juvenile probation annual report - Fifth Judicial District of Pennsylvania

2012
JUVENILE PROBATION
ANNUAL REPORT
Russell Carlino
Administrator/
Chief Probation Officer
Kathryn M. Hens-Greco
Administrative Judge
Allegheny County Juvenile Probation
-At A GlanceStaff
Number of Probation Officers:
 Community Based
37
 School Based
33







16
9
6
5
2
1
1
Intake/Investigation
Specialty (SSU/D&A)
CISP
YLS
Warrant
Provider Liaison
Training
Total
110
Number of Assistant Chief Probation Officers and Supervisors: 32
Total Number of Juvenile Probation Staff: 285
Number of Hearing Officers: 4
Number of Family Division Judges: 15
As of December 31, 2012
Number of juveniles under Court Supervision: 2,973
Average for one day in 2012
Number of Juveniles in Placement
 Private Providers
255
 State Placements
23
 Shuman Detention Center
64
Totals for 2012
Total number of Juvenile Probation Referrals: 4,156
Total Amount of Restitution and Fines Collected: $367,048
Allegheny County Population
Allegheny County Total Population: 1,223,348
Allegheny County Juvenile Population (ages 10 to 19 years): 148,331
(Source: US Census Bureau 2010)
Table of Contents
Mission Statement ....................................................................................... 1
Introduction: ................................................................................................. 2
Juvenile Probation Statistics ...................................................................... 6
Referral History ............................................................................................................ 6
Referrals to Juvenile Probation .................................................................................... 7
Shuman Center for Secure Detention .......................................................................... 9
Detention Hearings .................................................................................................... 10
Alternatives to Detention ............................................................................................ 11
Hartman Shelter ......................................................................................................... 11
Electronic Home Monitoring / Home Detention .......................................................... 12
Youth Enrichment Services (YES) ............................................................................. 13
Dispositions of Police Reports.................................................................................... 14
Probation Officers ...................................................................................................... 15
Special Services Unit (SSU) ...................................................................................... 17
Drug and Alcohol Unit ................................................................................................ 18
JJSES (Juvenile Justice System Enhancement) Unit ................................................ 19
Community Intensive Supervision Program (CISP).................................................... 20
The Academy / Vision Quest Day/Evening ................................................................ 21
Private Placement Services ....................................................................................... 22
State Placements ....................................................................................................... 23
Warrant Unit ............................................................................................................... 24
Educational Specialist-Aftercare Initiative .................................................................. 25
The Truancy Prevention Program .............................................................................. 26
WorkBridge ................................................................................................................ 27
Victim Services........................................................................................................... 28
Case Closing Information ........................................................................................... 29
Expungements ........................................................................................................... 30
Financial Information .................................................................................................. 31
Judicial Overview ....................................................................................... 32
Judicial Assignments.................................................................................................. 32
Delinquency Petitions ................................................................................ 33
Ancillary Petitions ...................................................................................... 34
Act 53 ......................................................................................................................... 34
2012 Special Events/Activities/Projects/Committees .............................. 35
Organizational Chart .................................................................................. 42
Mission Statement
Allegheny
The County
MissionJuvenile
of the Probation
Department
The Mission
of the
Allegheny
County
Juvenile
AlleghenyProbation
County Juvenile
Probation Depart
Department
To reduce and prevent juvenile crime;
promote and maintain safe communities;
and improve the welfare of youth and families who are
served by the court.
The principal beliefs supporting the Mission are:
That the disposition of juvenile offenders always takes into account the best
interest of public safety.
That juvenile offenders be held accountable for the harm they cause to
individuals as well as the community at large.
That the primary objective of treatment is to improve and develop the juvenile
offender’s competency skills.
That community residents and organizations be actively engaged by the court in
a cooperative effort to seek solutions to juvenile crime.
That excellence in the quality of court services requires sensitivity to the racial,
ethnic, and cultural diversity of the client population.
That victims are an integral part of the justice system and should have their
rights protected during all phases of the court proceedings including the right to
be heard, notified, and restored.
Page1
2012 Juvenile Probation
Annual Report
Introduction:
Balanced and Restorative Justice remains the mission and legislative mandate of the
Juvenile Probation Department. Since the mid-1990s, the Department has been
focused on protecting the community, restoring victims and communities, and
developing the competency skills of juvenile offenders.
The Department is currently in the third year of a comprehensive effort aimed at
improving outcomes for each of these goals. The initiative, known statewide as the
Juvenile Justice System Enhancement Strategy (JJSES), emphasizes evidence-based
practices and structured decision making at every key decision point in the juvenile
justice process.
The Department’s risk/needs instrument, the Youth Level of Service (YLS), and Case
Plan are now fully integrated into our daily operation. The YLS measures a youth’s risk
to re-offend and identifies factors related to offending behavior, such as
attitudes/orientation, personality/behavior, peer relations, family circumstances, and
substance abuse among others. Current policy mandates that the YLS be conducted at
the intake level. The results of the YLS help the probation officer decide whether to
adjust the case informally or file a petition and schedule a formal Court hearing. In
addition, the results of the YLS are incorporated into both the pre-disposition report
presented in Court and the Case Plan prepared by the probation officer outlining the
supervision and evidence-based programming requirements for the juvenile while under
Court supervision.
The Case Plan also includes case-specific competency
development goals that help the juvenile advance toward law-abiding and productive
citizenship.
In 2012, the Department conducted over 1,500 YLS assessments. The risk levels for
those cases are as follows: 31% were low risk; 60% were moderate risk; and 9% were
high risk.
Page 2
A central tenet of our Balanced and Restorative Justice mission is to ensure that
juveniles are held accountable to repair the harm they have caused individual victims
and the community at large. Toward that end, in 2012, probation officers oversaw the
collection of over $366,264.61 in total dollars, approximately $206,037.50 of which went
directly to victims as restitution for crimes committed; $33,966.28 went to the Victim
Compensation Fund; and nearly $23,814.78 was directed to the Stipend Fund—money
collected on Failure to Comply charges certified from the Magisterial District Justices
that eventually is paid to victims owed restitution.
In accordance with §6352 of the Juvenile Act (relating to Disposition of delinquent child),
when the Court orders restitution, fines, costs, and fees ―…the Court shall retain
jurisdiction until there has been full compliance with the order or until the delinquent
child attains 21 years of age.‖ As evidenced by the impressive dollar amounts noted
above and consistent with the Juvenile Act, probation officers work diligently to collect
ALL outstanding restitution and other monies ordered by the Court. No case is
recommended for closing until all monies are collected in full or the juvenile turns 21, at
which time the outstanding balance is indexed as a judgment with the Department of
Court Records.
