There are two general methods of covering with juvenile wrongdoers. The arrangement of juveniles in province installations represents an older theoretical account that has been leftover from the motion towards mass captivity of condemnable wrongdoers. A newer theoretical account known as realignment calls for a displacement in duty and resources from province to local authoritiess in the providing of juvenile justness services and supervising for adjudicated young person. A little figure of provinces have implemented realignment schemes to supply counties with budgetary resources to back up and pull off alternative-to-incarceration schemes for juveniles, and while they differ in name, their nucleus aims remain the same: extinguish the unneeded usage of secure detainment, maintain adjudicated youth close to place, develop effectual rehabilitation and supervising plans, and airt province financess to the local degree to pull off adjudicated young person.
The nucleus doctrine of realignment revolves around direction and budgetary duty at the county degree. Realignment has become a feasible option because arrangement in province installations costs the province extortionate sums of money, whereas community supervising and services cost well less and are more effectual, particularly for low-risk young person. Under the traditional theoretical account of juvenile justness, provinces shoulder the bulk of costs associated with institutional arrangement. Because counties frequently do non hold the fiscal resources to develop local scheduling for young person, county tribunals may hold no alternate but to direct young person to procure province installations, irrespective of the badness of the juvenile ‘s discourtesy or degree of hazard. For provinces that have been able to cut down the figure of juvenile arrangements in secure installations, the fiscal nest eggs have been redirected to fund local plans and services for at-risk young person.
The effectivity of realignment lies in its execution at the community degree.
Communities following realignment schemes must set up a bill of fare of plan options that can turn to the demands of at-risk juveniles. Options can run from mental wellness and substance maltreatment intervention, aggression direction, instruction, and employment services to mentoring, parental preparation and support, place detainment, in-home services, and community Restoration. Counties using realignment schemes typically provide young person with single appraisals to fit them with the appropriate services, and ongoing ratings guarantee the effectivity of the intervention and services.
County authoritiess are in the alone place to pull off rehabilitation and intervention services for juvenile wrongdoers at the local degree. With the proper support and resources, counties can develop responsible attacks to juvenile rehabilitation that recognize the importance of community integrating and household engagement throughout the procedure. A challenge that policymakers face is how to cut down fiscal inducements for counties that send juveniles to dearly-won province establishments, and farther, how to airt the nest eggs from captivity outgos towards the development of local plans and services that can better the success rate for adjudicated young person.
Rootss of Realignment
The doctrine behind realignment can be traced back to the constitution of the California Youth Authority ( CYA ) in 1941. The CYA was responsible for lodging incarcerated young person, but its innovative part to juvenile justness was the design of local plans to maintain adjudicated young person close to place. Over the following decennary, probation became a conventional sentence for low-level young person wrongdoers because counties had the resources and forces in topographic point to fund and run probation plans. By the 1960s the caseloads of probation sections were turning quickly. Probation officers had caseloads over three times the recommended criterion, which made it impossible to present effectual supervising and services to every person on probation. Meaningful categorization and intervention of wrongdoers became impractical because so much clip was devoted to paperwork and routine direction of student nurses. Overworked probation officers responded to this job by mentioning extra juvenile wrongdoers to province correctional establishments because the belief was that inmates could have better intervention while incarcerated. This procedure resulted in a monolithic growing of the correctional system in California, where the rehabilitative success rate was hardly 50 % .[ 1 ]As the correctional system expanded, new establishments were constructed, more individuals were incarcerated, and province outgos on corrections increased to the highest in the state.
