Population forecast fiscal year 2003-2007

STATEWIDE
Population Forecast Draft
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE SERVICE POPULATION FORECAST CY2003 THROUGH CY2007

Statewide Service Population Forecast
Overview
This report was prepared by the Research, Planning and Program Evaluation Unit of the Office of Technology and Information Services. The purpose of this document is to provide DJJ managers with data that will support them during their policy making process. This report will be published in January; and updated in July of every year.
Project Staff
Shelley Matthews, Statistical Research Analyst/ Forecast Project Lead
Claus Tjaden, Methodology Consultant Joshua Cargile, Programmer Ann Watkins, Programmer Doug Engle, Director, Office of Technology and
Information Services Aaron Estis, Editor/ Consultant, Bearing Point
July 14, 2003
Report: 42708-01.28.03
Planning, Research and Program Evaluation Unit
Department of Juvenile Justice 3408 Covington Highway Decatur, Georgia 30032 http://www.djj.state.ga.us/

Statewide Population Forecast

Page ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 2
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 3 FACTORS AFFECTING THE FORECASTS ........................................................................................................... 3 FUTURE FORECASTS ...................................................................................................................................... 4
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 5
ABOUT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE ........................................................................................... 5 POPULATIONS SERVED................................................................................................................................... 6 SERVICES PROVIDED...................................................................................................................................... 6 REPORT ORGANIZATION ................................................................................................................................ 8
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 9
APPROACH..................................................................................................................................................... 9 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................... 10 DATA SOURCES ........................................................................................................................................... 12
KEY FACTORS AFFECTING THE FORECAST................................................................................... 14
POPULATION GROWTH................................................................................................................................. 14 ARRESTS...................................................................................................................................................... 16 FILINGS........................................................................................................................................................ 17 LEGISLATION ............................................................................................................................................... 18 JUDICIAL DISCRETION.................................................................................................................................. 19 DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE POLICY ............................................................................................... 19
DJJ SECURE POPULATIONS .................................................................................................................. 20
DETENTION.................................................................................................................................................. 20 SHORT TERM PROGRAMS............................................................................................................................. 25 YDC COMMITTED ....................................................................................................................................... 29
DJJ NON-SECURE POPULATIONS ........................................................................................................ 34
PROBATION.................................................................................................................................................. 34 COMMUNITY COMMITMENTS....................................................................................................................... 36
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................. 38
DIRECTION OF FUTURE FORECASTS ............................................................................................................. 38

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As the population of youth in Georgia between the ages of 10 and 16 increases by 6.8 percent over the next five years, the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) is forecasting a 17.8 percent decrease in the average daily population for detention, a 4.0 percent decrease in the short term program (STP) average daily population and a 4.5 percent increase in the average daily population for long term placements in secure facilities. The net impact is a decrease of 181 youth per day (or 6.7 percent) over the next 5 years (see Exhibit E-1). With this information, DJJ can undertake the appropriate planning to ensure that it has the capacity to accommodate youth in need of secure placements over the next 5 years.

Exhibit E-1 Actual Utilization and Forecasted Need for Secure Beds
for Youth under DJJ Supervision

4,000

Actual

Forecasted

3,000

2,000

1,000
0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

YDC Short Term Detention

The significant decrease in secure bed utilization by youth in detention is a reflection primarily of changes in DJJ policies and operations over the past three years. DJJ began using case expeditors in 1999 and introduced a detention assessment instrument in fiscal year 2002. Case expeditors move low and medium risk youth out of detention centers or divert youth entirely and move youth into either a home placement or an alternative placement. The detention assessment instrument is a tool used to assess the likelihood that a youth will flee or re-offend prior to his or her court hearing. The increasing use and availability of alternatives to placement in secure facilities should allow the average daily population in DJJ's secure detention facilities to continue to decline through 2007. The recent reduction in secure bed utilization by youth in STP is a reflection of changes in policy. Legislation from 2001 allows judges to place youth in an STP that is not in a secure facility. The increasing use and availability of non-secure alternate placements should allow the average daily population for STP youth in Youth Development Campuses (YDCs) to decline through 2007. The committed YDC average daily population should increase through 2005 due to the proportion of high risk youth in facilities with long lengths of stay. The YDC ADP is forecasted to decline in 2006 and 2007.
Although not forecasted in this report, youth placed in a non-secure setting (e.g., youth on probation, at home, or in a group home) make up the largest proportion of youth that DJJ serves. The historical data show that the average

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 2

daily population for probation has declined from its peak in 1999. The average daily population rose from 7,585 in 1996 to 11,342 in 1999 and then fell back to 7,418 in 2002. Data are included for those youth committed at home and in residential placement over the past three years. Commitments at home appear to be declining while the numbers of youth placed in a residential slot have increased over the past three years. With additional years of data and improved data quality, it should be possible to develop forecasts for non-secure populations in future reports.
Approach and Methodology
To ensure that it is prepared to address the needs of youthful offenders that are likely to come under its supervision over the next 5 years, the Department of Juvenile Justice requires a robust analytical method for understanding the implications of experience and for converting that understanding into a forecast of future needs. The data projection model chosen for this project is a modification of the model presented by Jeffery Butts and William Allen in "Anticipating Space Needs in Juvenile Detention and Correctional Facilities," published by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in March, 2001. Dr. Claus Tjaden, in consultation with DJJ staff modified the model to accommodate the particular circumstances in which DJJ operates. The model combines Departmental knowledge about policy changes and program initiatives with data from past years to forecast secure bed needs for the next 5 years.
One key feature of the methodology is the use of transitional probabilities to forecast service populations. A transitional probability is the probability that a youth in one population will subsequently become part of a second population that is deeper in the juvenile justice system and hence a population for which DJJ provides secure beds or community placement slots. To estimate future service population needs, the model includes adjustments to transitional probabilities for each of the forecasted years based on current practice and policy.
While statistical projections are developed within a margin of error, forecasts also should not be viewed as an exact prediction of the future. Therefore, this report presents upper and lower bounds for each forecast. The actual average daily populations will likely fall somewhere within the bounds presented.
Factors affecting the Forecasts
Many factors affect the forecasts for utilization of non-secure beds. Among the most significant factors are the following:
Population growth will continue for the at-risk population.
Arrest rates have been decreasing and are forecasted to decrease, but at a slower rate over the next five years.
Filing rates are expected to remain similar to 2001 rates over the next five years.
Legislation has affected utilization of secure and non-secure placements at DJJ through budgetary decisions, length of stay policies, and the creation of alternative programs.
Judicial discretion is an important factor as judges' tendency to embrace or avoid alternatives to secure placement can affect utilization of DJJ beds.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 3

Departmental policy includes guidelines on the types of youth that should go to secure facilities and for how long.
Each of these factors can have an effect of varying magnitudes and directions on the need for secure beds. The net effect, as indicated previously, is a decrease in the need for secure beds in the future and an increase in the need for alternatives to secure beds.
Future Forecasts
Although this report forecasts a selected number of DJJ service populations, future forecasts should incorporate non-secure populations where possible. The majority of youth that DJJ serves are served at home or in a residential placement. The Department would benefit from knowing the expected size and composition of non-secure populations. Future forecasts should aim to understand all the populations that DJJ serves.
In addition, future forecasts should examine differences by gender. Boys and girls exhibit different admission and length of stay patterns, which need to be discussed and forecasted in future reports. In addition, the changing effects of policy such as the Detention Assessment Instrument and Comprehensive Risk and Needs assessment tool should be examined. Finally, relevant policy or practice changes as well as economic impacts should be reviewed and incorporated in the next forecast report.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 4