Of the 1,826 juveniles whose cases were closed in 2012, 74% satisfied their restitution
obligations in full. Much of this success stems from the probation officers’ persistent
attention to restoring victims.
Juvenile Probation remains an active participant in the Pittsburgh Initiative To Reduce
Crime (PIRC), a multi-agency and community collaboration aimed at reducing
homicides and gun crimes in the city of Pittsburgh. PIRC is a joint effort that includes
the Pittsburgh Police Department, Juvenile Probation, Adult Probation, State Parole,
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (ATF), Federal Probation, and other
law enforcement agencies. The initiative identifies high-risk juveniles and adult
offenders, putting them on notice that continued violence will not be tolerated. In
addition, PIRC includes a service delivery team comprised of Goodwill Industries and
other community agencies that offer programming and pathways out of gang activities
for juvenile and young adult offenders. Juvenile probation officers also participate in
periodic PIRC sweeps to apprehend those who violate conditions of supervision or
commit additional crimes.
This summer juvenile probation staff once again volunteered their services at the annual
Allegheny County Music Festival held at Hartwood Acres. Private donations raised via
the Music Festival are used to help delinquent and dependent youth in Allegheny
County participate in a variety of cultural, educational, and recreational activities that
would otherwise be unavailable to them. The Music Festival serves an innovative
model for jurisdictions across the nation. Harvard University named the Allegheny
County Music Festival Fund as one if its ―Bright Ideas‖ as part of its American
Government Awards Program. The Music Festival has raised more than $500,000 over
the years, benefitting more than 2,300 at risk youth.
The Governor declared the first week of October as Juvenile Justice Week. Juvenile
Probation sponsored numerous events throughout the week to highlight our
Page 3
commitment to the citizens of Allegheny County. The week’s events included
workshops at the Courthouse for students from several area high schools and an
awards ceremony recognizing key contributions and achievements of juveniles, parents,
and probation staff. In addition, approximately $766 was collected and donated to the
Stipend Fund for victims.
Allegheny County Juvenile Court remains one of twelve Model Delinquency Courts in
the United States, as designated by The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court
Judges (NCJFCJ). As a Model Court site, Allegheny County Juvenile Court continues to
focus on implementing the 16 key principles established in the Juvenile Delinquency
Guidelines. Judge Kim Berkeley Clark is the lead Judge for the Model Court site
project.
Other Highlights:
Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative (JDAI):
Allegheny County Juvenile Probation is one of four jurisdictions, along with
Lehigh, Philadelphia, and Lancaster, engaged in implementing the Juvenile
Detention Alternative Initiative (JDAI), a data-driven process to improve our
practice. JDAI has eight core strategies designed to improve case processing,
eliminate unnecessary use of secure detention, and provide a range of
alternatives to secure detention while also ensuring public safety.
Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC):
In 2012 Juvenile Probation coordinated its initial Disproportionate Minority
Contact (DMC) training for the City of Pittsburgh Police Cadets. The curriculum,
held at Duquesne University, was developed by The Pennsylvania Commission
on Crime and Delinquency and has earned widespread praise from
Pennsylvania’s Senate Judiciary Committee and the Federal Advisory Committee
on Juvenile Justice. It brought together law enforcement officials, community
leaders, and youth with the goal of improving interaction between minority youth
and police officers on the streets and in the schools of our communities. The
Pittsburgh Chief of Police has requested that all new Pittsburgh Police recruits
participate in the curriculum. In addition, the Probation Department is planning to
offer the training to law enforcement officers across the county.
New Electronic Monitoring Capabilities:
The Probation Department upgraded its electronic monitoring equipment this
year. The new services are fully functional in homes that do not have landline
phone services. The new monitoring equipment eliminates the need and
expense of installing a phone line to connect the electronic monitoring
equipment. The result is a shorter stay in detention for the youth and reduced
expenses for the Department.
Page 4
These highlights and the information that follows in this Annual Report illustrate our
continued dedication to protecting the citizens of Allegheny County, ensuring that
juvenile offenders are held accountable for the harm they have caused, and providing
juveniles with opportunities to become law abiding and productive citizens of our
community.
Of the 1,826 cases closed during 2012, 89% successfully completed their supervision
without re-offending. These juveniles paid their victims a total of $279,636 in restitution,
and 74% fully satisfied their financial obligations. A total of 59,043 hours of community
service was completed and 96% of the juveniles completed their community service
obligations in full.
