juvenile probation annual report - Fifth Judicial District of Pennsylvania

2013
JUVENILE PROBATION
ANNUAL REPORT
Russell Carlino
Administrator/
Chief Probation Officer
Kim Berkeley Clark
Administrative Judge
Allegheny County Juvenile Probation
-At A GlanceStaff
Number of Probation Officers:
 Community Based
33
 School Based
32







18
9
6
6
2
1
1
Intake/Investigation
Specialty (SSU/D&A)
CISP
YLS
Warrant
Provider Liaison
Training
Total
108
Number of Assistant Chief Probation Officers and Supervisors: 32
Total Number of Juvenile Probation Staff: 285
Number of Hearing Officers: 4
Number of Family Division Judges: 15
As of December 31, 2013
Number of juveniles under Court Supervision: 2,338
Average for one day in 2013
Number of Juveniles in Placement
 Private Providers
238
 State Placements
11
 Shuman Detention Center
57
Totals for 2013
Total number of Juvenile Probation Referrals: 3,788
Total Amount of Restitution and Fines Collected: $283,479
Allegheny County Population
Allegheny County Total Population: 1,223,348
Allegheny County Juvenile Population (ages 10 to 19 years): 148,331
(Source: US Census Bureau 2010)
Table of Contents
Mission Statement .................................................................................... 2
Juvenile Justice System Enhancement Strategy .................................... 3
Introduction: .............................................................................................. 4
Juvenile Probation Statistics ................................................................... 8
Referral History ........................................................................................................ 8
Referrals to Juvenile Probation ................................................................................ 9
Shuman Center for Secure Detention .................................................................... 11
Detention Hearings ................................................................................................ 12
Alternatives to Detention ........................................................................................ 13
Hartman Shelter ..................................................................................................... 13
Electronic Home Monitoring / Home Detention ...................................................... 14
Youth Enrichment Services (YES) ......................................................................... 15
Dispositions of Police Reports................................................................................ 16
Probation Officers .................................................................................................. 17
School Based Probation ......................................................................................... 18
Special Services Unit (SSU) .................................................................................. 19
Drug and Alcohol Unit ............................................................................................ 20
JJSES (Juvenile Justice System Enhancement) Unit ............................................ 21
Community Intensive Supervision Program (CISP)................................................ 22
Private Placement Services ................................................................................... 23
State Placements ................................................................................................... 24
Warrant Unit ........................................................................................................... 25
Educational Specialists .......................................................................................... 26
The Truancy Prevention Program .......................................................................... 26
WorkBridge ............................................................................................................ 27
Victim Services....................................................................................................... 28
Case Closing Information ....................................................................................... 29
Case Closing History.............................................................................................. 30
Recidivism .............................................................................................................. 31
Expungements ....................................................................................................... 32
Financial Information .............................................................................................. 33
Judicial Overview .................................................................................... 34
Judicial Assignments.............................................................................................. 34
Delinquency Petitions ............................................................................. 35
Ancillary Petitions ................................................................................... 36
Act 53 ..................................................................................................................... 36
2013 Special Events/Activities/Projects/Committees ........................... 37
Organizational Chart ............................................................................... 43
Mission Statement
Page1
Mission Statement
Allegheny
The County
MissionJuvenile
of the Probation
Department
The Mission
of the
Allegheny
County
Juvenile
AlleghenyProbation
County Juvenile
Probation Depart
Department
To reduce and prevent juvenile crime;
promote and maintain safe communities;
and improve the welfare of youth and families who are served
by the Court.
The principal beliefs supporting the Mission are:
That the disposition of juvenile offenders always takes into account the best
interest of public safety.
That juvenile offenders be held accountable for the harm they cause to
individuals as well as the community at large.
That the primary objective of treatment is to improve and develop the juvenile
offender’s competency skills.
That community residents and organizations be actively engaged by the Court in
a cooperative effort to seek solutions to juvenile crime.
That excellence in the quality of Court services requires sensitivity to the racial,
ethnic, and cultural diversity of the client population.
That victims are an integral part of the justice system and should have their
rights protected during all phases of the Court proceedings including the right to
be heard, notified, and restored.
Page 2
JJSES Framework
Achieving our Balanced and Restorative Justice Mission
Juvenile Justice System Enhancement Strategy
Statement of Purpose
We dedicate ourselves to working in partnership to enhance the capacity of
Pennsylvania’s juvenile justice system to achieve its balanced and restorative justice
mission by:
•
•
•
Employing evidence-based practices, with fidelity, at every stage of the juvenile
justice process;
Collecting and analyzing the data necessary to measure the results of these
efforts; and, with this knowledge,
Striving to continuously improve the quality of our decisions, services and
programs.
Page 3
2013 Juvenile Probation
Annual Report
Introduction:
Since 1996, the legislative mandate and mission of the Juvenile Probation Department
has been to attain the goals of Balanced and Restorative Justice: to protect the
community, to hold juveniles accountable for the harm caused to the victim and the
community, and to help juveniles develop competencies that lead to law abiding and
productive citizenship. During the last several years, the Juvenile Probation Department
has incorporated a number of evidenced-based practices and programs to help us
achieve these goals. This effort, known statewide as the Juvenile Justice System
Enhancement Strategy (JJSES), emphasizes evidence-based practices and structured
decision making at every key decision point in the juvenile justice process. The
importance of this work was made clear last year when the legislature amended the
purpose clause of the Juvenile Act to require juvenile probation departments to employ
evidenced-based practices whenever possible. The JJSES framework and statement of
purpose are included below.
The foundation of the evidenced-based effort is the Youth Level of Service (YLS), a
validated risk/needs instrument that assesses a juvenile’s likelihood to reoffend. Before
any juvenile appears in Court for a delinquent charge, the probation officer must first
conduct the YLS assessment, which considers the juvenile’s attitudes/orientation,
personality/behavior, peer relations, family circumstances, education/employment
status, and substance abuse. These factors, known as criminogenic needs, are
dynamic and can be changed with the right intervention. The YLS also considers the
juvenile’s static risk factors, such as current offense and delinquent history, in the
overall assessment of the juvenile’s likelihood to reoffend.
Allegheny County and three other juvenile probation departments (Lancaster, Lehigh,
and Philadelphia) are spearheading an effort to integrate evidenced-based practices at
a key decision point in the juvenile justice process—whether to detain a juvenile
pending a formal hearing before the Court. This work, supported by Annie E. Casey
Foundation’s Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative (JDAI), is ongoing in 39 states.
Our JDAI efforts have facilitated more structured decision making at the intake level,
increased our use of data, provided a number of recommendations to improve
conditions for those in detention, and increased our use of alternatives to detention
while ensuring public safety.
Page 4
National experts provided several training sessions for the Juvenile Probation
Department in 2013. Supervisors and probation officers participated in training related
to building professional alliances, effective case planning, and implementing rewards
and sanctions. The juvenile probation department has taken significant steps in 2013
toward becoming an evidenced-based department.
Additional Juvenile Probation and Court activities:

Allegheny County Juvenile Probation remains active as a Model Delinquency
Court, designated by The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges
in Reno, NV.
A Model Court committee, led by Administrative Judge Kim
Berkeley Clark meets regularly to review policy and protocol related to the 16
Model Court principals in the Juvenile Delinquency Guide. As part of our Model
Court involvement, Judge Clark has been piloting an effort to reduce the number
of continuances. The pilot involves scheduling a pre-hearing conference before
every petition hearing. The goal is to provide the opportunity for the parties to
come to an agreement that can be presented to the Court at the pre-hearing
conference.
If no agreement is reached, the case is then scheduled for a
petition hearing. The preliminary results have been impressive and plans are
underway to expand this pilot to other courtrooms in the near future.

