile officers or supervisors, have training in the basic social work skills associated with building trust, opening communication channels, and assessing the many factors associated with juvenile delinquency for any particular case.

Interviews with probation departments revealed that many officers have a background in human service provision. Many in the Mohawk Valley come from a background that includes prior work with DSS as case workers. The background in human services and prior working relationships helps to bridge agency boundaries when collaborating on diversion services.

Each county where we conducted interviews indicated that there was some level of cooperation and communication between key agencies dealing with JD youth, but that there were also gaps between some organizations and agencies serving these youth. In each county there appears to be a strong

working relationship between DSS and PINS staff and the Probation office, but interviews indicated that physical proximity can have a positive or negative impact in terms of everyday communication and integration. When offices are further apart and communication relies on phone and email, as opposed to frequent visits, it can be difficult to maintain that close connection. This connection can be strengthened and maintained through regular weekly or bi-weekly case conferencing, as is done currently in Herkimer County.

However, the overall relationship between all agencies involved in the process, including youth diversion service providers, could be stronger in all six counties. Beyond case conferencing on individual JD and PINS cases, there is a need in all counties for an institutionalized group process that brings together school district personnel (including SROs if present), DSS, Probation, and community service providers that meets on a quarterly basis to discuss the issues and unmet needs of youth in the county who are at risk of involvement in the criminal justice system and to build and maintain the professional social networks that are vital for cross-agency cooperation and service integration.

Some programs do not regularly communicate with our department, so coordination is difficult.

(Interview Data from Schoharie County Probation Department)

Family Engagement in the Diversion Process

The family of the youth plays a critical role in the success, or failure, of successful adjustment. Family support is needed for appropriate diversion services to be effective. Juveniles need to have adequate transportation to be able to get to service providers. A healthy home life helps ensure that progress made through services can be continued. If a youth is in a physically, emotionally, or psychologically unhealthy home, any progress made through treatment will be negatively affected or negated by returning to that environment. Interviews related the family support dimension of diversion include the following observations and comments:

• Families are not engaged with these youth • Families that are employed are not home in the after school times due to hours and commuting time, leading to extended unsupervised periods of time • Family support is critical and when it is not there, the child can fail very easily • Parents seem disengaged from their children and many have a multitude of their own issues • Some parents don’t believe that their child has any behavior issues • A number of families appear to be the source of many of the problem behaviors driving the delinquency-related behavior of youth on probation, including substance abuse by the parents and the mental health problems of the parents themselves. • Most parents lack the basic parenting and communication skills necessary to teach their children basic social skills and to mediate conflict with their kids or with other adults in the household. • Many parents did not have good experiences while in public school as youth and they themselves were in the juvenile or adult criminal justice system and do not have a positive attitude with regard to working cooperatively with DSS or Probation.

We really need to focus on good quality interventions for the whole family unit. We are bringing children into the system, but do not really do much to change the setting that they are in. We need a way to hold parents more accountable for their children and themselves-if we can ‘fix’ the parents, then the kids will get better on their own.

We really need a single point of service for our families, where they can get what they need as a family in one spot, and then we can follow up in the community with progress.

SOURCE: Interview data from Schoharie County Probation Department

Community-Based Services Available to Support the Diversion Process: A Key Piece of the Juvenile Justice System for Counties in the Mohawk Valley Region

In NY State, and elsewhere, the diversion process is coordinated by probation department personnel, but actual services (e.g. mental health services, intensive case management, social recreational services, and mentoring and peer support services) are provided by community-based programs and providers.

There must be appropriate services available for the greatest chance of a successful diversion. Without access to services, even the best intentioned diversion plan is setting a juvenile up for failure. The Final Report of the Governor’s Commission on Youth, Public Safety and Justice (2015) indicates that many larger counties throughout New York State have access to evidence based programs and services, yet many smaller counties do not.

Services available to address the needs of youth in the juvenile justice system in the Mohawk Valley Region (based on the 2015 Governor’s Commission Report)

• Fulton County: 13 • Herkimer County: 14 • Montgomery County: 9 • Oneida County: 22 • Otsego County: 17 • Schoharie County: NR

This data (above) is only marginally useful when it comes to evaluating the capacity of probation department personnel to effectively divert juveniles. It does not distinguish between service and program types relative to the actual needs of juvenile delinquents and their families and it does not offer any measure of what critical services and programs are missing or that may exist, but do not have the capacity to meet the current need.

To address this system assessment data deficit we designed a “Diversion Program/Service Matrix” that includes the major juvenile justice diversion program and service categories for our region and asked all six county probation departments to rate the level of services available to youth on probation.

The question we asked was: Is this resource available for youth on probation in your county who you think need this program type or service for effective diversion and prevention of future incidents and problems that would lead to continued involvement in the criminal justice system? If yes, to what extent? Response choices were:

1. Not available 1. Available for some kids: but does not meet need 2. Available for about half the cases where it is needed 3. Available for most cases where needed 4. Available for all youth on probation who need it

Major Program Categories

Out-of-home short term crisis / respite services for youth Intensive Case Management services for youth with serious mental health and other behavioral health issues (like the Kids Oneida and Kids Herkimer programs) with small caseloads active involvement with the child and family. Evidence-Based Intensive (& costly) behavioral health interventions that combine clinical services and case management services like Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST), and Functional Family Therapy (FFT)

Emergency mental health services

Inpatient mental health services

Outpatient mental health services

Community-based after school social-recreational programs for youth that are accessible and affordable Community-Based Mentoring programs for youth (e.g. Big Brothers/Big Sisters)

Programs for children with problematic sexual behavior Psycho-educational programs to address aggression and interpersonal conflict (e.g. Aggression Reduction or Aggression Replacement Training Programs) Community Service programs or community service worksites for youth required to perform community services hours. Academic support programs (tutoring, homework help) Truancy Reduction Programs Vocational Training Programs Beds/shelter for homeless youth Any community-based life-skills development programs at all. Any school-based club or program for youth after school Other program or service type: please specify

The juvenile justice system must communicate and coordinate effectively with other systems (including education, child welfare, mental health, substance abuse, and the adult criminal justice system).

Source: Safe Communities Successful Youth: A Shared Vision for the NYS Juvenile Justice System. NYS Juvenile Justice Steering Committee, 2011.

Diversion Program Availability Capacity Survey Results

To get a more comprehensive picture of community and school-based programs commonly used as part of a package of diversion services for children and youth who have been arrested and are on probation, we conducted a mail survey of the six county probation departments in the region. The results are exhibited in the tables below.

Table 36. Community-Based Diversion Program Capacity and Resources: Part 1 Available for Not some kids: Available in but does not Program Type our county meet need O Out-of-home short term crisis / respite services for youth Intensive Case Management services for youth with serious mental F/M health and other behavioral health issues like Kids Oneida and Kids Herkimer with small caseloads. Evidence-Based Intensive (& costly) behavioral health interventions that combine clinical services and case management services like H/F/M/S Ot Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST), and Functional Family Therapy (FFT) O Emergency mental health services Inpatient mental health services F/Ot/M/S H/O

Outpatient mental health services Community-based after school social-recreational programs for F/Ot/M/H/S youth that are accessible and affordable Community-Based Mentoring programs for youth (e.g. Big F/M H/S Brothers/Big Sisters) Programs for children with problematic sexual behavior F/Ot/M/S H/O Psycho-educational programs to address aggression and interpersonal conflict (e.g. Aggression Reduction or Aggression F/M/S

Replacement Training Programs) Community Service programs or community service worksites for Ot H youth required to perform community services hours. F/M/H Academic support programs (tutoring, homework help) Truancy Reduction Programs F/M/S O/Ot F/M/O/S Vocational Training Programs Beds/shelter for homeless youth F/M/S H/O Any community-based life-skills development programs at all. F/M Ot/H/S Any school-based club or program for youth after school M S County Codes: F-Fulton; H-Herkimer; M-Montgomery; On- Oneida; Ot-Otsego; S-Schoharie

Table 37. Community-Based Diversion Program Capacity and Resources: Part 2 Available Available Available for about for most for all youth half the cases on cases where where probation Program Type it is needed needed that need it.

Out-of-home short term crisis / respite services for youth F/M Ot/S H Intensive Case Management services for youth with H/O/Ot/S serious mental health and other behavioral health issues like Kids Oneida and Kids Herkimer with small caseloads. Evidence-Based Intensive (& costly) behavioral health interventions that combine clinical services and case O management services like Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST), and Functional Family Therapy (FFT) H/S F/M/Ot Emergency mental health services

Inpatient mental health services H/F/M/O Ot/S Outpatient mental health services Community-based after school social-recreational Ot programs for youth that are accessible and affordable Community-Based Mentoring programs for youth (e.g. Big O Brothers/Big Sisters)

Programs for children with problematic sexual behavior Psycho-educational programs to address aggression and interpersonal conflict (e.g. Aggression Reduction or H/O/Ot

Aggression Replacement Training Programs) Community Service programs or community service worksites for youth required to perform community S F/M

services hours. O/Ot/S Academic support programs (tutoring, homework help) H Truancy Reduction Programs Vocational Training Programs Ot H Ot Beds/shelter for homeless youth Any community-based life-skills development programs at O all. H/O/Ot F Any school-based club or program for youth after school

County Codes: F-Fulton; H-Herkimer; M-Montgomery; On- Oneida; Ot-Otsego; S-Schoharie

Table 38. Summary of Juvenile Crime Prevention and Diversion Capacity and Resources Survey Findings Number of Number of Counties Counties With with Inadequate Sufficient Program Type Capacity Capacity

Out-of-home short term crisis / respite services for youth 1 5 Intensive Case Management services for youth with serious mental health and other behavioral health issues like Kids Oneida and Kids 2 4 Herkimer with small caseloads. Evidence-Based Intensive (& costly) behavioral health interventions that combine clinical services and case management services like 5 1 Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST), and Functional Family Therapy (FFT)

Emergency mental health services 1 5

Inpatient mental health services 6 0

Outpatient mental health services 0 6 Community-based after school social-recreational programs for youth 5 0 that are accessible and affordable Community-Based Mentoring programs for youth (e.g. Big 4 1 Brothers/Big Sisters) Programs for children with problematic sexual behavior 6 0 Psycho-educational programs to address aggression and interpersonal conflict (e.g. Aggression Reduction or Aggression Replacement Training 3 3 Programs)

Community Service programs or community service worksites for 2 3 youth required to perform community services hours. Academic support programs (tutoring, homework help) 3 3 Truancy Reduction Programs 5 1 Vocational Training Programs 4 1 Beds/shelter for homeless youth 5 1 Any community-based life-skills development programs at all. 5 1 Any school-based club or program for youth after school 4 2

“Inadequate Capacity” is defined as no services available or services available for some kids but does not meet the need.

“Sufficient Capacity” is defined as having a service available for most or all youth who need it.

Below is a summary table of prevention and intervention program and service deficits in the MV Region related to supporting juveniles on probation who have clinical, academic, and social needs.

Table 39. Capacity Challenges in the Six-County MV Region by Program Type Number of Counties With Inadequate Capacity to Meet Current Needs Evidence -Based Intensive behavioral health interventions that combine clinical services and case management services like Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST), and 5 Functional Family Therapy (FFT)

Inpatient mental health services 6 Community-based after school social-recreational programs for youth that are 5 accessible and affordable Community-Based Mentoring programs for youth (e.g. Big Brothers/Big Sisters) 4 Programs for children with problematic sexual behavior 6 Psycho-educational programs to address aggression and interpersonal conflict (e.g. 3 Aggression Reduction or Aggression Replacement Training Programs) Academic support programs (tutoring, homework help) 3 Truancy Reduction Programs 5 Vocational Training Programs 4 Beds/shelter for homeless youth 5 Any community-based life-skills development programs at all. 5 Any school-based club or program for youth after school 4

It is clear from this small survey that counties in the MV Region do not have the financial, human, organizational or system resources to meet many of the needs of youth involved with the juvenile justice system.

