Allegheny Detention Assessment - National Center for Juvenile Justice

Allegheny County Detention Screening Study
Charles Puzzanchera, Crystal Knoll, Benjamin Adams, and Melissa Sickmund
National Center for Juvenile Justice
February 2012
NCJJ is the Research Division of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges
This report was prepared by the National Center for Juvenile Justice, the research division of the National
Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. The work was partially supported by the Center for
Children’s Law and Policy as part of their efforts in the MacArthur Foundation’s Models for Change reform
initiative. Allegheny County Juvenile Probation provided detention screening and other key data to
support the work.
Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily
represent the position or policies of the Center for Children’s Law and Policy or Allegheny County Juvenile
Probation.
Copyright 2012
National Center for Juvenile Justice
3700 South Water Street, Suite 200
Pittsburgh, PA. 15203–2363
412-227-6950
www.ncjj.org
Suggested citation: Puzzanchera, Charles, Knoll, Crystal, Adams, Benjamin, and Sickmund, Melissa. 2012.
Allegheny County Detention Screening Study. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.
For questions or comments about this report contact:
Charles Puzzanchera
[email protected]
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................................................... ii
Summary of Key Findings ......................................................................................................................................................iii
Background ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Allegheny County Profile ........................................................................................................................................................ 2
Use of Detention in Allegheny County .............................................................................................................................. 7
Detention Best Practices ............................................................................................................................................................. 14
Detention Reform: the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative and Models for Change .................... 14
Juvenile Detention Risk Assessment ............................................................................................................................... 14
Summary of Berks County Detention Assessment Instrument Test ................................................................. 18
The Need for Alternatives to Detention......................................................................................................................... 19
Process for the Detention Screening in Allegheny County .................................................................................... 20
The Detention Assessment Instrument ......................................................................................................................... 21
Study design ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 23
Purpose of the Study.............................................................................................................................................................. 23
Characteristics of the Study Sample ................................................................................................................................ 24
Results ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 25
Detention Outcomes Overall .............................................................................................................................................. 25
Detention Outcomes by Offense........................................................................................................................................ 25
Detention Outcomes by Risk Score.................................................................................................................................. 26
Overrides .................................................................................................................................................................................... 27
Race/Ethnicity (DMC) Results .......................................................................................................................................... 29
Discussion and Recommendations .......................................................................................................................................... 32
Continued Study—Continued Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 34
References ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 35
Appendix: Detention Assessment Instruments .................................................................................................................. 36
i
Executive Summary
The National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) agreed to conduct a study working with staff from
Allegheny County Juvenile Probation to gather data from the automated Detention Assessment
Instrument and other individual level information from Pennsylvania’s Juvenile Court Management
System (JCMS). The study’s goal was to use these data, to the extent possible, to conduct analyses
recommended in A Practical Guide to Juvenile Detention Risk Assessment (Steinhart, 2006) and determine
how well the Allegheny County instrument was working to reduce the amount of disproportionality in
detention risk decision-making.
Data Collection
Allegheny County Juvenile Probation gathered data from the Detention Assessment Instrument
completed by intake officers for arrested youth considered for admission to Shuman Juvenile Detention
Center beginning in mid-February in 2008. For this study, NCJJ analyzed detention screening data
collected from March of 2008 through February of 2010. These data included the following information:
Screening outcomes. The primary analyses address the question of the impact of the Detention
Assessment Instrument on the decision of whether to detain youth, place them in a detention alternative
program, or release them. Accordingly, the data included basic demographic information (gender,
race/ethnicity, and date of birth) for all youth considered for detention, along with the scores earned
across seven factors that compose the overall risk score. In addition, information regarding mandatory
detention holds, discretionary overrides, and the attendant aggravating/mitigating factors were also
provided.
Disproportionate minority contact. To the extent that data were available, additional analyses were
conducted to consider the entire pool of youth brought to detention intake. To better understand the
instrument’s impact on detention rates and disproportionate minority confinement, analyses compared
detention rates and population profiles of white and black youth.
Validation
The goal of validation analyses is to measure the post-implementation success of the Detention
Assessment Instrument in relation to the risk of committing a new offense pending court appearance and
the risk of failing to appear in court. A validation sample would include youth who were released or
placed on detention alternative status based on the Detention Assessment Instrument. A validation
analysis would then focus on determining decision error for this population. In other words, to what
degree were youth released using the instrument who, in hindsight, should not have been — either
because they failed to appear or because they committed a new offense while not detained? [It should be
noted that this report describes the results of a test of the Detention Alternatives Instrument
implemented by Allegheny County Juvenile Probation at Shuman Detention Center. A formal validation
study would require data on outcomes for juveniles who are released at detention intake based on their
risk scores (Steinhart, 2008). Validation studies are normally done after the detention screening
ii
instrument has undergone a general implementation test (like the current analysis). Although it was
initially hoped that data would be available to conduct such a validation study, these data were not
available in time to support the needs of this report.]
This report also summarizes the literature on effective detention risk assessments and presents an
overview of the use of detention in Allegheny County prior to the development of detention alternatives
and the implementation of the Detention Assessment Instrument, study methods and analyses, study
results, study limitations, and implications for further study/action.
Summary of Key Findings
Test sample
The sample for this study consists of 2,098 detention screening assessments involving 1,940 youth
conducted during the 24-month period from March 2008 through February 2010. Youth between the age
of 15 and 17 accounted for nearly three-fourths (74%) of all assessments. Males accounted for eight of
every ten (80%) assessments conducted during this period and black youth accounted for 76% of the
sample.
Detention rate
The overall detention rate for this sample was 74% — 1,556 of the nearly 2,100 assessments resulted in
the youth being securely detained. Alternatives to detention were recommended for 4% of all youth
screened, while another 22% were recommended for outright release.
Mandatory holds — factors such as a firearm offense or the existence of a warrant that trigger automatic
admission to detention — accounted for more than half (55%) of all secure detention admissions. Of
those detained for mandatory reasons, more than two-thirds (67%) involved youth with an outstanding
warrant, while another 15% involved youth detained for a firearm offense.
Detention outcomes by risk score
The risk scale used on the Allegheny Detention Assessment Instrument sets the threshold for detention at
15 (or more) points. In other words, youth who accumulate 15 or more points across all 7 factors are
deemed appropriate candidates for secure detention. Youth scoring between 10 and 14 points are eligible
for a detention alternative, while those scoring less than 10 points are eligible for release. Probation
officers can override the recommended outcome associated with a youth’s risk score, provided that
mitigating (to override “down”) or aggravating (to override “up”) factors are present.
The total detain override rate for this sample was 46%. That is, 46% of all assessments involving youth
with risk scores that made them eligible for a detention alternative or release (risk scores of 0 to 14
points) were subsequently admitted to detention. While not always reported, the lack of appropriate
parental supervision was the most predominant aggravating factor.
iii
Disproportionate minority contact results
Black youth accounted for 76% of all assessments conducted during the 24-month study period and white
youth represented an additional 20% (about 1% involved youth of Hispanic ethnicity). Detention rates
were comparable for black (76%) and white youth (71%). In Relative Rate Index (RRI) terms, this
translates to a ratio of 1.07. As such, there is little evidence of disproportionate minority confinement for
this sample. Rather, the disparity worth noting involves those youth for whom detention is requested, i.e.,
those who are referred to the Allegheny County Detention Center. In practice, these referrals often
emanate from other juvenile justice system agents, such as members of the law enforcement community,
who initiate most detention admission requests. Probation officers are charged with deciding on such
requests objectively and consistently. Risk scores from the detention assessment instrument as well as
pre-existing detention admission criteria (known within Pennsylvania as the Coleman standards) are
equally used to inform the probation officer’s final decision.
iv
Background
In more than one way the impetus for this work stems from Pennsylvania’s involvement in the John D.
and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation’s Models for Change juvenile justice reform initiative.
Pennsylvania was the first of four core states strategically selected to participate in Models for Change
because of the state’s leadership, structure, commitment to system-wide change, and likelihood to
influence reforms throughout the state. The National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) has been involved
with Models for Change since its beginning as a part of its National Resource Bank, functioning as the
initiative’s national Technical Resource Center. The Center for Children’s Law and Policy (CCLP) is also
part of the Models for Change initiative’s National Resource Bank. CCLP leads efforts to reduce
disproportionate minority contact (DMC) in the juvenile justice system in the four Models for Change core
states and as the lead agency in the initiative’s DMC Action Network, working in twelve additional states.
CCLP also serves as primary consultants to the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Juvenile Detention
Alternatives Initiative (JDAI).
While Pennsylvania carried out Models for Change work statewide, Allegheny County was one of eight
counties that undertook best practice pilot projects in aftercare, mental health/juvenile justice
coordination, and addressing disproportionate minority contact. Berks County was another county in
Pennsylvania with pilot projects. Models for Change support assisted Berks County’s juvenile justice
stakeholders and community leaders in the Racial and Ethnic Disparities Reduction Project. The goal was
to reduce the disproportionate detention and residential placement of African American1 and Latino
youth. Before deciding on DMC policy and program changes, Berks County engaged in data collection and
analysis to determine the scope of the problem and identify system points where changes could be made.
Berks County instituted a Detention Assessment Instrument (DAI), a structured approach to detention
decision-making, to ensure that detention decisions are objective, based upon fixed criteria, and recorded
in uniform ways for all youth referred for detention. Steinhart (2008) tested the Berks County DAI, which
was adapted from a similar instrument developed as part of the Casey Foundation’s Juvenile Detention
Alternatives Initiative and used in other states.
At the urging of CCLP, Allegheny County implemented a detention assessment instrument adapted from
the Berks County instrument. Allegheny County began using the Detention Assessment Instrument in the
middle of February 2008. Jim Rieland, then Allegheny County’s director of court services, approached
NCJJ to conduct a study, similar to Steinhart’s Berks County work, on Allegheny County’s detention
screening instrument. CCLP provided the majority of funding to support this work. Data included in the
study analyses were collected on juveniles considered for detention between March 1, 2008 and February
28, 2010.
1
For ease of presentation, African-American will be referred to as black and Caucasian/Anglo will be referred to as white
throughout this report.
Allegheny County Profile
Allegheny County is unique in that the juvenile detention center is located in the City of Pittsburgh, yet
much of its youth population resides outside of the city in suburban areas under the jurisdiction of
municipal police departments. To put this in perspective, the City of Pittsburgh is just one of Allegheny
County’s 130 municipalities, of which each has a local government and most have their own police
department. No other county in Pennsylvania shares this unique division of law and government across
such a large number of jurisdictions.
