HomeMy WebLinkAbout1415-5 Juvenile Community Justice - Observations and comparisons report (3-6-15)Juvenile Community Justice Division - Observations and Comparisons report #14/15-5 March 2015
Juvenile Community Justice Division
– Observations and Comparisons
To request this information in an alternate format, please call (541) 330-4674 or send email to David.Givans@Deschutes.org
Deschutes County,
Oregon
David Givans, CPA, CIA, CGMA
Deschutes County Internal Auditor
PO Box 6005
1300 NW Wall St, Suite 200
Bend, OR 97708-6005
(541) 330-4674
David.Givans@Deschutes.org
Audit committee:
Shawn Armstrong, Chair - Public member
Chris Earnest - Public member
Lindsey Lombard – Public member
Gayle McConnell - Public member
Michael Shadrach - Public member
Jennifer Welander - Public member
Anthony DeBone, County Commissioner
Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk
Dan Despotopulos, Fair & Expo Director
Juvenile Community Justice Division - Observations and Comparisons report #14/15-5 March 2015
{This page left blank}
Juvenile Community Justice Division - Observations and Comparisons report #14/15-5 March 2015
TABLE OF
CONTENTS:
HIGHLIGHTS
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background on Audit …………..………………………………………...…… 1
1.2. Objectives and Scope ………………….……………………………...…… 1-2
1.3. Methodology …………………………………….…………………...……… 2-3
2. BACKGROUND ………………………………………………………………… 3-5
3. FINDINGS and OBSERVATIONS
3.1. Budgetary comparisons …………………...……………………………… 6-10
3.2. Potential audit topics identified ...…...……………………………….…. 11-12
4. MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
4.1. Community Justice Department …………………………………….. 13-15
APPENDICES
A.1 Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) report observations …... 16-25
A.2 Deschutes County specific data analyses from additional
JJIS data ……………………………...……………………………….…. 26-32
Juvenile Community Justice Division - Observations and Comparisons report #14/15-5 March 2015
HIGHLIGHTS
Why this audit was
performed:
To provide observations,
limited recommendations
and some possible internal
audit topics for the future.
What is recommended
Recommendations included:
reviewing the funding
resources utilized by other
counties and whether they
could or would want to
pursue any of those other
funding sources.
utilizing better
performance measures
and presenting this data in
the County Budget to help
consistently report their
effectiveness.
County management
encouraging greater use
of appropriate
performance measure
data in the County Budget
document.
choosing measures more
appropriate in assisting
the Budget Committee in
understanding how
effective a department is
translating resources into
desired results.
Juvenile Community Justice Division – Observations and Comparisons
What was found
The audit provides information for Deschutes County Juvenile Community Justice Division that
can be used to compare and contrast Deschutes with some of its peer counties and information
on the juvenile population it serves.
Some highlights include:
The main youth population (ages 10-17) served in Deschutes County is close to seventeen
thousand. In 2013, five percent (5%) of youth got involved with the juvenile justice system
through referrals (criminal, non-criminal, and dependency offenses). Less than one percent
(<1%) received detention.
Deschutes County, with a fiscal year (FY) 2015 operating budget of $6.2 million and staff of 48
FTE, has the second highest cost per capita (youth) of the counties reviewed. Costs are not
significantly different on a per capita (youth) basis that its peer counties. Resources vary
significantly by county. Deschutes has the highest general fund contribution per capita (youth) of
the counties reviewed and is more reliant on that general fund resource. They utilize the
greatest percentage (20%) of their county’s general fund resources.
The Division’s performance measures used in the budget document d o not adequately present
their efforts. Counties that publish performance measures in their budget provide more and
different types of measures.
There were some areas identified for potential performance audits which included:
evaluating JJIS data to aide decision making and performance management,
evaluating appropriate use of detention, and
reviewing efforts to improve risk assessment.
Deschutes county specific observations:
Deschutes has the highest level of referrals per capita of all of the count ies reviewed. Trends for
all counties are on a decline. Crime composition was similar as well as dispositions.
Deschutes’s use of detention (in days) is at a higher level than the larger counties. Recidivism
has been relatively consistent with a 2013 decline that is expected to be reversed. Community
service conditions closed have declined more than the state. Fewer youth are receiving
detention. Over half of the detention days are used with twelve percent of the detention events
(>30 days).
Deschutes County Internal Audit
Juvenile Community Justice Division - Observations and Comparisons report #14/15-5 March 2015
Page 1 of 32
1.
Introduction
1.1 BACKGROUND ON AUDIT
Audit Authority:
The Deschutes County Audit Committee authorized the review of Juvenile Community Justice Division in
the Internal Audit Program Work Plan for FY 14/15. The original objectives were more focused on
detention, however in discussion with the County Administrator and the Department Director, it was
determined a broader look at Juvenile was warranted. With a broader emphasis, the objectives were
expanded to identify other potential performance audit topics.
1.2 OBJECTIVES and SCOPE
Objectives:
The audit objectives include:
1) Understand costs for the division and associated programs. Assemble comparisons to other
Oregon jurisdictions on costs and funding.