To restore the rehabilitative doctrine of community probation, the California Legislature enacted the Probation Subsidy Act of 1965 to offer fiscal inducements to local communities that utilised probation alternatively of dearly-won province corrections. The plan was based on the premise that probation is the most successful and cost-effective method of covering with at least 25 % of the wrongdoers sent to province establishments. If probation sections were given wagess for run intoing certain ends, the belief was that the pattern of probation could be greatly improved. The Probation Subsidy Act granted counties fiscal inducements runing from $ 2,080 to $ 4,000 for each wrongdoer non committed to a province installation. The $ 4,000 sum was based on the minimal cost per juvenile for admittance to a province correctional installation.[ 2 ]
The Probation Subsidy Act was successful on several degrees. Numerous probation officers, supervisors, support staff, and Plutos were hired to supply more effectual supervising. With a stronger accent on probation, California was able to close down at least one secure establishment. From 1965 to 1969, the per centum of convicted persons sent to province prison dropped from 23.3 % to 9.8 % , and overall the plan led to the recreation of more than 45,000 wrongdoers from province establishments to community probation and rehabilitation-based plans. Philosophically, it established the pattern of cost sharing between the province and counties.[ 3 ]Despite its successes, the plan became bit by bit more expensive due to the lifting figure of wrongdoers come ining the system, most of which were arrested for drug-related offenses. Furthermore, plans and services for wrongdoers auxiliary to probation were ne’er implemented at the county degree. In 1978 the Probation Subsidy Act was discontinued and a new plan that provided grant support to single counties superseded it.[ 4 ]
California Realignment
In the 1980s the doctrine of the CYA shifted from intervention to captivity as offense rates escalated countrywide. During this period the population of juveniles in CYA detention grew massively, exceling the 10,000 grade in 1996. This drastic addition led to overcrowding and created distressing conditions in CYA installations, which resulted in violent conditions including several deceases and young person being forced into 23 hr a twenty-four hours lockdown.[ 5 ]It was the cost instead than the conditions of captivity that compelled the province to do a alteration.
The province of California shouldered the bulk of the fiscal load for young person placed in a CYA installation. Until 1996, counties were merely required to pay $ 25 per month to keep one juvenile in CYA detention.[ 6 ]To turn to the lifting costs to the province for CYA arrangements and the deficiency of fiscal duty at the county degree, the California legislative assembly introduced a demand for counties to lend to the cost of young person arrangement on a skiding graduated table. The new system was based on fiscal deterrences: counties directing violent or serious wrongdoers would pay a little level fee while counties directing low-level wrongdoers would be responsible for up to 100 % of the costs of committedness for juveniles who commit minor discourtesies such as drug ownership or parole misdemeanor.[ 7 ]
The disincentive system sparked a monolithic decrease in CYA committednesss every twelvemonth since 1996, falling to a depression of 1,499 young person incarcerated in 2009.[ 8 ]Despite this important lessening, the cost of directing a juvenile to CYA ( which became the Department of Juvenile Justice in 2005 ) installations skyrocketed to $ 225,000 per twelvemonth in 2007.[ 9 ]The tremendous cost was due in big portion to province ordinances that made it hard to cut down a big CYA staff that was non necessary to supervise a dwindling young person population.
In response to the lifting costs of institutional arrangement and a three-year recidivism rate around 70 % for young person released from province installations,[ 10 ]the California legislative assembly passed Senate Bill 81, which realigned juvenile justness duties from the province to the county degree. The intent of the Bill was to switch province support from CYA arrangement to local scheduling and services for all but the most violent juvenile wrongdoers and guarantee that non-violent young person would no longer be sent off to province installations.
Senate Bill 81 did non come without jobs. After its execution, probation sections had small clip to fix for the inflow of new caseloads. Existing plans had to be adjusted to accommodate the demands of a new category of juveniles sentenced to county probation, and sections, probation officers, and resources have been greatly strained during this passage. Besides, because arrangement depends merely on the current discourtesy to the exclusion of anterior discourtesies, juveniles with a violent condemnable history could be detained in counties if their current discourtesy was of a non-violent nature.[ 11 ]Most significantly for the future results of Senate Bill 81, no province entity has been assigned duty for supervising county responses to SB 81, and counties are non required to describe how province money is being spent and whether results are being fulfilled.[ 12 ]
RECLAIM Ohio
Ohio adopted realignment schemes specifically for juvenile wrongdoers in 1993 in response to preexisting punitory policies that led to an unrestricted figure of juveniles being sent to overcrowded province establishments. RECLAIM Ohio ( Reasoned and Equitable Community and Local Alternatives to the Incarceration of Minors ) is a province support enterprise that shifts fiscal duty for juvenile captivity to counties and empowers local communities to either dainty juvenile wrongdoers locally or direct them to province establishments.[ 13 ]There was an inducement to maintain juveniles near to place: from the start of RECLAIM through 2003, counties were responsible for 75 % of the day-to-day rate for an institutional bed in a province installation and merely 50 % of the day-to-day rate for a community corrections bed.[ 14 ]
Before the induction of RECLAIM Ohio, juvenile installations were immensely overcrowded. Harmonizing to the decision maker of the Department of Youth Services ( DYS ) , in 1992 juvenile installations were at about twice their capacity, which contributed to incidents of ill-treatment and negative promotion in the media.[ 15 ]An probe into province installations led to the development of RECLAIM, which has shown promise in cut downing juvenile committedness rates and furthering community based plans for at-risk young person since it was adopted statewide in 1995.