Page 5
Juvenile Probation Statistics
REFERRAL HISTORY
Yearly Comparison
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT ON
TEACHER
ARSON
287
333
287
244
252
235
245
264
186
188
172
123
31
31
51
12
8
32
AUTO THEFT RELATED
202
157
173
128
102
114
BURGLARY
253
309
283
214
182
182
CARJACKING
14
4
8
3
9
1
CRIMINAL MISCHIEF /
INSTITUTIONAL VANDALISM
105
179
89
63
88
52
CRIMINAL/DEFIANT TRESPASS
94
110
79
69
61
43
DISORDERLY CONDUCT
DRUG CHARGES (INCLUDING
CRACK)
DUI
90
87
53
65
56
23
630
599
540
516
480
452
32
41
38
14
33
32
ESCAPE
10
18
13
8
11
10
ETHNIC INTIMIDATION
FAILURE TO ADJUST
ALLEGATIONS
FIREARM UNLICENSED OR
POSSESSION
4
2
2
0
2
0
430
373
328
352
365
318
114
136
156
97
94
84
HARASSMENT
30
23
20
21
25
15
NONPAYMENT OF FINES
834
1,064
977
1,426
1,035
815
RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY
156
128
181
140
107
110
RETAIL THEFT
83
96
87
70
66
65
ROBBERY & RELATED
256
272
201
182
125
149
SEX OFFENSES
90
106
96
93
95
77
SIMPLE ASSAULT
519
550
534
569
514
390
TERRORISTIC THREATS
159
122
121
139
116
107
184
187
175
171
115
115
95
66
51
62
57
30
397
390
444
386
337
260
166
139
128
102
110
104
302
316
305
220
257
218
5,812
6,102
5,606
5,554
4,874
4,156
THEFT & RELATED
(CONSPIRACY/ATTEMPT)
TRANSFERRED FROM OTHER
COUNTY
VIOLATION OF PROBATION
ALLEGATIONS
WEAPONS ON SCHOOL
PROPERTY
ALL OTHER CHARGES
TOTAL REFERRALS
Page 6
REFERRALS TO JUVENILE PROBATION
2012 Referrals
Most Serious Charge
MALE
FEMALE
TOTAL
Total Black White Other Total
Black
White
Other
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT
99
32
9
140
77
15
3
95
235
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT ON
TEACHER
70
7
0
77
41
5
0
46
123
ARSON
17
10
1
28
2
2
0
4
32
AUTO THEFT RELATED
68
25
3
96
11
8
0
19
115
BURGLARY
92
1
64
0
2
0
158
1
17
0
7
0
0
0
24
0
182
1
CRIMINAL MISCHIEF /
INSTITUTIONAL VANDALISM
23
20
0
43
5
5
0
10
53
CRIMINAL/DEFIANT
TRESPASS
17
9
1
27
4
10
1
15
42
DISORDERLY CONDUCT
13
4
0
17
4
2
0
6
23
211
175
4
390
20
39
3
62
452
DUI
0
23
0
23
0
9
0
9
32
ESCAPE
5
5
0
10
0
0
0
0
10
RESISTING ARREST
11
3
2
16
6
0
0
6
22
FAILURE TO ADJUST
ALLEGATIONS
237
29
8
274
36
8
0
44
318
65
7
1
73
7
4
0
11
84
7
2
0
9
2
4
0
6
15
373
116
4
493
248
69
5
322
815
RECEIVING STOLEN
PROPERTY
49
34
2
85
14
11
0
25
110
RETAIL THEFT
14
4
0
18
39
7
1
47
65
112
21
2
135
11
2
1
14
149
40
33
0
73
3
1
0
4
77
152
76
6
234
114
33
9
156
390
TERRORISTIC THREATS
50
22
2
74
20
11
2
33
107
THEFT & RELATED
(CONSPIRACY/ATTEMPT)
62
29
6
97
13
3
1
17
114
TRANSFERRED FROM
OTHER COUNTY
10
14
1
25
3
2
0
5
30
148
54
3
205
43
11
1
55
260
WEAPONS ON SCHOOL
PROPERTY
34
35
3
72
22
9
1
32
104
ALL OTHER CHARGES
86
42
9
137
35
22
2
59
196
2,066
895
69
3,030
797
299
30
1,126
4,156
CARJACKING
DRUG CHARGES
(INCLUDING CRACK)
FIREARM UNLICENSED OR
POSSESSION
HARASSMENT
NONPAYMENT OF FINES
ROBBERY & RELATED
SEX OFFENSES
SIMPLE ASSAULT
VIOLATION OF PROBATION
ALLEGATIONS
TOTAL REFERRALS
Page 7
Juveniles Referred
There were 4,156 allegations made to Juvenile Court in 2012, 260 were Violation of
Probation while under supervision and 318 were for Failure to Adjust at a Court
committed placement. There were 2,696 juveniles who were alleged to have committed
the remaining 3,578 allegations.
Page 8
SHUMAN CENTER FOR SECURE DETENTION
Juveniles are placed in secure detention at Shuman Center when it is necessary to
protect the community and ensure their appearance in Court. Shuman Center has a
licensed capacity of 130 beds. In 2012 the Average Daily Census was 64 juveniles.
Admission by
20% Gender
80%
Male
Female
Admission by Age
63%
12 & Under
16 & Over
Page 9
3%
13 to 15
34%
DETENTION HEARINGS
There were 2,049 Detention hearings during 2012. The results of those hearings can
be seen below:
3000
Released to
Parent's Control w/o condition
2500
2000
Released to
Parent's Control EHM / HD
1500
1000
Remain at Shuman
500
0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Detention Hearings 2012
Released House
Arrest
4%
Released to Home
Detention
15%
Released
11%
Detained
60%
Released to
Electronic
Monitoring (EHM)
10%
Page 10
Alternatives to Detention
HARTMAN SHELTER
In addition to Shuman Detention Center, Allegheny County Juvenile Probation also has
Hartman Shelter available for juveniles who would otherwise be held in detention.
Juveniles may be transferred to Hartman from Shuman Detention Center or they may
be placed directly in the facility by a probation officer.
Hartman Shelter is a 24-bed facility for males. During 2012 the average daily census
was 17 juveniles.
Hartman Shelter Admissions
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Admissions
2009
407
2010
628
2011
655
Admission by Race
White
17%
2012
611
Admission by Age
12 &
Under
3%
Other
3%
Black
80%
16 &
Over
54%
Page 11
13 to 15
43%
ELECTRONIC HOME MONITORING / HOME DETENTION
An alternative to keeping juveniles in Shuman Center is release utilizing Electronic
Home Monitoring or Home Detention. This service is also used for increased
supervision of youth placed in the Community Intensive Supervision Program (CISP).
This program is operated by the Probation Department.
Referral Comparison
Referrals
2010
2011
2012
EHM
347
305
305
1100
Home Detention
573
578
506
900
1200
1000
800
Sanctions
210
213
198
700
600
500
Total Referrals
1,130 1,096 1,009
2010
2010
Discharges
2011
2012
2012
2011
Total
%
Successful
Total
%
Successful
Total
%
Successful
EHM
394
77%
288
84%
328
73%
Home Detention
548
85%
565
78%
514
74%
Sanctions
199
88%
220
90%
204
87%
1,141
83%
1,073
82%
1,046
76%
Total Discharges
A successful discharge indicates the juvenile completed Electronic Monitoring or Home
Detention without a warrant being issued for a violation.
2012 Referrals
Sanctions
20%
EHM
30%
Home
Detention
50%
Page 12
YOUTH ENRICHMENT SERVICES (YES)
The YES program targets youth between the ages of ten and fourteen years of age who
have been charged with a delinquent act that would justify placement in secure
detention. The program diverts these youth from secure detention by providing intense
in-home mentoring services to juveniles and their families. Community safety is
achieved through strict community supervision, and school attendance is also
monitored. This short-term program is designed primarily to provide services before the
adjudication hearing. The Probation Department contracts with Youth Enrichment
Services to provide these services.