In particular, our region lacks the capacity to serve: • Youth with serious mental health and behavioral disabilities • Youth who are struggling in school or have lost their connection to school • Youth with inadequate parental support and guidance who need to develop basic life skills • Homeless youth

Diversion Challenges and Recommendations

Key informant interviews reveal challenges that are faced while working to divert the youth from the juvenile justice system and to help provide positive supports. While some challenges are difficult issues to overcome, recommendations made can help improve the system and ease service provision.

We asked “What challenges does your agency face with regard to providing services to youth that would prevent or reduce their involvement in the criminal justice system?” NOTE: The responses below are not meant to represent every county in the MV Region: they provide an overview of some key diversion challenges at the regional (not county) level.

Diversion Challenges Related to Programs and Program Capacity • Lack of respite beds to avoid the need for detention when youth cannot return home after incident • Lack of access to specialty providers (i.e. psychiatrists, sex offender counselors) • Community based providers with long waiting lists • Providers not available for youth that do not present a history of mental illness • Lack of after-school activities and programs • Too few programs overall to effectively deal with our juvenile population • Don’t have the right program(s) to refer youth who have committed sexual offenses

Diversion Challenges Related to Working with Schools • Lack of school involvement with case-conferencing • Schools are not focused on the emotional and social issues and development, only focused on grades and pass rates

Diversion Challenges Related to Families • Lack of family engagement [with both youth and with probation and diversion services] • Many families are not financially or emotionally stable • Adults in some families have oppositional attitudes toward probation and service providers

Diversion Challenges Related to Community • Lack of after-school activities and programs • Lack of places to go and activities after school

Diversion Challenges Related to System Issues • Timeline for effective diversion and adjustment services is too short • No flex or availability in the [probation and other county] budget[s] to provide the wide array of services that youth need • Unsure of what to do with runaway youth • “We need a youth community service coordinator….” [related to not having the ability to effectively manage community service sites/projects for JD youth who do community service as a condition of probation] • Juvenile probation officers lack up to date communication and data management tools (like smart phones with GPS and tablets/iPad) needed to do their job effectively

Currently, probation departments have 60 days, with an extension of 60 days if judicially approved, to adjust juvenile cases. This timeline is a barrier for the region to be able to properly divert and adjust cases. Two key informant interviews highlight the need for an extended timeline to be able to properly and effectively adjust cases:

• There is very little time to spend with each juvenile during the process. It is hard to sometimes gather a collective picture in such a short time (Otsego County JPO) • We have few programs that are really effective with this population. The programs that we can refer to typically have waiting lists-sometimes the youth could max out of diversion without ever being assigned to a program worker. We are rural, so sometimes it is really difficult for families to access services. (Schoharie JPO)

We then asked “What recommendations do you have to improve your probation department’s capacity to adjust or divert cases effectively?”

Recommendations (direct quotes and paraphrased):

• Respite facility or temporary shelter for youth to “cool-down” from a situation that may prevent them from going home. Could help to avoid costly detention stays for youth who need a place to stay for a night or two while a situation gets resolved. • Mandated school support with juvenile justice and prevention • After school mentoring programs to help engage the youth and create positive outlooks for the future and to see that “it doesn’t have to be this way.”

• “More programs like the Underground Café [an after school community based program in Utica] for kids to go after school and get off the streets” • Counseling services that are readily available for full family participation • Crisis services that do not follow on with involvement in the juvenile justice system • Trauma based cognitive behavioral therapy • Local resources for comprehensive mental health evaluations so that juveniles do not have to be sent away to detention facilities to complete; keep them in the community • More staff to work with youth and more time per child • Better accessibility and flexibility of funding for wrap-around services

Juvenile Delinquent Youth in Multiple Systems: County Departments of Social Services (DSS) and County Probation Departments

The way states organize the administration of child welfare and juvenile justice varies widely across the country and may influence a state’s ability to coordinate services between the two systems.

When states centralize administration of child welfare and juvenile justice (inclusive of community supervision or juvenile probation) through a single state-level department, as is the case in five states (Delaware, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Vermont), structural barriers to coordination may be reduced. An additional two states integrate all aspects but juvenile probation (Tennessee and Wyoming) and two more integrate within the separate divisions of an umbrella agency (Alaska and Mississippi).

In almost one half of the states [including NY State], one or more aspects of the child protection or the core juvenile justice intervention systems are decentralized.

SOURCE: National Center for Juvenile Justice: Juvenile Justice Geography, Policy, Practice and Statistics Project: The National Center for Juvenile Justice is the research division of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Justices funded by the Macarthur Foundation http://www.jjgps.org/systems-integration

System Integration in a Nearby State:

In Vermont, the Department for Children and Families, Family Services Division (DCF) oversees both child welfare and juvenile justice services allowing for consistent data sharing about dual status youth at the state level.

Since Vermont has a statewide justice and child welfare system, state-level and local memoranda of understanding, formal collaborative funding agreements, and administrative rules are covered under the statewide administrative rule rendering separate agreements unnecessary. In fact, under DCF the same social workers and staff provide services to youth involved in both juvenile justice and child welfare. Information about dually involved youth is already fully integrated in DCF's rules and information systems creating a highly collaborative environment.

There are also examples of local committees that address dual status issues and local prevalence research on dual status youth. All information about youth involved in child welfare and juvenile justice is housed in the same data system which allows all history in either system to be seen and dual status youth to be routinely identified at intake. Case management for dual status youth is easily coordinated at the local level through information sharing and regular case-level multi-disciplinary planning meetings because DCF administers all services [emphasis added].

The judiciary also coordinates services for dual status youth. The Family Division of Vermont's Superior Court handles all delinquency and dependency cases and consolidates delinquency and dependency matters with one judge. There are joint hearing appearance requirements and specialized caseloads for probation officers and social workers, who in some cases may be the same person. Vermont's commitment to coordination of services for dual status youth is further illustrated through specialized training on dual status issues provided when social workers are hired and discussions on the topic at the Annual Youth Justice Summit.

Here in NY State there is no system integration at the state level. System integration at the local level in the MV Region occurs only informally: there are no counties in our region with formal policy, practices, protocols in place outlined in MOUs or MOAs between County Child Welfare (DSS) and Probation Departments with regard to data sharing and no county has a committee or advisory group in place to facilitate or implement system integration. There are no formal interagency agreements or MOUs in place to proscribe or facilitate system integration.

Counties in the MV Region have been challenged by the lack of structural support at the state level with regard to social service/probation systems integration and have responded to this challenge by finding ways to communicate and cooperate on juvenile delinquent cases. The primary strategies and processes used by juvenile probation officers to access relevant information and formulate case plans and diversion strategies we encountered included:

Regularly scheduled case conferencing meetings involving both DSS and Probation staff to review both new and existing PINS and JD cases.

As-needed case conferencing meetings involving both DSS and Probation staff to review specific JD cases.

As needed worker-to-worker phone and in-person communication to discuss specific challenges and approaches to individual cases where the youth on probation is living with a family that is currently involved with DSS Preventive Services, or where the family has a history of past involvement with DSS Preventative Services and/or Child Protective Services.

It is important to note that many JD youth are living with families who are not currently involved with DSS services, but who are ‘known to DSS’ through past involvement, or who have a sibling who is currently involved as a PINS case.

County Department of Social Services’ Capacity to Meet to Provide Diversion Services for Juvenile Delinquents and PINS Cases

A key indicator of any human service or criminal justice system is “capacity”. Capacity is generally defined as having the fiscal, organizational, and human resources to achieve the stated goals and objectives of the system in question.

The juvenile justice system in NY State and in the six counties in the Mohawk Valley Region is today focused on diverting youth from 1) Repeat and more serious offending against property and persons, and, 2) Continued and escalating involvement in the criminal justice system. Both the data on case outcomes and the interviews we conducted with probation personnel and others in our region reinforce this obvious point: our juvenile justice system is largely a ‘diversion system’ designed to both prevent repeat criminal behavior and to minimize further involvement in the system, with a strong focus on minimizing the use of OCFS or DSS residential placement.

Given that the NY State and local juvenile justice system are “diversion-centric” our system assessment takes a look at the diversion capacity for each of the six counties in our region. County-level programs that provide services to youth and the families of youth who are involved in the juvenile justice system are primarily funded by NYS and county funds allocated through the county Department of Social Services (DSS), although a number of private, not-for-profit providers also provide a variety of services to these youth and their families funded by other state and federal grants and by private donations.

A primary funding stream for NYS counties is called “Flexible Fund for Family Services” or FFFS administered by the NYS Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance Office of Children and Family Services (OTDA-OCFS). “These funds are allocated by the State to each [county social services] district to support a range of services to address the needs of low income families consistent with local priorities. The total [NYS] funding for the FFFS for SFY 2015-16 is $964,000,000. This amount is equivalent to the SFY 2014-2015 appropriation.

The programs that may be funded by FFFS are as follows: • Allowable non-assistance TANF Employment programs (such as employment preparation, placement, and retention services) • TANF Services D-1 Case Management Services provided to TANF eligible families • Child Welfare Services • Emergency Assistance to Families (EAF) Foster Care Maintenance, Administration and Tuition Costs • PINS/Preventive Detention Diversion Services • Pregnancy Prevention • Drug/Alcohol (D/A) Assessment and Monitoring • Domestic Violence (DV) Screening and Assessment • EAF JD/PINS Foster Care and related costs”

SOURCE: NYS OTDA Administrative Directive 15-ADM-03 (6/2015)

The Table below presents the total FFFS Allocations for each county in the MV Region with a calculation showing the average funding available in each county for every juvenile age 7-15.

Table 40. NYS Flexible Fund for Family Services Allocations Relative to the Juvenile Population in MV Region Counties Number JD Arrests FFFS Resulting in OTDA FFFS Dollars Per Juvenile Probation Allocation to Juvenile- Population Intake County DSS Age Youth Above/Below County (Age 7-15) (2013) 2015-2016 Per Year Average $ About Oneida 25,097 356 12,185,964 486 Average $ Herkimer 7,051 82 2,443,446 347 Much Lower $ Fulton 5,898 39 3,049,321 517 Much Higher $ Montgomery 5,813 67 1,835,140 316 Much Lower $ About Otsego 5,396 26 2,411,179 447 Average Schoharie $ (2012) 3,177 30 1,871,781 589 Much Higher $ TOTAL/Avg 52,432 600 23,796,831 454 SOURCES: FFFS allocations are from NYS OTDA (and were the same as the previous year); Population numbers are from the Census (2011-2013 American Community Survey); Probation Intake Data from DCJS.

FFFS funding covers a wide range of family and youth services for TANF eligible families and is not allocated by NYS based on the juvenile needs or the juvenile population. However, it is worth noting that FFFS allocations vary widely relative to the juvenile population in counties in our region: from $316/per juvenile in Montgomery County to $589/juvenile in Schoharie County as the table above indicates.

The diversion capacity of a county is dependent on a variety of factors including the ability of both public and private agencies to fund and operate programs that effectively divert youth from involvement in criminal activity. While a poorly designed or poorly operated program that is well funded is not effective, or may actually be harmful to youth, the primary limitations on the ability of counties in the MV Region at this point in time appears to be funding rather than an inability to deploy effective diversion program models.

Each of the six counties we looked at have community-based diversion program options that have a demonstrated history of effectively diverting youth from further involvement, but in each county there is a lack of capacity based on the funding available to meet the diversion needs of all PINS and JD youth, including youth on probation, youth currently in placement, and youth returning home from placement.

Additionally, the diversion capacity of counties in the Mohawk Valley Region is facilitated or limited by the number and the capacity of community-based organizations in each of the counties in this region and there is a wide variation in the level of community capacity to work with justice-involved and PINS youth and their families across our region. Our research, combined with our longtime experience with community organizations and coalitions in the largest counties in this region (Oneida and Herkimer Counties) is illustrative of this point.