INTRODUCTION
This report provides the population forecasts for the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) from calendar year 2003 to calendar year 2007. DJJ's success as a service provider depends on its ability to anticipate and meet the needs of youth coming under its supervision. Even if population growth were the only consideration, forecasting secure bed needs would be an imprecise exercise. In addition to population growth, the forecasts must include consideration of several external factors such as the legislated policy, judicial discretion, and social trends. Yet, the need for reasonably accurate population forecasts is critical; the consequences of having either too many or too few beds are significant. A system with too few beds suffers from overcrowding while a system with a surplus of beds wastes valuable resources.
Although a significant portion of DJJ resources and efforts are devoted to managing youth assigned to secure beds, the majority of DJJ's service population is not in secure facilities. The population needing secure beds presents an immediate concern for DJJ, because almost all youth served in a secure facility will also receive services in the community. Also, some youth in non-secure slots today may require secure beds in the future. The fact that youth in secure facilities will also receive services in non-secure settings such as aftercare is an indication of how these two populations interrelate. The goal of this report is to forecast the secure populations that DJJ serves and to lay the foundation for forecasting equally important non-secure populations in future reports.
About the Department of Juvenile Justice
The Department of Juvenile Justice provides supervision, detention and a wide range of treatment and educational services for youth referred to it by the juvenile courts. It furnishes assistance or delinquency prevention services for youth under its supervision through collaborative efforts with other public, private, and community entities. The mission of the Department is: "to serve the youth and citizens of Georgia by protecting the public, holding youth accountable for their actions, and improving their academic, social, vocational, and behavioral competencies in the most effective manner possible." This mission is consistent with a balanced and restorative justice approach to juvenile justice. With this approach, youth are accountable for their crimes and are responsible for restoring the victim and the community.
DJJ established a new regional system in July 2001 as the first step toward moving service planning and delivery closer to the local level. The Department now consists of 13 Districts within 5 Regions. The first regional planning documents under the new system were completed in May 2002.
DJJ carries out its mission with a budgeted staff of 4,227 employees managing programs, services, and facilities throughout the state with an annual state operating budget of $279.8 million for fiscal year 2003. The majority of the State funding for DJJ goes towards secure facilities (62.7 percent of the budget). Approximately 27.7 percent of the budget is spent on community corrections, which includes youth served in the community, and the remaining 10 percent of the budget is for administration, training, transportation, and for the Children Youth Coordinating Council. DJJ serves over 54,000 youth annually in various settings. The average daily population in 2002 for all DJJ service populations was 22,352. On average only 2,725 of these youth were in a secure facility on any one day.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 5

Populations Served
DJJ is primarily responsible for serving the population of youth below the age of 17 that are accused of a law violation or have been adjudicated. Although some youth served by DJJ are over the age of 17, the majority of youth served are between the ages of 10 and 16. Youth enter the system through arrest or through referral to the court by law enforcement, parents, school officials, or some other party. Most youth that are in a detention center enter the system through an arrest1. Before adjudication, the youth is in an intake status, which is the process for determining whether the interest of the public or the juvenile requires the filing of a petition with the juvenile court. This process is conducted by an intake officer who receives, reviews, and processes complaints, recommends detention or release when necessary, and provides services for juveniles and their families, including diversion and referral to other community agencies. Detention use is forecasted in this report. Adjudication is the process for determining whether allegations brought forth in the juvenile court petition are true and for determining the appropriate course of action such as dismissal, acquittal, holding the charge in abeyance, or making a finding of delinquency or unruliness. After adjudication, the judge determines the appropriate course of action such as dismissal/conditional dismissal, probation, short term program placement, or commitment to DJJ.
DJJ has statewide responsibilities, but in some local jurisdictions, courts supervise youthful offenders. The 16 independent courts in the State provide all or a portion of delinquency intake screening, predisposition investigation, probation supervision, and aftercare services. In 11 counties, known as "shared counties," the Department and the counties share the responsibilities for supervising youthful offenders. The Department provides services to youth from independent court counties if a youth enters a detention center, short term program placement, or is committed to the State. Only that portion of the youthful offender population that receives services from DJJ are forecasted in this report.
Services Provided
DJJ serves pre and post-adjudicated youth under its supervision. Pre-adjudicated youth are either in an intake status or are served in Regional Youth Detention Centers (RYDC). Post-adjudicated youth are generally served in probation, a short term program (STP), a Youth Development Campus (YDC), or community placement. In some circumstances, adjudicated youth awaiting placement may also be held in an RYDC. Each of these service areas are described in more detail below:
Intake Youth are in intake status during the process for determining whether the interest of the public or the juvenile requires the filing of a petition with the juvenile court. The intake status will end upon adjudication, informal adjustment, or abeyance.
Detained in Regional Youth Detention Center (RYDC) Youth awaiting trial in juvenile or superior court, or placement elsewhere within the DJJ system are served in secure short term detention centers known as RYDCs. The detention center population is composed primarily of pre-adjudicated youth, although youth may

1 While youth are not technically arrested but taken into custody, the term "arrest" is used in this report to describe when the youth are taken into custody by law enforcement.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 6

be held in detention centers while awaiting placement after adjudication. How this issue is addressed in the forecast is discussed in more depth in the Methodology Report. DJJ operates 22 Regional Youth Detention Centers (RYDCs). As of March 31, 2003, the capacity of all RYDCs was 1,123 beds.
Probation Probation is the placement into the community of a delinquent or unruly youth under certain conditions and under the control, supervision, and care of a case manager. The juvenile court judge retains jurisdiction over the case for the period stated in the court order, up to a maximum of two years. In 16 counties, independent courts manage all intake and probation services. This report focuses only on counties that DJJ serves, 11 shared and 132 dependent court counties.
Short Term Program (STP) After a petition is filed and a youth has an adjudication hearing, he or she may receive a disposition with a maximum stay of 90 days as an alternative to long-term confinement. The court may order the child to serve that time in the YDC in addition to receiving any other treatment or rehabilitation deemed necessary. After assessment and upon approval by the court, the youth may be referred for treatment in a residential program. Youth may also be held in an RYDC while awaiting transfer to a YDC. Only youth that receive a disposition for an STP and are held in a secure facility -- either the YDC and/or the RYDC -- are forecasted in this report. Short term programs were originally conceived as a 90 day boot camp. Boot camps were discontinued in March of 2000, however, the secure 90-day program is still a disposition option for judges. As of the end of March 2003, the capacity of short term program beds in the YDC was 821.
Committed and Placed in Youth Development Campus (YDC) YDCs are long-term secure rehabilitation facilities for youth committed to DJJ custody by juvenile courts. Committed youth may be placed in 1 of 5 YDCs because they are a designated felon or Superior Court youth, or because DJJ determines that they are a high risk to the community. The court specifies whether the youth is a designated felon or superior court youth, both of which require the youth to stay in the YDC. Designated felons are those youth who have committed certain felony offenses, which require these youth to stay in restrictive custody from 12 to 60 months. Superior court youth also committed certain felony acts and will stay in a DJJ secure facility until the age of 17 when they are then transferred to the adult system. DJJ uses its Comprehensive Risk Needs (CRN) assessment tool to determine whether a child would be better served in the YDC or the community. Youth are required to attend school while at the YDC. Vocational education along with job readiness training, job training, job placement, and work support services are also offered at the YDCs. Other services provided include medical, behavioral health, and general counseling. As of March 31, 2003 the capacity of long-term YDCs was 980 beds.
Committed and Placed in Community Committed youth may be placed in the community after the CRN assesses the youth's risks and needs or in transition following placement in a YDC. These youth may be placed at home to receive aftercare services or they may be placed in a community residential program such as a group home or a wilderness program.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 7

In summary, the service population needs forecasted in this report include secure detention, secure short term program, and YDC committed service populations and provides a basis for forecasting non-secure DJJ service populations, including the intake population, probations, and community commitments.
Report Organization
The remainder of this report addresses the following topics: The approach and methodology used for this forecasting report
The factors that influence each population group within DJJ, such as at-risk population growth, arrests, filings, judicial discretion, legislation, and DJJ policy.
The trends, forecasts, and policies that affect the use of RYDCs, STPs, and YDCs.
Non-secure historical data for probation and non-secure community commitments.
A summary and direction for future forecasts.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 8

APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
This section discusses the approach, methodology, and data used to conduct this study. The approach uses objective and subjective inputs based on actual practice to arrive at forecasts that are expected to be more accurate than would purely statistical projections based on historical data. The methodology is based on research modified to fit the circumstances of DJJ and available data. As noted in this section, various primary data sources are used to develop the forecasts.
Approach
This forecast model uses a combination of historical regression trends2, transitional probabilities, and input from local leaders to forecast future needs within selected service population categories. A transitional probability is the probability that a youth in one population will subsequently become part of a second population that is deeper in the juvenile justice system. All forecasts were completed at the regional level for calendar years 2002-2006 based on historical data from calendar years 1996-2001. Each region received a report that included three possible forecast scenarios for detention, STP, and YDC commitments for their regions. In January 2003, a committee comprising of DJJ forecasting staff, Regional Administrators, District Directors, RYDC Directors, YDC Directors, and Case Expeditors met to discuss policy issues affecting population forecasts for each region3. The meeting gave regional representatives an opportunity to discuss current issues affecting service populations and to critique the forecasts. Using input from the regions, the staff identified issues that have statewide as well as regional impacts. At this juncture, the staff contrasted preliminary regional forecasts to newly available data from 2002 and made appropriate adjustments. The regional forecasts were then summed to generate preliminary statewide forecasts. Lastly, the staff adjusted the forecasts based upon statewide policy issues. For further technical explanations of how the population forecasts were derived, please see the Methodology Report.
The focus of the forecasts in this report is the average daily population (ADP) for each of the DJJ service populations served in secure facilities. (Historical data is presented for selected populations served in a non-secure setting.) To derive the ADP, assumptions were made for admissions and the average length of stay (ALOS). Admissions, ALOS, and ADP each have an important effect on future DJJ service populations. An admission is defined in this study as a single continuous placement or series of placements at facilities of the same type as long as no days elapse between placements. By counting transfers as a single admission in this report, the Department of Juvenile Justice is able to gain a better understanding of how many youth are admitted to each placement and how long they are staying.
The length of stay is as important as admissions for estimating the total number of youth in facilities. The average length of stay is determined by taking the total of all days in a year that a youth is a part of the particular