Page 13
DISPOSITIONS OF POLICE REPORTS
Received in 2012
After Allegheny County Juvenile Probation receives a Police Allegation, the probation
officer in consultation with the District Attorney’s Office, must decide how to proceed in
order to address the allegation. In 2012 there were 3,128 Police Charges resolved as
follows:
Allegations
Withdrawn
3%
Felony
35%
Petitions Filed
82%
Misdemeanor
29%
Informal
Adjustment
15%
Failure to Pay
Fines
18%
Page 14
PROBATION OFFICERS
Probation Officers, the backbone of Juvenile Court, are responsible for supervising
juveniles at home, in school, and in the community. From the receipt of the initial police
report until the case is closed by the Judge, the probation officer is charged with
overseeing the juvenile’s case and ensuring the Court’s orders and directives are
followed. Consistent with the Court’s Balanced and Restorative Justice Mission,
probation officers develop and implement a specific Case Plan for each juvenile that
focuses on protecting the community, holding the juvenile accountable to restore the
victim and community, and helping the juvenile develop competencies that lead to lawabiding and productive citizenship.
The Intake and Ten Day Investigations Units, located at the main Courthouse, receive
and process police reports (referrals) charging juveniles with misdemeanor and/or
felony offenses. These probation officers in these units work exclusively with juveniles
who are newly referred to the Court, deciding whether the case can be handled
informally or if it requires the official attention of the Court through the filing of a petition.
Over the last several years, the Department has reassigned a number of intake
probation officers from the Courthouse to the community-based offices. In addition, this
year school-based probation officers handled a larger portion of the intake referrals from
the communities where the schools are located. Decentralizing the intake function has
enabled probation officers to use a wider range of community and school-based
diversionary services. Regardless of where they are located, probation officers
performing the intake function make every effort to divert cases from formal processing
whenever possible, considering the youth’s risk and needs before deciding the most
appropriate course of action.
Community-based probation officers
are responsible for supervising the
largest
percentage
of
juvenile
offenders under the jurisdiction of the
Court. As of December 31, 2012,
thirty-seven
community-based
probation
officers
in
seven
geographically dispersed supervisory
units were working with an average
caseload of twenty seven juveniles in
a broad range of categories (see
chart).
Community Based Probation
Caseload
39.6%
30.1%
21.7%
7.5%
1.0%
Probation
Private
Placement
Consent
Decree
State
Day
Placement Treatment
The School-Based Probation Unit
includes thirty-three probation officers in six supervisory units and one coordinator.
With probation officers in thirteen city schools and twenty school districts, the Allegheny
County Juvenile Probation’s School-Based program is the largest in the Commonwealth
and believed to be the largest in the nation. School-based probation officers manage
an average caseload of twenty-one cases, providing daily supervision to youth. On
Page 15
December 31, 2012 school-based probation officers were supervising 380 juveniles.
The school-based unit processed 589 intakes during 2012.
School Based Probation Officers as of December 31, 2012
Pittsburgh School District
Allderdice
Arsenal/M.L. King
Brashear/South Hills Middle School
Carrick
Clayton/SAC
McNaugher
Perry
University Prep/Milliones
Student Achievement Center
Westinghouse
Other Schools in Allegheny County
Academy Charter School
Baldwin
Chartiers Valley/Keystone Oaks
East Allegheny
Fox Chapel
Hampton/Pine Richland
Highlands
McKeesport
Moon/West Allegheny
North Allegheny/North Hills
Penn Hills
Shaler
Steel Valley
Sto-Rox
West Mifflin
Wilkinsburg
Woodland Hills
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
…….
……
……
……
……
…….
……
……
…….
……
……
……
……
…….
……
………
……
…….
……
………
………
……
…….
………
………
……
………
…….
………
………
………
…….
….
………
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
Probation Officer
Probation Officer
Probation Officers
Probation Officers
Probation Officer
Probation Officers
Probation Officer
Probation Officer
Probation Officers
Probation Officers
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
Probation Officer
Probation Officer
Probation Officer
Probation Officer
Probation Officer
Probation Officer
Probation Officer
Probation Officer
Probation Officer
Probation Officer
Probation Officers
Probation Officer
Probation Officer
Probation Officer
Probation Officer
Probation Officer
Probation Officers
………
………
….
………
………
………
….
………
………
………
….
………
………
………
….
………
………
………
….
………
………
………
….
………
………
………
….
………
………
………
….
………
………
………
….
………
………
………
….
………
………
………
….
………
………
………
….
………
………
………
….
………
………
….
School-based probation officers continue to integrate
themselves within their assigned
….
schools, participating in a host of activities ………
such as school safety committees, cofacilitating drug and alcohol groups, serving….as club sponsors, acting as assistant
coaches, supporting extra-curricular activities, and participating in the School’s Student
Assistance Team.
Page 16
SPECIAL SERVICES UNIT (SSU)
The SSU was formed in 1985 and is designed to effectively supervise and provide
specialized treatment services for adjudicated sexual offenders through community
monitoring and intensive individual and/or group counseling. Specifically, the SSU
addresses treatment issues with adjudicated sexual offenders who are in the community
on probation or on aftercare status following a release from a residential facility. The
unit is composed of five specialist probation officers, one intake probation officer, and
one supervisor.
SSU/WPIC Program
Since 1998, the SSU has collaborated with Western Psychiatric Institute & Clinic
(WPIC) to provide enhanced services to first time and less serious sex offenders placed
on probation. Every juvenile in the program undergoes an assessment and participates
in weekly clinical sessions conducted by WPIC. In addition, mandatory weekly group
sessions are facilitated by SSU probation officers. SSU probation officers and WPIC
clinicians meet regularly to discuss the best course of action for each offender involved
in the program.
SSU Juveniles Served
200
150
Education
Aftercare
Community
100
50
0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Page 17
2012
DRUG AND ALCOHOL UNIT
The Drug and Alcohol Unit has been in existence since 1984 and consists of one
supervisor and six probation officers. Two drug and alcohol intake officers are assigned
all new allegations of non-detained youth that are referred with drug and alcohol specific
charges. Three community-based drug and alcohol intensive supervision probation
officer’s maintain a caseload of youth that have been identified as having an abusive
relationship with drugs and/or alcohol. The aftercare probation officer works intensively
with youth who are placed in drug and alcohol treatment programs and their family. In
addition, these specialists conduct individual assessments and an education/screening
group, educational programming in the community, and Parent Survival Skills Training
(PSST).
Parent Survival Skills Training (PSST) is designed to empower parents who have
been held hostage by their teenage substance abusers. The group is open to any
parent in Allegheny County and is currently being offered three Saturdays per month at
three locations: Wilkinsburg, Mt. Lebanon and Wexford.