Oneida County accounts for nearly half (47 percent) the total population in the 6-county region. Herkimer County, the second largest in the region, accounts for only 13 percent of the region’s total population. Three of the four other counties in the region (Fulton, Montgomery, and Otsego) are all slightly smaller than Herkimer and Schoharie County is much smaller – half the size of Herkimer (see Table 1). Population size is a key factor associated with a communities capacity to provide healthcare and social services: larger counties have more (and larger) community organizations, larger county departments (DSS, Probation, etc.) and often have additional city-based or school district-based programs and services not found in rural counties and communities.

The key finding here related to the juvenile justice system in our region is that the smaller counties in our region have substantially less capacity to plan, organize, develop, fund, coordinate, and sustain the key community-based programs that provide either prevention or diversion services for justice-involved youth. Interviews with key informants in all six counties reveal that our smallest counties (Fulton, Montgomery, Otsego, and Schoharie) all lack the institutional infrastructure necessary for youth diversion program development and maintenance. Without these essential supports, counties are unable to meet the needs of probation personnel working with JD cases to provide the needed mental and behavioral health, intensive case management, mentoring, family support, supportive housing, or other services that comprise the diversion package for most JD cases.

The key finding here related to the juvenile justice system in the MV Region is that the smaller

counties in our region have substantially less capacity to plan, organize, develop, fund, or coordinate and sustain the key community-based programs that provide either prevention or diversion services for justice-involved youth.

One indication of the level of human service infrastructure in any county is their ability to provide community service work sites for youth (and adults) on probation who are required to perform community service work as a condition of their probation. Based on our interview data, this is still an issue with Oneida County and Herkimer County as well. However, all four of the smaller counties in the Region have really struggled to identify and develop community service worksites and projects for juveniles on probation. They may have fewer county-based community organizations and few inter- organizational planning and coordinating bodies (coalitions).

The Governor’s Commission on Youth, Public Safety and Justice (2014) designed to address raising the age of responsibility from 16 to 18 for juveniles has made a series of specific recommendations to strengthen and enhance youth diversion strategies, programs, and services including:

• Establish family engagement specialists to facilitate adjustment (p.150) • Establish Family Support Centers in high PINS-referral localities to provide more robust community-based PINS services and then eliminate detention and placement of PINS (p. 151)

The latter recommendation for the establishment of “Family Support Centers,” if implemented properly, in addition to helping both youth and their families, has the potential to strengthen the ability of our smaller counties to organize existing community agencies, programs, and partners.

We strongly encourage our NY State partners to:

1) Provide the funding for these Family Support Centers in each county and in each jurisdiction where PINS referrals are high and youth on probation are also concentrated, and

2) Structure the funding so that in each county these funds can support a “Family Support Coordinator” who brings together community organizations, schools, and local law enforcement and government agencies working with PINS and JD youth and their families.

Family Court

Most juveniles entering the justice system are not prosecuted for the offense(s) that led to their arrest. They do not appear in Family Court and do not get sent away to a secure (locked) facility (“kid jail”).

The current system in NY State is based on the scientific consensus that the brain of a child or adolescent is not yet fully developed. “Scientific research into brain development has revealed that ….children and adolescents do not have fully developed faculties of judgment or impulse control… [and] … that adolescents respond more fruitfully to efforts to rehabilitate them and put them on the right track” (Report of the Governor’s Commission on Youth, Public Safety, and Justice, 2014).

Youth under the age of 16 in NY State who commit crimes and are arrested by police and are not subsequently diverted from prosecution are handled in a Family Court. While there are some similarities to adult court, the current Family Court system has several key differences.

• The Family Court Act does not provide a right to a jury trial • There is not an opportunity to be released on bail • Speedy trial requirements exist, but the structure is different than that of criminal court • Once allegations have been established, court is required to order a probation investigation and may order a diagnostic report to inform the disposition • Family Court includes the right to an evidentiary hearing with relaxed standards for the admission of evidence

• A disposition order must reflect the least restrictive disposition that balances the best interest of the child and the need for protection of the community

A juvenile can arrive in Family Court through either the arresting police agency or the probation department. While it is not clear how many arrive by the way of probation or the arresting agency, it appears that the majority of the petitions in Family Court were referred by the probation department.

Table 41. MV Region Counties-Juveniles Referred for Prosecution in Family Court Mohawk Valley Region Family Court Activity: 2014 Fulton Herkimer Montgomery Oneida Otsego Schoharie Processing Stage # % # % # % # % # % # % Arrests resulting in Probation Intake 73 49 86 310 25 11 Probation Intake-Cases Closed 76 66 79 229 33 14 Referred to Presentment Agency 32 42% 17 26% 39 49% 112 49% 20 61% 3 21% Immediately 7 9% 7 11% 34 43% 92 40% 19 58% 1 7% Adjustment Terminated 25 33% 10 15% 5 6% 20 9% 1 3% 2 14%

Initial Petitions Filed/vs Probation Cases Closed 24 4 22 160 19 0 Source: NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services, Office of Justice Research and Performance; June 1, 2015

2014 Family Court Referrals: Highlights/Findings

• Otsego County had the highest proportion of cases that were referred immediately to Family Court prior to a diversion attempt by probation- 58 percent of all probation cases. • Herkimer and Schoharie Counties had the smallest proportion of cases referred immediately Family Court prior to a diversion attempt by probation- 11 and 7 percent respectively. • Diversion (“Adjustment”) was terminated at widely different rates in the six counties: Fulton County terminated adjustment in one of every three (33 percent ) of all probation cases that were closed in 2014. • In Herkimer and Schoharie Counties, the adjustment termination rates were less than half the Otsego County rate. • Adjustment termination rates in Oneida, Montgomery and Otsego Counties are low: less than 10%.

Probation Referral

Probation can recommend that a petition be filed immediately after intake. Data from DCJS indicates that it is more prevalent in Montgomery, Oneida and Otsego Counties.

A recommendation to file a petition can also be made in the cases where adjustment through probation was terminated for any reason. This happens in 15 percent or fewer of the cases in all counties except for Fulton County where adjustment was terminated for one in every three (33 percent) of all 2014 probation cases.

While the juvenile justice system is diversion-centric, it is also based upon considerations of victim restitution and public safety. In all probation cases, the victim is contacted and asked what they would like to see happen in terms of restorative justice. When probation refers a youth to court, information that has been received from the victim, the police report, the YASI assessment, and any other source is forwarded to the County Attorney’s Office to be used in determining whether or not a petition can be filed. If the decision is made to file a petition, the court clerk will schedule a date for the case.

Arresting Agency

Depending on the nature of the crime, the youth’s criminal history, and/or other community safety factors, the police may bring the youth directly to Family Court if Family Court is in session (which is often not the case). Acting on behalf of the county for prosecution, the County Attorney’s Office will determine if charges can be filed against the youth. The Family Court Judge will then determine if the youth is to be released to family members or if detention is necessary.

If Family Court is not in session the youth can still be temporarily detained until the court is in session again based on the arresting officer’s discretion. In this situation, the police agency/department that has custody of the juvenile must transport this boy or girl to a detention facility—often at some distance from where they apprehended the youth.

County Attorney

The County Attorney’s Office is responsible for reviewing requests and initiating petitions for juveniles to Family Court. The attorney does not always file a petition for all cases referred, as indicated in the table above. There are times that the case is returned to probation for further diversionary attempts.

Family Court Process

“In a juvenile case, the Family Court process begins with the appointment of counsel followed by an initial appearance by the juvenile. At the first appearance in Family Court, the youth is arraigned on the petition charges, and preliminary matters such as detention status are determined. “

“The court may also conduct a probable cause hearing, which, must be conducted within three days of the initial appearance or within four days following the filing of the

petition. Motion practice and plea bargaining also take place at this stage, and a court may refer the case back to probation or adjustment services. The case then proceeds to the fact-finding stage for adjudication of delinquency. “

“Once in the court process, youth are represented by attorneys who are specially trained in the unique role of providing counsel to children, judges are enmeshed in the cases of children full time, probation assessments and focus reports focus on issues unique to youth (such as academic and family supports and challenges), and dispositional decision-making is rooted in the needs and best interests of youth as well as public safety. In addition, Family Courts have the capacity to order a range of services that are part of a larger portfolio of services to prevent out-of-home placement at the local level.”

Family Court and Mental Health Evaluations

The Family Court Judge has the ability to detain a youth for the purpose of ordering a mental health evaluation. Key informant interviews with Family Court Judges and County Attorneys in the MV Region reveal that a lack of regional resources often triggers the need for an inpatient admission to conduct a proper mental health evaluation.

Inpatient mental health evaluations are costly and take the youth away from their home and community for up to two months while the evaluation is completed. However, several key informants told us they thought it was sometimes necessary to have a juvenile confined away from their home environment for a length of time to fully assess what might be driving their thinking and behavior.

Outpatient mental health evaluations can be ordered, but it must be a 100 percent buy-in from the juvenile, the family and all other parties involved due to the time, travel and monetary commitment. DSS will coordinate with local agencies to provide the outpatient services if it is agreed upon.

SOURCE: Oneida County Family Court Judge Interview

Dispositions

“If the allegations of fact are established beyond a reasonable doubt, the court then conducts a dispositional hearing to determine the appropriate sanction or treatment.76 The court can also dismiss the case at this point, despite the fact-finding, if it is determined that the juvenile does not require “supervision, treatment, or confinement.”

Alternatively, if the court finds that supervision, treatment, or confinement is necessary, a dispositional order is filed specifying the sanction. Typical dispositions include conditional discharge, probation supervision, and placement. “

Throughout NY State in 2013, nearly 8,000 petitions were filed in Family Court. In twenty-nine percent (29 percent) of these cases the Family Court Judge “sentenced” the juvenile to community-based supervision (probation). Only thirteen percent (13 percent) of these cases resulted in an out-of-home placement disposition. The table below displays the dispositional results for the six counties in the region for 2014.

Table 42. Family Court Dispositions for the Mohawk Valley Region, 2014 Mohawk Valley Region Family Court Activity: 2014 Montgomer Schohari Fulton Herkimer y Oneida Otsego e Processing Stage # % # % # % # % # % # % 2 100 100 16 100 1 100 Initial Petitions Disposed 2 % 6 % 24 100% 5 % 6 % 4 100% JD Findings 8 36% 5 83% 12 50% 53 32% 4 25% 1 25% Conditional Discharge 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 8 5% 1 6% 0 0% Probation 4 18% 0 0% 9 38% 23 14% 1 6% 1 25% Placement 4 18% 5 83% 3 13% 22 13% 2 13% 0 0% OCFS Custody to OCFS run facilities 1 5% 0 0% 1 4% 10 6% 0 0% 0 0% DSS Custody to Voluntary Agencies 3 14% 5 83% 2 8% 12 7% 2 13% 0 0% ACD* 7 32% 0 0% 4 17% 34 21% 9 56% 1 25% Dismissed 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 15 9% 2 13% 0 0% Withdrawn 3 14% 1 17% 8 33% 55 33% 0 0% 0 0% Other Favorable Outcomes 4 18% 0 0% 0 0% 8 5% 1 6% 2 50% *Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal (ACD) Source: NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services, Office of Justice Research and Performance; June 1, 2015

The NYS Family Court Act (352.2 (2-a) and (2-b) states that the Family Court disposition must “reflect the least restrictive disposition that balances the needs and best interest of the child and the need for protection of the community.” In general, the data on case numbers and disposition proportions for counties in the MV Region indicate that there is a degree of this “balance”, e.g. only two counties in the region exceed the state’s 13% most restrictive disposition (placement) rate. However, drawing specific conclusions about the effectiveness of the Family Court Process in specific counties in the MV Region from the data for a single year above would not be valid.

Probation vs. Placement

“Probation supervision is the disposition used most frequently in delinquency cases. Ideally, probation supervision includes monitoring, evidence-based services, and sanctions that promote accountability and the development of competencies that reduce risk and increase protective factors for the youth while maintaining public safety.”

