Is the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative Working?*

Lack of communication: Many law enforcement personnel say that they first learned of the RAI process when attempting to book a juvenile in Juvenile Hall or by word of mouth from fellow officers. Agrees with the finding. Response: Although the Probation Department has done a great deal of educational outreach, including presentations, meetings, and an instructional DVD, it is apparent that not all line level police officers are familiar with the Risk Assessment Instrument (RAI) point system of the Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative (JDAI).

Method of communication: The Probation Department's method of communicating with law enforcement agencies provides no assurance that the information is reaching the personnel whose agencies will be working directly with the RAI process. Probation personnel have told the Grand Jury that they are making a new effort to strengthen communication. Agrees with the finding. Response: Previously, meetings were held with law enforcement managers and trainers in the belief that the information would be shared with other levels within their respective departments. In February 2009, the Division Director of Juvenile Court Services accompanied the Chief Probation Officer (CPO) to the Orange County Police Chiefs and Sheriff's Association monthly meeting. At this meeting, association members were advised of the RAI and the probation department's paradigm shift related to detention and community supervision strategies. In January 2009, association members were provided with JDAI information in preparation for the February meeting. In April 2009, the department's CPO hand delivered RAI DVDs to each law enforcement agency that was to be shared with police officers and sheriff's deputies throughout the county. Most recently, in response to the Grand Jury's concerns, the probation department circulated a memo to each law enforcement agency describing the department's use of the RAI. In addition, two more RAI DVDs were distributed to each law enforcement agency. Finally, all law enforcement agencies were invited to a recent JDAI training. The training, held on August 10, 2010, was hosted by the Orange County Juvenile Court at the Lamoreaux Justice Center and was facilitated by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Anaheim PD, Garden Grove PD, and Santa Ana PD participated in the training. . . . .

JDAI assessment: Because the JDAI program in Orange County is still in its early stages, it is too early to assess the program's success or failure. Agrees with the finding. Response: The Probation Department has data from over 125 jurisdictions in 30 states and the District of Columbia, including "model sites" (i.e. Santa Cruz, CA; Cook County, IL; 5th District - Andrew County and Buchanan County, MO; 17th District - Cass County and Johnson County, MO; Bernalillo County, NM; and Multnomah County, OR) which indicates success in those locations. However, the department is still collecting data in Orange County to determine its efficacy here.

Cost effectiveness: Saving money for the County by vacating beds at Juvenile Hall is clearly a worthy objective, but it is not the only criterion that must be considered. Agrees with the finding. Response: Saving taxpayer dollars is a worthwhile goal, but was not the sole factor in the implementation of this initiative. Studies have indicated that the strongest predictor of future incarceration is prior incarcerations. The department continues to collaborate with other system stakeholders to ensure youth who can be managed within the community are not unnecessarily detained. The use of JDAI aligns with the department's desire to use data for case management decisions; to develop objective instruments to guide detention decisions; and to develop or enhance a continuum of "non-secure" detention alternatives that does not jeopardize or compromise community safety. Responses to Recommendation R.1 through R.4 Lack of communication: In order for the RAI to achieve its optimum