Allegheny County municipality map
City of Pittsburgh neighborhood map
Shuman Juvenile Detention Center
Demographic characteristics of Allegheny County’s youth population
Multiple measures of the juvenile population in Allegheny County can be used to gain a better
understanding of the profile of youth who could be referred to Shuman Detention Center. They include:
the Allegheny County juvenile population, the City of Pittsburgh juvenile population, and the enrollment
population of youth in the Pittsburgh Public School District.
NCJJ annually provides access to detailed population estimates derived from data originally collected by
the U.S. Census Bureau and subsequently modified by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). In
2008 and 2009, analysis using Easy Access to Juvenile Populations showed that although Allegheny
County’s youth population ages 10 through 17 had declined, the race profile had not changed: 76% white,
20% black, 2.5% Asian, and less than one-half of 1% American Indian. The racial profile of juveniles in
2
Allegheny County had changed only slightly from 2000, when it was: 80% white, 18% black, 1.5% Asian,
and less than one-half of 1% American Indian.
Table 1: Population estimates, Allegheny County, ages 10–17
Number
Percent
2000
2008
2009
2000
2008
2009
Total
130,790
115,729
112,806
100%
100%
100%
White, non-Hispanic
104,028
87,797
85,228
80
76
76
23,086
23,037
22,429
18
20
20
239
276
280
0
0
0
Asian, non-Hispanic
1,953
2,637
2,799
1
2
2
Hispanic
1,484
1,982
2,070
1
2
2
Black, non-Hispanic
American Indian, nonHispanic
Adapted from: Puzzanchera, C., Sladky, A. and Kang, W. (2010). "Easy Access to Juvenile Populations:
1990-2009." Online. Available: http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop/
The Decennial Census collects actual counts of persons dwelling in residential structures and can be used
to examine the City of Pittsburgh youth population. According to the most recent available data (2000)
the City of Pittsburgh’s youth population ages 10 through 17 was 54% white, 42% black, 2.5% two or
more races, 1% Asian, less than 1% other, and less than one-half of 1% American Indian. Although the
City of Pittsburgh accounted for slightly less than one-quarter of the youth population of Allegheny
County, more than half of black youth lived in the city (12,421 out of 23,086), and more than 8 in 10 white
youth lived outside the city (87,933 out of 104,028).
Table 2: Population estimates, City of Pittsburgh
ages 10–17, 2000
Number
Percent
Total
29,897
100%
White
16,095
54
Black
12,421
42
73
0
Asian
328
1
Other
234
1
2 or more races
746
2
American Indian
Adapted from: Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100% Data.
3
The Pittsburgh Public School District provides enrollment data by grade, gender, and race. According to
information provided for the 2009–2010 school year, Pittsburgh Public School enrollment for grades 5
through 12 was 36% white, 57% black, 4% multi-racial, 2% Asian, 1% Hispanic, and less than one-half of
1% American Indian.
Table 3: 2009-2010 Pittsburgh Public Schools enrollment, grades 5–12
Total
Number
Percentage
15,722
100%
White, non-Hispanic
5,646
36
Black, non-Hispanic
8,921
57
14
0
Asian, non-Hispanic
270
2
Multi-racial, non-Hispanic
683
4
Hispanic
188
1
American Indian, non-Hispanic
*These figures represent the official membership of the District as of October 8, 2009.
Adapted from: Pittsburgh Public Schools. "District Overview." Online. Available: www.pghboe.net
Juvenile arrests in Allegheny County
Data collected by the Pennsylvania State Police Uniform Crime Reporting Program (PAUCR) has been
extracted by NCJJ and published on the Pennsylvania Electronic Juvenile Justice Databook. Analyzing arrest
trends is one way to understand the extent of juvenile crime that comes to the attention of law
enforcement agencies and that subsequently affects the number and types of cases that may enter the
juvenile justice system. Variations in juvenile arrest rates may reflect differences in the number of
reporting agencies, juvenile law-violating behavior, police behavior, and/or community standards.
In 2008, law enforcement agencies in Allegheny County reported a total of 8,005 arrests of juveniles —
youth younger than age 18 (see table on next page). Of those arrests, just over half (52%) were arrests of
black youth, just under half (48%) were arrests of white youth. The remaining 22 (less than one half of
1%) youth were of other races. Forty-three youth were reported to be of Hispanic ethnicity (1%). The
largest proportion of arrests for both black and white juveniles was disorderly conduct, accounting for
nearly 3 in 10 arrests. Liquor law violations were 10% of juvenile arrests overall—20% for whites and
1% for blacks. Simple assaults were 11% of juvenile arrests overall—16% for blacks and 6% for whites.
Aggravated assaults were 5% of juvenile arrests overall—7% for blacks and 2% for whites. Similar race
differences were seen for other offense categories (e.g., robbery, and weapons). There were several other
4
offense categories for which black and white youth’s arrest proportions were similar (e.g., larceny-theft,
other sex offenses, and drug abuse).
Table 4: Arrests of juveniles younger than age 18, Allegheny County, 2008
Offense profile
Most serious offense
Total
White
Black
Total Arrests*
8,005
3,850
4,133
100%
100%
100%
Violent Crime Index
8
3
13
Murder/nonnegligent manslaughter
0
0
0
Forcible rape
0
0
0
Robbery
3
1
6
Aggravated assault
5
2
7
Property Crime Index
11
9
13
Burglary
3
2
4
Larceny-theft
7
6
8
Motor vehicle theft
1
0
1
Arson
0
0
0
Simple assaults
11
6
16
Stolen property
1
1
2
Vandalism
7
9
5
Weapons
3
1
4
Sex offenses (other)
1
1
1
Drug abuse violations
7
7
8
1
1
0
10
20
1
Nonindex offenses
Driving under influence
Liquor laws
Drunkenness
1
1
0
Disorderly conduct
28
29
28
All other offenses**
9
10
7
Curfew and loitering (juveniles only)
2
3
2
* Total includes offense not shown.
** Does not include traffic offenses.
Data source: Data were extracted from the Pennsylvania State Police's Uniform Crime Reporting
System (PAUCR) web site following the release of "Crime in Pennsylvania: Annual Uniform Crime
Report," available at http://ucr.psp.state.pa.us/UCR/ComMain.asp
Reported arrest data from Allegheny County suggest that the racial profile of juveniles arrested for
delinquency has changed significantly over the past decade. Between 2000 and 2008, arrest rates in
5
Allegheny County declined 11% for white youth, but increased 65% for black youth. In fact, arrest rates
for white youth declined in most major offense categories over the period, with the exception of minor
increases in arrest rates for robbery (up 4%) and weapons law violations (up 3%). Generally, the
opposite was true for the arrest rates for black youth. Similar to white youth, black youth experienced
large declines in arrest rates for rape and motor vehicle theft, but their arrest rates increased for nearly
all other offense categories. For example, in the general offense category of assault, aggravated assault
and simple assault arrest rates declined for white youth (down 36% and 9%, respectively). Over the same
period, the aggravated assault arrest rate increased 59% for black youth and the simple assault arrest
rate increased 56%.
In 2000, black youth accounted for about one-third of juvenile arrests in Allegheny County; by 2008, they
accounted for just over half of juvenile arrests. As a result, the ratio of black-to-white arrest rates
increased from 2.2 in 2000 to 4.1 in 2008. The population-at-risk and its changing nature will present an
important factor for consideration when examining issues surrounding disproportionate minority contact
as it relates to the secure detention stage.
As one would expect, the changes in the racial profile of juvenile arrests at the county level were driven by
arrests in the City of Pittsburgh. Data reported to the PAUCR by the City of Pittsburgh police show that
black youth accounted for 59% of juvenile arrests in 2000, but by 2008 they accounted for 81%.
Juvenile court case processing statistics
The total number of delinquency cases handled in Allegheny County rose 13% from 2000 through 2008.
Not only did the caseload increase, but the composition of the caseload changed. In 2000, black youth
accounted for over one-half (53%) of juvenile court dispositions in Allegheny County; by 2008, they
accounted for nearly two-thirds (65%).
6
Table 5: Delinquency cases disposed, Allegheny County, 2008
Offense profile
Most serious alleged offense
Total
White
Black
Total
4,492
1,453
2,942
100%
100%
100%
Criminal homicide
0
0
0
Violent sex offense
1
1
1
Robbery
6
2
8
Aggravated assault
13
5
16
Simple assault
11
11
11
Nonviolent sex offense
1
1
1
Other person offense
5
6
4
Burglary
5
6
4
Theft
8
9
7
Arson
1
1
0
Vandalism/Criminal mischief
3
6
1
Trespassing
2
2
2
Fraud
1
1
1
Receiving stolen property
4
5
3
Drugs, Felony
5
4
6
Drugs, Misdemeanor
7
12
5
Weapons, in school
4
4
4
Weapons, not in school
3
1
3
Obstruction of justice
2
1
2
Disorderly conduct
3
2
3
Failure to comply with a lawful sentence
14
14
15
DUI
1
2
0
Other public order
1
2
1
Unknown
1
2
1
Data source: Pennsylvania Juvenile Delinquency Data Analysis Tool. Developed for the
Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges' Commission by the National Center for Juvenile
Justice, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Overall, aggravated assault cases accounted for 13% and simple assault accounted for 11% of
delinquency cases handled during 2008. Although there was no racial difference in the proportion of
simple assault cases, aggravated assault offenses were a greater proportion of cases among black
juveniles than among white juveniles (16% for blacks and 5% for whites). A similar pattern was seen for
weapons offenses. Whites and blacks had equal proportions of weapons in school cases, but blacks had a
higher proportion of weapons out of school. A different pattern was seen for drug offenses. Among black
juveniles, felony drug cases were 6% of all cases, compared with 4% for white juveniles. In contrast, less
serious misdemeanor drug cases were 12% of cases for whites and 5% of cases for blacks.
7
Use of Detention in Allegheny County
Shuman Juvenile Detention Center, Allegheny County
Shuman Detention Center is a locked facility in the City of Pittsburgh where young people are placed
while waiting for court hearings or waiting to be placed in a more permanent facility. Shuman Juvenile
Detention Center is the only secure detention facility serving Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Shuman
Juvenile Detention Center opened in December of 1974. The stated mission of the facility is to “provide
safe, secure custody and to promote the health and well-being of youths committed to its care.” The
mission of Shuman Center is pursued in accord with the Pennsylvania Juvenile Act and regulations
governing secure detention as set forth in 55 Pennsylvania Code Chapter 3760.