RECLAIM Ohio has alleviated the province juvenile justness system in footings of arrangement Numberss and entire costs. The figure of juveniles committed to Department of Youth Services ( DYS ) establishments has decreased every twelvemonth since the plan ‘s origin. Refering the cost effectivity of RECLAIM plans, a survey of the taxpayer costs of RECLAIM found that when all the costs associated with arresting, judging, and treating a juvenile wrongdoer are taken into history along with the indirect costs of victims and recidivism, RECLAIM is the most cost efficient arrangement for all but those who are at really high hazard for recidivism. When the costs of recidivism are non factored in, it costs taxpayers $ 85,390 to treat 10 young person in RECLAIM plans, $ 365,710 to treat 10 young person in community correctional installations ( CCF ) , and $ 571,940 to treat 10 young person in DYS installations.[ 16 ]Surveies comparing the recidivism rates of young person in RECLAIM, CCF, and DYS have shown that DYS arrangement really has a damaging impact on low-risk young person in respects to their hazard for recidivism but small to no consequence on higher-risk young person, who may be better served by arrangement in a DYS installation.[ 17 ]
The greatest benefit of RECLAIM is that it entreaties to both sides of the political spectrum. The plan provides Judgess with considerable discretion in finding how juveniles should be handled. On the broad side, it advocates rehabilitation and intervention services to run into the demands of adjudicated young person. In support of the conservative doctrine, Judgess still retain the authorization to imprison serious and violent juvenile wrongdoers at no charge to the county.[ 18 ]RECLAIM transcends political prejudice in implementing the most effectual and cost-effective services for juvenile delinquents.
Redeploy Illinois
Illinois launched a realignment plan in 2004 to turn to the harmful effects of captivity on young person. Modeled after RECLAIM, Redeploy Illinois began as a pilot plan in four counties with the purpose of cut downing youth captivity in province installations. Prior to Redeploy the province paid for juvenile institutional committednesss, the costs of which reached over $ 70,000 yearly for each wrongdoer. Between 2000 and the start of Redeploy, Illinois spent over $ 100 million imprisoning about 1,800 juvenile wrongdoers each twelvemonth. During this clip period, about half of the juveniles sent to province installations were convicted of belongings discourtesies and about tierce was sent for a short-run tribunal rating.[ 19 ]
Since its execution, Redeploy reallocates province financess to take parting counties to supply intervention and intercession plans to at-risk young person ( excepting liquidators and Class X physical criminals ) . In its first twelvemonth of being, $ 2 million was budgeted to reimburse the Redeploy pilot sites for financess spent on the direction of adjudicated young person at the county degree. The Redeploy plan costs individual sites no more than $ 6,000 yearly for each young person, but in order to be eligible to take part in this plan and receive support, counties are obligated to cut down juvenile committednesss to province establishments by 25 % in the first twelvemonth.[ 20 ]
Redeploy Illinois encourages county engagement in the providing of community-based services to juvenile wrongdoers. Individual counties are free to invent and construction scheduling for juvenile wrongdoers every bit long as it adheres to the ends of Redeploy: cut downing trust on correctional establishments, protecting communities, keeping young person accountable, and supplying young person with chances to win.[ 21 ]Each pilot county has incorporated some signifier of appraisal to find the intervention and scheduling that will outdo suit the demands of each juvenile. Counties use a broad assortment of rehabilitative scheduling including but non limited to educational protagonism, employment services, place detainment, aggression replacing preparation, mental wellness intervention, substance maltreatment intervention, household support services, and community renewing boards.[ 22 ]Redeploy besides includes an rating constituent intended to measure the impact of the plan and gather statistics and information on juveniles sent to province installations.
Redeploy Illinois has shown important success in its brief being. In its first twelvemonth, Redeploy saved over $ 2 million of province money from being spent on imprisoning young person, which does non include the long-run nest eggs expected from reduced recidivism.[ 23 ]Within three old ages, Redeploy sites decreased committednesss to province establishments by 51 % and led to about $ 19 million in cost turning away ( action taken to forestall future costs ) to the province compared to costs of less than $ 5 million in Redeploy plan outgos.[ 24 ]Most significantly, Redeploy has given juvenile wrongdoers an chance to avoid captivity and work towards a productive and successful life style. Currently, 23 Illinois counties utilize Redeploy schemes.