Parents are not Court ordered to attend; they come because they want help. This group
offers support, skill building, suggestions, ideas and education. The parents who attend
PSST created and maintain an informational web blog that is open for public viewing
and input at http://www.gopsst.org. The blog contains a wealth of information written
from personal experiences, directions to PSST meetings and links to other relevant
resources. This valuable resource has registered visits from all over the United States
and has reached out as far as London.
We have come to believe that parents that attend PSST become stronger parents.
Stronger parents can better help their teenager make good decisions about drugs and
alcohol. It is not a cure, but it is definitely making a difference.
Assessment Results
D & A Assessments
300
300
250
250
200
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2007 2008 2009 20 10 2011 2012
Individual Assessments
Chemically Dependent
Abusers
Users
Group Assessments
Page 18
JJSES (JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM ENHANCEMENT) UNIT
Since 2010, the Department has been engaged in the statewide effort to infuse
evidence-based practices to achieve the goals of Balanced and Restorative Justice.
Toward that end, the Department created the System Enhancement Unit in June of
2012. As 2012 concluded, the System Enhancement Unit was comprised of one
supervisor and five probation officers. The primary function of this Unit since its
inception has been to conduct the Youth Level of Service (YLS) Risk/Needs
assessments for intake cases across the Department. The YLS instrument has been
adopted statewide as the Risk/Needs instrument for juvenile justice. The YLS produces
a score and a classification of high, moderate, or low risk, indicating the likelihood of
recidivism. The results of the YLS are considered at key decision points; for example,
whether to informally adjust the case or file a petition, or whether to recommend
community-based supervision or a more restrictive disposition to the presiding Judge.
The results of the YLS are also an essential component in developing the case plan for
each juvenile under formal supervision.
The development of the System Enhancement Unit has benefitted the Department in
several ways. First, the Unit has become expert in conducting the YLS and now serves
as a resource to all probation officers in the Department, conducting training and
offering feedback to all probation officers responsible for conducting assessments.
Second, the Unit has improved our ability to consistently implement the instrument, an
essential element in evidence-based practice. Third, the Unit has expanded its reach
to help the Department implement solid Case Plans based on the results of the YLS.
The Unit will continue to play an important role in training the entire Department in the
use of the YLS and the Case Plan which incorporates the priorities identified in the YLS.
Through December 31, 2012 the System Enhancement Unit conducted 415 YLS
assessments with the following results:
High Risk 13%
Moderate Risk 63%
Low Risk 24%
Page 19
COMMUNITY INTENSIVE SUPERVISION PROGRAM (CISP)
The Community Intensive Supervision Program (CISP) is operated by Juvenile
Probation and in 2012 completed its 22nd year of operation. CISP is an alternative to
residential placement, providing intensive programming and supervision for juveniles
while they remain at home and in the community. The program also provides intensive
aftercare services for male offenders returning to the community after placement.
In 2012 there were a total of 220 youth committed to the CISP program and 238 youth
discharged as follows:
Center
Garfield
Hill District
Homewood
McKeesport
North Side
Wilkinsburg
Total
Commitments
Total
%
24
38
29
52
34
45
Discharges
Total
%
11%
17%
13%
23%
15.5%
20.5%
29
39
44
47
33
46
12%
17%
18%
20%
14%
19%
238
222
% Positive
66%
72%
77%
70%
70%
89%
75%
Discharge History
250
200
150
Other
Negative
Positive
100
50
0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
The foundation of CISP rests on strong community ties. Juveniles in each center
routinely perform community service projects such as removing snow, cleaning
neighborhood lots and streets, and cutting residents’ grass. Members of the community
continue to express their appreciation for the efforts of CISP youth. In 2012, youth in all
six CISP centers completed approximately 15,500 hours of community service.
Once again in 2012, CISP youth participated in the Annual Car Wash to raise money for
victims of crime. Since 2000, CISP youth have donated $14,347 in Car Wash proceeds
to the Center for Victims.
Page 20
THE ACADEMY / VISION QUEST DAY/EVENING
Juveniles who reside outside the CISP service areas who need day treatment services
are committed to participate in The Academy or Vision Quest Day/Evening programs
depending on where they reside in the county. These programs provide transportation
to and from the program site, a range of programming options, and electronic
monitoring. In addition to working with youth outside the CISP areas, The Academy and
Vision Quest Day/Evening Programs work with females from across the city and county.
Academy Discharges
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Negative
Positive
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
VQ Discharges
40
35
30
Other
Negative
Positive
25
20
15
10
5
0
2012
Note: the Vision Quest program was just recently started and statistics begin with 2012.
Page 21
PRIVATE PLACEMENT SERVICES
The majority of Allegheny County youth in placement reside in non-secure settings.
During 2012 there was an average of 255 youth in private placement on any given day.
Average Youth in Placement
420
400
380
360
340
320
300
280
260
240
220
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
The chart below shows the number of youth in placement on the last day of each
month. At the beginning of 2012 there were 262 youth in placement and by the end of
2012 that number went up to 271.
Number of Youth in Placement on Last Day of Month
340
320
300
280
260
240
220
1
2
3
2009
4
5
2010
6
7
2011
Page 22
8
9
2012
10
11
12
STATE PLACEMENTS
Placement at a state facility, known as a Youth Development Center (YDC) is reserved
for those juveniles who pose a serious risk to public safety. The state facilities are
operated by the Bureau of Juvenile Justice Services (BJJS). In addition to the secure
facilities, BJJS operates several Youth Forestry Camps (YFC) for less serious juvenile
offenders. The YDC and YFC programs are located throughout the Commonwealth.
During 2012 there was an average of 23 youth in State placement on any given day.
Average Youth in State Placement
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
There were 45 juveniles in placement at the beginning of the year and 9 in placement at
the end of the year.
Youth in State Placement on last day of the Month
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
2
2009
3
4
5
2010
6
7
8
2011
Page 23
9
10
11
2012
12
WARRANT UNIT
The Warrant Unit began operations in 2004 with the goal of improving community
protection. The Warrant Unit is comprised of probation officers, supervisors, and
administrators who have full-time responsibilities in addition to their Warrant Unit
activities. The Unit works closely with local law enforcement, particularly the City of
Pittsburgh Police Department and the Allegheny County Sheriff’s Department, to
actively pursue offenders who have absconded, failed to appear for Court, or violated
the conditions of supervision. Through December 31, 2012, 91% of those sought by the
Warrant Unit have been apprehended and detained at Shuman pending a Court
appearance.