Table 43. Rate of Initial Dispositions Ordered as Probation by Family Court 2014 Rest of State Fulton Herkimer* Montgomery Oneida Otsego Schoharie* Probation 25% 18% 0% 38% 14% 6% 25% Source: NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services, Office of Justice Research and Performance; June 1, 2015

Probation rates for 2014 varied throughout the region, with Montgomery County ordering the largest percentage of disposed cases to probation and Herkimer and Otsego County Family Courts ordering the lowest percentage of case to probation- substantially below both the state and regional averages. *Note: Herkimer and Schoharie County Family Courts disposed of 6 or fewer petitions in 2014, too few cases for percentages to be statistically meaningful.

During key informant interviews with different probation departments and police agencies within the region, participants were asked for their thoughts and recommendations to help Family Court more effectively address juvenile justice issues.

• Pre-dispositional investigations are not always ordered right now, if they were done, they could be a valuable asset for future reference and also for knowledge of placement (Otsego County Probation) • Typical case conference should include the Family Court Judge, child’s attorney, presentment agency, DSS and Probation (Otsego County Probation) • Family Court Judges sometimes make poor decisions on JD cases because they lack an understanding of juveniles and/or of the full range of community resources available. • Family Court Judges and Court Attorneys need more training [to better understand what works best to impact the current and possible future criminal behavior of juveniles that come before them].

Out-of-Home Residential Placement of Juveniles

On average, fewer than 15 percent of juveniles in NY State who were required to appear for a probation intake and subsequently provided with diversion services coordinated by a county probation department are remanded to an out-of-home facility or “placement”.

Youth who are adjudicated as juvenile delinquents can be placed into the custody of the NYS Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) and sent to stay in an OCFS facility or into the care of the county Department of Social Services (DSS) and placed in a residential facility run by a community agency. Placements in a facility can last up to 12 months for misdemeanor offenses, or up to 18 months for felonies. The placement agency can also request an extension of placement for the youth if it is deemed in the best interest of the child.

The placement of a juvenile, whether through OCFS or the county DSS office, is the “most restrictive option” and per the NYS Family Court Act, should be a last-resort option for juveniles who commit all but the most serious felony offenses and only used where all others have failed and the youth poses a serious risk to public safety. Beyond the adverse immediate and short-term affects that placement can have on a youth, there are also long-term risks involved with placement.

In fact, one of the key drivers of reform in the NYS Juvenile Justice System was the finding published in the 2010 report by the NYS Juvenile Justice Advisory Group in the chapter titled “It’s Not Working” that 89% of the male youth and 81% of the female youth who were arrested as juveniles in NY State and remanded to a state-run “kid jail” (OCFS facility) were later arrested as “adults” between the ages of 16 and 28.

For the males in this group, 83% of the adult arrests were for felony offenses and nearly three of every four (72%) of these young men was incarcerated as an adult by the time they reached age 28. Clearly, putting these juvenile delinquents in a state-run placement facility did not stop their criminal behavior, and there is strong evidence to support the fact that it actually made it more likely that they would commit more crimes (and create more victims) in the future.

Individuals who were removed from the community to a correctional or other out-of-home placement averaged 1.2 new arrests per year (post-disposition for the study index offense). Individuals who received probation averaged 0.63 new arrests per year, nearly half the rate of those placed in correctional settings.

Similarly, individuals who were placed in an institution self-reported an average of 2.5 more offenses per year each in the community (10.9 versus 8.3 reported offenses per year) than individuals who received probation. One interpretation of this evidence is that more expensive and severe sanctions have criminogenic-not deterrent-effects.

SOURCE: Studying Deterrence Among High-Risk Adolescents, Loughran et al., 2015

In addition to the fact that placement does not stop criminal behavior for most juveniles, there is no clear consensus across the region, or state, on which juveniles to send to placement.

“There are 67 family courts across the state that handle delinquency cases. Judges make decisions regarding both the pre-trial and detention and the sentencing of youth daily without unanimity about what standards to use to determine whether a child is low, medium, or high risk. As a result, wildly varying determinations are made from judge to judge about whether to incarcerate a child or not. Frequently faced with children without educational, mental health, and family supports, courts sometimes determine they have no choice but to resort to incarceration.”

SOURCE: Tough on Crime: Promoting Public Safety by Doing What Works; A Report to the Governor and Legislature, NYS Juvenile Justice Advisory Group, 2010

While placement may be necessary, it should be used for only those juveniles who serve a direct risk to public safety and welfare. The Governor’s Commission on Youth, Public Safety and Justice made the following recommendations for placement in their 2015 report:

• Reduce current unnecessary use of detention and placement through: o Prohibition of detention and placement for youth adjudicated for the first-time or second- time misdemeanors that do not involve harm to another person, and who are low-risk, except where the court finds a specific imminent threat to public safety; o Prohibition of placement for technical probation violations alone, except where 1) the court finds specific imminent threat to public safety or 2) the youth is on probation for a violent felony offense and the use of graduated sanctions has been exhausted without successful compliance

We explore several key factors, stages, and steps pertaining to placement as a disposition of Family Court, as well as placement trends across the region over the past 5 years.

Table 44. Juveniles Sent to an Out-of-Home Residential Facility in the MV Region, 2014 2014 Fulton Herkimer Montgomery Oneida Otsego Schoharie Placement Admissions 3 5 6 38 2 1 Initial to OCFS-Run Facility 0 1 0 10 0 0 Secure Facility 0 0 0 0 0 0 Limited Secure Facility 0 1 0 9 0 0 Non-Secure Facility 0 0 0 1 0 0 OCFS-Voluntary Agencies 0 0 1 4 0 0 DSS-Voluntary Agencies 3 4 5 24 2 1 Source: NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services, Office of Justice Research and Performance; June 1, 2015

With the exception of the largest county in the MV Region (Oneida), note how few juveniles were sent to placement in 2014.

Figure 23. Placements by County in the MV Region for 2014 2014 Placements by County Otsego Schoharie Fulton 4% 2% 5% Herkimer 9%

Montgomery 11%

Oneida 69%

Of the 55 total youth that were sent to placement in 2014, nearly seven of every ten (69%) or 38 of these youth were from Oneida County. The youth represented in this data are not just youth that were placed after an initial disposition. These are all JD cases that were sent to placement throughout the year.

The majority of youth being placed (80%) go to residential facilities managed by local community-based agencies through the county Department of Social Services. Eleven of the fifty-five placements, or 20% were placed in the custody of OCFS in NYS facilities, most of which were ‘limited-secure’.

Though the number of OCFS placements is relatively small, there is still a large economic impact. The average cost per child per year in an OCFS facility was $266,000 in 2010 (NYS Juvenile Justice Advisory Group, 2010). Beyond the economic impact, as noted previously in this report, the re-offense rate among those sent to OCFS facilities is staggering, with 89 percent of males re-offending by the time the reach 28 years old, and 67 percent being convicted of a felony, 52 percent being sent to a State Prison (NYS Juvenile Justice Advisory Group, 2010).

Table 45. Placement Rates Relative to All Probation Intakes for the MV Region Placement vs. Probation Intakes and Rate for the MV Region Location Probation Intakes Placement Admissions Placement Rate Rest of State (Non-NYC) 7,397 830 11% Fulton 73 3 4% Herkimer 49 5 10% Montgomery 86 6 7% Oneida 310 38 12% Otsego 25 2 8% Schoharie 11 1 9% Source: NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services, Office of Justice Research and Performance; June 1, 2015

• In the MV Region, county placement rates when measured as a percent of probation intakes are very close to or below the rest of the rate for the rest of NY State.

Table 46. Placement Rates Relative to Initial Petition Dispositions for the MV Region Initial Dispositions resulting in Placement in an OCFS or a Community-Based Facility Location Initial Petitions Disposed Disposition of Placement Placement Rate Rest of State (Non-NYC) 3,926 513 13% Fulton 22 4 18% Herkimer 6 5 83% Montgomery 24 3 13% Oneida 165 22 13% Otsego 16 2 13% Schoharie 4 0 0% Source: NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services, Office of Justice Research and Performance; June 1, 2015

• When county placement rates are measured as a percent of initial petitions filed in Family Court, nearly the entire Mohawk Valley Region is at the same rate as the rest of the state with the exception of one county. • In 2014, the Herkimer County Family Court had a substantially higher placement rate than other counties in the Region, and other counties in NYS (not including NY City), with 83 percent of (5 of 6) initial dispositions ordered to placement. One petition was withdrawn in 2014, so all five cases that were adjudicated with JD findings in Herkimer County were ordered to placement by the Family Court judge in 2014.

We also examined the initial dispositions resulting in an order of placement over the most recent 5- year span, from 2010 through 2014. The results are displayed in the table below, with the number of initial dispositions, the amount of placement orders, and the placement rate.

Table 47. MV Region County Placement Numbers: 2010 to 2014 MV Region Counties: Initial Dispositions to Placement by Family Court 2010 to 2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Fulton Total dispositions 36 27 35 28 22 Disposition as Placement 1 3 4 6 4 Placement Rate 3% 11% 11% 21% 18%

Herkimer Total dispositions 30 25 17 12 6 Disposition as Placement 14 5 10 2 5 Placement Rate 47% 20% 59% 17% 83%

Montgomery Total dispositions 29 37 37 29 24 Disposition as Placement 7 3 8 11 2 Placement Rate 24% 8% 22% 38% 13%

Oneida Total dispositions 183 170 159 214 165 Disposition as Placement 43 28 21 27 22 Placement Rate 23% 16% 13% 13% 13%

Otsego Total dispositions 9 13 10 15 16 Disposition as Placement 0 2 0 0 2 Placement Rate 0% 15% 0% 0% 13%

Schoharie Total dispositions 5 9 14 12 4 Disposition as Placement 0 1 0 0 0 Placement Rate 0% 11% 0% 0% 0% Source: NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services, Office of Justice Research and Performance; June 1, 2015

Trend Highlights: • Placement numbers declined from 2010 to 2014 in all three of the counties with that had more than 4 placements for most prior recent years (Herkimer, Montgomery, and Oneida).

Returning Home to Family, School, and Community after Time in a Residential Facility

Youth sent away to a residential facility (“placement”) are in a position of disadvantage when it comes time to return and reintegrate into the home, school, and community. There is a lack of research and even general information about what youth experience while in placement here in NY State, but even with the best system in place, any positive program inputs or progress made while in a locked facility with other juveniles can be undone with an improper exit strategy. It is critical to understand the issues that youth face upon returning home and to leverage best practices to help facilitate successful reintegration and readjustment and inhibit further offending and involvement with the system.

There are no state policies, statutes or codes that specifically govern coordination of services for justice-involved youth returning home from a voluntary agency placement.

SOURCE: New York State Juvenile Re-entry Strategic Plan, New York State Juvenile Re-entry Taskforce, N.D.

With a large percentage (71% in 2014) of the youth remanded to placement in the Mohawk Valley Region being sent to voluntary agencies outside their community, this poses a challenge to the youth and their families and to the service providers that work with them when a youth returns to the community. While there may be localized support or coordination plans in place, there is no institutionalized support structure that enables youth in general to successfully reintegrate after placement. This lack of structured coordination can have a detrimental impact on case management, education, healthcare (both physical and behavioral health), and housing. One issue which has previously been discussed throughout this report, is communication barriers caused by confidentiality laws.

Protections that are afforded to youth regarding their justice system involvement, behavioral, and 3 4 physical health care , and educational records often appear to be barriers to the kind of information sharing that would best foster truly coordinated care across the residential and community-based settings.