Shuman currently has a licensed capacity of 130 beds. [For several years in the late 1990s there were 36
additional beds available to house detained juvenile offenders in a separate juvenile “pod” at the county
jail. These jail pod beds were reserved for the most serious offenders.] The average occupancy rate for
Shuman Center over the 15 year period from 1995 through 2009 was 92%. The occupancy rate fluctuated
during the period from a low of 82% in 2004 to a high of 105% in 2007.
Shuman center occupancy rate
120%
100%
80%
60%
Average daily population/capacity
40%
20%
0%
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Shuman Detention Center is used to house youth when a young person is arrested on serious charges
such as robbery, aggravated assault, or burglary and poses a threat to the community. Shuman Detention
Center is also used when the youth commits a serious crime and is a threat to run and may not appear for
a court hearing. Under the Pennsylvania Juvenile Act, detention is to provide secure custody and
temporary care in a physically restricted, humane environment for alleged or adjudicated delinquent
youth awaiting court disposition or transfer to another jurisdiction or agency. In Pennsylvania,
delinquency is defined as any crime under federal, state, or local law except murder and select excluded
offenses (i.e., criminal offenses that are statutorily excluded from juvenile court jurisdiction), summary
offenses, and status offenses such as truancy, curfew violations, and running away. Pennsylvania’s
juvenile delinquency jurisdiction covers all youth ages 10 through 17, although jurisdiction can be
extended to age 21. Thus, Shuman Detention Center’s jurisdiction includes all youth living in Allegheny
8
County between ages 10 and 17, with extended jurisdiction to age 21. Shuman Detention Center can also
hold youth from outside of Allegheny County who are accused of committing an offense in the county or
those under court order.
According to the Shuman Detention Center website, “Once a youth is admitted to Shuman, they can
remain in Shuman for ten days. After the first hearing, youth will remain in the detention facility until a
more permanent placement is located. Shuman Detention Center is for temporary placements only.”
Pennsylvania criteria for detention admission
Admission to detention at Shuman is dependent on a number of legal and extralegal factors. Allegheny
County juvenile probation administrators identified a number of legal reasons for which a juvenile could
be brought to Shuman: a new charge, violation of probation, failure to appear, transfer for a hearing,
pending a placement, or as a sanction. In fact, the criteria for detention are spelled out quite thoroughly
under what are known in Pennsylvania as the Coleman standards.
Legal Factors. Coleman v. Stanziani was filed in 1981 as a Federal court class action challenging the
constitutionality of the Pennsylvania Juvenile Act's provisions on secure juvenile detention. In 1986, the
suit was settled via consent decree and standards were set for the use of secure detention. When the
consent decree expired in 1996, the Juvenile Court Judges Commission (JCJC) voted to adopt the Coleman
standards as the only approved standards for secure detention in Pennsylvania.
Circumstances under which secure detention can be authorized in counties outside of Philadelphia
include:
 The youth is alleged to have committed criminal homicide, rape or other violent sex offense,
robbery, aggravated assault, certain burglaries, terroristic threats, riot or causing/risking
catastrophe, felonious intimidation of or retaliation against witnesses or victims, used or
possessed a firearm during the crime, or used another deadly weapon during the crime.
 The youth is alleged to have committed a felony and is currently on probation or under consent
decree.
 The youth is alleged to have committed a felony and was found to be delinquent within the prior
18 months.
 The youth is alleged to have committed a delinquent offense and is currently on probation or
under consent decree for a felony.
 The youth is currently on probation or under consent decree for a felony offense and is alleged to
have twice violated the conditions of probation or other post-adjudication supervision.
 The youth has absconded or willfully failed to appear in court.
 At the juvenile’s request.
 Pending disposition if the youth was adjudicated for an offense that was eligible for detention or
placement of the youth is probable.
 Following disposition, pending transfer to placement the youth was adjudicated for an offense
that was eligible for detention.
9
 For a disposition review proceeding if the youth is in secure placement or the youth was returned
from placement for failure to adjust in placement.
 For exceptional circumstances (must include a statement of why non-secure alternatives were
rejected).
These standards effectively led to the closing of a number of secure detention centers around the state,
provided a model for consistency surrounding the decision to detain, and reduced the state detention
rate. Shortly following the adoption of the Coleman standards, Allegheny County instituted a policy that
required law enforcement agencies to contact Shuman Detention Center intake to determine the
juvenile’s detention eligibility before transporting youth to the facility. When a youth was arrested, the
police officer contacted Shuman Detention Center to speak with an intake probation officer. The police
officer explained the nature of the charges to the intake officer and the intake officer made a decision as to
whether or not the youth should be admitted to Shuman Detention Center. The intake officer used the
state established guidelines to make a decision but would also take into consideration the safety of the
victim and the community. If and only if the intake officer decided that the youth should be admitted to
detention, the police officer transported the youth to Shuman Detention Center. The change was intended
to ensure that all detention intakes adhere to the Coleman Standards. More recently, Allegheny County
Juvenile Probation implemented several detention alternatives (such as Youth Enrichment Services
(YES)/Rankin Christian Detention Diversion) in an effort to reduce the reliance on detention yet not
merely returning youth home unsupervised and sacrificing community protection.
However, until recently, most secure detention centers in Pennsylvania did not use a risk assessment
instrument to evaluate the decision to detain a youth. Beginning in mid-February 2008, Allegheny County
implemented a Detention Assessment Instrument adopted with some modifications from an instrument
developed and implemented by Berks County Juvenile Probation.
Extralegal Factors. The decision to request that a juvenile offender be detained at Shuman Detention
Center may also be influenced by extralegal factors: geographic (proximity to the detention center),
transportation (resources available to the arresting officer), or accessibility of/relationship to a parent or
guardian. These extralegal factors are more difficult to measure and are rarely collected intentionally in
court or probation management data systems. The impact of extralegal factors on the use of detention in
Allegheny is, thus, difficult to pinpoint, but several scenarios are likely.
 Geographic (proximity to Shuman Detention Center): Law enforcement officers from
municipalities that are farther away from Shuman may be less inclined to request that youth be
detained because of the inconvenience of having to transport the youth to the facility. Depending
on the time of day and traffic patterns, the drive to Shuman could take an hour from some
communities. This inconvenience factor may have an impact on all but the most serious cases.
 Transportation (resources available to the arresting officer): Law enforcement officers may
decide against requesting detention for some youth because of limited availability of vehicles to
transport youth to Shuman Detention Center. Challenging economic conditions have strained the
resources of many police agencies in the county. Some agencies may choose to drive less to reduce
fuel costs. Similarly, manpower resources may be limited in some agencies making it difficult to
spare an officer to escort a juvenile to Shuman. Some communities have reduced costs by
10
eliminating their police departments all together or sharing forces with a neighboring community.
Such resource factors may have an impact on the decision to request detention except in serious
cases.
 Availability of parents/guardians (release youth to the custody of a responsible adult): For
some segments of the youth population, parents may be less likely to be available to retrieve the
youth from police following an arrest. Single parents and parents who work multiple jobs or jobs
in positions where they can not readily take time off may not be able to go to the station to pick up
their child. If law enforcement cannot locate a parent to release the youth to, they may be more
inclined to request admission to detention. In wealthier suburban communities with a greater
proportion of two-parent families and parents in higher level positions, parents may be more
likely to be able to respond to their child’s phone call.
Each of these factors may have the impact of reducing the number of detention requests in the suburban
communities of Allegheny County and less impact in the City of Pittsburgh. To the extent that detention
requests are skewed toward the city’s disproportionately black youth population there will be a DMC
impact on detention admissions.
Available aggregate data on detention admissions
The Juvenile Court Judges’ Commission collects data on detention admissions reported by secure
detention facilities across the state. Between 2000 and 2007, Allegheny County averaged about 3,500
detention admissions each year. Comparing figures for detention admissions to the number of
delinquency cases in the county indicates that admissions are not directly dependent on the volume of
cases. Between 2003 and 2007 the volume of cases rose 25%, but admissions to secure detention fell 4%.
Number in Allegheny County
6,000
Delinquency cases
5,000
4,000
3,000
Secure detention admissions
2,000
1,000
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
The total number of admissions declined by nearly 19% between 2000 and 2007, however the patterns
varied considerably by race. Detention admissions for white youth were cut nearly in half during that
time period, while admissions for black youth fell just 4%. As a result, the contribution of black youth to
11
the racial profile of juveniles admitted to secure detention increased from 69% to 82%, by the end of the
period.
Allegheny County, new admissions to secure detention by race
3,000
Black
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
White
500
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Number and proportion of delinquency cases in which the juvenile was detained
The number of delinquency cases in Allegheny County in which the youth was detained during their case
processing dropped between 2005 and 2007 (17%). In comparison, the county’s overall delinquency
caseload rose (8%). The proportion of delinquency cases in Allegheny County in which the youth was
detained also declined (6 percentage points). Neither Pennsylvania or the United States as a whole saw
such declines in the likelihood of detention.
Table 6: Delinquency cases in which the youth was detained
between referral and disposition
Percent of cases
Number in
Allegheny County
Allegheny
County
Pennsylvania
United States
2005
1,142
27%
16%
22%
2006
1,157
26
16
23
2007
951
21
13
23
Data sources
Allegheny County and Pennsylvania data adapted from the "Pennsylvania Juvenile
Delinquency Data Analysis Tool." Developed for the Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges'
Commission by the National Center for Juvenile Justice, Pittsburgh, Pa.
United States data adapted from Sickmund, M., Sladky, A., and Kang, W. (2011). "Easy
Access to Juvenile Court Statistics: 1985-2008."
Although, the proportion of delinquency cases involving detention was greater for black youth than for
white youth, the decline in that proportion was similar for whites and blacks. Between 2005 and 2007,
12
the year prior to the implementation of the detention screening instrument in Allegheny County, the
likelihood of detention dropped 9 percentage points for blacks and 2 percentage points for whites.
Table 7: Percent of cases in Allegheny County in
which the youth was detained
Total
White
Black
2005
27%
16%
34%
2006
26
16
32
2007
21
14
25
Data source: adapted from the "Pennsylvania Juvenile Delinquency
Data Analysis Tool." Developed for the Pennsylvania Juvenile Court
Judges' Commission by the National Center for Juvenile Justice,
Pittsburgh, Pa.