Commencing in June, hearing officers began conducting delinquency review
hearings in three remote locations around the county—North Side, South Side,
and McKeesport. The Court developed this capacity to enhance the public’s
access to the Court, improve case flow and efficiency, and reduce costs. Part of
the impetus came from a new Juvenile Court Rule requiring six-month reviews
for every juvenile under a consent decree or adjudicated delinquent. Hearings
are scheduled in the location nearest to the juvenile’s residence.

The Juvenile Probation Department worked closely with the Allegheny County
Crime Lab and the District Attorney’s Office to streamline the analysis of
suspected controlled substances. The new process, which allows Crime Lab
personnel to test a smaller sample size of the suspected substance, has enabled
the Court to have the results back before the date of the pre-hearing conference
or petition hearing, which can be as soon as ten days after arrest. The new
Crime Lab protocol, known as primary analysis, has reduced continuances,
decreased the juvenile’s length of stay in secure detention, and reduced costs.

An important aspect of holding juveniles accountable for their offenses is
ensuring they pay in full all restitution owed to the victim. In 2014, Juvenile
Probation oversaw the collection of $283,478.59 in restitution, fees, and costs.
Approximately $156,820.14 of which was paid directly to victims; $25,968.40 was
paid to the Victim Compensation Fund; and nearly $19,781.44 was directed to
the Stipend Fund—money collected on failure to comply charges certified from
magisterial district judges which is paid to victims owed restitution. The
remaining $80,908.61 collected by probation officers included Court fees and
Page 5
costs incurred by juvenile offenders and was paid to state and county
government agencies.

The law requires juveniles fulfill all Court-ordered financial obligations before their
cases may be closed. Monies not paid in full when the juvenile attains 21 years
of age are indexed as a judgment with the Department of Court Records.
Juvenile Probation remains dedicated to protecting the citizens of Allegheny
County by holding juvenile offenders accountable and providing juveniles with
opportunities to become law abiding citizens.

The Juvenile Probation Department continues to work closely with local law
enforcement to protect the community. Probation officers routinely “ride along”
with local police to learn more about neighborhood hot spots and interact jointly
with juveniles active with the Court.

Pittsburgh Initiative to Reduce Crime (PIRC): This multi-agency and community
collaboration initiative is aimed at reducing homicides and gun crimes committed
by juveniles and young adult offenders in the City of Pittsburgh.

Under the leadership of Judge DeAngelis, Juvenile Probation and the Allegheny
County Department of Human Services Office of Children Youth and Families are
collaborating to implement a Crossover Youth Practice Model developed by the
Center for Juvenile Justice Reform at Georgetown University. This model will
improve services for juveniles involved in both the child welfare and juvenile
justice systems and reduce the number of cases moving from child welfare to
juvenile justice.

Allegheny County Music Festival: Juvenile Probation staff again volunteered their
services at Hartwood Acres, collecting donations and directing traffic flow to the
event. Donations collected at the Music Festival, which totaled over $30,000 this
year, are used to support cultural, educational, and recreational activities for
delinquent and dependent youth in Allegheny County.

Juvenile Courts Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) efforts continue in 2013
to address youth and law enforcement relationships. This year efforts focused
on training probation officers, lawyers, community members and partners to
facilitate training in the upcoming year. The committee met several times this
year to coordinate and develop the DMC curriculum. The Pennsylvania
Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD) selected Allegheny County as a
site to facilitate this effort once again.

As a pilot county, Allegheny County and four other counties (Berks, Bucks,
Lehigh, and Dauphin) have participated in an effort to evaluate the effectiveness
of interventions used by residential and community-based providers. Using the
Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP), developed by Mark Lipsey at
Vanderbilt University, programs are evaluated to determine how well their
interventions match research evidence for effectiveness in reducing recidivism. A
program improvement plan is prepared for every intervention evaluated.
Page 6

Juvenile Justice Week – October 7-12: Juvenile Probation’s Community
Education Initiative Committee sponsored numerous events during the week,
highlighting our commitment to the citizens of Allegheny County. For example,
an open house was held for area high school students that included workshops
such as “What Does a Probation Officer Do?” and “Consequences of Using
Drugs and Alcohol.” Events also included staff workshop trainings for staff and
the Annual Awards Ceremony recognizing key contributions and achievements of
juveniles, parents, and probation staff. Approximately $590 was collected during
this week and donated to the Stipend Fund for victim restitution.