Wisconsin Youth Aids
Wisconsin was the first province to keep counties financially responsible for juvenile arrangements in secure installations and offer fiscal support for counties to fund local services for juvenile delinquents. Under the old system the province paid for juvenile arrangement in secure installations and counties were responsible for support services for delinquent young person. Admiting the fiscal inducements for counties to direct juveniles to province installations instead than oversing and handling them locally, in 1981 the Department of Juvenile Corrections ( DJC ) launched the Youth Aids plan. The mission of the plan was to deconcentrate fiscal direction of the juvenile justness system through the distribution of financess to each county. The expression for scattering financess incorporates three factors: each county ‘s entire young person population, its entire figure of juvenile apprehensions, and the figure of unafraid arrangements from each county. The province so measures single counties for the cost of each juvenile placed in a province installation, and staying financess are to be used for local rehabilitative scheduling for young person.[ 25 ]In 1997, the Youth Aids plan contributed 45.4 % of the $ 181.4 million cost to counties for services directed towards juvenile delinquents. For their portion, counties used gross from belongings revenue enhancements and grants to supplement the Youth Aids financess.[ 26 ]
Judges have the discretion to sentence adjudicated juveniles to either in-home or out-of-home temperaments based on information about the juvenile ‘s discourtesy and background. In-home agreements may dwell of supervising that is minimum ( i.e. hebdomadal check-ins ) to strict ( i.e. electronic monitoring ) in add-on to possible demands to go to one or more of the undermentioned plans: single and/or household guidance, vocational preparation, payment of damages to victims, or victim-offender mediation. Out-of-home arrangements are reserved for juveniles who have committed serious or repetition discourtesies or those with detrimental place environments. These agreements can change in degree of restrictiveness from minimum ( i.e. surrogate places, group places ) to severe ( i.e. establishments, secure installations ) .[ 27 ]
The Youth Aids plan has experienced important support issues over its 30-year being. Freezes in county allotments have made it hard for counties to turn to the perpetually lifting costs of young person captivity and county delinquency services plans. Besides, counties bit by bit have been forced to utilize more of their ain financess to pay for juvenile delinquency services. These concerns have compelled counties to fight to happen outside gross to fund community services and DJC arrangement. Despite this on-going job, Youth Aids was able to cut down the sum of juveniles in secure arrangement by 23 % over a six-year span, and in Milwaukee County committednesss fell about 75 % between 1995 and 2005.[ 28 ]
Wayne County, Michigan
The juvenile division in Wayne County was in atrocious form at the bend of the century. Facilities were over capacity, young person were being removed from their communities and in some instances sent to installations out of province, 67 % of incarcerated young person were returned to the system within six months of release, and the open doctrine was to “ lock ’em up and direct them off. ”[ 29 ]A structural and philosophical alteration was necessary in the Wayne County juvenile justness system. No longer to be considered diseases that needed to be removed from society, the county employed intervention plans that recognized juvenile delinquents as persons in demand of support. Additionally, the county resolved to cut its young person detainment population in half, supply options to enable adjudicated young person to stay in their communities, and cut down juvenile justness budgetary outgos.