13
Detention Best Practices
Detention Reform: the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative and Models for Change
Juvenile detention and detention alternatives are considered to be essential components of the juvenile
justice system and ideally should be developed in collaboration with the juvenile court and other system
partners. They are to be short-term solutions and appropriately assigned based on the level of risk posed
by the youth. Services must be appropriate and of high quality. The environments in which services are
provided should be safe and secure. In Pennsylvania, both detention and detention alternatives must be
consistent with the principles of balanced and restorative justice, community protection, competency
development, and accountability to victims and communities for harm caused. They should demonstrate
respect for individual rights and the dignity of youth. They should also be part of a continuum of positive
services and interventions for court-involved youth — detention should be considered a part of a process,
and not a place (Thomas et. al, 2003).
Since the early 1990s, the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI)
has worked to reduce the reliance on secure detention nationwide. JDAI is premised on the belief that
“youth are often unnecessarily or inappropriately detained at great expense, with long-lasting negative
consequences for both public safety and youth development” (JDAI website:
http://www.aecf.org/MajorInitiatives/JuvenileDetentionAlternativesInitiative.aspx).
The prime objectives of JDAI are:




To reduce unnecessary or inappropriate secure confinement of children
To reduce crowding and to improve conditions for children in secure detention facilities
To encourage the development of non-secure alternatives to secure juvenile confinement
To discourage failures to appear in court and subsequent delinquent behavior
Strategies to reduce the use of detention and the size of detention populations include: financial
disincentives, control of admissions, detention screening protocols, availability of alternatives to
detention, elimination of certain detention practices such as the use of detention as a sanction for postadjudication juveniles, and reduction of the time juveniles spend in detention. The strategies a particular
jurisdiction chooses may include some or all of the above (Thomas, et. al, 2003).
Juvenile Detention Risk Assessment
Detention risk screening is a fundamental strategy used to achieve these detention reform objectives. Risk
screening is the process of evaluating each arrested minor to determine the need for secure, locked
confinement. Ordinarily, risk screening occurs at a juvenile detention facility to which a youth is taken
after an arrest. However, risk screening can also be conducted outside of the detention center—for
example, by law enforcement officers in the field or even by telephone.
14
A basic tool used in the risk screening process is a detention risk assessment instrument. The risk
instrument is a written checklist of criteria that are applied to rate each minor for specific detentionrelated risks. The overall risk score is then used to guide the intake officer in making the critical decision
whether to detain or release an arrested youth. The screening tools are locally designed, and they vary in
scope and format from site to site. They are often point-scale instruments—assigning points for various
risk factors and then producing a total risk score indicating whether the youth is eligible for secure
detention, for a non-secure detention alternative program, or for release home.
When JDAI began, many detention facilities were crowded. Thus, reformers sought to control admissions
to detention facilities by adopting local, written detention criteria that were more focused than state
detention laws. These local criteria were designed to separate low-risk youth from higher-risk youth.
According to JDAI’s juvenile detention risk assessment guide (Steinhart, 2006), key principles behind
screening instruments are:
 Objectivity. Detention decisions should be based on neutral and objective factors rather than on
the screener’s subjective opinion about an individual youth. Objective criteria anchor detention
decisions in ascertainable facts such as the nature and severity of the offense, the number of prior
referrals, or the minor’s history of flight from custody.
 Uniformity. Local criteria should be uniform in the sense that they are applied equally to all
minors referred for a detention decision. To achieve the desired level of uniformity, the criteria
must be in a written (or electronic) format and must be incorporated into a screening process that
is standardized for all referrals.
 Risk-based. The criteria should be risk-based, meaning that they should measure specific
detention-related risks posed by the minor. These risks are: the risk of reoffending before
adjudication and the risk of failing to appear at a court hearing.
Intake assessment can be a useful tool for detention centers. Applying the assessment tool in a uniform
fashion helps to reduce subjectivity of the intake decision-maker. To create a fair assessment tool, several
principles should be kept in mind. To start, only proven risk factors should be considered. These include
things such as the nature of the juvenile’s offense or his or her referral history. Redundant risk factors
should be avoided, as they can lead to higher rates of detention due to higher assessment scores. Points
assigned should be balanced with decision and outcome scales. Mid-range alternatives to detention
(electronic monitoring, home detention, etc) should be available (Steinhart, 2006).
Risk instruments should be used at the point when the juvenile is either arrested or referred to the
detention center. This includes arrests for new charges, violations of probation, being apprehended or
surrendering on a warrant, being transferred from another facility, or failing to adjust in another facility.
All juveniles should be assessed, with the exception of those who were court-ordered into detention and
youths who had already been detained but left the facility for other care and have returned. The facility
will also need to determine if staff should do assessments manually or if an automated system should be
created. Automation is simpler and generally more accurate and would permit for integration into other
data systems, potentially allowing access to a minor’s referral and arrest history. The major downside of
automation is that it can be very costly. The center would also need to be sure that qualified persons are
making the data entry into the system, to avoid errors (Steinhart, 2006).
15
Successful manual instruments tend to be short —one to two pages — which makes them quick and easy
to fill out, low in complexity, and still sufficient to assess the juvenile. Risk factors and their point values
will also need to be decided. Core risk factors generally include the nature of the referral offense and the
juvenile’s delinquent history. Collateral risk factors encompass aggravating and mitigating factors—home
life, behavior, school record, gang involvement, etc. Crimes and violations should be collapsed into broad
categories in descending order of severity, with scores assigned based on the most severe offense. Any
prior arrests or adjudications should be rated on severity and recency. Prior escapes, failures to appear,
pending cases or petitions, and current legal/probation status should also be factored into the assessment
(Steinhart, 2006).
A decision or outcome scale will also need to be created. The cutoff score for detention should match the
point value that was assigned to the most serious offenses that would end in a juvenile automatically
being detained. If this score is too low, then juveniles who could benefit from an alternative will be
detained. It should be ensured that alternatives are in place before they are incorporated into the risk
instrument. Reasons for recommending an override to detention should be specific (danger to self, danger
to others, gang affiliation, etc). Release overrides should also be incorporated (Steinhart, 2006).
A list of common assessment override reasons should be compiled beforehand to help eliminate
subjectivity. Mandatory detention should be considered for specific offenses (such as ones involving
firearms), juveniles arrested on a warrant, juveniles failing a detention alternative, those who are being
held for transfer to another jurisdiction, or those who have been court-ordered to detention (Steinhart,
2006). These may be mitigated by age and mental capacity. Ideally, overrides would result in no more
than 15–20% of juveniles being eligible for release — anything higher than 25% could indicate a problem
with how detention is determined, be it misuse of the tool by staff or lack of parental cooperation to keep
the juvenile out of detention. Practices to reduce overrides include requiring very specific reasons to
override, mandatory supervisor approval, improving the responsiveness of parents, and making better
use of alternatives..
Once a draft instrument is completed, it should be checked for race and gender neutrality. Occasionally
factors such as community ties, gang affiliations, or lack of a capable guardian to look after the minor can
lead to disproportionate minority confinement by increasing the detention of black or Latino youth.
Gender disproportionality can occur in jurisdictions where emphasis is placed on detaining youth
involved in domestic violence situations or status offenses. Girls arrested for prostitution may be detained
multiple times if there are no intervention services for them (Steinhart, 2006).
After the instrument is constructed, field tests should be run with specific objectives in mind. A
prospective test is recommended, but a retrospective test can be conducted so long as all of the data
elements are supported. A minimum of 300 cases should be used to determine the baseline, and the study
should continue as long as is needed to collect this number. The sample should be comprised of all
referred and court-ordered minors. Other information that the test should include are: detention
outcomes, primary referral offenses, and the date and time of detention or release. Supplemental
documents, such as police reports and warrants, could be useful to assist in the analysis of the instrument.
If there is an old instrument to compare to, it can be put to the test at the same time as the new
instrument (Steinhart, 2006).
16
A number of reports should be generated from the field tests: the number or percentage of juveniles
detained or released, detention outcome by referral reason, detention outcome by score, overrides and
their rate, analyses of aggravating and mitigating factors, results of special and mandatory detention
decisions, how the old instrument compares to the new (if applicable), referral and detention outcomes
by race, and outcomes related to site-specific issues and objectives. Facility effects can also be analyzed by
examining the average length of stay by referral reason, the total number of detention days by referral
reason, and the annual estimated number of beds utilized by referral groups. These analyses help to
determine if there is an excess of certain offense groups being held in the center (Steinhart, 2006).
Results from these tests will aid facilitators in determining if there are problems arising from the use of
the instrument. For example, if detention rates seemingly increase, then the instrument could be failing to
reach the goal of lowering the number of juveniles admitted to detention, indicating that the points
assignment may need to be reworked. High override rates can indicate that override procedures are not
being properly understood or followed, or that alternatives to detention programs cannot handle the new
flow of juveniles with mid-range scores on the assessment. Continued or increased disproportionate
minority confinement can indicate problems either at the point of referral or detention decision time.
Disproportionate referral rates by race may be associated with law enforcement practices and
neighborhood or community factors which could contribute to higher arrest rates for minority youths.
Disproportionate detention rates by race for juveniles with same offenses could be stemming from either
a fault in the risk instrument or subjectivity by intake staff (Steinhart, 2006).
After conducting a field test, stakeholders will have to make a decision: should the instrument be inducted
without changes? Should the instrument be modified? Should the screening procedures related to the
instrument be modified? The report attached with the field test should indicate any changes that are
recommended to the instrument itself, and also explain why those changes would be beneficial. If changes
to the process need to be made, it will first have to be decided if these changes can be made in-house or
not. For example, if the problem lies within complying with override procedures, this is something the
instrument developers could adjust on their own. However, if the problems are occurring within case
processing or alternatives to detention, other committees or agencies may need to be involved. Process
changes should not necessarily delay the implementation of a new risk assessment. Once the instrument
itself has been deemed satisfactory it can be adopted, with allowances made for process changes that are
not yet in place, such as alternatives to detention (Steinhart, 2006).
Formal validation can be achieved via discrete, post-implementation measuring of success and failure
rates for screened and released children. A good measurement is the risk of committing a new offense
pending a court appearance and the risk of failure to appear over a specific period of time for released
juveniles. A failure rate less than 10% would indicate that the instrument is performing at an average
rate. A failure rate less than 5% would indicate that the instrument is performing above average. While
low rates are preferred, rates that are too low could indicate that the instrument is too restrictive. The
validation sample should consist of any minor who is placed on release or detention alternative status,
based upon risk score, over the chosen test period. Definitions of success and failure should be
determined ahead of time. Validation tests should be performed whenever a new instrument is
implemented or when new members are added to the jurisdiction (Steinhart, 2006).
17
It should be reiterated that this report describes the results of a test of the Detention Assessment
Instrument implemented by Allegheny County Juvenile Probation at Shuman Detention Center. This test
is to be distinguished from a formal validation study of the instrument. A formal validation study would
require data on outcomes for juveniles who are released at detention intake based on their risk scores.