Of the 1,526 cases closed during 2013, 88% of juveniles successfully completed
supervision without re-offending. These juveniles paid a total of $190,006 in
restitution, and 78% fully satisfied their financial obligations. A total of 42,791
hours of community service was completed and 94% completed their community
service obligations in full.
These highlights and the information that follows in this Annual Report illustrate our
continued dedication to protecting the citizens of Allegheny County, ensuring that
juvenile offenders are held accountable for the harm they have caused, and providing
juveniles with opportunities to become law abiding and productive citizens of our
community.
Page 7
Juvenile Probation Statistics
REFERRAL HISTORY
Yearly Comparison
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT ON
TEACHER
ARSON
333
287
244
252
235
230
264
186
188
172
123
124
31
51
12
8
32
22
AUTO THEFT RELATED
157
173
128
102
114
94
BURGLARY
309
283
214
182
182
140
4
8
3
9
1
5
CRIMINAL MISCHIEF/
INSTITUTIONAL VANDALISM
179
89
63
88
52
60
CRIMINAL/DEFIANT TRESPASS
110
79
69
61
43
58
DISORDERLY CONDUCT
DRUG CHARGES (INCLUDING
CRACK)
DUI
87
53
65
56
23
41
599
540
516
480
452
437
41
38
14
33
32
20
ESCAPE
18
13
8
11
10
13
ETHNIC INTIMIDATION
FAILURE TO ADJUST
ALLEGATIONS
FIREARM UNLICENSED OR
POSSESSION
2
2
0
2
0
14
373
328
352
365
318
244
136
156
97
94
84
75
23
20
21
25
15
8
1,064
977
1,426
1,035
815
718
RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY
128
181
140
107
110
77
RETAIL THEFT
96
87
70
66
65
51
ROBBERY & RELATED
272
201
182
125
149
135
SEX OFFENSES
106
96
93
95
77
59
SIMPLE ASSAULT
550
534
569
514
390
392
TERRORISTIC THREATS
122
121
139
116
107
92
187
175
171
115
115
99
66
51
62
57
30
33
390
444
386
337
260
275
139
128
102
110
104
83
316
305
220
257
218
189
6,102
5,606
5,554
4,874
4,156
3,788
CARJACKING
HARASSMENT
NONPAYMENT OF FINES
THEFT & RELATED
(CONSPIRACY/ATTEMPT)
TRANSFERRED FROM OTHER
COUNTY
VIOLATION OF PROBATION
ALLEGATIONS
WEAPONS ON SCHOOL
PROPERTY
ALL OTHER CHARGES
TOTAL REFERRALS
Page 8
REFERRALS TO JUVENILE PROBATION
2013 Referrals
Most Serious Charge
MALE
FEMALE
TOTAL
Total Black White Other Total
Black
White
Other
117
29
3
149
69
11
1
81
230
ARSON
62
8
12
12
2
0
76
20
45
2
3
0
0
0
48
2
124
22
AUTO THEFT RELATED
57
24
0
81
9
4
0
13
94
BURGLARY
CARJACKING
85
2
39
0
6
0
130
2
5
3
5
0
0
0
10
3
140
5
CRIMINAL MISCHIEF/
INSTITUTIONAL VANDALISM
24
22
1
47
2
11
0
13
60
CRIMINAL/DEFIANT
TRESPASS
38
15
2
55
2
1
0
3
58
DISORDERLY CONDUCT
19
2
0
21
17
3
0
20
41
214
147
8
369
29
39
0
68
437
0
14
0
14
1
5
0
6
20
11
1
0
12
1
0
0
1
13
RESISTING ARREST
6
3
0
9
3
2
0
5
14
FAILURE TO ADJUST
ALLEGATIONS
173
25
2
200
39
5
0
44
244
63
7
1
71
3
1
0
4
75
3
1
0
4
3
1
0
4
8
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT ON
TEACHER
DRUG CHARGES
(INCLUDING CRACK)
DUI
ESCAPE
FIREARM UNLICENSED OR
POSSESSION
HARASSMENT
NONPAYMENT OF FINES
327
117
20
464
182
70
2
254
718
RECEIVING STOLEN
PROPERTY
47
22
2
71
4
2
0
6
77
RETAIL THEFT
18
1
1
20
24
6
1
31
51
103
18
5
126
8
1
0
9
135
31
27
1
59
0
0
0
0
59
ROBBERY & RELATED
SEX OFFENSES
SIMPLE ASSAULT
141
78
10
229
112
45
6
163
392
TERRORISTIC THREATS
42
35
1
78
7
7
0
14
92
THEFT & RELATED
(CONSPIRACY/ATTEMPT)
49
21
5
75
16
7
1
24
99
9
14
1
24
5
4
0
9
33
170
45
6
221
36
15
3
54
275
WEAPONS ON SCHOOL
PROPERTY
27
29
4
60
17
6
0
23
83
ALL OTHER CHARGES
91
56
2
149
30
10
0
40
189
1937
816
83
2836
674
264
14
952
3788
TRANSFERRED FROM
OTHER COUNTY
VIOLATION OF PROBATION
ALLEGATIONS
TOTAL REFERRALS
Page 9
Referral by Gender
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
2009
2010
2011
Male
2012
2013
Female
Referral by Race
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
2008
White
2009
2010
2011
African American
2012
2013
Other
Juveniles Referred
Of the 3,788 allegations made to Juvenile Court in 2013, 275 were for Probation
Violations and 244 were for Failure to Adjust at a Court committed placement. There
were 2,457 juveniles who were alleged to have committed the remaining 3,269
allegations.
Page 10
SHUMAN CENTER FOR SECURE DETENTION
Juveniles are placed in secure detention at Shuman Center when it is necessary to
protect the community and ensure their appearance in Court. Shuman Center has a
licensed capacity of 130 beds. In 2013 the average daily census was 57 juveniles. The
median length of stay was 4 days.
Admission by Race
Shuman Admissions
White Multi
2%
17%
3,500
Other
0%
3,000
Black
81%
2,500
2,000
Admission by
20% Gender
1,500
1,000
2008
Admissions: 3,146
2009
3,354
2010
3,376
2011
3,361
2012
2,962
2013
2,361
80%
Unduplicated Shuman Admissions
Male
Female
1,900
1,800
Admission by Age
1,700
12 &
Under
2%
1,600
1,500
1,400
16 &
Over
64%
1,300
1,200
1,100
1,000
Admissions:
2008
1,887
2009
1,815
2010
1,675
2011
1,647
2012
1,442
2013
1,227
Page 11
13 to 15
34%
DETENTION HEARINGS
There were 1,648 detention hearings during 2013. The results of those hearings can be
seen below:
3000
Released to
Parent's Control without conditions
2500
2000
Released to
Parent's Control Electronic Home
Monitoring / Home
Detention
Remain at Shuman
1500
1000
500
0
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Detention Hearings 2013
Released House
Arrest
3%
Released
13%
Detained
59%
Released to
Home Detention
9%
Released to
Electronic
Monitoring
(EHM)
16%
Page 12
Alternatives to Detention
HARTMAN SHELTER
The Hartman Delinquency Shelter, operated for the Court by Auberle, is a 24-bed
facility for males that provides an alternative to secure detention at Shuman Center.
Juveniles meeting specific criteria may be transferred to Hartman after being admitted
to Shuman Center. In addition, juveniles may be directly admitted to Hartman by the
probation officer for violating conditions of supervision.
During 2013 the average daily census was 15 juveniles. The median length of stay was
3 days.
Hartman Shelter Admissions
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Admissions
2009
407
2010
628
2011