2) Evaluate available data the Juvenile division and programs. Assemble best practice and
comparison data to other Oregon jurisdictions.
3) Identify potential topics for future performance audit work.
4) Be aware of any issues with compliance with federal and state regulations and requirements, as
may be applicable.
Scope:
This audit work is focused on publicly available juvenile justice system reports and data published by the
State for the State and counties. The focus of data analyses was presenting data for the last five
calendar years (2009-20013). These public reports are on the following topics: a) referrals, b)
dispositions, c) detentions, d) recidivism, e) community Service, and f) restitution.
Some additional analysis was performed for Deschutes County specific data obtained from the juvenile
justice information system (JJIS). Most of the data was developed from the established State reports
used in developing their published reports. Juvenile Division staff ran the reports and provided the data.
Under the current audit, data form other counties was not specifically requested or provided as that
would require significantly more work than covered by the scope of this audit. This audit utilized available
data to identify objectives through the analyses performed.
Internal audit work on this project was primarily in August 2014 through December 2014. State reports
issued from JJIS by county were utilized for each of the last five years (ending with 2013 or 2012 for
restitution). In addition, the underlying detail data for Deschutes was obtained from the division to allow
DESCHUTES COUNTY
INTERNAL AUDIT
REPORT
DESCHUTES COUNTY
INTERNAL AUDIT
REPORT
Juvenile Community Justice Division - Observations and Comparisons report #14/15-5 March 2015
Page 2 of 32
a greater level of analysis. Recidivism reports rely on future referral s and therefore those reports were
used back to 2008 (i.e. 2012 recidivism requires 2013 referral information to be completed). Periods are
for calendar years unless specified. Budget and assessment value data is used on a fiscal year basis.
When unlike periods used, the fiscal year (i.e. FY 13/14) is matched up with calendar (i.e. 2013) data.
Counties selected for comparison were identified as those counties in the state of Oregon with detention
4facilities. Budgetary information was utilized from publicly available reports. Based on the work
performed, we gathered information on the following counties for these comparisons:
1. Douglas County
2. Linn County
3. Jackson County
4. Marion County
5. Lane County
6. Multnomah County
Comparative information was limited to what was available through publicly available resources. The
development of these comparators did not extend to the level of comparing the services and programs
provided. When information is show on a per capita basis, these are for youth populations (ages 10-17).
1.3 METHODOLOGY
Audit procedures included:
Reviewed division budgets, division reports and industry research.
Carried out interviews and observations with Juvenile division staff, as required.
Coordinated with division and Juvenile Justice Information System staff to obtain data.
Developed comparators and process to compare counties with available County information.
Gathered, developed and analyzed available juvenile budgetary resources and requirements
information for Deschutes and the comparator counties.
Gathered, developed and analyzed selected juvenile data for Deschutes and comparator counties.
Youth population (ages 10-17) information from Puzzanchera, C., Sladky, A. and Kang, W. (2014).
"Easy Access to Juvenile Populations: 1990-2013." http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop/
JJIS reports and resources are available at: www.oregon.gov/oya/pages/jjis_data_eval_rpts.aspx
We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate
DESCHUTES COUNTY
INTERNAL AUDIT
REPORT
Juvenile Community Justice Division - Observations and Comparisons report #14/15-5 March 2015
Page 3 of 32
evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objective s.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions
based on our audit objectives. (2011 Revision of Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States.)
2. Background
2.1 Comparator
Counties information
When a youth is accused of a criminal law violation (ORS 419A.020) in Deschutes County, the case is
handled within the juvenile justice system. Several different agencies and governments are involved in
responding to youth criminal behavior including local police, state courts, the County’s Juvenile
Community Justice Division (JCJ), the County District Attorney’s Office, the Oregon Youth Authority, and
defense attorneys.
The overarching goal of the juvenile justice system is to support prosocial development of youth who
become involved in the system and thereby ensure the safety of communities. In 2013, there were 901
unduplicated youth referred through the system, which was down from prior years.
The Juvenile Community Justice Division provides youth programs and field operations, as well as
operates the County’s juvenile detention center. Field operation services include probation supervision of
adjudicated delinquents, diversion supervision in lieu of adjudication for both delinquent and non-
delinquent juvenile violators. Programs include mental health program, community service program as
well as functional family therapy for at-risk youth. The detention facility provides secure detention and
programs for arrested or adjudicated youth.
With a fiscal year (FY) 2015 operating budget of $6.2 million and staff of 48 FTE, they are one of the
larger County functions. The Juvenile division is the greatest recipient of general fund resources of $5.4
million representing 87% of their needed resources.
The secure sixty bed (60) detention facility was built in 1998. The County currently operates with one
pod, which allows for a maximum of fourteen (14) youth to be housed at any given point in time.
The selected comparator counties have detention facilities. The size of the county was not a limiting
factor as the data for comparison was adjusted to a per capita basis (on youth population). This seemed
like the most appropriate divisor for comparison/benchmarking since it is common attribute of each
county. In many of the graphs of comparator counties, the statewide and a value for the “selected”
comparators, not including Deschutes were provided.