SOURCE: New York State Juvenile Re-entry Strategic Plan, New York State Juvenile Re-entry Taskforce, N.D. 3 See the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, 42 U.S.C. 1320d-9 (2010), and federal statute, 42 U.S.C. 290dd-2, and regulation, 42 CFR Part 2 4 See the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. 1232g

Youth determined to be juvenile delinquents who are sent to placement fall under the foster care framework for their re-entry planning, i.e. the county Department of Social Services is responsible for them while they are away and when they initially return. While this does ensure that these youth receive a discharge and reintegration plan, key informant interviews in the MV Region indicate that these plans do not always set the youth up for success upon returning home.

100

Reconnecting With Family After Residential Placement

A key factor in a youth’s successful re-entry after placement is the family. A positive and supportive relationship between a juvenile and their family can greatly increase the chance of successful reintegration. Time during placement can be used to develop and grow that relationship in health ways, setting the stage for a positive reunification when the youth is released.

However, families are often restricted from connecting with youth because their children are placed far from their homes with limited or no transportation available to the family. In addition, even describing a youth’s time with his or her family as “visitation” implies that the primary setting for the youth is not the family. Visitation that is required to be only biweekly for youth within 100 miles of their families, and less frequent for youth placed farther from their families, is not likely to foster strong family engagement in case planning and continuity of care between residential placement and return home.

SOURCE: New York State Juvenile Re-entry Strategic Plan, New York State Juvenile Re-entry Taskforce, N.D.

The time that a youth spends in placement is critical to repairing and strengthening the family relationship. While it is necessary for the youth to grow and develop individually during this time, external relationships are also paramount. The family serves as a support network upon release, and without strong bonds, the youth can face difficulties immediately. Unfortunately, the current placement system is structured in way that inhibits the development of positive family dynamics and successful reentry and reintegration.

Research conducted by the NYS Juvenile Justice Advisory Group (JJAG) on the future criminal involvement of juvenile delinquents who spent time in a NYS State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) residential facility reveals that nearly nine of every ten boys and eight of every ten girls sent to an OCFS facility as a juvenile delinquent were rearrested as between the ages of 16-28. And nearly three- fourths of males (72%) and one third of females previously in placement as juveniles were incarcerated between the ages of 16 and 28 years old.

Eighty-three percent (83%) of the male youth who did prior time in a youth facility were arrested for felony offenses after they were no longer juveniles- and over half (52%) did time in a NYS Prison as a young adult prior to their 29th birthday. These are shocking numbers and make it clear that time in placement is correlated with continued and more serious involvement in criminal activity. While correlation is a necessary but far from sufficient condition with regard to establishing causation and there are multiple factors and variables at work here, one thing is certain: sending youth to residential placement as juveniles does not by itself reduce the likelihood that they will commit fewer offenses when they get out and enter their young adult years, and a placement stay may actually contribute to further criminal involvement.

SOURCE for the statistics in the two paragraphs above is: Tough on Crime: Promoting Public Safety by Doing What Works. Report to the Governor and Legislature by the NYS Juvenile Justice Advisory Group December 2010.

101

Reentering the Public Education System After Discharge from Placement

Education is another critical need after youth are released from placement. New York State law requires that all youth released from any placement facility be promptly enrolled into the local school district. Every school district must have at least one representative to facilitate the enrollment of the new student. There is a residency requirement that must be met to be enrolled into a local school district, which can become an issue when a youth does not have a stable home to return. Further complicating and placing the youth at a disadvantage, there are NYS school districts, including school districts in the MV Region, that do not re-enroll youth returning to their district into the regular school system. These schools have blanket policies to assign all returning youth to an alternative school in their district instead, even in cases where the youth who went away was enrolled in a mainstream school and may have been involved in a school sports program and does not have any history of committing crimes on school grounds.

Middle and high schools are also primary sites for where youth interact with each other as well as with adult teachers and other school staff. Schools are ‘socialization factories’ and provide opportunities for positive youth development and life skill acquisition as well as opportunities for unhealthy and illegal activities. This further highlights the need for effective strategies and processes to actively engage and set returning youth up for success upon returning home.

Because school is a key factor with regard to improving the odds that youth will choose and engage with pro-social activities and move beyond what was driving their delinquent behavior in the past, the fact that many of the public high schools in the MV Region located in jurisdictions with the highest juvenile arrest rates and high family poverty rates have graduation rates below 70% for male students and as low as 50% for girls and 53% for boys. See Table 7 in this report for a list of MV Region Districts with 2013- 2014 graduation rates.

Graduation rates for youth attending alternative schools in districts in the MV Region are not available from the NYS Department of Education, but several key informants who work directly with youth involved in the juvenile justice system in their county that we spoke to stated that ‘hardly anyone graduates from these schools’ in reference to alternative schools in their jurisdiction where many youth returning from placement attend school until they are 16 years old. We are unable to confirm these statements at this time but the data that is available has clear implications: our public middle and high schools need the resources, staff, training, and research-based processes in place to ensure that delinquent youth have the support, guidance, and monitoring necessary to improve the odds that they will stay in school, learn, graduate, and have the basic tools to become independent as adults.

New York State Education Law clearly establishes the right to a public education for anyone under age 21 who has not received a high school diploma.

SOURCE: New York State Juvenile Re-entry Strategic Plan, New York State Juvenile Re-entry Taskforce, N.D. 51 See 3202(1) of the New York State Educational Law

102

Re-entry After Placement: Best Practices

The New York State Juvenile Re-entry Taskforce outlines best practices in the Juvenile Re-entry Strategic Plan. The re-entry point begins while the youth is still in placement, as steps are taken while in placement to begin transitioning back into the community. Below are steps from the NYS Juvenile Re- entry Strategic Plan could best serve the youth and community throughout the reintegration phase to help sustain positive development for the youth;

• Transition Preparation: Should be a team based approach for each youth before release o Re-entry Plan o Safety Plan • Housing: Plan should include stable housing well in advance of release o Home Assessment o Pre-Planning for housing/family resources • Pro-Social Development: Skill building/positive connections within the community • Benefits Access: Identification and public assistance benefits • Educational and vocational transition’ o Education: transferrable credit, grade placement, special needs o Job training: Opportunity for skills developed in placement • Supervision and Services: Youth and family involvement and understanding of any plans o Reassessment of Safety Plan o Terms and Conditions of Release o Evidence-Based Supervision Services o Periodic Assessment o Health Services, Substance Use, Pro Social Skills and Cognitive Behavioral Interventions • Collaboration with Community Stakeholders

SOURCE: New York State Juvenile Re-entry Strategic Plan, New York State Juvenile Re-entry Taskforce, N.D.

Return Home Early Project Kids Oneida provides wraparound services in several Mohawk Valley Region counties and KO runs the NYS-funded Return Home Early Project in Herkimer and Oneida Counties. The Return Home Early Project was designed to address relatively high placement rates and stays, placements that were far away from the youth’s home, and to effectively reintegrate the youth back into the community.

Project Goals: • Placement Closer to Home • Returned Home with Family • Appropriate Level of Care

103

Successful Steps • Data Gathering • Child Readiness Assessment • Face to Face Interviews with Youth • Relationship Building with; o Youth in Care o Families o County Case Managers o Service Provider Representatives o Court Affiliates o Community Based Providers

Project Outcomes Between 2008 and 2012, Return Home Early Project Outcomes for Herkimer and Oneida Counties: Herkimer • 45 youth returned home early • 6,821 days of care in placement avoided • $1,508,980 avoided in residential placement costs Oneida • 143 youth returned home early • 14,480 days of care in placement avoided • $4,411,060 avoided in residential placement costs

A strong message from this program is that it can be replicated anywhere, and falls in line with the best practices outlined by the New York State Juvenile Re-entry Taskforce. While placement rates across the region are not entirely high, this is one example of where service provision can help to avoid costs, and more importantly, better the outcome for the youth involved. SOURCE: The Kids Oneida Return Home Early Project: Keeping Families Together, Kids Oneida, March 5, 2013

Recommendations to Strengthen the Juvenile Reentry Process and

Improve Outcomes

It is essential that a quality and effective continuum of care is established for youth well before they return home from placement. Families, school personnel, DSS staff, and local service providers must work together with juvenile justice partners to design and facilitate a reintegration process that works for the youth and their family and for the neighborhood and community that our youth live in. Collaboration, coordination, and communication between youth and their family members, school personnel, social service, and juvenile justice and community providers is necessary to for this to work. Unfortunately, local juvenile justice and social service systems in the Mohawk Valley Region and elsewhere in NY State are neither structured nor funded to either provide the personnel and other

104

resources necessary to provide an effective reentry continuum. Key recommendations to improve the current structural deficits include:

System-Level Recommendations 1. Scale up county-level juvenile reentry task groups, formalize juvenile reentry cross-system processes, and expand targeted reentry services to include all youth reentering from placement for the first six months.

In 2011, NY State received nearly $1 million in federal Second Chance Act grant funds to improve county-level reentry systems and processes (742K) and also to “implement a validated mental health screening tool at probation intake and utilize its results to provide targeted, evidence-based services to youths with mental health and/or other co-occurring disorders, such as substance abuse, who have been charged with non-violent offenses” (212K).

These federal funds went to three Upstate counties, Monroe, Niagara, and Oneida. Only Oneida County is in the Mohawk Valley Region. While the other five counties in the MV Region have far fewer youth in placement, and therefore far fewer youth returning home each month/quarter/year, all youth who do court-ordered time in a facility have major reentry barriers and challenges and are at high risk for recidivism without a strong, coordinated reentry system in place.

SOURCE: http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/pio/press_releases/2013-11-01_pressrelease.html

The NYS DCJS press release dated Friday, Nov. 1, 2013 (cited above) describes what this funding will do as follows: “Local re-entry task forces will work with youths and their families prior to their return home, ensuring there is a comprehensive plan that provides for stable housing, appropriate educational opportunities and positive social connections and support. And, those task forces will continue to work with those youth after they return home to help them stay on the right path.”

Supporting the development and operations of local reentry task forces makes sense, but it needs to happen in smaller counties as well- perhaps on a multi-county regional level in regions in which there are small-population counties with have so few placements that a reentry task force and Return Home Programs with full-time staffing cannot be justified.

2. Improve the Post-Placement Transition to School. School Districts Need Guidance, Training, and Sufficient Funding to Support Reentry. Depending on the size of the district and its schools, schools need the support to develop additional in-house capacity via expanded social work capacity and/or Probation Departments need additional capacity to provide services on- site in schools where youth who are released from placement attend.

“Who is advocating for kids in school with mental health issues at Superintendent Hearings, etc.?”

Steve Yaworski , Residential Outreach Coordinator for the Kids Oneida County Return Home Early Project

105

Community and Program Level Recommendations Source: Steve Yaworski, Residential Outreach Coordinator for the Kids Oneida County Return Home Early Project serving Oneida and Herkimer Counties. This program has contributed to a reduction in Juvenile Delinquency Placements from 140 in 2008 to 62 in 2013. It is funded through NYS DCJS with Federal Second Chance Grant funding.

1. Programs supporting juvenile reentry need program components that include “parent engagement, parenting skills and ‘real time’ coaching, individualized parent support and [coaching and support to bolster] resiliency. [Youth and their parents are often dealing with] mental health, substance use/abuse and self-esteem issues [and need] family discord therapy and resource support/advocacy.”

“The timeline for change [with regard to improving family dynamics is often] lengthy with regard to showing results and providing a positive effect on the youth's quality of life within the home when there are significant issues present.”

2. “[There needs to be a] reconstruction of community/social supports and influences for the youth involved. Negative peer influences fill the void of parenting/nurturing deficits and have a tremendous pull on the youth back into the criminal arena of the streets.”

3. “[There needs to be] appropriate and prompt educational placement and networking support within the school system. Although this is ultra-important for the youth's engagement and positive focus on change and reform, the two previous recommendations have proven to have a much stronger impact on the youth's decision making within the first three months of re-entering the home and community.”

4. “The mental health of the Youth should be addressed all the while the other times are being addressed.”