2 Regression uses the ordinary least squares method to fit a line that best describes the data. The regression trend could be linear,
exponential, or some other line depending on the historical trend. 3 Region 1 had the opportunity to obtain input from a cross-section of juvenile justice professionals. Juvenile justice
professionals were represented from such organizations as the juvenile courts in Bartow and Floyd County, DFCS, NAACP, and
the State University of West Georgia.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 9

service population and dividing these days by the number of releases in that year4. The average daily population can be forecasted by using the following formula: (admissions x average length of stay) / number of days in year.
A forecasting approach has an advantage over strictly statistical projection models because it can incorporate policy changes as well as statistical techniques. While statistical projections are developed within a margin of error, forecasts also should not be viewed as an exact prediction of the future. Therefore, this report presents upper and lower bounds for each forecast. The actual average daily populations will likely fall somewhere within the bounds presented.
Methodology
To ensure that it is prepared to address the needs of youthful offenders that are likely to come under its supervision over the next 5 years, the Department requires a robust analytical method for understanding the implications of experience and for converting that understanding into a forecast of future needs. The data projection model chosen for this project is a modification of the model presented by Jeffery Butts and William Allen in "Anticipating Space Needs in Juvenile Detention and Correctional Facilities," published by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in March, 20015. Dr. Claus Tjaden6, in consultation with DJJ staff modified the model to accommodate the particular circumstances in which DJJ operates. The model combines Departmental knowledge about policy changes and program initiatives with data from past years to forecast secure bed needs for the next 5 years.
One key feature of the methodology is the use of transitional probabilities (TP) to forecast service populations. A transitional probability is the probability that a youth in one population will subsequently become part of a second population that is deeper in the juvenile justice system and hence a population for which DJJ provides secure beds or community placement slots7.
Consider the projection of average daily populations in detention centers as an example. As shown in Exhibit 1 there were approximately 857,366 youth between the ages of 10-16 in Georgia in 2001. Of those youth, 37,651 were arrested during 2001. The transitional probability of a youth between the ages of 10-16 in Georgia being arrested was 4.4 percent (37,651/857,366) in 2001. Of those 37,651 youth arrested during the year, there were 21,357 admissions into detention centers. (It is understood that this count includes some duplication as some youth had more than one admission during the year). The chance of a youth that is arrested subsequently being placed in a detention center is 56.7 percent (21,357/37,651). The average daily population for detention can then be estimated by using the following formula: (Admissions x Average Length of Stay) / Number of Days in Year. For 2001 the calculation

4 Many youth spend time in detention centers after receiving a STP disposition. Youth should spend less than 10 days in a RYDC
after receiving a STP disposition. In order to clearly forecast the need for Short Term Programs, post-adjudicated days beyond
10 days spent in the RYDC were moved to STP days. This affects the length of stay and average daily population calculation
for RYDCs and STPs. For further explanation, please see the Methodology Report. 5 Dr. Butts from the Urban Institute also provided an initial on site consultation and review of regional projections. Additional
useful information was obtained from his forecasting web site at http://jf.urban.org/space.htm. 6 Dr Tjaden with Toucan Research worked with DJJ to develop the Integrated Assessment and Classification System. 7 Transitional probabilities are presented in the form of percentages to allow for easier interpretations of the model.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 10

would be (21,357*17.9)/365=10478. This method is then used to forecast future secure bed use by adjusting the current year transitional probabilities to reflect Departmental expectations regarding arrest rates and detention rates over the next 5 years.
Transitional probabilities need to be adjusted over time to reflect what is known from actual experience. A straight projection based on population growth and the most recent transitional probabilities would not likely provide an accurate estimation of future needs. This is because the transitional probability of an at-risk youth being arrested has not been static in the past and is not expected to be static in the future. To estimate future service population needs, the model includes adjustments to transitional probabilities for each of the forecasted years based on current practice and policy. The same process is used to forecast the STP and YDC committed populations. The forecast of these populations differs slightly from the detention model in that court filings are used instead of arrests. As Exhibit 1 shows, for probation, STPs, and commitments, the at-risk to filing transitional probability is calculated first followed by the filing to court disposition transitional probability. Probations, STPs, and commitments use filings instead of arrests because they are juvenile court dispositions and thus are more contingent upon court filings than arrests. The Department technology staff developed a software program which calculates these transitional probabilities and balances the effects of the at-risk population, arrests or filings, and ADP in one model.
Exhibit I Transitional Probabilities for DJJ Service Populations, 2001
Georgia's At Risk Youth Population 857,366

Arrested Youth in Georgia 37,651

Informal Adjustment Diversion
Alternative to Detention Residential

Detained Youth (RYDC) 21,357

Youth Awaiting at Home for Disposition Hearing

Charges Filed in Juvenile Court 87,541

Committed

Committed

Probation

Home

8,467

3,275

Residential 1,069

Short

Committed

Term

YDC

Program

1,260

5,183

DJJ Populations Forecasted This

Report

DJJ Populations of Historical Data Only This Report

Non DJJ Population Data Used to Compute Transitional Probabilities

8The actual Average Daily Population for 2001 was 988, thus the projection calculation method was within 5.6% of the actual figure. The actual ADP is calculated by dividing the total numbers of days served for the year by the total number of days in that year.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 11

Data Sources
For this analysis, five primary data sources were used. Data were compiled from the Census Bureau, the Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, the Administrative Office of the Courts, and DJJ databases and tracking files.
The at-risk population was obtained from the Census Bureau and the Governor's Office. The Census Bureau provided the 2000 Census data in addition to the 1996-1999 population estimates by age and county. The Governor's Office of Planning and Budget provided county level population projections by age groups from 2001 through 20109.
The Georgia Bureau of Investigation furnished the arrest and crime data. The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program provides crime statistics for the State of Georgia. Because law enforcement agencies provide these crime statistics to the Federal Bureau of Investigation voluntarily, arrest and crime data are missing or are unusually low for some counties for some years10.
The Administrative Office of the Courts gathers data for court filings. Filings include all complaints or petitions filed with the clerk of the juvenile court. According to statute O.C.G.A. 15-11-37, "a petition alleging delinquency, deprivation, or unruliness of a child shall not be filed unless the court or its designee has determined and endorsed upon the petition that the filing of the petition is in the best interest of the public and the child." This report analyzes the number of delinquent and unruly cases filed. Reporting problems with court filing data are similar to those presented with the arrest data. Juvenile courts voluntarily report filing data. From 1996-1999, most counties reported court filings data. In 2001, almost one third of the counties did not report filing data11.
Historical data for the populations that DJJ serves were obtained from various databases maintained in DJJ's Juvenile Tracking System (JTS). During fiscal year 2000, JTS replaced approximately 130 stand-alone databases. The consolidated database includes data on all placements, demographics, services, offenses and dispositions, and the complete forms of various instruments. It has taken time, however, for field staff to become accustomed to entering data at all decision points in the system. Inconsistent data entry affects probation data in particular. In addition, the Department merges data and cleans up inconsistencies found in the databases. For example, the database may include the same individual twice because the identifiers among the various databases are slightly different. To ensure that the forecasts take advantage of constant improvements being made to the data quality, the forecasts are based on the latest available data in the database at the time the forecasting project was initiated September 2002. The 2002 data

8 The Governor's Office of Planning and Budget uses the cohort-component model to project population gorwth, the same method used by the Census Bureau. The Governor's Office of Planning and Budget projected populations 10-14 and 15-19. DJJ staff took proportions to obtain the 15 and 16-year old population. For the exact understanding of the calculations, please see the Methodology Report. 10 Counties that did not report arrest data in a given year typically reported low numbers of arrests for the adjacent years. Therefore, when calculating transitional probabilities using arrest data, the at-risk population numbers for those counties were included in the equation. Transitional probabilities from at-risk to arrests for counties missing arrest data will be equal to zero. 10 Where filing data are not available for certain years, the number of filings was interpolated from previous or subsequent years. For example, an average of data from the closest surrounding years was used to fill in missing county data for a particular year. When only the preceding year's data was available, then this value was carried through the missing year. Finally, for 2001 and 2002, the filings data were interpolated based on the current year's at-risk population and the previous year's transitional probability.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 12

are based on JTS as of January 2003. When forecasts are completed again, all historical data will be updated to reflect improvements in the database.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 13