Validation analyses would assess rates of failure (re-offending pending adjudication, failure to appear in
court) for released youth. Validation studies are normally done after the detention screening instrument
has undergone a general implementation test (like the current analysis). Although, it was initially hoped
that data would be available to conduct such a validation study, these data were not available in time to
support the needs of this report.
Summary of Berks County Detention Assessment Instrument Test
Steinhart studied Berks County’s locally developed Detention Assessment in 2008. According to Steinhart
(2008), overall, 80% of the juveniles in the Berks County study sample considered for detention were, in
fact, detained. Probation staff assigned 10% of juveniles to a detention alternative (e.g., shelter, electronic
monitoring). And another 10% were released outright, usually to their parents. Steinhart notes that, “The
overall detention rate is considered high when compared to other jurisdictions using state-of-the art
juvenile detention risk instruments” (2008). What Berks County calls mandatory holds (offenses or
referral reasons for which detention is mandatory) accounted for more than half of all secure detention
outcomes. Steinhart gives as examples of mandatory holds referrals for bench warrants, for placement
and program failures, and “zero tolerance” arrests for auto theft. For juveniles for whom mandatory holds
were not required, detention rates were high — exceeding two thirds of those considered for detention —
for all offense groups except misdemeanors (46% detained), probation violations (49% detained) and
consent decrees (27% detained).
On the Berks County instrument, the threshold score for secure detention was 15 points. Juveniles scoring
10 through 14 points were eligible for a detention alternative, and those scoring below 10 were to be
recommended for release. Juveniles referred for a mandatory hold reason were detained regardless of
their score. Probation screeners were advised to honor the minor’s risk score by choosing the appropriate
outcome on the decision scale, unless the screener elected to override the score. Screeners could override
the score by checking an aggravation reason listed on the instrument, triggering a more restrictive
outcome than the one suggested by the score. For youth with 15 or more points, screeners could override
down to a less restrictive result by checking a mitigation reason. For juveniles in the sample who did not
have mandatory holds, the total detain override rate was 40%. In other words, 40% of all youth whose
scores qualified them for release or for an alternative (0-14 points) were detained. JDAI considers that the
override rate should not exceed 20% of release-eligible youth. The Berks county result exceeded that
standard by a wide margin. The most frequent override (aggravation) reason cited by screeners in the
test was the unwillingness or unavailability of parents to provide supervision to their child.
The instrument assigned risk points for delinquent history factors such as current probation status, prior
adjudications or prior failures to appear in court. In view of the Berks County test results, the collateral
factors as deployed in the instrument appeared to be well designed. Additional points for historical risk
factors “boosted” about one-fourth of juveniles with offense scores below 15 over the detention
18
threshold. The instrument did a reasonable job of differentiating outcomes for probation violators; nearly
all youth referred as probation violators scored less than 15 points (qualifying for release or an
alternative). However, nearly one-third of the release-eligible violators were detained as overrides.
Mandatory holds, though, were the strongest driver of the total detention rate. The largest group of
mandatory holds consisted of minors referred on bench warrants (22%). The next largest “must detain”
group was made up of zero tolerance auto theft arrests (10%).
Berks County DMC findings
Detention rates. Detention rates were high for all racial-ethnic groups. White youth were detained in
75% of detention requests for all white youth, black youth were detained in 77% of detention requests
involving black youth, and Hispanic youth were detained in 84% of detention requests involving Hispanic
youth. The high detention rates across the board mean that there wasn’t really disproportionate minority
confinement. The higher Hispanic detention rate can be attributed to the zero tolerance auto theft policy.
If half of the Hispanic youth with mandatory auto theft overrides had been risk-screened and directed to a
detention alternative, the overall detain rate for Hispanic youth would have dropped to 77 percent—on a
par with results for other race/ethnic groups.
Rates of referral to detention. There was strong evidence of race and ethnic disproportionality in the
rates at which children were referred for detention decisions, compared to the racial-ethnic distribution
of youth age 10–17 in the Berks County population. The rate at which youth were apprehended and
referred to detention resulted in the proportion of Hispanic and black youth among those detained being
well in excess of their representation in the Berks County juvenile population ages 10 through 17.
Conversely, the proportion of detained youth who were non-Hispanic whites was less than half of their
proportion of the county youth population.
The Need for Alternatives to Detention
If in a jurisdiction the only choice for youth awaiting court hearings is secure detention or release home,
the use of detention is likely to be limited only by the number of available detention beds. The refrain
“Build it and they will come” from the movie Field of Dreams has often been used to refer to the fill-all-thenew-detention-beds phenomena experienced in many jurisdictions following the construction of a new
detention facility. Having additional options such as electronic monitoring, home detention, and even
shelters in place as alternatives to detention is key to controlling detention populations.
Detention alternatives developed in Allegheny County
Years prior to the implementation of the Detention Assessment Instrument at Shuman Detention Center,
Allegheny County Juvenile Probation developed and implemented several programs to reduce detention
stays and to provide alternatives to secure detention custody at Shuman Detention Center. Designed to
relieve crowding at the facility, these include home detention or electronic monitoring, Detention
Diversion program (Youth Enrichment Services (YES)/Rankin Christian), alternative living arrangement,
shelter care, and expedited court scheduling. Allegheny County has developed a broad array of detention
alternatives:
19
 Sanctioning. Youth referred for minor probation violations remain in the home detention
program for seven days and receive daily telephone calls, regular home visits, and weekly school
checks by home detention officers.
 Home detention. Youth are referred to this program by a judge or hearing officer and receive
daily telephone calls, regular home visits, and weekly school visits by home detention officers.
 Electronic monitoring. A judge or hearing officer refers youth to this program and the youth’s
locations are electronically monitored 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Any violations are subject to
revocation of monitoring privileges and readmission to secure detention.
 Detention diversion program. The program serves youth ages 10–14 who remain in their own
homes rather than in Shuman Detention Center. The program is a 24/7 monitoring and mentoring
program that offers juvenile offenders an alternative to detention. Program staff members
conduct school and home visits, monitor school attendance, make daily curfew calls, and arrange
academic support. The family action plans are designed to protect the child and the well being of
their community, decrease truancy, reduce recidivism and ensure that the family’s rules will be
adhered to throughout the duration of the program. Youth Enrichment Services (YES) operates
the program for City of Pittsburgh youth. Rankin Christian for a time served Allegheny County
youth who were outside the city, but no longer does so because of diminished demand.
 Academy Sanctions Program. The Academy Sanction unit is available to sanction juveniles for
probation violations. The sanction consists of overnight stays (up to 72 hours in a communitybased, non-secure, college-like environment) arranged by the probation officer. The Academy
Sanctions Program was implemented in the late 1990s to relieve facility crowding at Shuman. The
program generally has about 10 beds available for this purpose at any given time.
 Alternative living arrangement. Youth are housed in a residence other than their own home,
such as with a grandparent or other relative, or in a group home setting.
 Shelter care. Youth are placed in a non-secure residential facility, Hartman Shelter run by
Auberle, as an alternative to sanctioning at Shuman. Hartman also houses youth who were
initially admitted to Shuman and later moved to Hartman pending final disposition of their cases.
 Expedited court scheduling. Youth’s hearings are scheduled sooner, thus reducing the duration
of their detention stay.
 Other types of sanctions in lieu of secure detention. Whenever appropriate, probation officers
use other sanctions, such as, additional community service or house arrest (probation officer
monitored rather than electronic home monitoring staff monitored) rather than send offenders to
Shuman Detention Center.
Process for the Detention Screening in Allegheny County
Several categories of youth are relevant to the Detention Assessment Instrument and this study:
 Juvenile offenders screened and not admitted to Shuman Detention Center
 Juvenile offenders screened and admitted to Shuman Detention Center
 Juvenile offenders admitted to Shuman without screening: youth decertified from criminal court
to juvenile court, youth under court order, and youth on probation and detained as a sanction
 Juvenile offenders for whom law enforcement never requested admission to detention.
20
Youth in the first two groups are included in the study. Although the third and fourth groups have
substantial influence on the issues at hand, they are beyond the scope of the current analyses.
The Detention Assessment Instrument screening process is automated and involves first determining if a
youth is active or inactive in the Juvenile Court Management System (JCMS) and determining if any of the
mandatory overrides exist (see below). Next, intake staff completes and scores the assessment form
(which is pre-filled with JCMS information) and evaluates any aggravating and mitigating factors
surrounding the current detention referral. If no mandatory overrides apply, the assessment score will
indicate a decision. In some cases, aggravating or mitigating factors may trigger a discretionary override
by the probation officer to detain or not detain a youth. These discretionary overrides are documented
and require supervisory approval. If a youth meets the threshold for detention, but a detention
alternative is selected as the actual outcome, the alternative is also recorded in the instrument.
The Detention Assessment Instrument
The Detention Assessment Instrument used in Berks County was modified somewhat before it was
implemented in Allegheny County. (See the Appendix for a copy of the Allegheny County and Berks
County instruments.) Allegheny County Juvenile Probation applied the following mandatory overrides:







Firearm offense
Warrant
Detainer
Children Youth and Families (CYF) Attachment
Violation of Community Intensive Supervision Program/Electronic Home Monitoring (CISP/EHM)
Removal from Juvenile Court ordered placement for failure to adjust
New offense committed while on a home pass from a Juvenile Court ordered placement
This change removed/combined some of the mandatory overrides that were used in the Berks County
instrument that included the following mandatory hold reasons: 









Request for detention for any firearm offense
Bench warrant issued for failure to appear at a juvenile court delinquency hearing
Bench warrant issued for absconding from home
Bench warrant issued for absconding from a juvenile court ordered placement
Failure to report to the ACT Weekend Program without appropriate cause
Removal from juvenile court ordered placement for failure to adjust
New offense committed while on a home pass from a juvenile court ordered placement
Juvenile removes self from electronic monitoring
Judicial order (must specify type/nature of order)
If no mandatory override applies, the youth is scored on seven factors (for the full Detention Assessment
Test Instrument, see the Appendix):
21
Factor
Most serious alleged offense
Additional non-related felonies
Current alleged violations
Prior findings
Current supervision status
History of failure to appear within the past 12 months
History of absconding within the past 12 months
Points assessed
0 to 15
0 to 10
0 to 10
0 to 6
0 to 4
0 to 3
0 to 4
The aggregate score triggers a default recommendation based on the number of points accumulated for
all seven risk factors. A score of 15 or more makes the youth eligible for detention admission. However,
aggravating or mitigating factors allow for a discretionary override with supervisory approval either in
favor of or against detention. As such, the actual decision includes three options: secure detention (15
points or more), release (0–9 points), or detention alternative (10–14 points).