Juvenile Community Justice Division - Observations and Comparisons report #14/15-5 March 2015
Page 4 of 32
Graph 1 –
2013 County youth
populations (age 10-
17) as a percentage of
County population
County youth populations (ages 10-17):
The primary Juvenile youth population is for youth ages 10 -17. Deschutes has close to seventeen
thousand youth (16,762 in 2013). The Division also serves an incidental number of youth at younger and
older ages. Analyses utilize a youth population per capita comparison for the comparator counties. It is
thought analyses using this per capita comparator would be better than total population since the juvenile
division services are primarily with the youth population and, as indicated below, there are some
differences in composition among the counties.
Deschutes is on the higher range of youth population composition at 10.1%. Deschutes youth population
was 10.8% of population in 2008. Much like the state, Deschutes has been experiencing a decline in
youth population of 6% over the last 5 years. Youth population has been remaining consistent during a
period where overall population has increased 5% over the last five years. In 2013, five percent (5%) of
youth got involved with the juvenile justice system through referrals (criminal, non-criminal, and
dependency offenses).
Juvenile budgeted requirements (FY 2013/2014):
It is difficult to compare budgeted resources for disparate organizations. Each county chooses different
approaches to accomplish similar objectives. The comparator counties have detention facilities and must
address similar state mandates. Deschutes has some distinct programs, which include functional family
Juvenile Community Justice Division - Observations and Comparisons report #14/15-5 March 2015
Page 5 of 32
Graph 2 –
Per capita (total and
youth) requirements
(excluding
contingency) for
comparator counties
[2013/2014 budget]
therapy and behavioral health services in detention to mention a couple. The following analyses
attempts to provide information on the extent of the budgeted requirements used for similar functions on
a similar youth population basis. Fiscal year 2013/2014 budgets are shown since these will better match
state published reports for calendar 2013.
Graph 2 provides a comparison of requirements on a per capita basis (before contingency) for total
population and youth population. The total population is a more familiar comparator and indicates cost
per citizen. The youth population is used herein to address cost for the population being served and
indicates cost per youth served. This appears to indicate that Deschutes Juvenile costs per capita
(youth) are second highest among the counties reviewed. On a total population basis, Deschutes’s cost
per capita is in the higher tier of counties (which includes Linn, Marion and Multnomah). The range of
county costs per capita varies. Deschutes Community Justice management indicates that these costs
per capita are impacted by scope of services, service volumes, economies of scale, and county benefits
and overhead.
Juvenile Community Justice Division - Observations and Comparisons report #14/15-5 March 2015
Page 6 of 32
3. Findings and
Observations
Generally, internal audit findings result from incidents of non-compliance with stated procedures and/or
departures from prudent operation. The findings are, by nature, subjective.
This audit was primarily focused with observations and identifying areas for further review. In a couple of
cases, there are opportunities for improvement presented in the report but they may not be all-inclusive
of areas where improvement may be needed. Internal controls were not within the objectives of this
audit. The limited findings would not be considered significant deficiencies.
3.1 Budgetary comparisons
Graph 3 –
Composition of
resources (excluding
working capital) by
type for comparator
counties
[2013/2014 budgets]
Resources for county juvenile justice programs vary.
Deschutes County Juvenile division is more reliant on general fund than other counties with detention
facilities.
Deschutes does have a greater reliance on general fund. The overall contribution of general fund is most
like Marion County. For Deschutes, the general fund contributes 89% of current resources and utilizes
around 20% of the available County general fund resources.
Juvenile Community Justice Division - Observations and Comparisons report #14/15-5 March 2015
Page 7 of 32
Graph 4 –
Per capita resources
(excluding working
capital) by type for
comparator counties
[2013/2014 budgets]
The notable differences from Deschutes County in resources include,
Tax levies
Intergovernmental (Federal, state and county) funding arrangements
o Detention IGA/sub leases
o Title IV-E reimbursement
o OYA grants
As noted above in Graph 4, the County’s overall cost (on a per capita basis - based upon the level of
youth population) is not significantly different from its non-Multnomah peers. The general fund provided
in Deschutes does not look as different from some of the other counties (when combined with their levy
for those counties with levies).
Juvenile Community Justice Division - Observations and Comparisons report #14/15-5 March 2015
Page 8 of 32
Graph 5 –
Percentage of overall
general fund
resources used for
Juvenile for
comparator counties
[2013/2014 budgets]
As indicated in Graph 5, Deschutes and Marion utilize a big piece of available general funds. Greater
reliance on general fund resources can make these programs more susceptible to changes in allocations
of general fund resources. This also is reliant largely on the level of billed tax rates, which are higher for
the larger counties (significantly so with Multnomah).
It was not within the scope of this audit to develop an understanding of the reasons why the other
counties have other monies and the extent they must do additional work for those monies. Management
has indicated the larger counties can benefit from their size as well as benefit from resources not
available to Deschutes by virtue of the county environment (i.e. gang activity, poverty and other social
issues). Some counties will benefit by reduced requirements because they have access to other
community programs to divert youth from the juvenile system.
To the extent additional funding mechanisms could be developed, the Juvenile Division may not be as
reliant on general fund resources.