KEY FACTORS AFFECTING THE FORECAST
This section of the report discusses six factors that influence all DJJ service populations. Growth in the at-risk population affects the number of youth that may potentially enter the system. Once a youth enters the system through either an arrest or a filing, then his or her chance of being placed under DJJ supervision increases. Finally, legislation, judicial discretion, and DJJ policy have an effect on who enters DJJ supervision and for how long. Although this list of factors is not exhaustive, it provides a basis for understanding major influences on DJJ service populations.
Population Growth
The size and rate of growth of the "at-risk" population (i.e., boys and girls from 10 to 16 years of age) is important to this forecast. Most youth that DJJ supervise fall within this age range. The at-risk population is the starting point for the transitional probabilities in each population DJJ serves.
Georgia has shown an extraordinary amount of growth since 1990. Between 1990 and 2000, Georgia's population grew by 26.4 percent. The State ranked fourth in terms of numeric population change from 1990 to 2000, growing by 1,708,237 people. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, Georgia is the tenth most populous state.
The at-risk population also grew considerably since the 1990 Census.12 During the 10-year period, the at-risk population grew by 22.5 percent. The growth in the 10 to 16 year old population was greater for males than females. The male population grew by 29.5 percent while the female at-risk population grew by 22.8 percent. Specifically in 2000, the males ages 10 to 16 outnumbered the females by 23,757.
The at-risk population is projected to increase by 17.7 percent (148,902 youth) over the next 10 years. The male at-risk population is expected to increase by 18.6 percent from 2000 to 2010 while the female at-risk population is expected to increase by 16.8 percent. The projected population growth in Georgia varies by race as well. The fastest growing populations in Georgia will be Hispanics followed by Asians/Pacific Islanders (see Exhibit 2). Specifically, the Hispanic at-risk population will more than double by 2010, gaining 42,554 youth in the at-risk category. The growth in the Hispanic population will not be evenly distributed across the State, however. Whitfield County in Region 1 has the highest proportion of Hispanics in Georgia and is projected to maintain a high proportion of Hispanics through 2010. Hall County (Region 2), Echols and Atkinson County (Region 5) and Chattahoochee County (Region 4) will each include a large proportion of Hispanics. Gwinnett, Cobb, DeKalb, and Fulton Counties all in Region 3, will have the greatest numbers of Hispanic youth. In addition to the Hispanic population, the Asian population is expected to grow by 40 percent or from 16,222 youth in 2000 to 22,714 youth in 2010. The African American population will also increase by a significant amount or by 16.9 percent. The African American at-risk population will increase from 290,366 to 339,532 over the next 10 years. The Caucasian at-risk population, however,

12 The at-risk population 10-16 year olds are based on aggregated Census Bureau data. The DJJ populations analyzed include all youth in the juvenile justice system. The at-risk population of 10-16 year olds was chosen because most youthful offenders fall in that age group.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 14

is expected to show a moderate increase from 478,359 to 515,713 youth by 2010. Even though Hispanics will show the greatest gains in at-risk population, Caucasian and African American youth will still make up the majority of the population.
Exhibit 2 Georgia Projected At-Risk Population by Race, 2000-2010

1,000,000 800,000 600,000

Asian

Hispanic

African American

400,000 200,000

Caucasian

0 2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Projected population growth in Georgia varies greatly by region. Similar to the trend in 1990-2000, most of the population growth will occur in the Atlanta area and north of Atlanta. As shown in Exhibit 3, Region 5, which lies in southeast Georgia, will decline in population over the next few years. Region 4 in southwest Georgia will exhibit less than 5 percent growth in at-risk population over the next 8 years. The Atlanta metro area, or Region 3, will continue to increase the most in numbers of at-risk youth while Region 2 will have the greatest percent increase in population, followed by Region 1, which lies mostly in Northwest Georgia.

Exhibit 3 Projected Percentage Change in At-Risk Population by
Region, 2000-2010

30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0%
5.0% 0.0% -5.0%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 15

Arrests
Arrests are used in the transitional probability model to determine the ratio of the at-risk population arrested. From this probability, the ratio of those youth detained after arrest is determined. Therefore, understanding arrest statistics is crucial to determining the beds needed in the RYDCs.
The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program provides arrest and crime statistics for the state of Georgia. According to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, "arrest statistics more accurately reflect the number of arrests made, rather than the number of crimes solved or the number of different persons taken into custody." More than one arrest can be made for the same crime. Therefore, comparisons of arrests to crimes can be made but caution needs to be exercised.
In addition to arrest data, the UCR also presents crime data. The offenses included in the Crime Index for violent crimes are murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. The property crimes include burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Note that the data in Exhibits 4a and 4b include crimes committed by adults and juveniles.
The crime rate is lower now than it has been in 20 years. Violent crimes in Georgia dropped by 44 percent from 1990 to 2000 (see Exhibit 4a). Since 1996, the violent crime rate has decreased from 613 reported crimes per 100,000 to 466 per 100,000, or by 24 percent. Between 2000 and 2001, violent crime showed a slight increase.
Exhibit 4b shows a 37 percent drop in property crime from 1989 when the property crime rate peaked at 6,204 property crimes per 100,000 people to 2001 when there were 3,897 property crimes per 100,000. In addition, property crime dropped by 28 percent from 1996 to 2001. As with violent crime, property crime slightly increased in 2001.

Exhibit 4a Georgia UCR Violent Crime Index (Crimes per
100,000 Residents) 1980-2001
900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100
0

Exhibit 4b Georgia UCR Property Crime Index (Crimes per
100,000 Residents) 1980-2001
7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000
0

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

For juveniles 17 years of age and under, arrests for both violent and property crimes have decreased substantially (see Exhibits 5a and 5b). Violent crime arrests have dropped by 21 percent from 1997 to 2001. These arrests increased slightly from 1999 through 2001, however. Property crime arrests have dropped by 18 percent since 1997. The decrease in property crime arrests have slowly leveled out over time with the greatest decrease occurring between 1997 and 1999 and the smallest decrease occurring between 1999 and 2001.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 16

Exhibit 5a Georgia Juvenile Arrests for Part I Property
Crimes, Ages 17 and Under, 1997-2001

13,000 12,000 11,000 10,000
9,000 8,000

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Exhibit 5b Georgia Juvenile Arrests for Part I Violent
Crimes, Ages 17 and under, 1997-2001

2,600 2,400 2,200 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

As shown in Exhibit 6a, the numbers of arrests for 10 to 16 year olds have decreased over the past six years with slight increases occurring (less than 2 percent) from 1999 through 2001. The transitional probabilities of being arrested have steadily decreased since 1996, however. The rate dropped from 5.5 percent in 1996 to 4.4 percent by 2002 with the biggest drop occurring between 1997 and 1998. In forecasting future changes in the at-risk to arrest transitional probability, it was determined that a logarithmic model best fit the historical data13. The probability of arrest will continue to decrease through 2007 but at a slower rate each year. Specifically, 4.0 percent of the at-risk population is forecasted to be arrested by 2007 (see Exhibit 6b).

Exhibit 6a Statewide Arrests for At-Risk Population
1996-2002

Exhibit 6b Statewide At-Risk To Arrest Transitional
Probability 1996-2007

42,000 41,000 40,000 39,000 38,000 37,000 36,000 35,000

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

6.00% 5.00% 4.00% 3.00% 2.00% 1.00% 0.00%

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Historical TP

Forecast TP

Filings
Filing data provide a basis for understanding the rate at which at-risk youth enter the juvenile justice system. Filings include all petitions or complaints. Filings are examined because they can lead to the following dispositions that place youth under DJJ's supervision: probation, placement in a short term program, and commitment. Historical data show that court filings decreased from 1998-2000 and then increased from 2000 to 200214. Similar to DJJ populations, the majority of the court filings occur in Region 3. Region 3 makes up approximately 40 percent of the total state court filings. Consequently, Region 3 has a significant influence over the statewide pattern of filings.

13 A logarithmic model describes the relationship between year and arrest using the inverse of an exponential function. 14 As mentioned earlier, some counties were missing filing data, especially in 2001. Therefore, adjustments were made to each
county missing data in order to more accurately complete at-risk to filings transitional probabilities.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 17

The number of court filings has increased over the past six years but at a slower rate than the growth of the juvenile population. The transitional probability of a youth in the at-risk age group having charges filed has decreased from a high of 11.4 percent in 1998 to its current rate of 10.2 percent. The rate dropped most quickly between 1998 and 2000 as shown in Exhibit 7a. In forecasting future changes in the at-risk to filing transitional probability, a linear regression line based on 1996-2002 data would likely over estimate the rate at which the transitional probability will decrease. Because the decrease appears to level off in the past two years, the transitional probability for the past two years (10.2 percent) is used to forecast filings for the next few years as shown in Exhibit 7b.