Wayne County was able to accomplish these missions through the constitution of the Juvenile Assessment Center ( JAC ) and five Care Management Organization ( CMO ) bureaus, which are overseen by the Wayne County Department of Children and Family Services. These bureaus, which consist of coactions between mental wellness, substance maltreatment, and conventional juvenile justness bureaus, create and pull off single intervention programs for each adjudicated young person. The JAC, which is the entry point for all juveniles come ining the system, is accountable for measuring the wellness and safety of each juvenile every six months and for authorising alterations in a juvenile ‘s degree of attention when necessary. The JAC besides gives feedback to households on the advancement of young person. CMOs have complete duty for inventing individualised intercessions that meet the demands of each juvenile under CMO attention. To this terminal, CMOs have the authorization and fiscal capacity to entree and wage for specific services for juveniles. CMOs besides conduct continual observations and appraisals of young person intervention advancement.[ 30 ]Each juvenile in the plan is assigned to a CMO instance director who establishes a impermanent bond with each juvenile and works straight the juvenile ‘s household, educating them about the system and learning them how to be believable parents. Case directors, who oversee no more than 20 juveniles, are available around the clock to cover with personal jobs and household exigencies.[ 31 ]
Wayne County and Michigan have wholly modified the manner the new juvenile justness plan is funded. Under the new system private contractors manage the support for juvenile justness services, which allows for more immediate accommodations in outgos as plans change and new 1s emerge and develop. Besides, the province now matches what Wayne County spends on juvenile justness services, which is the antonym of the old method and provides the county with control over its outgos and much needed budgetary flexibleness. Wayne County ‘s new system of juvenile justness has had a significant impact on cut downing the figure of incarcerated juveniles and relieving the county budget. In 1998, there were 731 juveniles in secure installations and in 2010 this figure dropped to two. Besides, passing on juvenile arrangements has been reduced by over $ 50 million per twelvemonth.[ 32 ]Most significantly for Wayne County, the new system has drastically improved the success rate of all juveniles who enter the plan.
Realign New York
The New York Department of Juvenile Justice ( DJJ ) , inundated with fiscal waste, hapless conditions in installations, and high recidivism rates, is in demand of important reforms. Presently, over half of the 23 juvenile province installations in New York have empty beds, some lodging every bit few as one or two occupants. One installation is wholly empty but its big staff remains funded to move as if it is in operation.[ 33 ]The beginning of this job lies in brotherhood judicial admissions that require annual presentments prior to shuting these installations. This keeps installations to the full staffed and salaried and topographic points continual strains on local and province budgets. Closing these installations down would supply important nest eggs that could be redirected to local alternate intervention plans, which would be $ 18,000 per twelvemonth compared to $ 270,000 per twelvemonth for province installation arrangement.[ 34 ]
A more important concern than the cost to local and province authoritiess is the fact that young person in province installations are removed from their communities, separated from their households, and given minimum intervention and rehabilitative support. State secure installations are typically 100s of stat mis from the places of young person, which makes it hard for household members to see. Closing these installations would supply financess that communities could reinvest into local plans and supervising for adjudicated young person.
Juvenile justness systems have an duty to try to rehabilitate at-risk young person, and the New York DJJ has done a hapless occupation of this. While juvenile recidivism rates in New York City have soared over 75 % in recent old ages,[ 35 ]this is the incorrect statistic to concentrate on. Recidivism rates may non bespeak a failure on the portion of installations. This is to be expected because secure installations are where the most serious wrongdoers are sent. Therefore, we would expect the recidivism rate of juveniles from secure installations to be higher than juveniles placed in community corrections installations or plans for low-level wrongdoers. Alternatively of concentrating on recidivism, we should be more concerned with success rates such as educational public presentation, school attending, work position, the accomplishment of life ends, and future chances for success.
The hereafter of juvenile justness lies in realignment enterprises that transfer duty for handling young person from the province to local counties. States are accountable for guaranting that juveniles have every chance to win in life, and local legal powers are in the best place to apportion resources, implement scheduling for young person, and guarantee that plan aims are being met. Given the singular successes of juvenile realignment plans in other provinces, New York must discontinue passing money on empty and hardly-used province installations that do nil to rehabilitate young person and alternatively fund plans that give hope to youth, their households, and their communities.