“Ideally, all of these issues should be addressed simultaneously. However, we [The Kids Oneida Return Home Early Project] have made strides in areas concerning #2 through #4. [Improving parent engagement, parenting skill development and family dynamics overall] has been a confounding issue that has stood out as an area that shows very slow results and just does not keep up with how fast youth make poor decisions and are confronted with violations and recidivism back into placement or incarceration.

“If an intervention could be employed to shorten that timeline of change for parental skill building and positive/nurturing and therapeutic engagement from the parents with the youth.....re-entry success for youth would take a serious turn for the better.”

106

Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) in the Juvenile Justice System

Racial and ethnic minority groups in the US have a long history of disproportionate contact with criminal justice system in general. Simply put, youth and adults who are black or Latino in the US and here in NY State are much more likely to be arrested, detained, prosecuted, sentenced, and locked up than their white non-Hispanic counterparts, even when controlling for the nature and severity of their criminal offense.

American demographers and social scientists have a massive amount of data that clearly shows that members of racial and ethnic minority groups with darker skin in the US are much more likely to be in on the lower rungs of our labor market our economy, more likely to be poor or near-poor than non- Hispanic whites in general, more likely to live in crowed, often sub-standard housing in neighborhoods that are socially disorganized as well as economically deprived, more likely to attend public schools that are funded at substantially lower levels that the schools that middle class white youth attend, etc…. and more likely to have contact and escalating involvement in the criminal justice system, beginning at the juvenile stage and into adulthood.

From a sociological and social science research perspective, the conflation and interaction of race and ethnicity with social class status in the US contributes to making DMC a social phenomenon that is difficult to unpack, and often too easy for those in privileged social positions to ignore because “other factors” that don’t include racial preference or racial discrimination can be used to account for differences by race or ethnicity with regard to criminal justice involvement.

In-depth research funded by the US Department of Justice on disproportionate minority contact in the juvenile justice system on by a group of our nation’s top criminologists working on juvenile crime and delinquency issues is helpful with regard to unpacking these complex relationships between individual and social “factors” or variables. The section below is taken directly from this research report. Emphasis (underlined sentences and phrases) were added.

“The findings of this report also suggest some further directions for research to more fully understand DMC at the initial contact/arrest/referral stage. First, the need for DMC studies in multiple sites is clearly indicated. Findings can be site specific so that findings from one site may not generalize to other sites. This observation suggests that individual communities may need to develop information capacities to permit local identification of factors that lead to DMC in the community, and not rely on findings from other communities – although studies in other communities would surely provide guidance.

Second, disentangling the effects of race, social class, and neighborhood on arrest/referral is difficult, given the overlap of these individual and family characteristics and environments. However, this is a critical issue and studies designed to address these issues are needed. In the current study, race, social class, and neighborhood were each highly significant predictors of contact/referral at all three sites, suggesting their importance. These factors are also likely to be correlated with additional factors that may impact DMC.

107

Third, the finding that DMC exists even after delinquency and a selection of risk factors were controlled, suggests that identification of additional factors that influence DMC, at least at some sites is needed. Obvious among these are police decision making and the factors that influence such decision making (e.g., perceived public danger, availability of capable guardians, prior contact with offender, offender demeanor at time of contact, existence of police diversion programs or availability of community services, etc.), and factors influencing the likelihood of initial discovery and apprehension such as calls for service and patrol patterns, as well as additional individual characteristics. As the above comments suggest, additional information is needed to more fully understand the causes of DMC at the police contact, arrest, court referral stage.

However, this report does indicate that DMC cannot be explained by differences in the offending behavior of different racial groups and that, in general, DMC is substantially reduced, but not eliminated, by consideration of additional risk factors beyond delinquent behavior.”

SOURCE: David Huizinga, Terence P. Thornberry, Kelly E. Knight, Peter J. Lovegrove, Rolf Loeber, Karl Hill, and David P. Farrington July 28, 2007. Disproportionate Minority Contact in the Juvenile Justice System: A Study of Differential Minority Arrest/Referral to Court in Three Cities A Report to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Are their policies or rules in place which may have a greater negative impact on communities of color?

Example: Two 15 year old kids get into a fight at school. One attends high school in District A; the other in District B. How the situation is handled can be quite different depending on which school (and/or district) they attend (even if they both have “zero tolerance policies”.)

• District A has a zero tolerance policy regarding fighting and utilizes the police present on campus in handling such situations. It has become regular practice that whenever there is a physical altercation, all students involved are arrested. • District B also has a policy which prohibits fighting in school. Whenever there is a fight between students, each is suspended from school for 3 days and cannot return until there is a parent conference and mediation.

SOURCE: Presentation by Courtney E. Ramirez, Statewide DMC Coordinator for the NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services, Juvenile Justice Policy Institute

108

New York State receives substantial funding from the federal government through the US Department of Justice and is required to follow specific provisions of federal law that address the issue of disproportionate minority contact in the administration of policy and program funding to local government agencies authorized to provide juvenile justice services in New York. These specific provisions are outlined below:

In the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 2002, Congress required that States participating in the Formula Grants Program “address juvenile delinquency prevention efforts and system improvement efforts designed to reduce, without establishing or requiring numerical standards or quotas, the disproportionate number of juvenile members of minority groups, who come into contact with the juvenile justice system” (see section 223(a)(22)).

For purposes of this requirement, the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has defined minority populations as American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islanders.

States [including NY State] participating in the Formula Grants Program [are mandated to] address DMC on an ongoing basis by moving through the following phases:

• Identification. To determine the extent to which DMC exists.

• Assessment. To assess the reasons for DMC, if it exists.

• Intervention. To develop and implement intervention strategies to address these identified reasons.

• Evaluation. To evaluate the effectiveness of the chosen intervention strategies.

• Monitoring. To note changes in DMC trends and to adjust intervention strategies as needed.

Each State must report on its progress in its comprehensive JJDP 3-year plan and subsequent plan updates (in compliance with Section 223(a)(22)). OJJDP reviews the plan updates annually. Any State that fails to address the overrepresentation of minority youth in juvenile justice system contact stands to lose 20 percent of its Formula Grants allocation for the year.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

109

Disproportionate Minority Contact in the Juvenile Justice System in NY State and in the Mohawk Valley Region

In the Mohawk Valley Region, there is substantially less racial and ethnic diversity than in larger counties and more populous regions with large urban centers in NY State. With the exception of Oneida County, there are fewer than 200 youth age 7-15 who are Black/Non-Hispanic, and fewer than 250 youth who are Hispanic of any race, with the notable exception of Montgomery County where the growing Hispanic population in Amsterdam, NY is at the point where today there are over 1,000 Hispanic youth (7-15) in this county. In Oneida County, 2013 Census data indicates that there are 2,263 Black Non-Hispanic youth (7-15) and 2,112 Hispanic youth of any race.

Because of this lack of racial diversity in five of the six counties in the MV Region, statistics on DMC are not valid. However, DMC stats for Oneida County are revealing and indicate that juvenile justice administrators and practitioners need to be aware of this issue and have strategies to prevent and reduce DMC in their respective jurisdictions. The table below illustrates this point well: note that the RRI for Oneida County exceeds the state average for all three stages in the juvenile justice process, and is second only to Westchester County with regard to DMC at detention, and first in the state with regard to confinement (SOURCE: County DMC data from DCJS source cited below).

Table 48. NYS Relative Rate Index (RR) for select jurisdictions with data available: 2011(?)* Jurisdiction Arrest Stage Detention Stage Confinement Stage Statewide 1.98 4.77 4.47 Onondaga 3.89 1.55 1.22 Monroe 4.07 2.75 2.43 Oneida 2.15 6.22 4.97 SOURCE FOR DATA AND SUMMARY STATEMENT BELOW: Courtney E. Ramirez, Statewide DMC Coordinator for the NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services, Juvenile Justice Policy Institute.

“Data shows that minority youth in NY State are arrested at a rate that is 1.98 times more than white youth [nearly twice the rate], detained at a rate of 4.77 [nearly five times more frequently] compared to white youth, and placed 4.47 times (over four times more frequently) than white youth.”

Note that Oneida County the largest county in the Mohawk Valley Region (home to the cities of Utica and Rome), had a DMC arrest rate that slightly exceeded the statewide average, but the Oneida County rate was substantially lower that the rates in Onondaga County (including Syracuse) and Monroe (including Rochester).

In spite of Oneida County’s DMC rate for arrests that is just slightly higher than the state average, but much lower that the rates in Onondaga and Monroe Counties, Oneida County’s DMC detention rate far exceeds the NYS average and the rates for Onondaga and Monroe Counties, and in fact at 6.22 was the second highest county-level DMC detention rate for the eleven most populous counties in our state and NY City (where the rate was only 1.34). We don’t have the most recent DMC RRI rate data to report on where Oneida County is today.

110

Table 49. Juvenile Delinquency Contact by Race and Ethnicity in the Mohawk Valley Region, 2014 Mohawk Valley Regional Juvenile Delinquency Contact by Race and Ethnicity Regional Fulton Herkimer Montgomery Oneida Otsego Schoharie Processing Stage # % # % # % # % # % # % # % Population 8739 100% 5898 100% 7051 100% 5813 100% 25097 100% 5396 100% 3177 100% White (non-Hispanic) 7274 83% 5433 92% 6583 93% 4470 77% 19305 77% 4909 91% 2943 93% Black (non-Hispanic) 498 6% 159 3% 169 2% 185 3% 2263 9% 157 3% 56 2% Hispanic (across all races) 669 8% 240 4% 214 3% 1075 18% 2112 8% 231 4% 144 5%

JD Arrests 211 100% 332 100% 41 100% 73 100% 776 100% 30 100% 13 100% White (non-Hispanic) 149 71% 300 90% 35 85% 55 75% 472 61% 22 73% 12 92% Black (non-Hispanic) 47 22% 13 4% 4 10% 3 4% 250 32% 8 27% 1 8% Hispanic (across all races) 13 6% 17 5% 1 2% 15 21% 46 6% 0 0% 0 0%

Detention Admissions 13 100% 1 100% 5 100% 18 100% 48 100% 3 100% 0 100% White (non-Hispanic) 1 100% 5 100% 8 44% 18 38% 0 0% Black (non-Hispanic) 0 0% 0 0% 4 22% 24 50% 0 0% Hispanic (across all races) 0 0% 0 0% 5 28% 6 13% 0 0%

Initial Petitions Filed 38 100% 24 100% 4 100% 22 100% 160 100% 19 100% 0 100% White (non-Hispanic) 19 49% 19 79% 4 100% 12 55% 63 39% 14 74% 0 0% Black (non-Hispanic) 14 38% 4 17% 0 0% 1 5% 76 48% 5 26% 0 0% Hispanic (across all races) 4 9% 1 4% 0 0% 8 36% 12 8% 0 0% 0 0% SOURCE: NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services, Office of Justice Research and Performance; June 1, 2015 NOTE: Minority category numbers do not always add to totals or 100% because there are 11 arrests of youth who are classified as Asian or Pacific Islander or Alaskan Native who were not included in the table above.

111

Highlights:

The overall minority youth population in the region is 8,172 youth: more Hispanic youth of any race (4685) than Black Non-Hispanic youth (3,487). Thirteen percent (13.4%) of the over 61,000 youth in the region are not white and or Hispanic of any race.

Black youth account for 6% of the region’s youth population. Twenty-two percent (22%) of all JD arrests involve Black youth.

Hispanic youth account for 8% of the region’s youth population. Six percent (6%) of all JD arrests involve Hispanic youth. Fulton, Montgomery, and Oneida Counties account for all but one Hispanic youth arrest.

Figure 24. Minority Detention Rates, 2014: Black non-Hispanic and Hispanic of any race only Minority Detention Rates in 2014 Black non-Hispanic and Hispanic of any race only 70%

60%

50%

40% Hispanic (across all races) 30% Black (non-Hispanic)

20%

10%

0% Fulton Herkimer Montgomery Oneida

*Note: No Race-Ethnicity data for detention is available for the regional average or for Otsego County.