655
Admission by Race
White
12%
2012
611
2013
803
Admission by Age
16 &
Over
53%
Other
1%
13 to 15
44%
Black
87%
Page 13
12 &
Under
3%
ELECTRONIC HOME MONITORING / HOME DETENTION
Electronic home monitoring and home detention are also used as alternatives to secure
detention. Electronic home monitoring includes the use of a device that monitors the
juvenile’s presence in the home. Electronic home monitoring is generally used for
juveniles who are pending a Court appearance. It is also used as a surveillance
enhancement for juveniles under supervision or committed to the Court’s Community
Intensive Supervision Program (CISP). Juveniles on “home detention” are required to
be in their homes during specific time periods, but they are not monitored remotely with
an electronic device. These services are operated by the Probation Department.
Referrals
2011
2012
2013
EHM
305
305
397
Home Detention
578
506
327
Sanctions
213
198
126
Total Referrals
1,096 1,009
850
2011
Discharges
2012
2013
Total
%
Successful
Total
%
Successful
Total
%
Successful
EHM
288
84%
328
73%
383
81%
Home Detention
565
78%
514
74%
329
73%
Sanctions
220
90%
204
87%
129
96%
1,073
84%
1,046
80%
841
83%
Total Discharges
A successful discharge indicates the juvenile completed electronic home monitoring or
home detention without a warrant being issued for a violation or new crime.
2013 Electronic Home Monitoring Referrals
Sanctions
15%
EHM
47%
Home
Detention
38%
Page 14
YOUTH ENRICHMENT SERVICES (YES)
YES serves as an alternative to secure detention for juveniles between the ages of ten
and fourteen years of age who have been charged with delinquent acts that justify
placement at Shuman Center. The program diverts these youth from secure detention
by providing in-home monitoring and mentoring services to juveniles and their families.
Community safety is achieved through strict community supervision and monitored
school attendance. YES is a short-term program designed to provide supervision and
services for juveniles pending an appearance before the Court.
The Probation
Department contracts with Youth Enrichment Services to provide these services.
Youth Enrichment Services Gender
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2007
2008
2009
2010
Male
2011
2012
2013
Female
Youth Enrichment Services Race
100
80
60
40
20
0
2007
2008
2009
2010
African American
2011
White
Page 15
2012
Other
2013
DISPOSITIONS OF POLICE REPORTS
Cases Disposed of in 2013
After Allegheny County Juvenile Probation receives a police allegation (charging a
juvenile with a misdemeanor and/or felony offense), the probation officer, in consultation
with the District Attorney’s Office, must decide whether to file a petition and schedule
the case for Court or handle the charge informally. The Probation Department assesses
each case individually and pursues the least restrictive alternative available to satisfy
the goals of community protection and youth accountability. In 2013, there were 3,215
police charges resolved as follows:
Allegations
Withdrawn
4%
Felony
31%
Petitions Filed
67%
Misdemeanor
23%
Failure to Pay
Fines
13%
Informal
Adjustment
29%
Page 16
PROBATION OFFICERS
Probation officers, the backbone of Juvenile Court, are responsible for supervising
juveniles at home, in school, and in the community. From the receipt of the initial police
report until the case is closed by the Judge, the probation officer is charged with
overseeing the juvenile’s case and ensuring the Court’s orders and directives are
followed. Consistent with the Court’s Balanced and Restorative Justice Mission,
probation officers develop and implement a specific case plan for each juvenile that
focuses on protecting the community, holding the juvenile accountable to restore the
victim and community, and helping the juvenile develop competencies that lead to lawabiding and productive citizenship.
The Intake and Ten Day Investigations Units, located at the courthouse, process police
reports (referrals) charging juveniles with misdemeanor and/or felony offenses. These
probation officers in these units work exclusively with juveniles who are newly referred
to the Court, deciding whether cases should be handled informally or petitioned for a
formal Court hearing.
The Probation Department has at least one intake officer assigned to every community
based office. Decentralizing the intake function has enabled probation officers to use a
wider range of community and school-based diversionary services.
Regardless of where they are located, probation officers performing the intake function
make every effort to divert cases from formal processing whenever possible,
considering the least restrictive alternative necessary to protect the community.
Community-based probation officers are
responsible for supervising the largest
percentage of juvenile offenders under the
jurisdiction of the Court. As of December
31, 2013, thirty-three community-based
probation officers in five geographically
dispersed supervisory units were working
with an average caseload of twenty-four
juveniles.
Community Based Probation Caseload
34.9%
28.8%
27.6%
6.3%
The
School-Based
Probation
Unit
includes thirty-two probation officers, five
supervisors, and one coordinator. With
Probation
Private
Consent
State
Day
Placement Decree Placement Treatment
probation officers in thirteen city schools,
twenty school districts and one charter
school, the Department’s school-based program is the largest in the Commonwealth
and likely the largest in the nation. School-based probation officers manage an average
caseload of twenty-one cases.
2.4%
Page 17
SCHOOL BASED PROBATION OFFICES AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2013
Pittsburgh School District
Allderdice
Arsenal / M.L. King
Brashear / South Hills Middle
Carrick
Clayton
Oliver Citywide Academy
Perry
University Prep / Milliones
Student Achievement Center
Westinghouse
Other Schools in Allegheny County
