Warrant Unit Results
Case Closed
6%
Turned in by
Parents after
WU Sweep
12%
Deceased
1%
Still AWOL
2%
Apprehended
by WU
37%
Subsequently
Located by
Police
42%
Additionally, the Warrant Unit has confiscated numerous assault weapons, handguns,
ammunition, illegal narcotics, and gang paraphernalia.
Page 24
EDUCATIONAL SPECIALIST-AFTERCARE INITIATIVE
Focus on Education
The Department has three education specialists who work closely with probation
officers, residential providers, home school staff, and the Allegheny Intermediate Unit to
improve education reintegration for delinquent youth exiting residential placement.
The Education Specialists are continuing to help the Department advance important
education objectives including the following:
Gathering and updating key information regarding education programming
available through our residential providers;
Working closely with the Allegheny Intermediate Unit to ensure all relevant
school information is promptly transferred to the residential provider upon
commitment and back to the home school upon release;
Collaborating with Pittsburgh Public Schools and other school districts to
establish a consistent protocol for reintegration, curriculum alignment, and credit
transfer;
Assisting the probation officer in developing a ―Case Plan‖ in consultation with
the provider and home school; the Case Plan includes education goals,
objectives, and activities that begin in placement and continue through the
aftercare (post release) phase when the youth returns to the home school;
Monitoring and overseeing education plans for those youth entering and exiting
residential facilities.
Scheduling and facilitating School Reintegration Meetings to ensure a smooth
transition from out-of-home placement back to the juvenile’s home school; for the
2011-2012 school year, 91 such meetings occurred.
Page 25
THE TRUANCY PREVENTION PROGRAM
The Truancy Prevention Project (TPP) was established in 1987 by the Allegheny
County Juvenile Court/Probation and The Allegheny Intermediate Unit (AIU3)
Alternative Education Program (AEP). The TPP is a coalition of local school districts,
the AEP of the AIU, Juvenile Probation and Allegheny County Children Youth and
Families.
The purpose of the TPP is to address chronic, habitual truancy among students in
Allegheny County between the ages of 6 and 15 (K-1st through 8th/9th grade) who have a
documented track record of unexcused absences from school. The TPP is predicated
on the belief that schools and agencies can work more effectively with the difficult issue
of truancy by coordinating their efforts rather than acting in isolation and, sometimes,
conflicting with one another. The TPP focuses on younger students because truancy
begins at an early age. With so many more factors in the lives of older children, it is
increasingly more difficult to address truancy in teenagers.
The relationship between truancy and other problems is well documented. There is a
great deal of research indicating that truancy is an early warning sign of delinquent
activity, social isolation, and school failure. The TPP is a proactive attempt to help
families and schools deal with truant children before more serious problems arise.
During the 2012-2013 school year the TPP was staffed by one AIU3 coordinator and
two TPP case mangers who are supervised by Allegheny County Juvenile Probation.
The three TPP workers handled a total of 242 chronic cases of truancy with an average
of one fourth of the referred cases improving the rate of attendance in the same school
year. Allegheny County Juvenile Probation assigned two school-based supervisors to
serve as mediators over truancy adjustment hearings. The purpose of these hearings is
for all parties to work toward minimizing the need for a dependency hearing. This school
year 28 adjustment hearings were held.
In summary, the TPP program is designed to address many components of an effective
truancy intervention project. The TPP focuses on coordinating collaboration among
multiple systems that address truancy risk factors - schools, district judges, CYF,
Juvenile Probation and Juvenile Court. The TPP continues to work towards increase
participating truant students and families; greater involvement with school districts
through Allegheny County; enhanced partnerships with families, schools, and agencies;
and, ultimately, an overall reduction in truancy; particularly among the most at-risk
students in the County.
Page 26
WORKBRIDGE
COMMUNITY SERVICE:
Number of Referrals Received:
Total Number of youth that
service was provided to:
Average age of the youth
referred:
Average Number of hours
ordered:
Total Value to community:
Number of CS Sites:
Number of Positive discharges:
Retention:
STIPEND COMPONENT:
Number of referrals received:
Number of successful
discharges:
Community Service Hours:
Restitution Paid on behalf of
Stipend:
1,213
1,662
15.3
65000
60000
55000
42
50000
$308,792
2,810
791
90%
45000
40000
2008
122
116
4805
$30,037
COMMUNITY REPAIR CREW:
Number of referrals:
Number of Youth served:
63
Average Age:
Number of positive discharges:
16.3
58
EMPLOYMENT INITIATIVE:
Number of Referrals Received:
Total Number of youth that
service was provided to:
Average age of the youth
referred:
Number of Positive discharges:
Average Number of days each
youth was in Program:
Retention:
Number of Paid Employment
Sites:
Restitution Collected:
Hours of Community Service
60
2009
2010
2011
2012
Community Service Referrals
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Restitution Collected
180
176
80000
75000
17.3
70000
150
65000
178
60000
85%
55000
836
$60,003
Page 27
50000
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
VICTIM SERVICES
Victims of Juvenile Offenders are entitled to many rights in the Juvenile Justice System.
In order to provide these rights and services to victims of juvenile offenders, Juvenile
Probation works closely with both the Center for Victims (CV) and Pittsburgh Action
Against Rape (PAAR).
PAAR Com prehensive Victim Services
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2009
VICTIM OFFENDER DIALOGUE
During 2012, Allegheny County Juvenile
Probation referred 180 cases to the Victim
Offender Dialogue (VOD) program, which
involved 186 victims and 180 juvenile
offenders. There were 14 Victim Offender
Dialogues.
2010
2011
2012
VOD Referrals
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2009
VICTIM AWARENESS AND
BARJ/ RESTORATIVE
JUSTICE INITIATIVE
2010
Victims
2011
2012
Offenders
The Restorative Justice Coordinator at CV facilitated 9 trainings with 227 juvenile
probation officers about Victim Awareness and BARJ/Restorative Justice initiatives.
Fifty-eight Victim Awareness programs were presented to 487 juveniles.
Page 28
CASE CLOSING INFORMATION
During 2012 information was reported for 1,826 youth whose cases were closed.