Exhibit 7a Statewide Filings 1996-2002

90,000 88,000 86,000 84,000 82,000 80,000 78,000

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Exhibit 7b

Statewide At-Risk to Filing Transitional

14.00% 13.00% 12.00% 11.00% 10.00%
9.00% 8.00% 7.00%

Probability 1996-2007

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Historical TP

Forecast TP

Legislation

Another major factor that affects all DJJ service populations is legislation. Shifts in public opinion favoring harsher or more lenient sentences may be reflected in the electorates' choices for legislators. Although DJJ may try to influence legislative decisions, the final decisions are made by elected officials. Annual budgetary decisions, length of commitment policies, and legislated program alternatives all affect DJJ service populations.
The budget allocated to DJJ is set by the Legislature. The Department has a goal to build smaller facilities closer to the youth they serve and provide community based alternatives for pre-adjudicated and post-adjudicated youth. The availability of funding affects whether and how soon these changes are implemented.
An example of legislation that greatly affects DJJ populations is Senate Bill 440, which went into effect in 1994. The Governor's Juvenile Justice Reform Act (Senate Bill 440) gave courts exclusive jurisdiction to juveniles charged with one of seven major violent offenses. In addition, Senate Bill 440 allowed for the creation of short term programs, which gave judges the ability to sentence any delinquent offender up to 90 days confinement in a secure facility without committing the youth. This piece of legislation greatly increased the number of youth that DJJ served and the settings in which they are served.
A third example of policy changes that affect DJJ service populations is the zero-tolerance law. The zero tolerance law came into effect in February 1993. Implementation of the zero tolerance law is a matter of local preference. A county may or may not choose to implement it. Cobb County adopted the policy while DeKalb County did not. Included in the zero tolerance law are such offenses as battery against a school official, possession of alcohol at school, disrupting school, carrying a weapon to school, selling drugs near/at the school, possessions near/at school,

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 18

and loitering upon school premises. With such a law, some youth enter secure detention that otherwise may not have entered the system.
Judicial Discretion
Judicial discretion is another factor that influences the size and composition of DJJ service populations. In Georgia, for fiscal year 2003, there are 142 juvenile court judges including 47 full-time judges, 42 part-time judges, 28 full and part-time associate judges, 8 superior court judges exercising juvenile court jurisdiction, 12 pro tempore judges, and 5 senior judges. There are currently 16 independent court counties and 11 shared court counties. The counties that DJJ is responsible for can fluctuate from year to year. In counties managed by DJJ, the policies, procedures, and practices are more consistent than in counties with independent courts.
In all juvenile courts, judges have discretion over how they dispose of cases. For example, judges determine the type of disposition a youth will receive such as probation, placement in an STP, or commitment. They also have the ability to set the length of stay in many cases. Judges determine whether the youth will be detained while awaiting sentencing. DJJ staff (e.g., intake officers and expeditors) may exert influence on judges' decisions, however.
Department of Juvenile Justice Policy
DJJ policy influences all populations it serves. The Department has policies for the types of youth that should go to secure facilities and for how long. Using a standard needs assessment tool, DJJ can give a sound and defensible recommendation to judges concerning whether to detain youth. In addition, youth that are committed to the Department are screened for the risk level and the types of services needed via the CRN process. For example, youth rated high risk using the CRN instrument are recommended to stay in a YDC from 9 to 12 months.
Below are policy goals that DJJ presented in its Service Development Plan in July of 2002. The following goals affect how DJJ serves its population groups:
Youth will be diverted to the least restrictive environments and private providers.
To meet the needs of youth requiring the most restrictive environment, facilities will be constructed in their communities.
Older/larger existing facilities will be downsized or eliminated.
Program opportunities for youth not requiring restrictive environments will be provided in the community through contract providers.
Long-term assets currently in operation will be given priority for any renovations/modifications needed to ensure appropriate long-term functioning.
Each of these Department policies influence how and what types of services youth receive. External legislation such as stricter sentences for certain types of offenders may conflict with some DJJ policies. Judges may override the Departments recommendations. In addition, budget constraints may prevent DJJ from attaining some goals as well.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 19

DJJ SECURE POPULATIONS
This section presents and discusses the forecasts for secure populations including those placed in Regional Youth Detention Centers (RYDCs), short term programs (STPs), and Youth Development Campuses (YDCs). For the forecasted populations, the average daily population is presented followed by admissions and average length of stay. Key management initiatives and policies that affect the forecasts are presented as well as capacity for secure facilities. Exhibit 8 shows the average daily population in 2002 for secure and non-secure populations. The other category includes all youth who are not counted in any other DJJ service population such as intake, informal adjustment, and youth held in abeyance. The intake population includes all youth that are reviewed by an intake officer who may be detained, released, or provided services including diversion and referral to other community agencies. Detained youth
are counted in detention. On average, only 12.2 percent of the population under DJJ's supervision is held in a
secure facility on any given day.

Exhibit 8 Statewide Average Daily Population for DJJ
Service Populations 2002

Detention 4.2%
Other 35.5%

STP 3.8%
YDC 4.2%

Probation 33.2%

Detention

Community Commitments
19.2%

The average daily population in DJJ's detention centers is forecasted to decrease by 17.8 percent, from 946 youth

in 2002 to 778 youth in 2007. The forecast continues the trend of a declining detention population over the past 6

years during which the detention population decreased from 1,214 youth in 1996 to 946 youth in 2002. Exhibit 9

shows the average daily population from 1996 forecasted through 2007.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 20

Exhibit 9 Statewide Detention Average Daily
Population 1996-2007

1,400

1,200 1,000

800

600

400

200

0

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Historical

Forecast

If the detention population were solely dependent on the at-risk population and the number of arrests in the State, then one would expect detention admissions to have increased over the past 5 years. On the contrary, admissions to detention have declined from 26,967 in 1996 to 18,991 in 2002 a 29.6 percent decrease. Detention admissions also declined in every region with Region 3 having the largest impact on the total numbers. Based on regional analysis of the population data and input from regional advisors, admissions are assumed to decline from 18,991 in 2002 to 16,423 in 2006 representing a 2.0 percent yearly drop in the probability of a youth being detained after being arrested (see Exhibit 10).
Exhibit 10 Statewide Detention Admissions Historical
and Forecast 1996-2007

30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000
5,000 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Historical

Projections

The average length of stay is assumed to reach and maintain a level of 18 days for the next 5 years (see Exhibit 11). The forecasted length of stay of 18 days is the average of the length of stay for the previous two years and provides the best estimate for the forecast model. Recent policy changes regarding the transfer of youth between facilities and youth awaiting placement after adjudication will combine to stabilize average length of stay over the next 5 years.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 21

Exhibit 11 Statewide Detention Average Length of
Stay 1996-2007

18.50 18.00 17.50 17.00 16.50 16.00 15.50
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Historical

Forecast

The increase in the average length of stay in 2002 can be attributed primarily to transfers of youth between facilities. DJJ's Directive # 02-14, states that RYDCs are not to exceed operational capacity. When an RYDC reaches its operational capacity, no additional intakes are accepted and all youth needing secure detention are diverted to the nearest RYDC that is operating under capacity15. The average length of stay for youth that have transferred from RYDC to RYDC was 46.7 days in 2001 and 51.7 days in 2002. The youth with longer lengths of stay represented 11 percent of the releases in 2001 and 14.2 percent of the releases in 2002. They are typically postadjudicated youth awaiting a placement. For youth who did not transfer, the average length of stay declined from 17.5 days in 2001 to 16.6 days in 2002. The First STEP program also contributed to increased detention length of stay. In August 2001, bed space in the Metro, Macon, and Savannah RYDC were converted for use by the First STEP program. The First STEP program is designed to provide psychological and educational assessment for all youth that have been designated for placement in a YDC. Because the detention capacity has been reduced for these RYDCs, youth are transferred more frequently, which contributes to a longer length of stay. Recent changes in policy and funding have eliminated the First STEP program although a YDC diagnostic process will still be in place.
Another factor that contributes to the length of stay for detention placement is the time that youth are held while awaiting placement in a residential placement, YDC, or STP after adjudication. For example, the McIntosh YDC closed from 5/20/02 to 10/15/02 due to contract re-bidding and the effect of which is reflected in the increased ALOS during 2002. Because this facility was unavailable for 5 months, some youth stayed in the RYDC longer awaiting placement. The reopening of McIntosh has had a favorable impact on the length of stay for some youth.
Exhibit 12 presents the forecast, the historical data used in the analysis, and the related transitional probabilities. The table below presenting the forecast average daily population also presents bounds for the forecast. The bounds are derived as the aggregate of bounds developed for each region (see methodology report). In general, the lower bound represents the size of the detention population if it were to continue to decrease at the rate it has over the past

15 Rated capacity represents the number of individual sleeping rooms in a center, whereas operational capacity represents the population level that will require emergency procedures not to be exceeded for more than 72 hours.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 22

few years, an event that the advisory group think is unlikely. In contrast, the upper bound represents the population

level for the scenario in which the detention population is to maintain a similar ADP to the 2002 average daily

population over the next 5 years.