It is recommended for Juvenile management to review the funding resources utilized by other
counties and whether they could or would want to pursue any of those other funding sources.
The detail of the revenue types identified from budget documents were shared with division
management for additional research.
Juvenile Community Justice Division - Observations and Comparisons report #14/15-5 March 2015
Page 9 of 32
Table 1-
Count of published
performance
measures for Juvenile
(in budget
documents)
Performance measures used in budget do not present efforts of division.
The Juvenile Division has included performance measures in their FY 2015 budget that do not sufficiently
provide a view of how their operations are performing. Measures utilized in the budget have substantially
changed in each of the last three budgets. Data on performance for these m easures has not been shown
in the last two budgets. The current measures specifically address the percentage community justice
officers meeting contact goals and six-month recidivism for youth completing functional family therapy.
These limited measures fail to encompass the larger and broader scope of the Juvenile division which
include intervening with youth through
probation and court support,
diversion and early intervention,
detention and
available programs (functional family therapy, community s ervice and mental health).
The Division does appear to utilize significantly more measures in their operations than published in the
budget process.
These published budget measures fail to address the overall goals of the division and fail to reflect the
impact of the division’s efforts at spending monies and providing services to the public. A measure
should help inform the discussion of how a service is performing and whether additional or less resources
are required. Trends in measurement data can help decision makers assess if changes in resources are
necessary.
For the comparator counties, three counties (Jackson, Marion and Multnomah) have performance
measures within their budget documents.
County Number of measures
Deschutes 2
Jackson 7
Marion 7
Multnomah 20
(some duplicated by program)
As indicated, these other counties use more performance measures to help with understanding their
operations. In addition, their measures appear to be a balance of outcome and output measures with
trending information to help the reader understand what is being accomplished.
Juvenile Community Justice Division - Observations and Comparisons report #14/15-5 March 2015
Page 10 of 32
Performance measures published should be for critical metrics directly relating to strategic goals.
Performance measurements are a tool for monitoring performance through releva nt measures of efforts,
outputs and outcomes. These measurement tools allow review of activity over time and among peers.
Effective measures help management address:
progress towards our goals,
quantity and quality of services delivered, and
how we compare to others (when comparable).
The key measures are chosen to address what is trying to be influenced. Ultimately, only a couple of
important measures should be used to focus on accountability and performance reporting. Measures
should strive to be clear to all audiences, match the direction of other measures, and be built upon quality
data.
Without effective and relevant performance measures , it can be difficult for government to demonstrate
accountability and that they achieved their intended goals/objectives. W ithout consistency in measures, it
can be difficult to assess progress with goals. It is also difficult for policy makers to assess where best to
allocate and direct public funds. The existing published performance measures do not reflec t the state of
our juvenile system or whether additional efforts are required to improve it. Measures published should
be integrated with County goals and division strategies to get there.
Performance measures tend to be a little complex and threatenin g. The County continues to work on
how it presents measures in the County budget process. Some County programs have had trouble
identifying meaningful performance information to be used with the budget. It is not clear why the
department did not publish their measures in the last two budget documents.
It is recommended for the Juvenile Division to consider utilizing better performance measures
and present this data in the County Budget to demonstrate the quality of the services they provide
to the public and to help consistently report their effectiveness.
It is recommended for County Management to encourage greater use of appropriate performance
measure data in the County Budget document. It is recommended for measures chosen to be
appropriate to assist the Budget Committee in understanding how effective a department is
translating resources into desired results.
Juvenile Community Justice Division - Observations and Comparisons report #14/15-5 March 2015
Page 11 of 32
3.2 Potential audit topics identified
Potential performance audit topics were identified for consideration through review of the reports,
discussions with staff, and data analyses. If the topic is attributed to an analysis, these are referenced to
the appendices (A.1 and A.2).
These have been placed in an estimated order of greatest impact. Topics of interest are as follows:
1) Further evaluate and develop County use of JJIS system data to aide decision making and
performance management.
a) Assessment of data available and use in developing appropriate performance measures. This
might include utilizing comparator county data points with sufficient lead-time and coordination.
[See Section 3.1 recommendation]
b) What kind of recidivism measure provides the best indicator of success?
[A.1 - Graph 14, 15]
c) Seek additional County and State data from JJIS to aide in benchmarking and comp arison.
2) Ensuring appropriate use of detention
a) The use of detention based upon risk in consideration of national studies on limiting use of secure
detention facilities.
[A.2 – Graph 23, Table 2]
b) Understand what is driving longer lengths of stay and how those could be mitigated. Noted
circumstances where youth are retained for longer periods while waiting for placement.
[A.2 – Graph 24]
i) Review for whether there are sufficient detention alternatives available in our community.
[A.1 – Graphs 12-13]
ii) What are the impacts to the County for not having alternatives to detention?
[A.2 – Table 2]
3) Review efforts to improve risk assessment data and whether it better drives use of detention and
programs to reduce recidivism. [A.2 – Graph 24, Assessment information on page 31]
a) Consider addressing efforts by the division and state in using risk assessments to better target
services to treat youth.
b) Consider whether other measures of recidivism would aide in evaluation.