Case Closing Information 2012
Number of Cases Closed
1,826
Average Length of Supervision:
Probation
24 months
Average Length of Supervision:
Consent Decree
8.6 months
Accountability Factors
Community Service Hours
Restitution
Completed the three hour Victim
Awareness Curriculum
Public Safety
% That
Number of
% That
Amount
Completed/
Youth
Amount Ordered
Completed/
Completed/Paid
Paid 50%
Ordered
Paid in Full
or more
1,244
57,366 Hours
59,043 Hours*
96%
97%
612
$497,772
$279,636
74%
79%
1,039
99%
1,048
% Of
Number of
Closed
Youth
Cases
Violation of Probation
193
10.6%
New Adjudication
192
10.5%
* Youth perform Community Service over and above the
amount ordered by the Court.
% of Closed Cases
Skill Building
Attending School,
Vocational Program, or
GED Training or Employed
at time of Case Closing
76.5%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2008
Paid Full Restiutution
2009
2010
2011
Completed all Community Service
Page 29
2012
No New Adjudications
EXPUNGEMENTS
Since 2010, the Juvenile Probation Department has initiated the process to expunge
records of juveniles who have attained the age of 18 and meet the following criteria:
All of the charges received by the Court have been informally adjusted,
dismissed, or withdrawn;
Six months have elapsed since the juvenile’s case has been closed and no
proceedings are pending in juvenile or criminal court.
Consistent with the Juvenile Act and the Balanced and Restorative Justice goals, the
Probation Department has been assisting and advising juvenile offenders in the
expungement of their juvenile records.
Since 2010, the Probation Department has dedicated one full-time clerk in the
Information Management Unit to the task of processing these expungements and
submitting them to the Judge. Through 2012, 3,546 cases have been researched and
1,935 have met the criteria and have been expunged by an order of Court, 1,151 were
not eligible and 460 are still pending.
Pending
13%
Expunged
55%
Not Eligble
32%
Page 30
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
The Administrative Services Unit provides support for all fiscal matters related to the
Department. The Unit, comprised of a supervisor and four staff positions, is responsible
for processing the payroll for all full and part-time staff. This year $16,337,098 was paid
in salaries and benefits to juvenile probation staff.
There are four budgets, the largest of which includes the placement costs for delinquent
youth, totaling $46,776,526. The unit also monitors several grant-funded projects that
interface with state and federal funding sources.
In addition, the Administrative Services Unit is also responsible for the distribution of
restitution and fines collected by probation officers. During 2012 a total of $367,048
was collected and dispersed.
Every effort is made to have a youth pay in full their obligations. If a youth does not
comply with his restitution obligation, the Unit is responsible for indexing the judgment
with the Department of Court Records when the youth turns 21 years of age.
Funds Collected
Crime Lab
11%
Other
Victim
3%
Curriculum
4%
JCS/ATS
7%
DNA Fund
2%
Substance
Abuse Fund
1%
Stipend Fund
7%
Victim Comp
Fund
9%
Page 31
Restitution
56%
Judicial Overview
Allegheny County Juvenile Court is the Juvenile Section of the Family
Division of the Court of Common Pleas. There are six Judges who primarily
hear Juvenile Court cases, four Judges who hear cases from both the
Juvenile Section and Adult Section of the Family Division and five Judges
who hear primarily Adult Section cases.
The Court also has one
delinquency Hearing Officer and three dependency Hearing Officers. The
Judges are responsible for hearing both Juvenile Probation/delinquency
cases and Children Youth and Family/dependency cases.
JUDICIAL ASSIGNMENTS
As of December 31, 2012
Judge Kathryn M. Hens-Greco, Administrative Judge
Judges:
Alexander P. Bicket (Primarily Adult)
Kim Berkeley Clark (Primarily Juvenile)
Paul E. Cozza (50/50)
Guido A. DeAngelis (Primarily Juvenile)
Arnold I. Klein (Primarily Juvenile)
Michael F. Marmo (Primarily Juvenile)
John T. McVay Jr. (Primarily Juvenile)
Dwayne D. Woodruff (Primarily Juvenile)
Kathleen R. Mulligan (50/50)
Cathleen Bubash (Primarily Adult)
Kim D. Eaton (Primarily Adult)
Susan Evashavik DiLucente (Primarily Adult)
Donald R. Walko, Jr. (Primarily Adult)
William F. Ward (50/50)
Delinquency Hearing Officer:
Robert Banos
Dependency Hearing Officers:
James Alter
Mark Cancilla
Carla Hobson
Page 32
Delinquency Petitions
There were a total of 2,556 petitions alleging delinquency filed with the Court during 2012.
This is a decrease of 551 petitions from the total number filed during 2011.
2012 Delinquency Petitions
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Delinquency Petitions History
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
2007
2008
2009
Page 33
2010
2011
2012
Ancillary Petitions
ACT 53
In 1997 Pennsylvania legislators closed the ―gap‖ in our Court system regarding drug and
alcohol treatment for addicted teenagers who have not been declared either delinquent or
dependent through Juvenile Court. ACT 53 addresses the issue of involuntary commitment of
minors into drug and alcohol treatment.
The ACT 53 procedure is a collaboration between Allegheny County Juvenile Court and the
Allegheny County Department of Human Services, Drug and Alcohol Services Unit. The
parent/legal guardian of the teenager must be a resident of Allegheny County and the child
must be between the ages of 12 and 18.
The success of the program is evident in three unique areas. First, teenagers who are unable
or unwilling to ask for help are offered treatment. Second, the majority of those served are
high risk teens, those most likely to become delinquent if they do not receive treatment. Third,
Allegheny County’s implementation of ACT 53 has become a model for other jurisdictions in
the state.
Page 34
2012 Special
Events/Activities/Projects/Committees
JCJC NOMINATIONS
Congratulations to the following Allegheny County Juvenile Probation nominees:
Supervisor of the Year: Linda Tanis
Probation Officer of the Year: Timothy Barnes
Support Person of the Year: Cyndi Cross
Court-Operated Program of the Year: CISP
Community Based Program of the Year: Wesley Spectrum D/A Specialized Family
Counseling Unit
Residential Program of the Year: Outside In
Victim Advocate of the Year: Erin Siffing, Center for Victims
Meritorious Service Award: Barbara Burns
JCJC CONFERENCE
The Juvenile Court Judges Commission held their
annual Juvenile Justice Conference in November of
2012. The Allegheny County Education Specialists
were awarded the statewide Court Operated Program
of the Year Award. Allegheny County probation staff
attended the conference as well as many Juvenile
Court Judges.