Detention alternatives available in Allegheny County and captured in the detention database include:
home detention or electronic monitoring, detention diversion program (Youth Enrichment Services
(YES)/Rankin Christian), alternative living arrangement, shelter care, expedited court scheduling, or an
“other, specified” option.
When a youth is admitted to Shuman Detention Center, the intake officer must schedule a detention
hearing within 72 hours. At this hearing, the probation officer states their recommendation to the hearing
officer who is empowered to make the final determination upon reviewing the merits of the
recommendation and the characteristics of the youth involved. [Risk scores are not required to be
presented at the hearing.] Outcomes of the detention hearing may include:
 The youth remains at Shuman. If the youth is detained at Shuman, the intake officer must file a
petition within 24 hours. The delinquency hearing must occur within 10 days of the filing of the
petition.
 The youth is released to a detention alternative. In some instances, the hearing officer will
impose a mid-level sanction for select youth. As previously discussed, several alternatives to
detention are available in Allegheny County.
 The youth is released to the parent’s control subject to home detention or electronic
monitoring. If the youth is released, the intake officer must file a petition within 24 hours. The
delinquency hearing usually occurs within 3 weeks of the filing of the delinquency petition.
 The youth is released to the parent’s control without conditions. If the youth is released, the
Shuman intake officer must file a petition. The delinquency hearing usually occurs within 2
months of the filing of the delinquency petition.
The current study counted youth detained at intake who were later released or sent to a detention
alternative as detained.
22
Study Design
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the Allegheny County Detention Assessment Instrument Study is to measure the postimplementation impact of the instrument. The study includes an analysis of multiple populations of youth
brought to/screened at detention intake: detained youth, youth placed in a detention alternative program,
and youth released.
Questions to answer
The study sample included youth who were detained, released, or placed on detention alternative status
based on the Detention Assessment Instrument between the beginning of March 2008 and the end of
February 2010. Descriptive statistics show the profile of referrals made to Shuman and answer the
following fundamental questions: How many requests for detention are made to Shuman Detention
Center? How well does the Detention Assessment Instrument inform the detention decision? To better
understand the instrument’s impact on detention rates and disproportional minority confinement,
analyses compare detention rates and offender profiles among different groups of youth and make
comparisons to a time period before the instrument was implemented.
About the Data
Data for the study documented the characteristics of youth for whom a screening was conducted for the
24-month period between March 2008 and February 2010. During this period, nearly 2,100 screenings
were conducted for nearly 1,940 youth. It must be noted that the sample encompasses two distinct
subgroups; the classification that follows is a result of the detention screening process utilized in
Allegheny County. When a youth is recommended for admission to Shuman Detention Center, one of the
early steps in the process is to determine whether the youth in question has had prior contact with the
juvenile court. In short, this process requires that intake staff search for the youth in the juvenile court’s
JCMS information system. If the youth has had prior contact with the court, most of the information
required for the detention assessment instrument can be pre-populated electronically based on existing
data. More than half (62%, N=1,291) of all assessments used in this study sample included youth with
prior juvenile court contact. For this group, Allegheny County provided NCJJ with the complete detention
assessment instrument data (See the Appendix for complete form used by Allegheny County).
Some youth who are recommended for detention have not had prior contact with the juvenile court, and
therefore are not be included in the JCMS information system. For these youth, the detention assessment
instrument was completed manually, i.e., completed and scored on paper by a probation officer. Once
complete, select details from the assessment instrument were recorded into a database, including, the
youth’s name, date of birth, assessment date, gender, race, the form score, the P.O’s recommendation, and
type of mandatory override (when applicable). In other words, specific data for each section of the form
was not stored electronically. As a result, the data used for this study includes some assessments
(N=1,291) with complete scoring details and some assessments with much less detail (N=807). Some of
23
the data presentations that follow only include information from the subset of assessments that involved
youth with complete detail, i.e., those with prior juvenile court contact.
Characteristics of the Study Sample
Data for the study documented the characteristics of youth for whom a screening was conducted for the
24-month period between March 2008 and February 2010. During this period, nearly 2,100 screenings
were conducted for nearly 1,940 youth As expected, the sample was predominantly male (80%). Youth
under the age of 14 accounted for 8% of the sample, while 6% of the sample included youth age 18 or
older. The majority of screenings (74%) involved youth ages 15 through 17. [See table 8 for a
demographic profile of the study sample.] Black youth accounted for nearly three-fourths (76%) of the
screenings, white youth accounted for another 20% of the screenings, and Hispanic youth accounted for
about 1% of all screenings during the study period. [Note: The race/ethnicity variable provided in the
detention screening database captured both attributes in a single variable, that is, race/ethnicity details
were presented in a single variable with the following categories: African-American, Anglo, Bi-racial,
Central American, Hispanic, Mexican, Mulato and Other/Unknown.]
Table 8: Demographic profile of sample
Total screenings
Age at screening
Under 14
Age 14
Age 15
Age 16
Age 17
Age 18+
Count
2,098
Percent*
100%
160
243
413
535
598
134
8
12
20
26
29
6
Gender
Male
Female
1,679
414
80
20
Race/Ethnicity
White
Black
Hispanic
Bi-racial
Other
422
1,580
11
30
6
20
76
1
1
<1
*Percents exclude missing data within demographic
groups
24
Results
Detention Outcomes Overall
Table 9 shows the volume and percent of the study sample who were recommended for detention, a
detention alternative, or release. Of the 2,100 screenings conducted during the 24-month study period,
1,556 were detained, for an overall detention rate of 74% of screenings. This detention rate for Allegheny
County is lower than the reported rate in the Berks County study (80%). Well over half (55%, 852 of
1,556) of those recommended for detention involved youth who presented factors that triggered
mandatory detention holds at the time of the screening. A detention alternative, such as shelter care, was
recommended for about 4% of the sample, while 22% were recommended for release.
Table 9: Detention outcomes
Total screenings
Detained
Detention Alternative
Not Detained
Count
2,098
1,556
75
467
Percent
100%
74
4
22
Once the decision to securely detain a youth has been reached, the court is required to conduct a
detention hearing within 72 hours of the admission decision. At this hearing, the probation officer
restates their recommendation to the hearing officer who is empowered to make the final determination
upon reviewing the merits of the recommendation and the characteristics of the youth involved. [The
hearing officer is not privy to the risk scores of those recommended for detention.] The hearing officer
can uphold the admission decision, order that the youth be released, or refer the youth to a detention
alternative, including (but not limited to) house arrest or electronic home monitoring,
In practice, detention admission decisions in Allegheny County are governed by the criteria espoused by
the Coleman standards. The implementation of the assessment instrument in February 2008 was not
intended to supplant the Coleman standards for deciding whom to detain. Rather, the assessment
instrument and concomitant risk scores serve as an additional tool that intake officers use when making
admission decisions.
Detention Outcomes by Offense
Table 10 presents detention outcomes by offense category for those youth how had prior contact with the
juvenile court and for whom completed detention assessment information was provided. Detention rates
were high (80% or greater) for four of the five offense categories represented on the assessment form.
Assessments of youth charged with a misdemeanor offense experienced the lowest detention rate (54%).
Detention alternatives were infrequent for this sample: 18 (1%) of all screenings resulted in a
recommendation for a detention alternative. Youth charged with “other” misdemeanor or “other” felony
offenses accounted for 16 of the 18 assessments resulting in a detention alternative. Recommendations
25
for release were more prevalent than detention alternatives (12% vs. 1%). Youth charged with “other”
misdemeanors (42%) were most likely to be recommended for release.
Table 10: Referral offense by detention outcomes for juveniles with prior cases
Points Offense Category
15
12
7
5
3
Screenings
Count Percent
Mandatory Holds
Total*
1,291
Cat A-Felony against person or firearm felony charge
22
Cat B-Felony drug charge
43
Cat C-Other Felonies
231
Cat D-Misdem. against persons or involve weapon
2
Cat E-Other Misdemeanors
203
No new charge
133
Firearm Offense
82
Warrant
479
Detainer
31
CYF Attachment
8
Remove from Court ordered placement-Fail. to adjust
56
New offense while on home pass from Court placement
1
100%
2
3
18
0
16
10
6
37
2
1
4
0
Detained
Count Rate
1,120
21
40
185
2
109
106
82
479
31
8
56
1
87%
95
93
80
100
54
80
100
100
100
100
100
100
Detention alternative
Count
Rate
18
0
0
7
0
9
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1%
0
0
3
0
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
Not Detained
Count Rate
153
1
3
39
0
85
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
12%
5
7
17
0
42
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
* Total includes information from completed assessments from the part of the
sample that had prior contact with the juvenile court.
Detention Outcomes by Risk Score
Table 11 presents summary risk scores for the sample, along with the final recommendation: secure
detention, detention alternative, or release. Overrides of scores — up to a more restrictive sanction and
down to a less restrictive sanction — are highlighted as well.
The Allegheny County Detention Screening Instrument was modeled after the form used in Berks County.
As with the Berks County instrument, a score of 15 points is the threshold for detention, i.e., the default
result for youth scoring 15 or more points is detention. Youth who score between 10 and 14 points are
eligible for a detention alternative while youth accumulating scores between 0 and 9 points are deemed
low risk and are eligible for release. Finally, discretionary overrides — “up” to a more restrictive sanction
or “down” to a less restrictive one — provide flexibility to the probation officer to make a
recommendation counter to the instrument so long as there is evidence of aggravating (to override “up”)
or mitigating (to override “down”) factors. Among this sample, the most common aggravating factor that
pushed a youth toward a more restrictive outcome was “parental inability/unwillingness to provide
appropriate supervision.” Conversely, the absence of a prior record was the most common mitigating
factor to shift the result toward a less restrictive outcome. (Overrides are discussed in more detail in the
next section).