Juvenile Community Justice Division - Observations and Comparisons report #14/15-5 March 2015
Page 12 of 32
4) Addressing cause for higher relative referral activities in Deschutes and with some local agencies.
[A.1 – Graph 6; A.2 – Graph 26]
5) Continue development of information for first time offender activity and handling. Current review could
only focus on some criminal first time offenders.
[A.2 – Graph 20-22]
6) Understand cause for decline in community service and restitution.
[A.1 – Graphs 17,19]
Juvenile Community Justice Division - Observations and Comparisons report #14/15-5 March 2015
Page 13 of 32
4. Management
Response –
J. Kenneth Hales,
Director
Department of
Community Justice
Deschutes County Department of Community Justice
J. Kenneth Hales, Director
March 6, 2015
David Givans
Deschutes County Internal Auditor
PO Box 6005
1300 NW Wall St, Suite 200
Bend, OR 97708-6005
Dear Mr. Givans:
Thank you for this opportunity to provide a written response to the Juvenile Community Justice
Division – Observations and Comparisons report. I appreciate your effort to analyze Juvenile
Community Justice Division services in Deschutes County and your willingness to involve me
and division staff in the development of the report. In the report you compare Deschutes
County and its juvenile department and components of its juvenile justice system to that of Linn,
Jackson, Marion, Lane, and Multnomah Counties. The data you present is reflective of
environmental conditions and departmental activities, as well as law enforcement, prosecutorial,
and judicial practices. Some of the data presented leads to generalizations that help us better
understand the nature of juvenile justice in Oregon. Some of the data confirms or reveals what
is already well understood by juvenile justice practitioners and social science researchers.
In general, as I understand it, your report reveals that trends in juvenile offen ding are similar for
all counties. How referrals to juvenile departments are disposed of varies between counties as
well as police practices vary between counties and also between the various law enforcement
agencies within Deschutes County. Proportionately, Deschutes County’s cost for juvenile
department services is not significantly different from the other counties, yet it has a larger
population of youth 10 to 17 years of age, has a much higher incidence of referrals and
dispositions than most other counties and has the lowest juvenile offender recidivism rate of all
Juvenile Community Justice Division - Observations and Comparisons report #14/15-5 March 2015
Page 14 of 32
4. Management
Response –continued
the comparison counties. As previously noted, its law enforcement referral rate is higher than all
other counties yet its use of detention is less than Douglas, Linn, and Jackson Counties.
Deschutes County spends slightly more on juvenile department services than most of the other
counties and Deschutes County relies more on its general fund to finance juvenile department
services than the other counties.
You recommend the department review the funding resources utilized by other counties
and whether we could or would want to pursue any of those other funding sources. The
department has and will continue to examine funding sources accessed by other county juvenile
departments. Currently the most promising additional funding opportunity accessed so far by
Clackamas, Lane, Washington and Multnomah Counties is to establish eligibility and make
claims for reimbursement for certain juvenile probation officer duties to the federal Title IV -E
entitlement program. The department is already studying the possibility of accessing Title IV -E
monies.
There are only four significant funding sources for juvenile department services; county
government appropriations, allocations or levies, state grant s, federal grants and entitlements,
and, to a lesser degree foundation grants. The department is knowledgeable of and
experienced in accessing these funding opportunities. Oregon law prescribes the role and
functions of county juvenile departments and requires each county to have and pay for its
juvenile department. How a county chooses to finance its juvenile department is a political
decision. All county juvenile departments receive the majority of their funding from the county
general fund. All county juvenile departments receive a proportional amount of state Oregon
Youth Authority basic and diversion grants. Multnomah County is the only recipient state’s gang
grant. Once available to all counties the federal formula grants through the Department of
Justice, Bureau of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention are
now available to only the more populous counties. The larger counties have dominated the
federal competitive grants for some time.
You recommend the department considers utilizing better performance measures and
that it presents this data in the County Budget to demonstrate the quality of the services
they provide to the public and to help consistently report its effectiveness. You are correct
that the performance measures in the budget report do not fully reflect the scope and nature of
juvenile department activities and programs. The performance measures and the program
discussion in the budget report are not intended to give the budget committee members a
comprehensive understanding of a department’s performance or activities. The number of
Juvenile Community Justice Division - Observations and Comparisons report #14/15-5 March 2015
Page 15 of 32
juvenile department performance measures included in the budget report is in compliance with
the budget director’s instructions.
The department has many performance measures designed and used for many purposes. To
package them in a comprehensive report would be of benefit to me and county leadership but
not appropriate for the budget committee. The performance measures included in the budget
report are selected because of how directly they relate to specific goals and objectives of the
Board of County Commissioners.