Figure 1 – A brief history of juvenile justness and realignment
Year
Milestone
1825
House of Refuge started – foremost installation to supply reformation for juvenile delinquents
1899
First Juvenile Court appears – Cook County, Illinois
1925
Probation becomes available for juveniles in all 48 provinces
1941
California Youth Authority begins – foremost to concentrate on juvenile rehabilitation
1965
California Probation Subsidy Program lays the roots of realignment
1966
Kent v. United States – provided juveniles with due procedure rights
1980
Wisconsin launches Youth Aids, which requires counties to pay for juvenile captivity
1993
RECLAIM Ohio Begins
1996
California disincentive plan efforts to maintain delinquent youth near to place
2000
Wayne County initiates its ain juvenile justness realignment plan
2004
Redeploy Illinois begins in four pilot counties
2007
California Senate Bill 81 realigns juvenile justness duty from province to counties
Figure 2 – California Department of Juvenile Justice ( DJJ – once the California Youth Authority ) institutional population, 1994-2010
Beginnings: Krisberg, B. , Vuong, L. , Hartney, C. & A ; Marchionna, S. ( 2010 ) . A new epoch in California juvenile justness. Oakland, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency. [ 1994-1996 ]
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. ( 2011 ) . DJJ Research and Statistics. Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //www.cdcr.ca.gov/Juvenile_Justice/Research_and_Statistics/index.html [ 2000-2010 ]
Figure 3 – Young person adjudicated for felony discourtesies compared with felony adjudicated youth committed to DYS installations, Ohio ( FY2000 – FY2009 )
Beginning: Department of Youth Services, RECLAIM Ohio Statistics. Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //www.dys.ohio.gov/dnn/Community/ReclaimOhio/RECLAIMOhioStatistics/tabid/144/Default.aspx
Figure 4 – Recidivism rates in Ohio, comparing releases from RECLAIM Ohio plans, community corrections installations, and Department of Youth Services installations ( FY 2002 )
Beginning: Department of Youth Services, RECLAIM Ohio Statistics. Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //www.dys.ohio.gov/dnn/Community/ReclaimOhio/RECLAIMOhioStatistics/tabid/144/Default.aspx
Figure 5 – Number of New Admissions to Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice Statewide ( FY2001 – FY2008 )
Beginning: Redeploy Illinois Annual Report: Execution and impact ( November, 2008 ) . Retrieved from www.jjustice.org/pdf/Redeploy % 20Legislative % 20Report % 2011 % 2008.pdf
Figure 6 – Wisconsin Youth Aids: List of County Programs and Services Utilized
Options to Aggression
AODA Servicess
At-Risk Management Program
Boys and Girls Club
Strong-arming Plan
Child and Family Aides
Child and Family Social Workers
Child At-Risk Education
Community Adolescent Program
Community Impact Program
Community Service Program
Community/Truancy Tracking
Competence Building Program
Comprehensive Outpatient Assessment
Corrective Thinking Group
Crisis/Emergency Mediation
Deferred Prosecution Monitoring
Delinquent Social Workers
Drug Screens
Education Incentive Program
Electronic Monitoring
Family Aides Contracting
Family Partnership Initiative Program
Family Training Program
First Time Juvenile Offenders Focus
First Time Offenders Program
Home Detention Program
In-Home Family Services
In-Home Family Therapy
In-Home Servicess
In-Home Team Services
In-Home Therapy
Institutional Prevention Initiative
Intensive Aftercare
Intensive Community Services Program
Intensive In-Home Counseling
Intensive In-Home Treatment
Intensive Intervention Program
Intensive Supervision Program
Intensive Treatment Program
Juvenile Court Intake Services
Juvenile Justice Incentive Program
Juvenile Restorative Justice Programs
Juvenile Supervision
Mentoring Servicess
Monitoring Program
Vicinity Intervention
On the Right Track Program
Operation Fresh Start
Outreach
Parent Aid Program
Parental Guidance
Reintegration
Report Center Services
Reprieve
Damages Program
Social Workers
SOPORT ( societal services & A ; public assistance )
Specialized Supervision
Staff Position
Status Program
Summer Youth Program
Supervision and Support Servicess
Adolescent Court
Adolescent Groups
Think Ahead Program
Truancy Program
Victim/Offender Conferencing
Victim/Offender Mediation
Wrap-Around
Youth/Family Education Courses
Youth Skill Development
Beginning: Community Intervention Program Allocations. ( 2009 ) . Wisconsin Department of Corrections: Juvenile Correctionss. Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //www.wi-doc.com/PDF_Files/CIP Allotments 2009
Figure 7 – Wayne County, MI: Juvenile Servicess Reform Outcomes
Measure
Baseline ( through 1999 )
Fiscal Year 2009
2-year Recidivism
38-56 %
18.1 %
Probation Completion
Unknown
73 %
Placements in other States
200
0
Secure Detention Use
& gt ; 500/day
250/day
State Ward Caseload
~3,400
~1,800
Training School Use ( ADP* )
731
18
% of Caseloads in Home-Based
& lt ; 20 %
~60 %
High Secure length of stay
& gt ; 2 Old ages
11 months
Positive Diversion Completion**
N/A
82.6 %
*Average Daily Population
**No new authorized request or warrant for annual after plan expiration
Beginning: Wayne County Children & A ; Family Services ( 2010 ) . Overview: Juvenile services reform. Juvenile Services Division: Wayne County, Michigan.