Exhibit 12: Detention Population Data

Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

At-Risk 747,260 756,205 770,179 784,310 840,805 857,366 874,143 890,962 908,544 927,239 943,878 951,963

Arrest TP 5.47% 5.32% 4.92% 4.72% 4.45% 4.39% 4.37% 4.29% 4.21% 4.14% 4.08% 4.03%

Arrests 40,881 40,291 37,915 37,042 37,447 37,651 38,231 38,222 38,250 38,388 38,510 38,364

Adms TP 65.96% 63.40% 66.12% 67.29% 60.34% 56.72% 49.67% 48.01% 46.29% 44.45% 42.65% 41.14%

Admissions 26,967 25,548 25,072 24,928 22,596 21,357 18,991 18,350 17,706 17,063 16,425 15,783

ALOS 16.43 16.52 16.85 17.37 17.78 16.88 18.18 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00

ADP 1,214 1,156 1,157 1,186 1,101 988 946 904 873 841 809 778

Upper Bound Lower Bound

ADP

ADP

945

867

943

793

942

720

941

651

940

582

Even though the at-risk population is projected to increase in Georgia over the next 5 years, DJJ initiatives, such as the Detention Assessment Instrument (DAI) and case expeditors, are expected to keep the detention population below capacity. These two initiatives are discussed below:
Detention Assessment Instrument (DAI): During fiscal year 2002, detention reform gave judges the option to place lower risk youth in an appropriate alternative to detention while awaiting a court appearance. Since that time, more detention alternatives have become available to judges. The DAI is the tool judges use to evaluate youth prior to adjudication. The DAI combines current offense data with a youth's legal history to measure how likely a youth is to re-offend or flee between the time he or she is arrested and that youth's adjudicatory hearing. The Department recommends that youth scoring "high" should be detained, youth scoring "medium" should be released to structured, community based alternatives to detention such as electronic monitoring and that youth scoring "low" be released to a parent or guardian without conditions. In 2001 and 2002, the majority of girls (approximately 40 percent) in detention centers were assessed as low risk. In 2001 and 2002, approximately 21 percent of males with a low risk determination were in a detention center. For both groups, about one third of youth in detention center had a medium risk score on the DAI. Based on the current DAI data, there is room to continue to decrease RYDC admissions over the next 5 years. Independent court counties handle a substantial number of the youth and have only just begun to use the DAI. Although more youth should be diverted from RYDCs according to the DAI, judges have the discretion to override the assessment.

Expeditors: Case expeditors are playing a pivotal role in the reduction of the detention population. Case expeditors work to ensure that youth progress smoothly and quickly through the system. They work to move low and medium risk youth out of detention centers or divert youth entirely and move youth into either a home

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 23

placement or an alternative placement. The first case expeditors were hired in October 1999. Over the past few years, 18 expeditors have been hired. It is difficult to measure the quantitative impact that expeditors have had on the detention population but the declines in the detention population over the past few years suggest that it has been substantial.
The exhibit below shows the average daily population and capacity for detention centers statewide from 1996 2002. In order to clarify capacity needs, the average daily population is presented in two ways 1) The ADP including all pre and post-adjudicated days spent in the RYDC, and 2) The ADP used in the current forecast. In order to clearly forecast the need for short term programs, post-adjudicated days beyond 10 days spent in the RYDC were moved to STP days. Even though many youth spend time in detention centers after receiving an STP disposition, youth should spend less than 10 days in an RYDC after receiving the disposition. Therefore, the ADP for detention and STP were calculated with these post-disposition days counted towards STP. For further explanation, please see the Methodology Report.

Exhibit 12a: Statewide Detention Average Daily Population (with and without post disposition STP days) and Capacity 1996-2002

1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000
800 600 400 200
0

1996

1997

1998

Average Yearly Capacity

1999

2000

2001

2002

Total ADP

ADP without STP Days

The following exhibit shows the historical and forecasted average daily population and capacity along with the forecasted ADP and the capacity if it remained the same as the current 2003 level of 1,123. As projected in the Service Development Plan, new RYDC beds are now available in Augusta, Rome, and Macon. With the addition of these beds and the subtraction of other beds, the RYDC capacity should remain at 1,123 and be adequate for the forecasted population. Historically, detention centers have been used to house post-adjudicated youth with an STP disposition resulting in higher detention populations. If short term youth continue to await placement in detention centers, then the forecasted average daily population in detention centers will most likely be closer to the current capacity.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 24

Next, caution needs to be taken when using forecast data for planning since policy and practice continually change. Some members of the review committee are concerned that as the at-risk population, arrests, and filings increase, alternative program resources and expeditor resources will need to increase. The belief is that while expeditors and alternatives to detention may have had a positive impact, these resources have reached the point of diminishing returns. As the at-risk population increases over the next few years, DJJ will likely need to expand expeditor and alternative program resources to insure a continual reduction in the detention ADP. If the current levels of resources are merely maintained, then the ADP will level out resembling the upper bound. If resources are discontinued or cut the ADP could increase to the current capacity. The Department plans to vigorously continue to collaborate with the Juvenile Courts of Georgia and refine the Detention Assessment Instrument to insure appropriate use of detention. Capacity needs should be met over the next five years due to the addition of planned beds and the DJJ Directive # 02-14 which allows for the movement of youth to other RYDCs when an RYDC is approaching operational capacity.

Exhibit 12b: Statewide Detention Average Daily Population and Capacity Historical and Forecast 1996-2007

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0 1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Capacity

Historical ADP

Forecast

Upper Bound

Lower Bound

In conclusion, the average daily population for detention centers is expected to decline over the next 5 years. As the DAI continues to becomes more widely used and accepted, especially among the independent courts, more low risk boys and girls should be placed in non-secure alternatives to detention. Expeditors will continue to be a key factor in moving low risk and medium risk youth to appropriate alternatives. By updating this forecast every 6 months, DJJ management can work with the Office of Planning and Budget regularly to adjust resource needs accordingly.
Short Term Programs
The average daily population for short term program beds in secure facilities is forecasted to decrease slightly over the next 5 years from 850 in 2002 to 816 in 2007 (see Exhibit 13). Given the large reduction over the past 4

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 25

years, the continued decrease can be expected despite the probable increase in both the juvenile at-risk population and juvenile court filings. However, the forecasted reduction in bed use is much less than has been experienced in past years.

1,600

Exhibit 13 Statewide Short Term Program Average Daily Population Historical and Forecast 1996-2007

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Historical

Forecast

STP admissions in secure facilities are assumed to continue to decline but at a slower rate than in previous years. Based on regional analysis of the population data and input from the regional advisors, a moderate decline in STP admissions in secure facilities was derived. Experience at the regional level suggests that as long as youth do well on probation and avoid violations, the number of STP admissions in secure facilities can continue to drop. The total number of STP admissions may remain the same if as admissions to secure facilities decline, admissions to alternatives to STP increase. The number of STP admissions in secure facilities is assumed to decline from 4,109 in the year 2002 to 3,907 in the year 2007 (see Exhibit 14a).
The length of stay decreased 12 days in the past 6 years from 88.8 days in 1997 to 76.8 days in 2002 with the largest decrease occurring in the past 2 years. The forecast reflects a length of stay that continues to decline but at a slower rate. Based on analysis of regional data and the input from the advisory groups, it was determined that the length of stay would likely decrease by another half day over the next 5 years at a steady rate of 0.1 day per year (see Exhibit 14b).

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 26

Exhibit 14a Statewide Short Term Program Admissions
Historical and Forecast 1997-2007
7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Exhibit 14b Statewide Short Term Program Average
Length of Stay 1996-2007
90.00

85.00

80.00

75.00

70.00
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Historical

Forecast

Exhibit 15 displays the resultant forecasts, the historical data used in the analysis, and the related transitional probabilities. The table below presenting the forecast average daily population also presents bounds for the forecast. The bounds are derived as the aggregate of bounds developed for each region (see methodology report). In general, the lower bound represents the size of the STP population if it were to continue to decrease at the rate it has over the past few years, an event that the advisory group think is unlikely. In contrast, the upper bound represents the population level for the scenario in which the STP population is to maintain a similar ADP to the 2002 average daily population over the next 5 years.
Exhibit 15: Short Term Program Data

Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

At-Risk 747,260 756,205 770,179 784,310 840,805 857,366 874,143 890,962 908,544 927,239 943,878 951,963

Filing TP 11.3% 11.3% 11.4% 10.9% 9.8% 10.2% 10.2% 10.2% 10.2% 10.2% 10.2% 10.2%

Filings 84,272 85,697 88,013 85,702 82,364 87,541 89,280 90,967 92,762 94,671 96,370 97,195

Adms TP 5.85% 6.61% 6.61% 6.77% 6.73% 5.92% 4.60% 4.48% 4.36% 4.24% 4.13% 4.02%

Admissions 4,931 5,666 5,819 5,809 5,551 5,183 4,109 4,075 4,044 4,014 3,980 3,907

ALOS 83.93 88.78 85.31 84.87 84.28 80.39 76.77 76.67 76.57 76.47 76.37 76.27

ADP 1,110 1,344 1,386 1,343 1,245 1,097 850 855 848 840 832 816

Upper Bound Lower Bound

ADP

ADP

855

764

855

680

855

600

855

524

855

446

Several factors are expected to contribute to the decline in STP admissions to secure facilities such as changes in

philosophy and the availability of alternatives.