Academy Charter School
Baldwin
Chartiers Valley / Keystone Oaks
East Allegheny
Fox Chapel / Highlands
Hampton / Pine Richland
McKeesport
Moon / West Allegheny
North Allegheny / North Hills
Penn Hills
Shaler
Steel Valley
Sto-Rox
West Mifflin
Wilkinsburg
Woodland Hills
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
Probation Officer
Probation Officer
Probation Officers
Probation Officer
Probation Officer
Probation Officers
Probation Officers
Probation Officer
Probation Officer
Probation Officer
………
………
………
………
………
………
………
………
………
………
………
………
………
………
………
………
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
Probation Officers
Probation Officer
Probation Officer
Probation Officer
Probation Officer
Probation Officer
Probation Officer
Probation Officer
Probation Officer
Probation Officers
Probation Officer
Probation Officer
Probation Officer
Probation Officer
Probation Officer
Probation Officers
School-based probation officers are fully engaged in the school environment,
participating in a host of school related activities including serving as coaches, club
sponsors, D.A.R.E instructors, and members of the Student Assistance Team.
School-based probation officers also process new intake referrals for offenses occurring
on school grounds. Every attempt is made to divert these cases from formal processing
when community protection is not compromised.
Page 18
SPECIAL SERVICES UNIT (SSU)
The SSU was formed in 1985 to provide supervision and specialized treatment services
for adjudicated sexual offenders. The SSU works with juveniles on probation in the
community and with juveniles on aftercare who have returned to the community from a
residential facility.
The SSU is comprised of a supervisor, five specialist probation officers (2 communitybased and 3 aftercare) who provide intensive individual and group counseling. The Unit
also has a dedicated intake probation officer.
SSU/WPIC PROGRAM
Since 1998, the SSU has collaborated with Western Psychiatric Institute & Clinic
(WPIC) to provide enhanced services to first time and less serious sex offenders placed
on probation. Every juvenile in the program undergoes an assessment and participates
in weekly clinical sessions conducted by WPIC. In addition, mandatory weekly group
sessions are facilitated by SSU probation officers. SSU probation officers and WPIC
clinicians meet regularly to discuss the best course of action for each offender involved
in the program.
SSU Juveniles Served
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Education
Aftercare
Community
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2013 Aftercare Recidivism
New Non-Sexual
Offense
12%
New Sexual
Offense
5%
No New Offenses
83%
Page 19
DRUG AND ALCOHOL UNIT
The Drug and Alcohol Unit has been in existence since 1984 and consists of one
supervisor, two intake probation officers, three community-based intensive supervision
probation officers, and one aftercare probation officer assigned to juveniles returning to
the community after a residential placement. The Drug and Alcohol Unit works
exclusively with juveniles who have substance abuse issues. The Unit conducts
individual assessments as well as group education and group screenings for the Court.
In addition to managing their caseloads, the probation officers facilitate the Parental
Survival Skills Training (PSST) for parents of substance abusing juveniles.
Parent Survival Skills Training (PSST) is designed to empower parents who have been
held hostage by their teenage substance abusers. The groups are open to any parent
in Allegheny County and are offered three Saturdays per month at three locations:
Wilkinsburg, Greentree, and Wexford. Parents are not Court ordered to attend; they
come because they want help. The groups offer support, skill building, suggestions,
ideas and education. The parents who attend PSST created and maintain an
informational web blog that is open for public viewing and input at
http://www.gopsst.org. The blog contains a wealth of information based on personal
experiences from those involved. In addition, the website provides directions to PSST
meetings and links to other relevant resources. This valuable resource has registered
visits from all over the United States and as far away as London.
Parents who attend PSST develop knowledge and skills that better equip them to
manage their substance abusing child. Stronger parents can better help their teenagers
make good decisions about drugs and alcohol. It is not a cure, but it is definitely making
a difference.
Assessment Results
D & A Assessments
300
300
250
250
200
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Individual Assessments
Group Assessments
Chemically Dependent
Page 20
Abusers
Users
JJSES (JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM ENHANCEMENT) UNIT
Since 2010, the Department has been engaged in the statewide effort to infuse
evidence-based practices to achieve the goals of Balanced and Restorative Justice.
Toward that end, the Department created the System Enhancement Unit in 2012. As of
December 31, 2013 the System Enhancement Unit was comprised of one supervisor
and six probation officers. The primary function of this Unit since its inception has been
to conduct the Youth Level of Service (YLS) Risk/Needs assessments for intake cases
across the Department. The YLS instrument has been adopted statewide as the
Risk/Needs instrument for juvenile justice. The YLS produces a score and a
classification of very high, high, moderate, or low risk, indicating the likelihood of
recidivism. The results of the YLS are considered at key decision points; for example,
whether to informally adjust the case or file a petition, or whether to recommend
community-based supervision or a more restrictive disposition to the presiding Judge.
The results of the YLS are also an essential component in developing the case plan for
each juvenile under formal supervision.
The System Enhancement Unit has benefitted the Department in several ways. First,
the Unit has developed expertise in conducting the YLS and provides coaching,
feedback, and training to probation officers throughout the Department. Second, the
Unit has improved the Department’s fidelity and consistency in implementing the YLS,
an essential evidence-based tool. Third, the Unit has expanded its reach to help the
Department implement solid case plans based on the results of the YLS. The JJSES
Unit will continue to play an important role in training the entire Department in the use of
the YLS and the case plan.
Through December 31, 2013 all Allegheny County juvenile probation officers have
completed a total of 3,128 YLS assessments with the following identified risk levels.
Risk Level
High, 324, 10%
Low, 868, 28%
Moderate,
1936, 62%
Page 21
COMMUNITY INTENSIVE SUPERVISION PROGRAM (CISP)
The Community Intensive Supervision Program (CISP) is a day/evening program
operated by Juvenile Probation. This year marks the 22nd anniversary of CISP, a
pioneer program that has served as a model across the state and the nation for
effective community-based programming.
CISP is an alternative to residential
placement, providing intensive programming and supervision for juveniles while they
remain at home and in the community. The program also provides intensive aftercare
services for juveniles returning to the community after placement, assisting them in all
aspects of reintegration.
In 2013 there were a total of 222 youth committed to the CISP program and 238 youth
discharged as follows:
Center
Garfield
Hill District
Homewood
McKeesport
North Side
Wilkinsburg
Commitments
Total
%
24
11%
38
17%
29
13%
52
23%
34
15.5%
45
20.5%
Total
222
Discharges
Total
%
29
12%
39
16%
44
19%
47
20%
33
14%
46
19%
% Positive
66%
72%
77%
70%
70%
89%
74%
238
Discharge History
250
200
150
Other
100
Negative
50
Positive
0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
The foundation of CISP rests on strong community involvement. Juveniles in each
center routinely perform an array of community service projects, such as removing snow
and cutting grass for elderly residents and cleaning neighborhood lots and streets.
Members of the community continue to express their appreciation for the efforts of CISP
youth. In 2013, youth in all six CISP centers completed approximately 15,500 hours of
community service.
Once again in 2013, CISP youth participated in the annual car wash to raise money for
victims of crime. Since 2000, CISP youth have donated $15,951 in car wash proceeds
to the Center for Victims.
Page 22
PRIVATE PLACEMENT SERVICES
The majority of Allegheny County youth in placement reside in privately operated, nonsecure settings. During 2013 there was an average of 238 youth in private placement
on any given day.
Average Youth in Placement
420
400
380
360
340
320
300
280
260
240
220
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
The chart below shows the number of youth in placement on the last day of each
month. At the beginning of 2013 there were 223 youth in placement and by the end of
2013 that number was at 231.
Number of Youth in Placement on Last Day of Month
300
290
280
270
260
250
240
230
220
210
200
1
2
3
4
2011
5
6
7
2012
Page 23
8
9
2013
10
11
12
STATE PLACEMENTS
State placements, known as Youth Development Centers (YDC), are reserved for
juveniles who pose a serious risk to public safety. The state facilities are operated by
the Bureau of Juvenile Justice Services (BJJS). In addition to the secure facilities, BJJS
operates Youth Forestry Camps (YFC) for less serious juvenile offenders. The YDC
and YFC programs are located throughout the Commonwealth.
During 2013 there was an average of 11 youth in state placement on any given day.
Average Youth in State Placement
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
There were 9 juveniles in state placement at the beginning of the year and 17 in state
placement at the end of the year.
Youth in State Placement on last day of the Month
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
2011
4
5
6
7
2012
Page 24
8
9
2013
10
11
12
WARRANT UNIT
The Warrant Unit began operations in 2004 with the goal of improving community
protection. The Warrant Unit is comprised of probation officers, supervisors, and
administrators who have full-time responsibilities in addition to their Warrant Unit
activities. The Unit works closely with local law enforcement, particularly the City of
Pittsburgh Police Department and the Allegheny County Sheriff’s Department, to
actively pursue offenders who have absconded, failed to appear for Court, or violated
the conditions of supervision. Through December 31, 2013, 91% of those sought by the
Warrant Unit have been apprehended and detained at Shuman Center pending a Court
appearance.
Warrant Unit Results
2004 - Present
Case Closed
6%
Deceased
1%
Still AWOL
2%
Apprehended by
WU
36%
Turned in by
Parents after WU
Sweep
13%
Subsequently
Located by Police
42%
In conjunction with its apprehension activities, the Warrant Unit has confiscated
numerous assault weapons, handguns, ammunition, illegal narcotics, and gang
paraphernalia.
Page 25
EDUCATIONAL SPECIALISTS
The Department has three education specialists who work closely with probation
officers, residential providers, home school staff, and the Allegheny Intermediate Unit to
improve education planning and services for delinquent youth. The education
specialists are involved in a variety of activities to help juveniles advance academically
and develop workforce skills including:





Working closely with the Allegheny Intermediate Unit to ensure education records
are promptly transferred to and from residential placements;
Collaborating with Pittsburgh Public Schools and other school districts to
establish a consistent protocol for reintegration, curriculum alignment, and credit
transfer;
Monitoring and overseeing education plans for those youth entering and exiting
residential facilities;
Scheduling and facilitating School Reintegration meetings to ensure a smooth
transition from placement to the home school;
Providing assistance and guidance in career and technical education and job
training for older juveniles.
THE TRUANCY PREVENTION PROGRAM
The Truancy Prevention Program (TPP) was established in 1987 to address chronic
truancy among students between the ages of 6 and 15 (1st through 8th/9th grade). The
TPP is a coalition of local school districts, the Allegheny Intermediate Unit, Juvenile
Probation, and Allegheny County Children Youth and Families (CYF). The goal is to get
younger students back on track before the problem becomes unmanageable.
During the 2012-2013 school year, the TPP included two case managers provided by
the Probation Department. The TPP handled a total of 242 chronic cases of truancy
with an average of one fourth of those referred improving the rate of attendance in the
same school year.
Page 26
WORKBRIDGE
COMMUNITY SERVICE:
Number of Referrals Received:
Total Number of Youth that
Service was Provided to:
Average Age of the Youth
Referred:
Average Number of Hours
Ordered:
Total Value to Community:
Number of CS Sites:
Number of Positive Discharges:
Retention:
STIPEND COMPONENT:
Number of Referrals Received:
Number of Successful
Discharges:
Community Service Hours:
Restitution Paid on Behalf of
Stipend:
714
780
Hours of Community Service
65000
60000
15
55000
50000
42
45000
$281,039
2,713
748
96%
40000
35000
30000
2009
4649
$29,057
2011
2012
2013
Community Service Referrals
111
102
2010
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
COMMUNITY REPAIR CREW:
Number of Referrals:
Number of Youth Served:
59
Average Age:
Number of Positive Discharges:
16
51
1000
900
800
59
700
600
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Employment Youth Served
EMPLOYMENT INITIATIVE:
Number of Referrals Received:
Total Number of Youth that
Service was Provided to:
Average Age of the Youth
Referred:
Number of Positive Discharges:
Average Number of Days each
Youth was in Program:
Retention:
Number of Paid Employment
Sites:
Restitution Collected:
145
350
119
300
16.5
250
200
112
150
160
100
94%
50
820
0
$60,022
Page 27
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
VICTIM SERVICES
Victims of juvenile offenders are entitled to many rights in the juvenile justice system.
The Court works closely with Center for Victims (CV) and Pittsburgh Action Against
Rape (PAAR) to help ensure that victims receive services and have a strong voice at
every stage in the juvenile justice process.
PAAR Comprehensive Victim
Services
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
CV Comprehensive Victim Services
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
2009
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Victims
VICTIM OFFENDER DIALOGUE
2010
2011
Witnesses
2012
2013
Significant Others
VOD Referrals
300
During 2013, Allegheny County Juvenile
Probation referred 270 cases to the Victim
Offender Dialogue (VOD) program, which
involved 217 victims and 270 juvenile
offenders. There were 38 Victim Offender
Dialogues.
250
200
150
100
50
VICTIM AWARENESS AND
BARJ/ RESTORATIVE
JUSTICE INITIATIVE
0
2010
2011
Victims
2012
2013
Offenders
The Restorative Justice Coordinator at the Center for Victims facilitated 21 victim
awareness meetings/trainings with 147 juvenile probation officers. In addition, 36 victim
awareness programs were presented to 324 juveniles.
Page 28
CASE CLOSING INFORMATION
During 2013 information was reported for 1,526 youth whose cases were closed.
Case Closing Information 2013
Number of Cases Closed
1,526
Average Length of Supervision:
Probation
24 months
Average Length of Supervision:
Consent Decree
8.6 months
Accountability Factors
% That
Number of
% That
Amount
Completed/
Youth
Amount Ordered
Completed/
Completed/Paid
Paid 50%
Ordered
Paid in Full
or more
Community Service Hours
985
42,531 Hours
42,791 Hours*
94%
96%
Restitution
Completed the three hour Victim
Awareness Curriculum
550
$382,540
$190,006
78%
82%
1,039
99%
Public Safety
1,048
% Of
Number of
Closed
Youth
Cases
Violation of Probation
161
10.6%
New Adjudication
182
11.9%
Skill Building
Attending School,
Vocational Program, or
GED Training or Employed
at time of Case Closing
% of Closed Cases
73.2%
* Youth perform community service over and above the amount ordered by the Court.
100%
95%
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
2009
Paid Full Restiutution
2010
2011
2012
2013
Completed all Community Service
No New Adjudications
Page 29
CASE CLOSING HISTORY
Since 1998, Allegheny County Juvenile Probation has been collecting data at the time a
juvenile’s case is officially closed from Court supervision.
This data helps the
Department gauge intermediate outcomes related to our Balanced and Restorative
Justice Mission.
The chart below indicates that since 1998, nearly 27,000 cases have been closed with
over 3 million dollars in restitution collected and more than one million hours of
community service completed.
More than 85% of the juveniles completed their
supervision without reoffending.
Year
No. of
Closed
Cases
Average
No. of
Months
Case
Opened
Percent
Paid in
Full
No. of
Community
Service Hours
Completed
Percent
Community
Services
Hours Fully
Completed
Amount of
Restitution
Paid
Recidivism
While
Under
Supervision
1998
1,505
30
$127,816
60%
48,633
92%
26%
1999
1,608
28
$176,085
68%
58,652
96%
25%
2000
1,613
26
$160,731
64%
62,311
91%
21%
2001
1,554
21
$148,584
78%
64,891
99%
9%
2002
1,485
19
$138,980
81%
68,791
97%
13%
2003
1,475
19
$155,911
77%
69,654
98%
11%
2004
1,685
18
$200,278
79%
73,573
96%
11%
2005
1,579
17
$215,827
76%
70,014
96%
10%
2006
1,540
17
$218,866
75%
68,764
96%
12%
2007
1,757
19
$239,185
79%
80,383
95%
13%
2008
2,040
17
$223,465
81%
91,481
96%
19%
2009
1,904
17
$234,913
77%
84,575
96%
11%
2010
1,921
17
$245,450
80%
70,104
95%
14%
2011
1,883
17
$235,248
76%
64,234
94%
14%
2012
1,826
17
$279,636
74%
59,043
96%
11%
2013
Total
1,526
26,901
16
$190,006
3,190,981
78%
42,791
1,077,894
94%
12%
Page 30
RECIDIVISM
With the advent of the Juvenile Justice System Enhancement Strategy in 2010, the
Pennsylvania Council of Chief Probation Officers and the Juvenile Court Judges’
Commission agreed to raise the bar on measuring recidivism. The new standard
defines recidivism as any misdemeanor or felony adjudication or conviction for a period
of two years post case closing. Previously, recidivism was measured only during the
period of time the juvenile was under the supervision of the Court.
A consensus was reached statewide on the two year tracking period, attributing success
or failure during that time to services and interventions provided while under the
jurisdiction of the Court.
A cooperative effort between the Juvenile Court Judges’ Commission (JCJC) and the
Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC) has made this recidivism data
available.
Allegheny
Statewide
1,603
181
Recidivism Rate x
469
1,677
363
Recidivism Rate x
434
1,473
300
Number of Juveniles
with Cases Closed
Recidivism Rate x
1,160
4,753
16%
28%
29%
24%
20%
22%
23%
22%
x
Number of Expunged
xx
Cases
Three-Year Total
Number of Recidivists
Number of Expunged
xx
Cases
Number of Juveniles
with Cases Closed
Number of Recidivists
257
Number of Expunged
xx
Cases
Number of Recidivists
Recidivism Rate x
Number of Juveniles
with Cases Closed
2009 Case Closures
Number of Expunged
xx
Cases
2008 Case Closures
Number of Juveniles
with Cases Closed
2007 Case Closures
Number of Recidivists
The benchmark study included cases closed in 2007, 2008 and 2009—the three years
immediately prior to the implementation of JJSES. While full implementation of the
JJSES will take years, the data obtained from this report provides a baseline to gauge
the success of the JJSES initiative.
844
Recidivism is defined as: A subsequent adjudication of delinquency or conviction in criminal Court for a
misdemeanor or felony offense within two years of case closure. Expunged cases are not included in these figures.
xx
This figure represents cases closed in that year and subsequently expunged. One juvenile may have had
multiple cases expunged.
Page 31
EXPUNGEMENTS
Consistent with the Juvenile Act and the Balanced and Restorative Justice goals, since
2010 the Probation Department has initiated expungement proceedings for juveniles
who have attained the age of 18 and meet the following criteria:


All of the charges received by the Court have been informally adjusted,
dismissed, or withdrawn;
Six months have elapsed since the juvenile’s case has been closed and no
proceedings are pending in juvenile or criminal Court.
The Department has dedicated one full-time clerk in the Information Management Unit
to the task of processing these expungements and submitting them to the Court for
consideration. Through December 31, 2013, 4,935 cases have been researched; 2,514
have met the criteria and have been expunged by an order of Court, 1,587 were not
eligible and 834 are currently pending.
Expungements through 2013
Pending
17%
Expunged
51%
Not Eligble
32%
It is important to note that expunged cases create a significant limitation to the
recidivism numbers listed above. In Pennsylvania, when a case is expunged, all of a
juvenile’s identifying information pertaining to that case is “erased” and is therefore not
available for analysis. Consequently, juveniles closed in 2007, 2008, or 2009 whose
cases were subsequently expunged were omitted from the study’s sample. Because
the expunged cases were less likely to recidivate, excluding them from the analysis
increases the overall recidivism rate.
Page 32
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
The Administrative Services Unit provides support for all fiscal matters related to the
Department. The Unit, comprised of a supervisor and four staff positions, is responsible
for processing the payroll for all full and part-time staff. This year $14,951,389 was paid
in salaries and benefits to juvenile probation staff.
There are four budgets, the largest of which includes the placement costs for delinquent
youth, totaling $45,980,012. The Unit also monitors several grant-funded projects that
interface with state and federal funding sources.
In addition, the Administrative Services Unit is also responsible for the distribution of
restitution and fines collected by probation officers. During 2013 a total of $283,479
was collected and dispersed.
Every effort is made to have a youth pay in full their obligations. If a youth does not
comply with his restitution obligation, the Unit is responsible for indexing the judgment
with the Department of Court Records when the youth turns 21 years of age.
Funds Collected
Crime Lab
15%
Victim
Curriculum
4%
Other JCS/ATS
3%
5%
DNA Fund
1%
Substance
Abuse Fund
1%
Stipend Fund
7%
Victim Comp
Fund
9%
Page 33
Restitution
55%
Judicial Overview
Allegheny County Juvenile Court is the Juvenile Section of the Family
Division of the Court of Common Pleas. There are six Judges who hear
primarily Juvenile Court cases, four Judges who hear an approximately
even number of cases from both the Juvenile Section and Adult Section
of the Family Division and five Judges who hear primarily Adult Section
cases. The Court also has one Delinquency Hearing Officer and three
Dependency/Delinquency Hearing Officers. The Court adheres to the
practice of “One Judge, One Family,” requiring all Judges hear a number
of “crossover” cases.
Beginning in July 2013, hearing officers in three remote locations began conducting
delinquency review hearings. From July 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013 hearing officers
presided over 215 delinquency reviews in the North Side, South Side and McKeesport.
JUDICIAL ASSIGNMENTS
As of December 31, 2013
Judge Kim Berkeley Clark, Administrative Judge
Judges:
Alexander P. Bicket (Primarily Adult)
Paul E. Cozza (Juvenile/Adult)
Guido A. DeAngelis (Primarily Juvenile)
Kathryn M. Hens-Greco (Juvenile/Adult)
Arnold I. Klein (Primarily Juvenile)
Michael F. Marmo (Primarily Juvenile)
John T. McVay Jr. (Primarily Juvenile)
Dwayne D. Woodruff (Primarily Juvenile)
Kathleen R. Mulligan (Juvenile/Adult)
Cathleen Bubash (Primarily Adult)
Kim D. Eaton (Primarily Adult)
Susan Evashavik DiLucente (Primarily Adult)
Donald R. Walko, Jr. (Primarily Adult)
William F. Ward (Juvenile/Adult)
Delinquency Hearing Officer:
Robert Banos
Dependency/Delinquency Hearing Officers:
James Alter
Mark Cancilla
Carla Hobson
Page 34
Delinquency Petitions
There were a total of 2,164 petitions alleging delinquency filed with the Court during 2013.
This is a decrease of 392 petitions from the total number filed during 2012.
2013 Delinquency Petitions
250
200
150
100
50
0
Delinquency Petitions History
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
2008
2009
2010
Page 35
2011
2012
2013
Ancillary Petitions
ACT 53
In 1997 Pennsylvania legislators closed the “gap” in our Court system regarding drug and
alcohol treatment for addicted teenagers who have not been adjudicated delinquent or
dependent by a Juvenile Court Judge. Act 53 involves involuntary commitment of minors for
drug and alcohol treatment.
The Act 53 process is a joint effort between Allegheny County Juvenile Court and the
Allegheny County Department of Human Services--Drug and Alcohol Services Unit. To access
the Court via the Act 53 process, the parent/legal guardian of the teenager must be a resident
of Allegheny County and the child must be between the ages of 12 and 18.
The Act 53 process focuses on teenagers who clearly need substance abuse treatment but
who are unable or unwilling to ask for the help they need. The process serves teens who are
at high risk to become delinquent if they do not receive treatment. Allegheny County’s
implementation of Act 53 has become a model for other jurisdictions in the state.
Act 53 Cases
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2008
2009
2010
2011
Page 36
2012
2013
2013 Special
Events/Activities/Projects/Committees
JCJC NOMINATIONS
Congratulations to the following Allegheny County Juvenile Probation nominees:
Juvenile Probation Supervisor of the Year
Juvenile Probation Officer of the Year
Juvenile Court Support Service Award
Court-Operated Program of the Year
Residential Program of the Year
Community Based Program of the Year
Victim Advocate of the Year
Meritorious Service Award
John Fiscante, CISP Coordinator
Christine Lisko, School-Based Probation