26
Table 11: Screening scores by detain/release outcomes
Detained
Score or mandatory hold status
Detention
Alternative
Not Detained
Screened
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
2,098
1,556
74%
75
4%
467
22%
0 to 9 points
503
138
27
18
4
347
69
10 to 14 points
283
190
67
13
5
80
28
15 or more points (not a
mandatory hold)
Mandatory holds
460
852
376
852
82
100
44
0
10
0
40
0
9
0
Total
Legend
Override up (more restrictive result)
Override down (less restrictive
result)
About one-fourth (24%, N=503) of those screened received scores between 0 and 9 points. Of these lowrisk youth, more than two-thirds (69%, N=347) were recommended for release. The remaining youth
were overridden up to a more restrictive result: 27% (N=138) were overridden up to detention and 4%
(N=18) were overridden up to a detention alternative. A handful of detention alternatives in Allegheny
County are presented on the screening instrument, e.g., Youth Enrichment Services (YES)/Rankin
Christian Center, shelter care, alternative living arrangements, and house arrest. Seven of the nine youth
overridden up to detention alternative went to shelter care or the YES/Rankin Christian Center.
Another 13% (N=283) received mid-range scores between 10 and 14 points, rendering them eligible for a
detention alternative. However, about two-thirds (67%, N=190) of these youth were overridden up to
detention.
Overall, 786 youth received risk scores less than 15 points, making them eligible for a detention
alternative or release. More than four of every ten (44%, N=346) of these youth were overridden up to
secure detention.
A total of 1,312 screenings (63%) breached the threshold for detention, producing risk scores of 15 or
greater or for mandatory override reasons. A few of these youth (N=40) were not recommended for
detention. As expected, nearly all of these high-risk youth were recommended for detention: 100% of
those exhibiting mandatory detention factors and 82% of those with risk scores of 15 or greater.
Overrides
An override is a decision that runs counter to the recommendation associated with one’s risk score. For
example, the default recommendation for a youth with a risk score between 10 and 14 is detention
alternative. If, however, the probation officer completing the form identifies aggravating or mitigating
factors, the actual recommendation can deviate in the appropriate direction: “up” if aggravating factors
are present, “down” if mitigating factors are present. The screening form in Allegheny County includes
27
several mandatory detention categories, e.g., existence of a warrant, or a referral involving a firearm
offense. As noted by Steinhart (2008), however, mandatory detention reasons are not traditional
overrides since they do not evoke the discretion afforded to the intake officer to recommend an outcome
that runs counter to the detention outcome associated with a youth’s risk score group.
Overrides up to more restrictive outcomes
As noted in Table 12, a total of 786 screenings produced risk scores less than 15 on the assessment
instrument (and were not eligible for a mandatory hold). Based on risk scores alone, these youth were
eligible for alternatives to detention or release. Among the sample, 328 (42%) of these youth were
recommended for detention. The detention override up rate found in Allegheny County is nearly identical
to the rate reported for the Berks County (40%) implementation test, which itself was considered high
compared to standards promulgated by the Casey Foundation’s Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative
(JDAI) (Steinhart, 2008). Another 18 youth receiving risk scores less than 10 were nevertheless
recommended for a detention alternative rather than release. Ultimately, the total override up rate for
this sample was 46% (346 of 786 assessments were recommended for a more restrictive sanction than
otherwise indicated by their risk score).
As noted previously, evidence of aggravating (or mitigating when overriding “down”) factors are required
to support discretionary override decisions. No such information was provided for the subset of the
sample that did not have prior court contact, and reporting was incomplete for the larger subset that did
have prior contact. From this larger group, 144 of 286 overrides up included aggravating factors reported
on the assessment form. The lone reported aggravating factor was the inability or unwillingness of a
parent to provide appropriate supervision.
Table 12: Overrides to more restrictive outcomes (overrides "up") by risk score group
(Youth scoring less than 15 points and no mandatory hold)
Detention
Alternative
Detained
Total Overrides Up
Screened
Count
Override
(up) rate
Total
786
328
42%
31
4%
346*
46%
0 to 9 points
503
138
27
18
4
156
31
10 to 14 points
283
190
67
13
5
190
67
Risk score group
Count
Override
(up) rate
Count
Override
up rate
*346 overrides "up" based on 328 overrides up to detention with risk scores less than 15 and 18 overrides up to
detention alternative with risk scores less than 10.
Overrides down to less restrictive outcomes
A total of 743 screenings produced risk scores associated with detention or a detention alternative.
Among those with risk scores between 10 and 14 points (N=283), 80 (28%) were overridden down to
release. Additionally, of the 460 with risk scores of 15 or greater (excluding those with mandatory hold
reasons), 40 (9%) were likewise overridden down to release and another 44 (10%) were overridden
down to a detention alternative. As such, the total override down rate for this sample was 23% (173 of
28
743 assessments that were recommended for a less restrictive sanction than otherwise indicated by their
risk score).
As was the case with aggravating factors accompanying overrides up, information regarding the
mitigating factors to support discretionary overrides down were not always reported. No such
information was provided for the subset of the sample that did not have prior court contact, and reporting
was incomplete for the larger subset that did have prior contact. From this larger group, just 13 of the 43
overrides down included mitigating factors on the assessment form. The lone reported mitigating factor
was that the youth did not have a prior record.
Table 13: Overrides to less restrictive outcomes (overrides "down") by risk score group
(Youth qualifying for secure detention or a detention alternative based on score)
Detention
Not Detained
Alternative
Screened
Count
Override
(down) rate
Count
Total
743
120
16%
10 to 14 points
283
80
28
15 or more points (no
mandatory hold)
460
40
9
Risk score group
Total Overrides Down
Override
(down) rate
Count
Override
(down) rate
53
7%
173
23%
13
5
80
28
44
10
84
18
Race/Ethnicity (DMC) Results
As noted in Table 8 on page 24, black youth accounted for three-fourths (76%) of the sample, white youth
accounted for 20%, and youth of Hispanic ethnicity accounted for about 1% of all assessments;
race/ethnicity information was unknown or missing for 3% of the sample. The racial/ethnic composition
of the sample is consistent with the profile of detention admissions in Allegheny County. Table 14 details
the screening and detention outcomes for black youth and white youth (given that just 10 assessments
involved Hispanic/Latino youth, they are excluded) based on the subset of the sample that provided
complete assessment instrument information. For each racial group, the detention rate reflects the
percent of youth recommended for detention relative to the total number of assessments conducted.
29
Table 14: Screenings and detentions by offense and race/ethnicity for juveniles with prior cases
Points Offense Category
15
12
7
5
3
Mandatory Holds
Total
Cat A-Felony against person or firearm
felony charge
Cat B-Felony drug charge
Cat C-Other Felonies
Cat D-Misdem. against persons or
involve. weapon
Cat E-Other Misdemeanors
No new charge
Firearm Offense
Warrant
Detainer
CYF Attachment
Remove from Court ordered placementFail. to adjust
New offense while on home pass from
Court placement
White Youth
Total
Screenings
Detained
Screenings Count Percent Count
Rate
1,291
254
20%
22
43
231
0
6
36
0
14
16
2
203
133
82
479
31
8
0
49
36
5
98
8
2
56
1
217
Black Youth
Screenings
Detained
Count Percent Count
Rate
85%
993
0
5
28
0
83
78
22
34
184
0
24
27
6
20
26
25
0
26
31
5
98
8
2
0
53
86
100
100
100
100
14
25
14
0
0
0
77%
865
87%
100
79
80
21
32
149
95
94
81
2
151
92
75
364
21
7
100
74
69
91
76
68
75
2
82
71
75
364
21
6
100
54
77
100
100
100
100
100
41
73
41
100
0
1
100
1
100
* Total includes information from completed assessments from the part of
the sample that had prior contact with the juvenile court.
Summary of Table 14:
 Screening rates: The racial composition of the sample is the inverse of the Allegheny County
residential youth population ages 10 through 17. Non-Hispanic white youth accounted for 76% of
all county residents ages 10 through 17 in 2008 and 2009, but represented 20% of those
screened. Conversely, black youth accounted for 20% of county residents ages 10 through 17 in
2008 and 2009, but accounted for 76% of the sample.
 Detention rates: Overall, detention rates were comparable for white and black youth (85% and
87%, respectively). Thus, although blacks outnumber white youth by a factor of nearly 4-to-1 in
this sample, the risk of detention was nearly identical between these groups. In Relative Rate
Index (RRI) terms, the ratio between black and white youth detention rates measures out to 1.02
— a ratio surprisingly consistent with that found in the Berks County implementation test.
 Although not shown, it is worth point out that, among the subset of the sample that did not have
prior court contact (and for whom less detail was provided), the likelihood of detention for white
and black youth was much lower, 49% and 57%, respectively, than the subset that did have prior
court contact (as shown in Table 14). This likely speaks to the low-risk nature of this group: of
those with no prior court contact, 51% of the assessments involving white youth and 43% of the
assessment involving black youth received scores less than 10, rendering them eligible for release.
These results do not provide evidence of disproportionality regarding detention admission decisions.
Rather, the disparity worth noting involves those youth for whom detention admissions are
requested, i.e., those who are referred to the Allegheny County Detention Center. In practice, these
30
referrals often emanate from other juvenile justice system agents, such as members of the law
enforcement community, who initiate most detention admission requests. Probation officers are
charged with deciding on such requests objectively and consistently. Risk scores from the detention
assessment instrument as well as the Coleman standards are equally used to inform the probation
officer’s final decision.
31
Discussion and Recommendations
In light of Allegheny County’s strict adherence to the state’s Coleman standards for more than two
decades prior to the implementation of the Detention Assessment Instrument, it is understandable that
law enforcement no longer request detention for youth who are not eligible under the state standards. In
a perfect world, only appropriate requests for detention would be made — the resulting detention rate
would be 100% of requests. However, the Coleman standards set criteria for which juvenile offenders can
be detained, not which juvenile offenders must be detained. The graphs below show that Allegheny
County has made great strides in reducing its use of detention—efforts that began well before the
implementation of the Detention Assessment Instrument, the Models for Change initiative, or the Juvenile
Detention Alternatives Initiative. As Allegheny County joins the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative
as a participating jurisdiction, the county will no doubt rethink the issue of who must be detained.
Shuman center occupancy rate
120%
100%
80%
Average daily population/capacity
60%
40%
20%
0%
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Percent of cases in which the youth was detained
Percent of cases in which the youth was detained
30%
40%
35%
25%
United States
30%
Allegheny
County
20%
25%
Black
20%
15%
Pennsylvania
15%
10%
White
10%
5%
5%
0%
0%
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
In rethinking which juvenile offenders must be detained, it may be useful to give separate attention to
offenders considered for detention because of one or more new offenses and those already under
probation supervision who are brought to detention as a sanction for a violation, absconding, failure to
adjust in placement, or failure to appear. These two groups of offenders present different issues and their
placement in a secure detention facility generally serves somewhat different purposes. Although the use
of detention centers for post-adjudication is frowned upon in some circles, Allegheny County probation
32
officials consider short-term placement at Shuman Detention Center an important sanctioning tool that
helps reduce placements in long-term secure juvenile correctional facilities.