Respectfully,
Juvenile Community Justice Division - Observations and Comparisons report #14/15-5 March 2015
Page 16 of 32
APPENDICES
A.1 Juvenile Justice Information System report observations
OBSERVATION DATA
The Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) publishes annual reports for statewide and county
information relating to the juvenile justice system. The data analyses provided are from information
presented in those published reports. The comparisons are achieved by dividing by youth population
(times 1,000). For most of these reports, values are shown for statewide, comparator counties (in order of
population size) and the “selected” average of the non-Deschutes comparator counties. The population
utilized is the youth population (ages 10-17). For many of the comparative graphs, values used are based
upon the unduplicated youth counts. The counts on numbers based (i.e. number of referrals) had similar
patterns and generally did not offer additional comparative value. The JJIS reports/data are by the home
county of the youth, which might differ from the county where the youth commits crime or where they are
detained.
Graph 6 –
2013 unduplicated
youth referrals per
capita (*1000) for
comparator counties.
Referrals
Youth referrals represent youth referred by authorities to the juvenile justice system. Unduplicated counts
count only the youth and not the number of referrals they receive.
Juvenile Community Justice Division - Observations and Comparisons report #14/15-5 March 2015
Page 17 of 32
Graph 7 –
Crime type composition
of 2013 unduplicated
youth referrals for
comparator counties.
Graph 6 indicates that Deschutes County has a much higher incidence of referrals for the size of our
population. Based on work performed the overall trends are similar on number of referrals. In 2013, five
percent (5%) of Deschutes County youth had referrals. Over the last five years Deschutes’s number have
declined 33%. Most of the comparator counties have declined to a similar degree. The consistent higher
level of referrals compared to the comparator counties may indicate some fundamental community and
police agency attitudes towards enforcement.
As indicated in Graph 7, referral composition by type of crime (criminal, non-criminal, and dependency
status offenses) is similar. Most notable is the higher level of dependency offenses in Multnomah as well as
the lower level of non-criminal referrals. Deschutes, like the smaller counties, seems to have higher levels
of non-criminal crimes. These non-criminal crimes seem to decline with larger counties.
Juvenile Community Justice Division - Observations and Comparisons report #14/15-5 March 2015
Page 18 of 32
Graph 8 –
Crime areas (top 10)
composition of 2013
unduplicated youth
referrals for comparator
counties.
(%’s for top 5 shown)
Graph 9 –
Deschutes County age
composition of 2013
unduplicated youth
referrals
As indicated in Graph 8, the composition of the top ten crimes varies a bit by County. Deschutes is
comparable to state and selected averages. Multnomah has a greater emphasis in the referrals they have
on dependency offenses.
Juvenile Community Justice Division - Observations and Comparisons report #14/15-5 March 2015
Page 19 of 32
Graph 10 –
2013 composition of
dispositions for youth
for comparator counties.
The composition of youth by age among the counties is similar to Deschutes. The older age groups are
where most of the youth offenses are occurring. Deschutes has consistent per capita offense rates for these
two age groups across the many types of areas. For all counties, alcohol/MIP is more significant in the
oldest age group.
Dispositions
Dispositions indicate the most intense disposition imposed during the year. As expected, the levels of
dispositions are somewhat similar to the levels seen in referrals. Deschutes has a greater level of
dispositions than other counties since it has higher levels of referrals. Dispositions also reflect activities of
the District Attorney’s Office and the Courts.
As indicated below, dispositions vary by county. A majority of the dispositions are “not petitioned” as the
youth offenses are reviewed and closed or they are presented with some type of diversion. The offense
did not warrant handling through the judicial system Deschutes falls pretty close to the statewide
averages.
Juvenile Community Justice Division - Observations and Comparisons report #14/15-5 March 2015
Page 20 of 32
Graph 11 –
Trend in per capita
(*1000) types of
disposition for
DESCHUTES
As indicated in Graph 11, the trend for Deschutes County dispositions parallels a similar decline per capita
referrals by year. The “review and close” dispositions have a relative increase, whereas authorized
diversions have declined significantly. With diversion, there has been a significant decline in the youth court
program. The Juvenile division indicates an elimination of a diversion program at the City of Bend in 2012
had a significant impact on diversion. The other significant type of diversion, accountability agreements,
has declined only slightly on a per capita basis.
NOTE: Disposition data is challenging to present for the following reasons.
A youth may receive more than one disposition for the same referral. Different allegations on the
same referral occasionally receive different dispositions.
A referral may be disposed of with a less intense disposition because another related referral is
disposed of with a more intense disposition.
A disposition may change over time. A disposition may be replaced with a more intense disposit ion
following non-compliance with the initial disposition (i.e., probation violation).
A youth may receive dispositions that are more intensive if he/she is a repeat offender.
Juvenile Community Justice Division - Observations and Comparisons report #14/15-5 March 2015
Page 21 of 32
Graph 12 –
2013 Per capita youth
detention days(*1000)
Graph 13 –
2013 Per capita youth
detention days(*1000)
by type of admit
Detentions
The following detention information is based upon admission data for youth placed in juvenile detention
facilities across the state. Deschutes data in this report represents Deschutes youth and not youth held in
our facility.
Deschutes has similar levels of detention days to the smaller sized counties but more than th e larger
counties.