Maria Mandalakas, Administrative Services
Critical Incident Response Team
Harborcreek - RTF with Sexual Counseling
Services & Re-entry
Lifeswork
Mary Jovanovich, Center for Victims
National Council of Jewish Women – Jane B.
Lobel Children’s Waiting Room
JCJC CONFERENCE
The Juvenile Court Judges’ Commission held their annual Juvenile Justice Conference in
November of 2013. Allegheny County had three statewide winners - Russell Carlino was
named Chief Probation Officer of the Year, John Fiscante was named Juvenile Probation
Supervisor of the Year and Mary Jovanovich was named Victim Advocate of the Year.
Allegheny County probation staff attended the conference as well as many Juvenile Court
Judges.
Russell Carlino, Chief Probation Officer of the
Year and John Fiscante, Juvenile Probation
Supervisor of the Year
Mary Jovanovich, Victim Advocate
of the Year and Honorable Arthur
E. Grim, Juvenile Court Judges’
Commission Chairman
Page 37
ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AWARDS
Congratulations to our Rookies of the Year
The Rookie of the year awards are presented to the “rookie” employee who best represents
Juvenile Probation. There are three categories: Probation Officer, CISP and Support Staff.
Probation Officer
Rookie of the Year:
Justin Innocent
Assistant Chief PO Ray Bauer,
Supervisor Lenny Thomas, PO
Justin Innocent, Administrative
Judge Kim Berkeley Clark,
Administrator/Chief PO Russell
Carlino
CISP
Rookie of the Year:
Solomon Armstead
Assistant Chief PO Kim Booth, Supervisor
Earnest Frazier, Coordinator James
Tucker, CISP D&A Counselor Solomon
Armstead, Administrative Judge Kim
Berkeley Clark, Administrator/Chief PO
Russell Carlino
Support Staff
Rookie of the Year:
Katie Berner
Administrative Support Manager
Jamie Mariana, Supervisor Katie
Berner, Administrative Judge Kim
Berkeley Clark, Administrator/Chief
PO Russell Carlino
Page 38
SPECIAL RECOGNITION
Person on the Go Award
The Person on the Go Award is awarded to the employee who is always on the go and
exceeding expectations in many of their job duties.
The award is open to all staff regardless of the position or years of service with Allegheny
County Juvenile Probation.
Congratulations
to Probation
Officer
Nelton Neal
Supervisor Keonte
Campbell, Coordinator
John Fiscante, Assistant
Chief PO Kim Booth, PO
Nelton Neal,
Administrative Judge
Kim Berkeley Clark,
Administrator/Chief PO
Russell Carlino
DIRECTOR AWARD RECIPIENTS
2013 Director Award Recipients
Chanel LoCastro
Donna Nolte
Anthony Gray
Christopher Waltz
Courtney Harrison
Katie Berner
Lisa Rusko
Lisa Fabus
Tracey Weir
Christine Lisko
Maria Mandalakas
Ted Kairys
Clint Roche
Brenda Beetlestone
Bonnie McAdams
Jamie Mariana
Page 39
PO SWEARING IN CEREMONIES
March 1, 2013
August 23, 2013
New PO Amy Protulipac, Supervisor Lisa
Rusko, New PO Justin Innocent
New PO Matt Piroth, New PO Lexi Bohner,
New PO Matt Anderson, New PO KJ Hostler
40 YEAR RECOGNITION
A ceremony was held on March 1, 2013 to recognize PO Rich Smith, Education Specialist Lou
Guardino and Assistant Chief PO Ted Kairys for 40 years of service.
Congratulations to
Rich Smith, Lou
Guardino and Ted
Kairys
Administrator/Chief PO
Russell Carlino, Judge
Alexander Bicket, Judge
Arnold Klein, PO Rich Smith,
ES Lou Guardino, Assistant
Chief PO Ted Kairys,
Assistant Chief PO Mary
Hatheway, Judge Kathryn
Hens-Greco
Page 40
JUVENILE JUSTICE WEEK-2013
The first week of October was declared
Juvenile Justice Week in Pennsylvania. The
Community Education Initiative sponsored
several events throughout the week.
Assistant Chief PO Ray Bauer, Assistant Chief PO David
Evrard, Administrative Judge Kim Berkeley Clark,
Assistant Chief PO Mary Hatheway and
Administrator/Chief PO Russell Carlino take the “Balanced
and Restorative Justice” pledge
Coordinator James Tucker, PO Bob Koger and
Supervisor Earnest Frazier volunteering for the
Open House
MUSIC FESTIVAL
Juvenile Probation helped raised over $30,000 at this year’s Allegheny County Music Festival
at Hartwood Acres.
Administrator/Chief PO Russell Carlino, Natalie
Baron, Alex Ketter, Supervisor Valerie Ketter
Deb Freeman, Judge Jill
Rangos
Assistant Chief PO Ted Kairys,
James Rieland
Page 41
RETIREMENTS
Congratulations to our 2013 Retirees
Joseph Cacolice – Probation Officer – 47 Years of Service
Linda Tanis – Supervisor – 32 Years of Service
David Speaks – Probation Officer – 27 Years of Service
Robert Dassel – Supervisor – 32 Years of Service
Connie Przybyla – Administrative Support Manager – 16 Years of Service
Diane Newhouse – Secretary – 15 Years of Service
Richard Smith – Probation Officer – 40 Years of Service
PROMOTIONS
Daniel Carr – promoted to Probation Supervisor
Jamie Mariana – promoted to Administrative Support Manager
Clint Roche – promoted to Drug and Alcohol Specialist
Congratulations to Dann, Jamie and Clint
PROVIDER TRIPS
Continuing with the enhanced theme of Judicial Training, 2013 proved to be an active year. In
January, Juvenile Section Judges visited the Bradley Center, one of the most often used MHRTF’s for juvenile offenders with severe mental health issues. Judges met with the lead
clinician/ medical director, along with representatives from HSAO to discuss working within the
system to achieve appropriate placements. Another off-site trip and training was conducted in
May with a visit to the State Correctional Institute at Pine Grove, the correctional facility where
many of the Act 33 clients are sentenced by the criminal Court. The trip was extended toward
Harrisburg where Judges participated in Juvenile Justice System Enhancement Strategies
Training and were briefed on the recent juvenile justice recidivism research conducted in
Pennsylvania. In October, the Pittsburgh Police Intelligence Unit provided training for Judges
on Street Violence, Gang Intelligence, and Drug Trafficking.
WEBSITE
For more information and downloads visit the Allegheny County Probation website at:
https://www.alleghenycourts.us/family/juvenile/default.aspx
Page 42
Organizational Chart
Page 43