• Schoharie County recorded 13 JD arrests but no (0) detentions in 2014.

• Herkimer County had only 5 total detention admissions in 2014- all white youth.

• Fulton County had only one detention admission in 2014, a single white youth.

• Minority detention rates in Oneida and Montgomery Counties substantially exceed the minority arrest rates in their respective counties. For example, Oneida County detention admissions (48

112

total in 2014) were half (50%) Black youth, 38% white youth, and 13% Hispanic youth. Oneida County JD arrests (776 in 2014) were one-third (32%) Black youth, 61% white youth, and 6% Hispanic youth.

Minority detention rates in Oneida and Montgomery Counties substantially exceed the minority arrest rates in their respective counties.

113

Figure 25. Family Court Initial Petitions filed in 2014: Percent of Petitions Filed on Black Non-Hispanic Youth and Hispanic Youth (of any race) Only Minority Family Court Initial Petitions Filed in 2014 (Black non-Hispanic and Hispanic of any race only) 60%

50%

40%

30% Hispanic (across all races) 20% Black (non-Hispanic)

10%

Table 50. Family Court Initial Petitions filed in 2014: Number of Petitions Filed on Black Non-Hispanic Youth and Hispanic Youth (of any race) Only Regional Fulton Herkimer Montgomery Oneida Otsego Schoharie # # # # # # # Initial Petitions Filed 38 24 4 22 160 19 0 White (non-Hispanic) 19 19 4 12 63 14 0 Black (non-Hispanic) 14 4 0 1 76 5 0 Hispanic (any race) 4 1 0 8 12 0 0 NOTE: Minority category numbers do not always add to totals because there are 11 arrests of youth who are classified as Asian or Pacific Islander or Alaskan Native who were not included in the table above.

Highlights: • Petitions filed in Oneida County (160) exceed the total number of petitions filed in all other counties in the six-county MV Region (69). • Over half the petitions filed in Oneida County were filed on minority youth.

114

Gender, Juvenile Crime, and the Increasing Involvement of Girls in the Juvenile Justice System

“Despite decades of attention, the proportion of girls in the juvenile justice system has increased and their challenges have remained remarkably consistent, resulting in deeply rooted systemic gender injustice. The literature is clear that girls in the justice system have experienced abuse, violence, adversity, and deprivation across many of the domains of their lives—family, peers, intimate partners, and community. There is also increasing understanding of the sorts of programs helpful to these girls. What is missing is a focus on how systems—and particularly juvenile justice systems—can be redesigned to protect public safety and support the healing* and healthy development of girls and young women.”

“The overall portrait of childhood deprivation and violence among girls in the juvenile justice system is broadly captured by recent ACE (Adverse Childhood Experience) studies of justice-involved girls. The first ACE study in 1998 (examining adults) identified 10 forms of childhood adversity that correlate with chronic disease in adulthood.136 The study scored the number of ACEs each participant experienced, grouping ACEs into three general categories—abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction—and providing a final score of one to ten. Researchers found that as ACE scores increased, so did future risk.”

1. Emotional Abuse 2. Physical Abuse 3. Sexual Abuse 4. Emotional Neglect 5. Physical Neglect 6. Family Violence 7. Household Substance Abuse 8. Household Mental Illness 9. Parental Separation or Divorce 10. Household Member Incarceration

“Subsequent ACE research specifically examining girls in the juvenile justice system broadly describes a profile of childhood abuse among girls, which is comparably greater than that of boys, and is particularly more pronounced for sexual abuse, interpersonal victimization, and cumulative experiences of abuse and adversity. In 2014, a Florida ACE study evaluated 64,300 youth involved in the Florida juvenile justice system, 14,000 of whom were girls. [This] study shows the clear differences between the deprivation violence experienced by girls compared to boys. The prevalence of ACE indicators was higher for girls than boys in all 10 categories. Sexual abuse was reported 4.4 times more frequently for girls than for boys, which is consistent with other research.” SOURCE: Francine T. Sherman and Annie Balck. 2015. Gender Injustice: System-Level Juvenile Justice Reforms for Girls. National Crittenton Foundation.

115

Female Youth/Girls in the Juvenile Justice System in the Mohawk Valley Region

Table 51. Mohawk Valley Region Female Reported Arrests: 2010 to 2014 Mohawk Valley Region Female Reported Arrests (% of all JD arrests) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 % % % % % County Regional Average 32% 34% 32% 33% 36%

Fulton 29% 33% 23% 25% 28%

Herkimer 19% 41% 36% 25% 24%

Montgomery 26% 11% 24% 26% 29%

Oneida 34% 36% 38% 37% 42%

Otsego 47% 25% 28% 31% 27%

Schoharie 17% 30% 18% 29% 38% Source: NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services, Office of Justice Research and Performance, June 1, 2015 NOTE: Females accounted for 29% of all juvenile arrests in the US in 2012 (includes up to 18 years old for 48 of 50 states.)

Highlights:

• The proportion of female juvenile arrests relative to all arrests in the Mohawk Valley Region slightly exceeds the national average. • The female JD arrest proportion has been increasing in five of the six counties in the region from 2010 to 2014. • Otsego County has the lowest proportion of female arrests in 2014 (27%), and is the only county in which female JD arrest proportions have been flat or dropping over the past five years. • Oneida County had the highest proportion of female juvenile arrests in 2014 (42%)

116

Including 16 and 17 Year Olds in the Juvenile Justice System in NY State

Only NY State and one other state in the US treat youth who are 16 or 17 as adults in their criminal justice systems. NY State is in the process of changing this policy. One of the first steps taken here was by Governor Andrew Cuomo who signed an Executive Order in 2014 to establish a Commission on Youth, Public Safety and Justice which was tasked to “….develop a concrete plan to raise the age of juvenile jurisdiction in the most effective and prudent manner possible, and to make other specific recommendations as to how New York State’s juvenile and criminal justice systems could better serve youth, improve outcomes, and protect communities… by December 31, 2014.” SOURCE: THE GOVERNOR'S COMMISSION ON YOUTH, PUBLIC SAFETY, AND JUSTICE: Summary of Recommendations for Juvenile Justice Reform in New York State. 2014 (Commonly known as the “Raise the Age Report” Available at: https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/2015-opportunity-agenda-ensuring- justice-perception-and-reality-0)

Although the proposal to include 16 and 17 year olds within the juvenile justice system has not yet been passed by the NYS Legislature and is not part of the current system, it is a priority of the current Governor and appears to be moving forward, so we felt it necessary to include questions pertaining to this proposal and its impact during interviews. Representatives from across the region were asked what they felt were major concerns with regard to raising the age of criminal responsibility to 18 in NY State. The responses to concerns of raising the age are grouped into the type of agency responding, as many responses were similar in nature.

Probation:

• There is a lack of funding, lack of resources, and a lack of programming to meet the needs of the population-we already struggle with this age group and finding appropriate resources (employment, education, treatment) [Schoharie] • We have one Judge, who handles ALL family Court matters-it will put a huge burden on our already backlogged system. [Schoharie] • With an older population, the life-time of problems to accrue is greater, which will further bog down services. [Schoharie] • There really isn’t anything changing, it’s already in place, we just need more person power to adjust to the increased population that probation will have to handle. [Oneida] • Staff and resources are not going to be adequate to meet the demand with 16 and 17 year olds entering into the juvenile system. [Montgomery] • Staffing needs to be supported and funded at the State level. The County does not support fiscally augmenting the department due to budget constraints. [Fulton] • All cases for 16 and 17 year olds will be referred to probation, as opposed to the low percentage that are currently referred for prosecution. This will increase the caseload dramatically, causing the need for increased resources and additional trained personnel. [Otsego]

117

• There will be a need for more electronic monitoring [and we need the resources to do this]. Our department will have to handle more serious crimes. We need a “24-hour assessment center”. [Herkimer]

Law Enforcement:

• If passed, it will tie the hands of law enforcement agencies. 16 and 17 year olds know that they will not be held fully accountable and treated as a juvenile. Would also need to re-train the entire state on how to effectively deal with an increased juvenile population. [ Ilion] (NYS Juvenile Police Officers Association Regional Rep) • The state is barking up the wrong tree…there is already the YO status for 16 and 17 year olds that commit crimes that can be reduced. The ones that are committing crimes and being sent away need to be, and would continue to under the new program. Now you will be sticking 16 and 17 year olds in with 13 and 14 year olds, corrupting them further. (NYS Juvenile Police Officers Association Representative) • Not sure that New York State knows what they are doing and has not provided a lot of guidance. Additional juvenile officer(s) would be needed, but where would the funding come from for it? Would it have to be pulled from somewhere else within the department? What about 16 and 17 year olds that do not want to return home? They have the legal right to leave home…do we release them to the street? Would Family Court be open on nights and weekends for the increase in formally arrested youth? [Rome] • The staffing and resources are not adequate; there needs to be more training and staff to effectively deal with the population. [Amsterdam] • If 16 and 17 year olds are run through the juvenile system, that would mean less work for our [DA’s] office, but much more work for the county attorney. [Oneida]

Family Court:

• This will be adding another group of kids to the busiest family court in the region and will further bog down our ability to hear and cases and make good decisions. [Oneida] • It will be even more difficult to find safe alternatives to releasing kids who can’t go home safely to the streets. [Oneida]

Community Providers:

• Our fear is that it will not happen and that 16 and 17 year olds will continue on in the same manner that they have. (Utica Safe Schools/Healthy Students, Inc.) • That mind-shift will not happen, with people and agencies continuing to do business as usual. Agencies will either not be able to or willing to change or take a good look at the real long-term impact not only on the youth, but everything that is involved. (Utica Safe Schools/Healthy Students, Inc.) • There needs to be funding for psycho-social evaluations (St. Mary’s Mental Health (Montgomery County)

118

Summary and Recommendations

Focus Group Feedback from Summit Meetings in the Mohawk Valley Region: Recommendations from Summit Meetings in all six counties are included with Assessment recommendations. There are five key areas.

1) System Integration and Cross System Collaboration a. What’s Working i. Meetings that bring stakeholders together in each county ii. Preventive/Community based services iii. Investment of service providers iv. Communication can be very good at times b. What’s Not Working Well i. Lack of resources in rural areas ii. Lack of transportation iii. Mental Health service deficits: wait lists, youth not receiving treatment, no inpatient beds are available when needed iv. Lack of youth and parent engagement v. Collaboration across ALL systems serving these youth and families c. Unmet Needs i. Data and the ability to share data (confidentiality and technology issues) ii. Peer Support iii. Drug treatment iv. Collaboration between providers and families as well as provider to provider d. What Can We Do? i. Peer Support ii. Drug treatment iii. Collaboration between providers and families as well as provider to provider e. Barriers i. Geographic barriers/Transportation ii. Funding iii. Wait lists iv. Engagement v. Poverty vi. Caseloads vii. Legalities with information sharing f. Overcoming Barriers i. Funding ii. Focus on the Region- Sharing Resources iii. Engage families, youth and other systems (SA, MH, PCP, schools, etc.) iv. Parent Support v. Peer Support

119

2) Mental Health and Substance Abuse a. What’s Working i. Collaborative meetings ii. Substance abuse and mental health working together in many counties iii. Early identification iv. Community based providers v. Clinicians located in other venues where youth are located/receive services b. What’s Not Working Well i. Youth, parent, and community understanding of mental health ii. Transportation/Access to service iii. Focus on mental health and trauma being a family issue not just a kid issue iv. Lack of adequate substance abuse services for youth v. Continuity of care as youth move through levels of care vi. Documentation/Caseloads of mental health and substance abuse professionals c. Unmet Needs i. Lack of intensive community based services for younger youth ii. Education iii. Whole family support iv. Adequate substance abuse treatment for youth v. Transportation to treatment for MH and SA - need for more in home services d. What Can We Do? i. Services for the entire family – support for the entire family ii. Create ways to limit the barriers of transportation iii. Create environments where parents and youth can both receive services, same time, same place iv. Accountability of parents ensuring children are getting the services they need e. Barriers i. Keeping staff consistent ii. Funding iii. Issues with access-slots, timeframes, red tape iv. Engagement v. Collaboration vi. Transparency f. Overcoming Barriers i. Strengthen family/youth voice in treatment to increase engagement ii. Policy reform to allow for change in data sharing and unnecessary documentation requirements iii. Education and training for providers, stakeholders, and families iv. Better collaboration and communication 3) Re-entry and Recidivism a. What’s Working i. Treatment planning while child is still in placement ii. Collaboration between community based providers, placement providers, and DDS iii. Work to enroll child in school prior to returning home iv. Continued Court supervision post discharge