Juvenile Community Justice Division - Observations and Comparisons report #14/15-5 March 2015
Page 22 of 32
Graph 14 –
2012 recidivism rate (%)
for comparator counties
For all of the entities most of the per capita admits and per capita days (by a wide margin) are with “Pre
Adjudicatory” admits. Deschutes County’s trend in detention days per capita has been consistent for
warrant and post adjudicatory admits. Pre adjudicatory trends have declined similar to referrals with an
increase in 2013.
In 2013, less than one percent of Deschutes County youth were admitted to detention. This was similar to
the other counties. Based on admit reasons, Deschutes County had some areas that were different from
the similar sized comparator counties. Those included:
Pre Adjudicatory offenses
Deschutes has lower levels on probation violation. However, this was higher than the larger
counties.
Deschutes is higher for new law violations.
Deschutes is higher on violation of conditional release.
Post Adjudicatory offenses
Deschutes is higher for court ordered extra detention (30-day program).
Recidivism
As determined in the state developed reports, recidivism is a new criminal referral within twelve (12)
months. A lower value is better. JJIS cautions readers on comparing data between counties.
Juvenile Community Justice Division - Observations and Comparisons report #14/15-5 March 2015
Page 23 of 32
Graph 15 –
Trend in DESCHUTES
County recidivism rates
(%) – regular and
chronic
The most recent report is for Calendar 2012 since it relies on the 2013 data. Calculated recidivism values
are derived from referral data. Deschutes’s value is significantly lower than its 31.6% it had in the prior year.
On average, statewide recidivism rates have been declining a bit over the last five years. Juvenile Division
staff are anticipating the 2013 recidivism rate will come back up. It is not clear why the 2012 numbers went
down.
Chronic recidivism rate is for three or more criminal referrals within the twelve months.
In 2012, the gap in recidivism (male higher than female) for Deschutes County narrowed to 2.9% from
7.8%. It is not clear what caused the decrease. Statewide, the gender gap rate was around 8.5%.
Community service and Restitution
Community service and restitution are conditions sometimes put in place to promote public safety a nd youth
accountability, and to offer opportunities for rehabilitation to youth. Community services contribute work (in
hours) to the community as a form of compensation for damages. Restitution provides a payment (in
dollars) to victims for damages. Data from JJIS reports reflects values in the year the conditions are closed.
These may be conditions put in place by the juvenile division or by the courts.
Juvenile Community Justice Division - Observations and Comparisons report #14/15-5 March 2015
Page 24 of 32
Graph 16 –
2013 Per capita
community Service
youth count conditions
closed (*1000) by
comparator county
Graph 17 –
Trend in selected %
community service
conditions closed to
unduplicated youth
referrals
Community service
As indicated, Deschutes appears to be currently comparable to other counties as far as community service.
Deschutes County has been seeing a decline in community service conditions closed. The graph compares
the counts with referral counts to not duplicate the decline already seen in the referrals. This infers a greater
decline in the ordering of community restitution than the state.
Juvenile Community Justice Division - Observations and Comparisons report #14/15-5 March 2015
Page 25 of 32
Graph 18 –
2013 Per capita
restitution youth count
conditions closed
(*1000) by comparator
county
Graph 19 –
Trend in selected %
restitution conditions
closed to unduplicated
youth referrals
Restitution
As indicated, Deschutes appears to have a higher level of restitution conditions closed.
Deschutes County has been seeing a decline in restitution conditions closed. Th e graph compares the
counts with referral counts to not duplicate the decline already seen in the referrals. This infers a greater
decline in the ordering of restitution than the state. However, Deschutes is coming into alignment with the
state levels.
No
t
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
Juvenile Community Justice Division - Observations and Comparisons report #14/15-5 March 2015
Page 26 of 32
A.2 Deschutes County specific data analyses from additional JJIS data
Graph 20 –
Deschutes first time
youth as compared to
unduplicated youth
referrals and youth
population.
Additional background for analyses:
In addition to the published JJIS data, the Deschutes County Juvenile Division (as a member of JJIS) can
access additional data and information gathered in the JJIS system. JJIS provides a significant number of
reports and extracts by topical area. Much of this information is silo’d in the areas reviewed above. These
analyses, utilize the underlying data for the published reports used in the preceding section. Having this
data provides opportunities to make additional analyses as well as link some of the information. Analyses
provided below are thought to show how the data could be used more effectively. Data utilized was taken
from report extracts used to generate the published reports for 2008-2013. These analyses are subjective
and might require additional validation if considered for future analyses and trends.
Note: Analyzing other counties to this degree was not within the scope of this engagement.
However, similar types of analyses could be performed. Using other county data would likely require
coordinating more with the state and counties for permissions since it is not using published data.
First time youth (criminal offenders)
There is information provided with recidivism data that indicates the first referral age. Used in combination
with referral counts, provides some interesting view of the activity when those new youth came into the
juvenile justice system on criminal charges. Since recidivism information started in 2012 we can only
analyze 2012 and before. The data is limited since it only tracks criminal referrals.
First time referrals appear to be consistently in the three percent (3%) range of youth population.
Juvenile Community Justice Division - Observations and Comparisons report #14/15-5 March 2015
Page 27 of 32
Graph 21 –
Deschutes first time
youth dispositions
compared to other
youth.(2008-2012)
Graph 22 –
Trend of Deschutes
first time youth
(criminal offenders)
with detention in first
year.