Changes in Philosophy: In the early 1990s the state of Georgia and the Department of Juvenile Justice

enacted a more punitive approach to juvenile justice than the current approach to juvenile justice. For

example, the Governor's Juvenile Justice Reform Act (Senate Bill 440) allowed for the creation of short term

programs, which were originally conceived as boot camps for youth with offenses not serious enough to

warrant commitment. The 90-day program provided for in S.B. 440 led to unprecedented numbers of less

serious delinquent offenders being held in secure facilities. It was believed that youth in short term programs

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 27

would not offend again due to the experience in the YDC thereby reducing the number of commitments. The level of commitments actually remained steady while the level of STP dispositions rose until calendar year 1999. Over time, a continuum of other treatment options will continue to arise which will lessen the reliance on secure STP beds.
Alternatives to Short Term Program: Another factor that will serve to reduce STP admissions in secure facilities is House Bill 201, signed by Governor Roy Barnes in May 2001, which allows judges to place STP youth in an alternative to placement in a secure facility. Currently, most youth serve their STP sentence in a YDC. "The legislation allows for youth to be placed in more appropriate programs based on their risk to the public and individual needs." One successful alternative program to an STP placement in a secure facility is Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST) implemented in January 2002. Multi-Systemic Therapy is an intensive, family and community-based alternative treatment program that addresses the multiple causes of serious antisocial behavior in juvenile offenders. Studies of offenders who received MST show significant success in reductions of YDC placements and re-arrest rates. Other alternatives to STPs housed in secure facilities include weekend sanction programs in Augusta and Tracking Plus that is in 10 locations throughout the state. The Department is in the process of opening more alternatives to secure STP beds in other residential programs as well.
The following exhibit shows the historical and forecasted average daily population and capacity along with the forecasted ADP and the capacity if it remained the same as the current 2003 level of 837. The Department should be able to meet its needs with the current capacity. Although the McIntosh STP beds will no longer be available, the Crisp STP facility will fill this void. As presented earlier, the average daily population for short term programs includes some post-disposition time spent in the RYDC.

Exhibit 15a: Statewide STP ADP and Capacity Historical and Forecast 1996-2007

1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000
800 600 400 200

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Capacity

ADP

Forecast ADP

Upper Bound

Lower Bound

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 28

If current policies and practices are maintained, then the short term program population will level out resembling the upper bound. However, the increasing use and availability of alternatives to STP placements in secure facilities should allow the admissions and ADP at YDCs to continue to decline through 2007 as forecasted.
YDC Committed
The average daily population for YDC committed youth is forecasted to increase from 929 youth in 2002 to 971 in 2005 (see Exhibit 16). After 2005, the average daily population is forecasted to decline from 971 to 950 in 2007. As high-risk youth, designated felons, and superior court youth make up a greater proportion of YDC admissions, the population will necessarily stay longer, which will increase the average daily population.
Exhibit 16 Statewide YDC Average Daily Population
Historical and Forecast
1,400 1,200 1,000
800 600 400 200
0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Admissions are assumed to decline from 1,200 in 2002 to a low of 865 for 2007 as shown in Exhibit 17. After conferring with the regional advisory groups and examining the YDC admission trends, it was determined that the moderate decline of 4.8 percent from 2001-2002 can be sustained for the next 5 years. From 2001 to 2002, the probability of a youth being placed in a YDC after receiving a filing decreased from 1.4 percent to 1.3 percent. This trend is assumed to continue in a linear fashion through the year 2007 reflecting a decline of 0.1 percent each year through 2007.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 29

Exhibit 17 Statewide YDC Committed Admissions Historical
and Forecast 1996-2007

1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000
800 600 400 200
0

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Historical

Forecast

The average length of stay for 2007 is assumed to be 401.1 days, up from 274 days in 2002. As seen in Exhibit

18, the average length of stay has declined over the past two years from 315 days in 2000 to 274 days in 2002. In

2000, the Department began a "Step Down" program, which allowed youth who were doing well in the YDC to end

their sentences early. The ALOS was affected in October 2001 when a policy further reduced the length of stay for

committed youth in the "Step Down" program. These policy factors contributed to the decline in the average length

of stay between 2000 and 2002.

The forecasted length of stay is expected to increase over the next 5 years. The reason for this increase is that

consistent with DJJ policy, more low risk youth will be diverted from YDCs thereby increasing the proportion of

high-risk offenders in YDCs. Low risk youth have shorter lengths of stay than do high-risk youth (see Exhibit 18).

For example, low risk youth serve from 3 to 6 months in the YDC, medium risk youth serve from 6 to 9 months, and

high risk youth serve from 9 to 12 months in a YDC. Designated Felons are required to stay in the YDC from 12 to 60 months while Superior Court youth are required to stay in the YDC until the age of 17. In 2002, the average

length of stay for Designated Felons was 605 days while the ALOS for Superior Court youth was 249 days. In addition, youth who are committed for aggravated sexual battery, rape, child molestation, aggravated sodomy, and

other sexually related offenses will be supervised at a high level of service regardless of the CRN determined level of

service. After 6 months of a high level of service, the youth may be eligible to be served at a lower level of service

depending on various criteria. To calculate the average length of stay, the current year minimums for low, medium,

and high risk youth were applied to the forecasted admissions. Therefore, as more low risk youth are diverted, the

average length of stay will increase an average of 25.5 days per year. Also, the most current year length of stay data

for Designated Felons and Superior Court youth were used to forecast future lengths of stay. Therefore, because the

minimum lengths of stay were applied to forecasted admissions, the length of stay could actually be higher than

forecasted. However, recent policy changes will reduce the minimum lengths of stay by one month for medium and high risk youth. Therefore, as low risk youth are diverted to community placements, the average lengths of stay in

YDCs will likely increase because of policy determining minimum lengths of stay for high risk youth.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 30

Exhibit 18 Statewide YDC Committed Average
Length of Stay 1996-2007
500 400 300 200 100
0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Historical

Forecast

Exhibit 19 presents the resultant forecast, the historical data used in the analysis, and the related transitional

probabilities. The table below presenting the forecast average daily population also presents bounds for the forecast.

The bounds are derived as the aggregate of bounds developed for each region (see methodology report). In general,

the lower bound represents the size of the YDC committed population if it were to show a moderate decrease for the

next 5 years, tempering the large decrease between 2000 and 2001 and the slight increase between 2001 and 2002. In

contrast, the upper bound represents the population level for the scenario in which the YDC population is to maintain

the increasing ADP trend from 1996 to 2000 over the next 5 years.

Exhibit 19: YDC Committed Data

Year
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

At-Risk
747,260 756,205 770,179 784,310 840,805 857,366 874,143 890,962 908,544 927,239 943,878 951,963

Filing TP
11.28% 11.33% 11.42% 10.92% 9.79% 10.21% 10.21% 10.21% 10.21% 10.21% 10.21% 10.21%

Filings
84,272 85,697 88,013 85,702 82,364 87,541 89,280 90,967 92,762 94,671 96,370 97,195

Adms TP Admissions

1.24% 1.37% 1.34% 1.70% 1.76% 1.43% 1.34% 1.25% 1.16% 1.07% 0.98% 0.89%

1,041 1,180 1,180 1,459 1,453 1,260 1,200 1,137 1,076 1,013 944 865

ALOS
301.4 379.2 299.3 282.6 315.0 298.2 273.6 299.1 324.6 350.1 375.6 401.1

ADP
953 962 1,020 1,101 1,221 872 929 931 956 971 971 950

Upper Bound Lower Bound

ADP

ADP

955

901

980

873

1,007

846

1,003

818

1,059

790

Although many factors affect the future YDC population, two policy issues are crucial to forecasting the average daily population. They are integrated classification (CRN) and minimum lengths of stay requirements.
Integrated Classification: The Division of Facilities and Classification and the Division of Community Corrections developed a comprehensive system for classifying youth based on their risks to public safety and their needs. The system is referred to as the Integrated Classification System. Integrated classification