120

b. What’s Not Working Well i. Barriers to youth re-enrolling in some districts ii. Lack of parental engagement in the process of placement to return home iii. Services for families while youth is in care iv. Community based appointments post discharge (MH, SA, etc.) v. Breaking down labels of youth coming out of placement as they try to re-enter the community c. Un-met Needs and Barriers i. No clear definition of what successful re-entry looks like ii. Transportation to and from RTC to work on family relationships while child is in care iii. Family engagement iv. School engagement v. Lack of team based approach in this process, providers working in silos

d. What Can We Do? i. Create a data sharing system that allows for everyone to have the knowledge to intervene as early as possible ii. Funding for services/programs iii. Holding parents accountable for their part iv. Have services in place prior to a child returning home v. Use assessments to assess of the entire family

121

4) School Partnerships a. What’s Working i. Community based providers working in and with schools ii. School resource officers iii. Mental Health Clinicians having hours in schools iv. Early identification of behavioral challenges v. Student Intervention Partnership (SIP) in many schools/counties b. What’s Not Working Well i. Regulations of education and mental health may not always fit well together ii. Post discharge planning for youth in care iii. Schools being able to refer youth for services iv. Not as many resources at the Elementary level v. Schools don’t always have up to date knowledge of what’s available or where to refer c. Unmet Needs i. After school activities ii. Early identification as well as follow through for those children iii. Community based services not available to all youth iv. Many schools do not have SRO’s v. Collaboration is often lacking

122

d. What Can We Do? i. Invite community based programs into the schools – educate each other ii. Collaborate iii. Create more positive opportunities for parents to be involved with school iv. Create better understanding of laws and regulations that govern schools and their processes (PINS, ED Neglect, etc.) e. Barriers i. Funding ii. Family engagement iii. Early intervention iv. Access v. Lack of sensitivity of home issues of youth vi. Lack of knowledge of the system vii. Lack of training f. Overcoming Barriers i. Invite agencies into the schools ii. Invite parents into the schools iii. Training for parents, schools, and providers iv. Training on engaging families living in poverty v. Find funding 5) Policing, Diversion and Alternatives to Detention a. What’s Working i. Community based services, Diversion services through probation ii. Collaboration between Probation and law enforcement iii. School resource officers and other school based programs such as IRT b. What’s Not Working Well i. Engagement of youth and family ii. Disagreement on service provision makes collaboration difficult iii. Lack of accountability for caretakers iv. Interventions often start too late v. Out of school suspensions c. Unmet Needs i. Parent education on the system ii. After school programs, drop-in centers and alternatives to OOS iii. Programs for higher risk offenders (I.e., children with sexual risk behaviors) iv. Need for more data d. What Can We Do? i. Make sure everyone knows what services and interventions are out there ii. More communication and collaboration iii. More police sponsored programs for youth iv. Make sure all parties are working together as a team (i.e., Family Court, Probation, LE, community based services, DSS, etc.) e. Barriers i. Traditional ways of doing things – passing the buck ii. Frustration with frequent flyers iii. Funding iv. Engagement

123

f. Overcoming Barriers i. Training ii. Funding iii. Family accountability iv. Law enforcement training for youth issues including mental health as well as services available in the community v. Attendance officers in more schools/SRO’s in more school

124

References

American Psychological Association. (2015). Effects of Poverty, Hunger and Homelessness on Children and Youth. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pi/families/poverty.aspx

Educational Services for Children Affected by Lead Expert Panel. (2015). Educational interventions for children affected by lead. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services.

Fader, J. J., PhD, Schall, V., MA, & Stokes, B., MA. (2012). Narrowing the School-to-Prison Pipeline in New York State: Two Innovative Approaches (Rep.). School of Criminal Justice University at Albany.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2011, January). Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics: Their Proper Use.

Federal Bureau of Investigation: Criminal Justice Information Services Division. (2010, September). Offense Definitions. Retrieved July 22, 2015, from https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/about/offense_definitions.html

The Governor's Commission on Youth, Public Safety and Justice. (2014). Final Report of the Governor's Commission on Youth, Public Safety and Justice: Recommendations for Juvenile Justice Reform in New York. Retrieved from https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/2015-opportunity-agenda- ensuring-justice-perception-and-reality-0

Hockenberry, S., & Puzzanchera, C. (2014). Delinquency Cases in Juvenile Court, 2011 (Fact Sheet ed., National Report Series). Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Huizinga, D., Thornberry, T. P., Knight, K. E., Lovegrove, P. J., Loeber, R., Hill, K., & Farrington, D. P. (2007). Disproportionate Minority Contact in the Juvenile Justice System: A Study of Differential Minority Arrest/Referral to Court in Three Cities. PsycEXTRA Dataset. doi:10.1037/e706752007- 001

125

International Association of Chiefs of Police. (2015). Youth Focused Policing: Agency Self-Assessment Tool. Retrieved from http://www.theiacp.org/Portals/0/documents/pdfs/IACPYouthFocusedPolicingAgencySelfAssess mentToolMarch2015.pdf

Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002, § 223(a)(22).

Juvenile Justice Geography, Policy, Practice and Statistics. (n.d.). Systems integration. Retrieved from http://www.jjgps.org/systems-integration

Kids Oneida. (2013). Keeping Families Together: 2013 Kids Oneida Annual Report. Retrieved July 24, 2015, from http://www.kidsoneida.org/assets/Documents/AnnualReports/KO2013AR.pdf

Korfmacher, K. S., & Hanley, M. L. (2013). Are Local Laws the Key to Ending Childhood Lead Poisoning? Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 38(4), 757-813. doi:10.1215/03616878-2208603

Loughran, T. A., Brame, R., Fagan, J., Piquero, A. R., Mulvey, E. R., & Schubert, C. A. (2015). Studying Deterrence Among High-Risk Adolescents (Juvenile Justice Bulletin). Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Mendel, D. (2014, May 19). Analysis: Is Lead Exposure the Secret to the Rapid Rise and Fantastic Fall of the Juvenile Crime Rate? Retrieved from http://jjie.org/analysis-is-lead-exposure-the-secret-to- the-rapid-rise-and-fantastic-fall-of-the-juvenile-crime-rate/#

New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services. (2013, March 28). Reporting Juvenile Arrests through the New York State Crime Reporting Program, [power point slides]. Accessed 7/14/2015 at http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/crimnet/ojsa/crimereporting/ucr_training.htm

126

New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services. (2013, November 1). New York State receives nearly $1 million in federal grants to improve services for youth involved in the juvenile justice system. Retrieved from http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/pio/press_releases/2013-11- 01_pressrelease.html

New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services. (n.d.). NYS Incident-Based Reporting (IBR). Retrieved July 15, 2015, from http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/crimnet/ojsa/crimereporting/ibr.htm

New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, Office of Justice Research and Performance. (2015, June 1). Criminal Justice Statistics: County Juvenile Justice Profiles. Retrieved from http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/crimnet/ojsa/jj-profiles.htm

New York State Education Department. (n.d.). New York State Education Department Data Site. Retrieved from http://data.nysed.gov/

New York State Juvenile Justice Advisory Group. (2010). Tough on crime: Promoting public safety by doing what works; A report to the Governor and Legislature. Albany, NY: New York State Juvenile Justice Advisory Group.

New York State Juvenile Justice Steering Committee. (2011). Safe communities successful youth: A shared vision for the New York State Juvenile Justice System; Strategy and action plan. NY: The New York State Juvenile Justice Steering Committee.

New York State Juvenile Re-entry Taskforce. (n.d.). New York State Juvenile Re-entry Strategic Plan (New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services).

New York State Office of Children and Family Services. (2013). Detention Risk Assessment Inventory (DRAI) worksheet.

New York State Office of Children and Family Services. (n.d.). Detention Risk Assessment Instrument. Retrieved July 24, 2015, from http://ocfs.ny.gov/main/rehab/drai/default.asp

127

NYS Child Health Lead Poisoning Prevention Program. (2014, May). Community Health: Incidence of Confirmed High Blood Lead Level =10mcg/dL Rate per 1,000 Tested Children Aged. Retrieved from https://health.data.ny.gov/Health/Community-Health-Incidence-of-Confirmed-High- Blood/8tvz-xn2h

NYS OTDA Administrative Directive 15-ADM-03 (6/2015).

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2014). OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book. Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/offenders/qa03301.asp?qaDate=2010 [Presentation by Courtney Ramirez, Statewide DMC Coordinator for the NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services, Juvenile Justice Policy Institute]. (n.d.).

Puzzanchera, C. (2014). Juvenile Arrests 2012 (National Report Series). Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Sherman, F. T., & Balck, A. (2015, September 24). Gender Injustice: System-Level Juvenile Justice Reform for Girls. Retrieved http://www.nationalcrittenton.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/09/Gender_Injustice_Report.pdf

State of New York Police Juvenile Officers Association, home page. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.snypjoa.org/

United States Census Bureau. (2014, October 15). 2011-2013 American Community Survey [data file]. Retrieved from http://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/summary_file/2013/data/

United States Census Bureau. (n.d.). QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau. Retrieved 2015, from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36000.html

United States Census Bureau. (n.d.). Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/did/www/saipe/data/interactive/saipe.html?s_appName=saipe&map_y earSelector=2014&map_geoSelector=aa_c#view=Mapping

128

Youth and Parent/Caregiver Focus Group Data [The Juvenile Delinquency/Family Court Informational Project-a NYS DCJS Office of Juvenile Justice Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Project]. (2012, February).

(Photo: The annual Utica Safe Schools Build-A-Bike-Giveaway)

129

Photo Credits

(Note: All Richard Ross photos are copyrighted and are from his work Juvenile in Justice (http://www.juvenile-in-justice.com)

Cover page: Richard Ross

Table of tables: Richard Ross

Page 19: Youtube “Juvenile Detention” by InsideOut Ptv, retrieved from (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDSekK66dHM)

Page 34: Richard Ross

Page 37: Richard Ross

Page 40: Richard Ross

Page 46: Richard Ross

Page 67: Houston Independent School District, Peck Elementary Police Mentorship, October 30, 2012, retrieved from https://hisdnews.wordpress.com/2012/10/30/community-partners-provide-male- mentors-for-students/

Page 73: Richard Ross

Page 81: NYC Administration for Children’s Services, retrieved from http://www1.nyc.gov/site/acs/justice/juvenile-justice.page

Page 83: Phil Skinner, ajc.com, retrieved from http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/atlanta-music- project-gains-steam/nSynG/

Page 113: Richard Ross

Page 116: Richard Ross

Page 121: richmondstandard.com, “Richmond police partner with community to help foster care youth”, retrieved from http://richmondstandard.com/2015/03/richmond-police-partner-with-community-to- help-foster-care-youth/

Page 122: “Safety Lessons…We have a mission to reach the hearts and minds of as many kids as possible!”, retrieved from http://www.troyil.us/index.aspx?NID=246

Page 124: NY Daily News, “Florida police officer surprises ‘loud’ teens by joining them in game of pick-up basketball”, retrieved from http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/watch-surprises-loud-teens-game- basketball-article-1.2506140

(Photos or images from free sources or the public domain do not need a credit line and are not listed on this page.)

130