Unduplicated youth referrals have been declining so the percentage to unduplicated youth referrals has
shown a modest trend up.
Other observations include:
Gender and age groups are consistent among first time and repeat offenders.
The severity of crimes committed by first time offenders (criminal offenses) looks like other offenders
except there are additional low-level offenses by other offenders.
As would be expected, the severity of dispositions is generally less for first time offenders.
Graph 22 indicates the percentage of first time youth (of criminal crimes) who had any detention in the year
Juvenile Community Justice Division - Observations and Comparisons report #14/15-5 March 2015
Page 28 of 32
Graph 23 –
Trend of percentage of
Deschutes youth with
detention
Graph 24 –
2013 Deschutes
detention composition
- number of days by
lengths of stay in
days range with line of
count of detention
events
of the same calendar year as their first criminal offense. It appears to show some improvement in the
trend.
Detention
As indicated the composition of youth receiving detention has declined considerably.
A significant amount of the days used for detention is spent with stays greater than 50 days. The count of
those events with detention >50 is only 7% of the events (18). As indicated by the frequency of events,
Juvenile Community Justice Division - Observations and Comparisons report #14/15-5 March 2015
Page 29 of 32
Graph 25 –
Trend in use of
Deschutes detention
center by facility use
days
Table 2 –
Deschutes County
detention composition
and length of stay
statistics for top five
admission reasons
(2009-2013)
most of the events are in the 0-5 day range. Some youth will have multiple detention events during the
year. The greater day stay groups generally are for more severe crimes on a pre-adjudicatory basis.
Discussions with staff indicated that sometimes the length of stay was longer due to trying to find
placement for the youth in other facilities/programs. There seems to be less correlation with assessment
values and length of stay.
Detention data reflects Deschutes youth wherever they are housed in the state. In 2013, ninety eight
percent (98%) of our Deschutes County youth detention days are spent within Deschutes County.
Deschutes County detention facility also plays host to other county youth. In 2013, Deschutes County youth
comprised eighty-four percent (84%) of the days for the facility. The other notable users of our facility
were Crook and Jefferson counties.
Admission Reason (selected top 5)
% of days
custody
Average
days
custody
Maximum
days
Minimum
days
New Law Violation 28% 18 295 1
Probation Violation 25% 13 202 1
Warrant 14% 13 186 1
Violation of Conditional Release 12% 20 198 1
Court Ordered Extended Detention 11% 29 85 4
As indicated above, there are a significant number of days attributable to probation/supervision activities
Juvenile Community Justice Division - Observations and Comparisons report #14/15-5 March 2015
Page 30 of 32
Graph 26 –
Trends in Deschutes
referrals per jurisdiction
population (*1000) for
selected agencies.
Graph 27 –
Frequency (counts) of
Deschutes youth
referrals by gender by
severity of crime.(2009-
2013)
such as warrants, probations violations and violations. It appears longer-term detention stays were used
for less severe crimes.
Activity by Agency
As indicated Redmond police has had a higher level of referral rate given their size than Bend. This might
be a difference in focus for this agency. As previously indicated, Deschutes and smaller counties have a
higher level of referrals per capita than larger counties. This probably t ranslates also to smaller
communities. The profile of the offenders and their crimes is similar for these agencies.
Severity of offenses
In general, crimes as determined by referrals are on the lower end of the spectrum. Severity of crimes has
Juvenile Community Justice Division - Observations and Comparisons report #14/15-5 March 2015
Page 31 of 32
Graph 28 –
Frequency (counts) of
Deschutes youth
referrals by age group
by severity of
crime.(2009-2013)
a distribution over the less severe crimes. Female offenders are less represented in more severe offenses.
The primary age groups of 12-14 and 15-17 represent most of the crimes. The age group 15-17 has
generally comprises most in each score and is more represented in higher scores.
Assessments
In general, there is a lack of assessment data on youth in the system. The assessment value is an
indicator of risk to recidivate in a 12-month period. There is only about 30% of youth with an assessment.
The Juvenile division is making efforts to gather more assessment data by using a new tool for detention
and the OYA has an assessment value calculated. The internal audit had only limited access to
assessment data.
Some initial analyses indicate a correlation of higher recidivism rates for higher assessment scores. There
appeared to be better correlation with medium to lower risk assessment levels between assessment risk
level and recidivation rate. This is likely because there was more data represented. There was less data
around higher assessment scores. It was noted that not all events are recorded and a referral is not the
only way a youth is returned back into the system. Warrants and probation violations can turn into
additional detention time without a criminal referral.
It is anticipated as the Juvenile division and State improve the assessment data available that this might
become more relevant to monitor.
Juvenile Community Justice Division - Observations and Comparisons report #14/15-5 March 2015
Page 32 of 32
Programs
Juvenile staff indicate that program data is still insufficiently reliable to use. Published State reports
indicate a wide variety of programs used by counties. It is understood that improving data in this area is a
priority for JJIS and the County.
{End of Report}
Please take a survey on this report by clicking on the attached link:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Juvenile1415-5