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 31

improves the assessment of youth for applying the appropriate sanctions while also offering the appropriate "restorative" support services. The cornerstone of the process is the Comprehensive Risk & Needs (CRN) assessment tool that was implemented statewide on July 1, 2002. The CRN uses current juvenile developmental theory and forms the basis for decisions regarding services and placement for committed and probated youth served by DJJ. It ensures that youth are provided the least restrictive placement commensurate with their risks and needs. Based on data from July 1, 2002 through February 26, 2003, the majority of youth placed in the YDC are medium risk (43 percent). Low risk youth make up the smallest proportion of the YDC committed population (20 percent) while the high risk youth make up 38 percent of the YDC population. Many low risk and some medium-risk youth can be served in the community. The CRN is an effective tool for identifying which youth should be placed in a YDC and which can be served adequately in the community without compromising public safety.
Minimum Lengths of Stay Requirements: A minimum length of stay in a YDC may be established in statute or recommended by DJJ. Legislators and public opinion can affect which crimes have statutory YDC length of stay minimums, whereas DJJ has more flexibility for those offenses where there is no specific legislative guidance. For example, a juvenile court can commit a delinquent child as a designated felon if that youth has committed certain felony acts and the youth has met certain criteria, which indicates the youth requires restrictive custody. The juvenile court judge determines whether a designated felon requires restrictive custody as well as the length of time (from 12 to 60 months) a youth must be placed in a YDC. In addition, the Superior Court can commit a youth under the age of 17 for felony offenses to the care of the Department as a Superior Court Commitment. These youth stay with DJJ until the age of 17 when they are then transferred to the adult system. Higher risk youth, designated felons, and Superior Court commitments would certainly lengthen the average stay in YDCs.
The following exhibit shows the historical and forecasted average daily population and capacity along with the forecasted ADP and the capacity if it remained the same as the current 2003 level of 976. The exhibit also presents the upper and lower bounds for the ADP.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 32

1,400 1,300 1,200 1,100 1,000
900 800 700 600

Exhibit 19a: Statewide YDC Committed ADP and Capacity Historical and Forecast 1996-2007
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

2007

Capacity

ADP

Forecast ADP

Upper Bound

Lower Bound

Integrated classification determines the risks and needs of committed youth through the CRN screening tool. Depending on the type of commitment, regular, superior court, or designated felony, and the assessed level of risk, youth may have a mandatory length of time they must stay in the YDC. These policies related to types of commitments and risk level drive the forecasted average length of stay for YDCs, which in turn affects the average daily population. Therefore, the average daily population should increase through 2005 followed by a decrease through 2007 due to the integrated classification process and minimum lengths of stay requirements. Any changes in these polices could result in the ADP either resembling the upper bound and exceeding capacity, or the ADP may decrease and be closer to the lower bound.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 33

DJJ NON-SECURE POPULATIONS
This section discusses the historical data for selected non-secure DJJ populations. As seen in Exhibit 20, nonsecure populations make up the majority of populations that DJJ serves (87.7 percent). The other category includes all youth who are not counted in any other DJJ service population such as intake, informal adjustment, and youth held in abeyance. The intake population includes all youth that are reviewed by an intake officer who may be detained, released, or provided services including diversion and referral to other community agencies. Detained youth are counted in detention.

Exhibit 20 Statewide Average Daily Population for DJJ
Service Populations 2002

Detention 4.2%
Other 35.5%

STP 3.8%
YDC 4.2%

Probation 33.2%

Probation

Community Commitments
19.2%

Historical probation data are drawn from 133 dependent and 10 shared court counties16. Probation is not

forecasted in this report because the data yield an unacceptable level of confidence. For example, not all probation

data are entered into the tracking system, especially in the case of short term plus probation dispositions. In addition,

offense records for youth that may have received a disposition of probation are often left without a final adjudication

date. This causes great difficulty in counting new probations. For these reasons and others, only the historical data

are presented for probation in this report.

The historical data show that probation admissions have declined from 10,112 in 1997 to 6,702 in 2002. The

numbers of probation admissions in 2002 are probably underestimated due to missing probation adjudication dates in

the Juvenile Tracking System (see Exhibit 21).

16 Since the forecast, some counties have shifted from being shared court counties to independent courts. Currently, there are 132 dependent and 11 shared court counties.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 34

Exhibit 21 Statewide Probation Admissions 1996-2002

12,000 10,000
8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000
0 1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

As shown in Exhibit 22, the average length of stay for probation dispositions has increased from 363 days in 1996 to 446 days in 2002. It is difficult to know whether this trend is accurate because many probations were never closed out in the database, especially in earlier years. Even though probation orders can technically stay open for two years, most probation orders are closed after one year. Therefore, probation dispositions with no end date were automatically closed at the end of one year even though they may have actually lasted more than a year.

Exhibit 22 Statewide Probation Average Length of
Stay 1996-2002

500 450 400 350 300 250 200
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
As presented in Exhibit 23, the average daily population for probation has declined from its peak in 1999. The ADP rose from 7,585 in 1996 to 11,342 in 1999 and then fell back to 7,418 in 2002. The ADP is calculated based on releases and therefore when probation dispositions are not closed out, the ADP is subject to error. The reader should interpret historical probation data with caution.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 35

Exhibit 23 Statewide Probation Average Daily Population
1996-2002

12,000 11,000 10,000
9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Community Commitments
Community commitments refer to youth being placed either in a community residential program or at home after being committed to DJJ. Only recent data (2000-2002) are used because data from previous years are incomplete.
Admissions may be misleading for community commitments. Youth may be placed in several different community residential programs within a commitment order. A youth may reside in a residential placement, a YDC, and at home several different times during one commitment. To avoid duplication, community residential commitments and at-home commitment placements are counted only once within each commitment. If the youth receives a new commitment while an existing one is still open, the first commitment is closed and new community and home placements are counted. Commitments are assumed to last 2 years unless the youth receives a new commitment date or the current commitment has an end date.
The data show the number of youth committed at home has declined since 2000 while the number of youth that are served in a residential placement has increased since 2002 (see Exhibit 24). The increase in residential placements may be due to the increasing availability of residential programs for male and female youth.
The average daily population follows the admissions trend. In 2000, the average daily population for youth committed at home was 4,312. That number had decreased to 3,610 by 2002. The ADP for committed youth in residential placements increased from 468 in 2000 to 642 in 2002. During the same period the YDC ADP declined by 270 youth.
Finally, the average length-of-stay decreased by 66 days for committed youth spending time at home. The ALOS increased by 19 days for youth served in residential placements.
Exhibit 24: Committed At Home

Year Adms (Unique Youth)

2000

2,928

2001

2,769

2002

2,552

Admissions 3,433 3,275 2,985

ADP 4,312 3,856 3,610

ALOS 505 492 440

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 36

Exhibit 25: Committed Residential Placement

Year Adms (Unique Youth) Admissions

2000 2001 2002

836 1,013 1,015

871 1,069 1,068

ADP 468 643 642

ALOS 209 218 228

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 37

CONCLUSION
This report provides forecasts and discussions of historical data for the Department of Juvenile Justice. The goal of this report is to build forecasts that reflect current practice and take into account changes in policy and practice that have been implemented at the local, district, and regional level. The report is structured so that it may be updated periodically to incorporate policy changes and more recent data.
The average daily population is forecasted to decline for the detention and short term program populations. The declines in ADP will not be as substantial as in previous years, however. Initiatives that offer alternatives to detention and short term program placement within YDCs will contribute to the decline in these populations. The average daily population will increase in YDCs from 2003-2005 primarily because there is expected to be a greater proportion of high risk youth in YDCs in the future. Although, in 2006 and 2007, the ADP is forecasted to decline as admissions continues to decline.
The probation average daily population has declined since 1999. The ADP for community commitments at home has declined since 2000 while the average daily population for residential placements has increased.
Direction of Future Forecasts
Although this report forecasts a selected number of DJJ service populations, future forecasts should incorporate non-secure populations where possible. The majority of youth that DJJ serves are served at home or in a residential placement. The Department would benefit from knowing the expected size and composition of non-secure populations. Specifically, future forecasts should examine populations by legal status in order to understand the needs of the populations that DJJ serves.
In addition, future forecasts should examine differences by gender. Even though this report does not focus on gender, boys and girls exhibit different admission and length of stay patterns, which need to be discussed and forecasted in future reports. In addition, the changing effects of policy such as the DAI and CRN should be examined. Specifically, future forecasts should not only focus on the risks of youth but also the assessed needs of youth. Future forecasts should examine changes in the populations which may have occurred simultaneously to changes in the economy and unemployment. Finally, relevant policy or practice changes should be reviewed and incorporated in the next forecast report.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 38