Warrants. The largest volume of juvenile offenders detained were those held because of mandatory
overrides resulting from a warrant. We recommend that Allegheny County distinguish the various types
of warrants on their screening instrument and readdress the issue of whether every type of warrant is a
must detain. Berks County’s screening form distinguished three types of warrants: failure to appear,
absconding from a court ordered placement, and absconding from home.
If a substantial proportion of warrants are failure to appear warrants, Allegheny County might consider
implementing strategies to reduce failures to appear. Other jurisdictions have taken a wide range of steps
to ensure that juvenile offenders show up at their court hearings:
 Reducing case processing time: so the time between arrest and adjudication hearing is reduced.
 Reminder cards: to remind youth and their parents of hearings that were scheduled more than a
week in the future.
 Transportation assistance: providing fare passes for public transportation or assistance arranging
other transportation can minimize transportation obstacles that lead to failure to appear.
 Escorts: volunteers who will go to court with youth whose parents are unable to accompany their
children to court.
 Drug testing as a condition for release: regular clean drug tests are a condition of release and
minimize drug use while awaiting hearings thus reducing failure to appear rates.
Consideration might be given to assigning points to absconding from home rather than having it be a
reason for mandatory detention. Additional points could be given for more than one such event. Any
points given for absconding from home, of course, would be combined with other points accumulated on
the screening form, such that some youth would likely surpass the detention threshold based on a
combination of absconding and other factors.
Failure to adjust. Allegheny County has for several years been working to reduce the frequency with
which juvenile offenders, particularly minority youth, fail to adjust in placement. Continuing these efforts
is key as is understanding the reasons why youth fail and developing strategies to better match juveniles
to programs. This may require modifications to existing programs or development of new programs.
Discretionary overrides. The only discretionary override recorded in the study sample was the inability
or unwillingness of a parent to provide appropriate supervision. This may be another candidate for
further discussion. For youth considered for detention for new charges, allowing a responsible adult other
than the youth’s parents (a grandparent, other relative, or neighbor) to take responsibility might allow
some youth to be appropriate for a detention alternative. The data do not provide much information to
really understand these overrides. Some of these may arise from situations where parents think that a
trip to Shuman will “teach their child a lesson.” Other circumstances may involve parents unable to
provide adequate supervision because of their work schedules. In some instances the youth’s parents may
themselves be incarcerated. Depending on which circumstances are more common, it might be
worthwhile to attempt to develop some strategies to reduce the frequency with which parents are unable
33
or unwilling to provide adequate supervision or to develop suitable detention alternatives for those youth
who do not warrant an override for posing a significant risk to community safety.
Continued Study—Continued Discussion
The number of juveniles not admitted to detention is sufficient to support a validation analyses; having
data to satisfy skeptics that community safety was not jeopardized by the decision not to detain would be
very useful. There were 467 juvenile offenders released to their parents and 75 assigned to a detention
alternative. The fewer of them that failed to appear in court or committed another offense while waiting
for their hearing, the better. Not knowing only leaves room for speculation and anecdote.
It would also be useful to gather the additional data necessary to determine the extent to which the court
“overrides down” at the detention hearing. If that happens with any frequency, it will be important to
understand why the decision to detain is reversed. Such understanding could be used to “recalibrate” the
Detention Assessment Instrument.
Continued monitoring of the application of the Detention Assessment Instrument is very important. The
implementation thus far has not had the full weight of policy, and as such is susceptible to
implementation errors. It is recommended that Allegheny County develop an output report to summarize
the screening data over a particular time period, including the overall detention decision outcomes,
outcomes by offense groups, race and collateral factors, and use of mandatory and discretionary
overrides (both up and down). It would also be useful to record the name of the individual making the
request/order to detain as part of the collection of screening data. It is further recommended that
screening data be collected on all juvenile offenders considered for admission to Shuman Detention
Center even if the court is ordering the detention. This output report should be reviewed by Shuman
Detention Center intake and other probation staff, the director of juvenile court services, and other key
decision-makers. Having data on all the youth will also inform future discussion of which juveniles must
be detained within the Coleman standards regarding which juveniles can be detained.
34
References
Chung, H.L., Little, M., and Steinberg, L. (2005). “The transition to adulthood for adolescents in the juvenile
justice system: A developmental perspective.” in On Our Own Without a Net: The Transition to
Adulthood for Vulnerable Populations, Osgood, D.W., Foster, E.M., Flanagan, C., and Ruth, G.R.
(Eds.), University of Chicago Press.
Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges' Commission. 2011. Pennsylvania Juvenile Delinquency Data Analysis
Tool. Developed for the Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges' Commission by the National Center
for Juvenile Justice, Pittsburgh, PA.
Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges' Commission. 2011. Disproportionate Minority Contact: Relative Rate
Index Data [machine-readable data files].
Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges' Commission. Annual Reports for the years 1995 through 2009.
Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges’ Commission.
Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges’ Commission. 2008. Pennsylvania Juvenile Delinquency Benchbook.
Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges’ Commission.
Shuman Juvenile Detention Center website http://www.alleghenycounty.us/SHUMAN/index.aspx
Steinhart, D. 2008. Berks County, Pennsylvania Juvenile Detention Risk Assessment Instrument Test May 1
Through December 31, 2007: Test Results And Recommendations. Reading, PA: Berks County
Juvenile Probation Office.
Steinhart, D. 2006. Juvenile Detention Risk Assessment: A Practice Guide to Juvenile Detention Reform.
Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation.
The Academy Schools website http://www.theacademyschools.com/
Thomas, D., Zawacki, S., Torbet, P., and Bozynski, M. 2003. Final Report: Pennsylvania Juvenile Detention
Assessment Project. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.
Youth Enrichment Services website http://youthenrichmentservices.org/diversion-2000/
35
Appendix: Detention Assessment Instruments
Allegheny County Juvenile Probation — Detention Assessment Test Instrument
Berks County Juvenile Probation — Detention Assessment Test Instrument
36
Allegheny County Juvenile Probation – Detention Assessment Test Instrument
Juvenile’s Name:
Gender:
Race:
M
White
DOB:
F
Ethnicity:
Black/Af. American
Asian
Screening Date:
Caselog #:
Hispanic/Latino
Non Hispanic/Latino
Am. Indian/Alaskan Native
Hawaiian/Pac. Islander
Other (
)
PO Completing Form:
If the override is appropriate, you must fill in the type/reason.
Mandatory Overrides (must be detained):
Firearm offense
Warrant
Detainer
CYF Attachment
Violation of CISP/ EHM
Removal from Juvenile Court ordered placement for failure to adjust
New offense committed while on a home pass from a Juvenile Court ordered placement
Factor (CHOOSE ONLY ONE ITEM PER FACTOR)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
SCORE
Most Serious Alleged Offense (see instruction sheet for examples)
Category A: Felonies against persons or felony firearm charge ................................................... 15
Category B: Felony drug charge…Intent to Deliver (significant amount) ................................... 12
Category C: Other felonies............................................................................................................. 7
Category D: Misdemeanors against persons or involving weapon ................................................. 5
Category E: Other misdemeanors .................................................................................................. 3
No new charge ................................................................................................................................. 0
Specify charge:
Additional non-related charges (this referral) or pending charges (see instructions)
Two or more additional felonies ..................................................................................................... 10
One additional felony ....................................................................................................................... 7
One or more additional misdemeanors ............................................................................................. 5
No additional current or other pending charges ................................................................................ 0
Specify charge(s) and whether now or pending:
Current Alleged Violations
Multiple violations of electronic monitoring .................................................................................. 10
Violations of Official Probation ....................................................................................................... 5
Violations of Consent Decree ........................................................................................................... 5
No current violations ........................................................................................................................ 0
Prior Findings
Two or more prior findings for felonies ........................................................................................... 6
One prior finding for a felony ........................................................................................................... 4
Two or more prior findings for misdemeanors ................................................................................. 3
Two or more prior findings for probation violations ........................................................................ 2
One prior finding for a misdemeanor ............................................................................................... 1
No prior findings .............................................................................................................................. 0
Current Supervision Status
Aftercare (2 months following JPO placement release) ................................................................... 4
Official probation/Consent Decree based on (mark one) felony or misdemeanor ........................... 3
Official probation on other offenses; deferred disposition/supervision
(specify whether:
Probation/Consent Decree
Deferred Disposition) .................................. 2
Extended Service .............................................................................................................................. 1
None of above ................................................................................................................................... 0
History or Failure to Appear (within past 12 months)
Two or more warrants for failure to appear in past 12 months ......................................................... 3
One warrant for failure to appear in past 12 months......................................................................... 1
No warrants for failure to appear in past 12 months ......................................................................... 0
History of Escape/Runaway (within the past 12 months)
One or more instance of run from secure confinement or custody ................................................... 4
One or more instances of run from non-secure, court-ordered placement ........................................ 3
One or more runaways from home or voluntary placement ............................................................. 1
No escapes/runaways in past 12 months ........................................................................................... 0
Total Score
37
Allegheny County Test DAI, page 2
Caselog #:
Date:
Discretionary Override (with Supervisory Approval only):
Override to detain for aggravating factors (override to more restrictive placement than indicated by guidelines)
Override to release for mitigating factors (override to less restrictive placement than indicated by guidelines)
Approved by:
When applying aggravating or mitigating factors, please check the primary factor below that impacted your decision.
Common Aggravating / Mitigating Factors
Aggravating
Mitigating
Parent unable/unwilling to provide appropriate supervision
Juvenile poses a significant risk to community safety
Juvenile has significant substance abuse problem
or tested positive for multiple drugs
Juvenile has a history of violence in the home or
against family members
Juvenile poses a significant threat to abscond based
on out of county residence
Juvenile poses a significant threat of failure to appear
Other (specify):
Parent willing/able to provide appropriate supervision
Juvenile has no prior record
Juvenile marginally involved in the offense
Offense less serious than indicated by the charge
New charge referred is not recent
Juvenile is 14 years or younger
Juvenile regularly attends school/work
Other (specify):
When a score of 15 or more is documented and a detention alternative is selected as the actual outcome, specify the alternative:
Detention Alternative Selected
YES/Rankin Christian Center Detention Diversion
Expedited court scheduling
Alternative living arrangement
Shelter Care
ACTUAL DECISION:
RELEASE
Home Arrest
Other (specify):
DETENTION ALTERNATIVE
SECURE DETENTION
Screener Comments (if any):
38
40