Assistant Chief PO Ted Kairys, Judge
Cozza, Judge Klein, Administrator/Chief
PO Russell Carlino
Page 35
ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AWARDS
Congratulations
to our
Rookie of the Year
The Rookie of the year awards are presented to the “rookie” employee who best
represents Juvenile Probation. There are three categories: Probation Officer, CISP and
Support Staff. In 2012 only a CISP Rookie of the Year was awarded.
CISP Staff Person of the Year
Kim Layne
SPECIAL RECOGNITION
Person on the Go Award
PO Michael Peterson
PO Clint Roche
Probation Officers Clint Roche & Michael Peterson
The Person on the Go Award is awarded to the employee who is always on the go and
exceeding expectations in many of their job duties.
The award is open to all staff regardless of the position or years of service with Allegheny
County Juvenile Probation.
Page 36
RETIREMENTS
Congratulations to our 2012 Retirees
Sam Bundridge – Home Detention Officer - 32 Years of Service
Bertrand Hathaway – Probation Officer - 43 Years of Service
Elaine Lisko – Shuman Secretary - 10 Years of Service
Gary Peeks – Probation Officer - 24 Years of Service
PROMOTIONS
Keonte Campbell was promoted to Supervisor of the McKeesport CISP.
PO SWEARING IN CEREMONIES
August 16, 2012
October 1, 2012
Assistant Chief PO Mary Hatheway, AJ
Kathryn Hens-Greco, Assistant Chief PO
David Evrard, new PO’s Rae Willie and Nikki
DeWitt, Administrator/Chief PO Russell
Carlino, Assistant Chief PO Ray Bauer
Coordinator James Tucker, Assistant Chief
PO Kim Booth, new PO’s Wes Evans and
Ricky Cunningham, Coordinator John
Fiscante
Page 37
STATE OF THE COURT MEETINGS
AJ Kathryn Hens-Greco
Family Division staff at the
meeting
Jamar Jackson, AJ Kathryn
Hens-Greco, Ron Bell, Tom
Edwards, Chip McClellan
Administrative Judge Kathryn Hens-Greco met with approximately 525 Family Division staff
over eight sessions in three locations and heard many good ideas and important concerns
from staff.
GOLDEN GAVEL WINNERS & DIRECTOR AWARD RECIPIENTS
Golden Gavel Winners
Stephanie Bellini
Barry Canada
Director Award Recipients
Timothy Barnes
Chris Recker
Brenda Beetlestone
Lisa DiDomenico
Charlotte Rechendorff
Marlo Thomas
Scott McMurdy
Patty Moore
Robert Konesky
Lee Penascino
Cathy Thomas
Michelle Kernan
Page 38
DENNIS MALONEY MEMORIAL AWARD RECIPIENT
Adelphoi Village
As envisioned and practiced by Dennis Maloney,
one of the creators of Balanced and Restorative
Justice, the balanced approach can improve the
quality of life in communities by engaging offenders
to work on community improvement projects as part
of the accountability and competency development.
The Balanced and Restorative Justice model also
restructured juvenile justice staff roles nationally
from largely office-based functions to community
involvement work and supervision of offenders in
Administrator/Chief PO Russell Carlino,
Speaker George Mosee, Judge Clark,
Adelphoi Village Representatives Mark
Mortimer & Candise Rindali, AJ Kathryn
Hens-Greco, Judge Bicket, Judge McVay
competency development endeavors.
This award will be presented to an individual or
organization, which most represents his visions of
Community Service.
PROVIDER TRIPS
2012 has been a year of significant change
regarding Judicial - Provider "institutional field
trips."
Under the direction and leadership of
Administrative Family Division Judge, Kathryn
Hens-Greco, a much greater emphasis has been
placed on training and judicial training. Every
month, following the Family Division Judges'
"Business Meeting," UA/UJ and 50/50 judges are
offered the opportunity to discuss topics relevant
to situations they encounter on the bench and be
trained by experts in the discipline or field. Occasionally these trainings are conducted off-site
and combined with a trip to a provider's facility.
Page 39
JUVENILE JUSTICE WEEK-2012
The first week of October was declared Juvenile Justice Week in Pennsylvania.
Community Education Initiative sponsored several events throughout the week.
Awards Ceremony
Judge Mulligan, Judge
Woodruff, Judge McVay,
Speaker George Mosee, Judge
Clark, Administrator/Chief PO
Russell Carlino,
Hearing Officer Banos,
AJ Kathyrn Hens-Greco
Coordinator James Tucker and Probation
Officer Claire Koval kick off Juvenile Justice
Week by manning the ―Balanced and
Restorative Justice‖ pledge
Probation Officers Mark Kerr and Mary
Beth Collins take part in the BARJ into
your Lives Day by volunteering at a Food
Bank with a youth under their supervision
CISP Youth turn over proceeds of carwash
$1,607 to Center for Victims
Supervisors Keonte’ Campbell and Bob
Straw with Administrator/Chief PO Russell
Carlino and AJ Kathryn Hens-Greco at the
annual Aids Walk
Page 40
The
DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONTACT (DMC)
The DMC subcommittee conducted its first training
with the new City of Pittsburgh Police Cadets on
June 8, 2012. Approximately 100 Law Enforcement
officials, community leaders and youth gathered at
Duquesne University to brainstorm solutions to
reduce the number of minorities having run-ins with
the law and ending up in the justice system.
MUSIC FESTIVAL
For the past 12 years juvenile probation staff have
volunteered at the annual Allegheny County Music
Festival.
Juvenile Probation has participated in the ACMF
from the beginning, working the collection of
donations from people who attend the concert. In
2012 approximately $24,000 was collected.
Administrator/Chief PO Russell Carlino, Val
Ketter, Alex Ketter and Lloyd Woodward
The following staff, colleagues and Judges volunteered: Lisa Ashbaugh, Russell Carlino,
Carrie Clutter, Edgar Folks, Earnest Frazier, Deb Freeman, Ted Kairys, Val Ketter, Alex Ketter,
Angela Moffe, Matt Piroth, Connie Przybyla, Judge Rangos, Jim Rieland, Pete Schepis, Bob
Struggle, Mary Lee Tracy, Nicole Wallace, and Lloyd Woodward.
WEBSITE
For more information and downloads visit the Allegheny County Probation website at:
http://www.alleghenycourts.us/family/juvenile/juvenile.asp
Page 41
Organizational Chart
Page 42