Youth with Developmental Disabilities in the Juvenile Justice System

Survey of Probation Departments

Beyond the Bench 2006Corene KendrickStaff AttorneyYouth Law Center

Survey Overview

Telephone Interviews with County Probation Staff designated by Probation Chief

Fall 2006 – as of 12/13/06, 30 counties surveyed – urban, suburban and rural

Designed to better understand the practices in serving youth with developmental disabilities and/or major mental health needs, and who are incompetent or potentially incompetent to stand trial

Overall Themes from Probation

Juvenile Hall is not the place for these youth– Halls are ill-equipped to deal with their needs– By virtue of their problems, these youth are in danger of

being harmed, taken advantage of, or pushed into other criminal involvement while in the Hall

Lack of appropriate alternative placements and programs means these youth end up spending the most time in the Hall

Halls are used as dumping grounds for these youth “They’re like hot potatoes, no one wants them.”

Judicial Competency Proceedings

Judicial process of determining competency occurs rarely. Divergent reasons why:– Youth diverted early due to collaboration w/ DAs,

PDs, CMH and Regional Center– Some counties thought no one in the system

understands option enough to raise it– Some counties thought there aren’t many kids

who are incompetent but instead are high-needs and need an alternative placement.

Judicial Proceedings, Cont’d

Handful of counties had higher rates of competency proceedings in past year– Sacramento: 64 evaluations, 10 determinations– Los Angeles: approximately 35-50 determinations– Kern: 30 determinations

Frequency of proceedings up in counties– Meth, “huffing” solvents – severe brain damage– Increased awareness of process by players

Commonly Cited Problems

Lack of Placements

Every person interviewed mentioned this Not enough placements for high needs / potentially

incompetent / incompetent youth Level 14 group homes – counties admit this is not the ideal

solution, but best option currently available to them – Long wait lists, homes refuse the highest needs youth, staff

inadequately trained to deal with these youth, youth may assault staff or children

Community Treatment Facilities – same problems as Level 14 Result of failure in these placements – counties end up sending

youth to DJJ or out of state

Lack of Placements, Cont’d

Families are preferred placement, but families may be unable or unwilling to accept child’s return

Limited wrap-around services Relatives are explored as an option – even

out of state Few, if any, DD parents’ support groups are

actively partnered with Probation

Lack of Placements, Cont’d

Few state hospitals willing to work with juvenile incompetent population, only a handful of beds statewide for kids

No juvenile competency restoration programs (Humboldt has contract to begin)

Emergency hospitalizations time-limited Increasing out-of-state placements using AB

2726 “educational placements”

Lack of Placements, Cont’d

Out of county placements– Rural and small counties have no placements

nearby and also problems in having other counties’ facilities to take their youth

– Result: youth spend months at a time in juvenile hall awaiting placement out-of-county

Lack of Interagency Collaboration

Cooperation and collaboration among agencies varied wildly from county to county– Some RCs work together with Probation from

time of youth’s admission to Hall, with expedited assessment timelines, in-Hall assessments

– Some RCs would only evaluate youth post-JJ involvement (both post-Hall and post-probation)

– Some RCs ignored referrals and requests and had to be joined by courts

Working With Regional Centers

All counties said the narrow eligibility requirements under the Lanterman Act were a barrier to getting RC resources and services for low-functioning youth

Long timeline for RC assessments means youth wait in juvenile hall– Some RCs and counties have agreed to shorter

timelines for evaluations of kids in custody

County MH and School Districts

Widely divergent levels of cooperation and collaboration with CMH and School Districts

Some work closely with Probation from the start

Some School Districts are ordered by court to work with Probation and ignore orders

Youth falling in the cracks between Regional Centers and County Mental Health

Impact of the Lack of Collaboration

When Probation, the Regional Center, County Mental Health, and School District do not collaborate together from the very onset, this forces further penetration into the criminal justice system because all non-Probation services are court-ordered.

County Probation’s Ideas of Promising Practices

Interagency Collaboration

Regular (as frequently as twice a month) collaborative strategy meetings of leaders of all agencies to discuss an individual case

Process has been quite successful in small counties

Clear Court Process for Competency Determinations

Los Angeles – Mental health court San Diego – protocol Kern – close working relationship among Public

Defender, RC, Probation and court. Shorter timeline for RC assessment

Caveat: some counties express concern that developing a uniform court process could have unintended consequences: lack of flexibility and individualized response, net-widening

Alternative Placement Options

Counties expressed their interest in creating a local (or nearby) secure facility, fully-staffed, and based on a therapeutic model for

– Short term competency restoration or– For youth with serious delinquencies, long term services

based on youth’s needs– Increased family involvement for successful stabilization

and re-entry to community Orange County: separate wing of juvenile hall –

therapeutic model, no leather restraints used in 4 years

Increased Education & Training

Many county probation offices said that judges, Public Defenders, and District Attorneys may not have sufficient training or knowledge about this population of youth or of the services that would best address the youth’s individual needs

Probation Department staff may not know what developmental disabilities are

Lack of understanding by many players in the process about what Regional Centers can and cannot offer for these youth

Model Staffing Practices

Counties with the most collaboration and success in serving the youth also displayed model staffing:

– Long term staff who have worked with incompetent youth– Staff teams who adopt a unified therapeutic approach– Experienced and knowledgeable PDs, Judges, DAs with

years of working with these youth– Higher staff-to-youth ratios in the alternative placements

with staff who are highly-trained in working with this population of youth

For more information

Corene Kendrick

Youth Law Center

200 Pine St., Ste. 300

San Francisco, CA 94104

(415) 543-3379 ext. 3909

ckendrick@ylc.org

www.ylc.org