Population forecast fiscal year 2004-2008

DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE
Population Forecast FISCAL YEAR 04-08

Statewide Service Population Forecast
Overview
This report was prepared by the Planning, Research 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
Llewellyn Jenkins, Project Design & Lead Consultant Claus Tjaden, Methodology Consultant Doug Engle, Director, Office of Technology and
Information Services
October 1, 2004

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
FACTORS AFFECTING THE FORECASTS ........................................................................................................... 2 FORECAST SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 3
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 4
ABOUT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE ........................................................................................... 4 DOCUMENT PURPOSE..................................................................................................................................... 6 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 6 DATA SOURCES ............................................................................................................................................. 7 REPORT ORGANIZATION ................................................................................................................................ 8 CHANGES SINCE LAST YEAR........................................................................................................................... 8
KEY FACTORS AFFECTING THE FORECAST..................................................................................... 9
HISTORIC PROGRAM INDICATORS & RELATIONSHIPS .................................................................................... 9 ENVIRONMENT............................................................................................................................................. 10 POLICY ........................................................................................................................................................ 15
POPULATION FORECAST ....................................................................................................................... 17
POPULATION FORECAST............................................................................................................................... 18 PLACEMENT RATIO FORECAST .................................................................................................................... 21 PLACEMENT FORECAST ............................................................................................................................... 24
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................. 28
APPENDIX A: 60 DAY STP PROJECTIONS .......................................................................................... 29
APPENDIX B: EVENTS THAT AFFECT POPULATIONS................................................................... 31
APPENDIX C: REGIONAL FORECASTS............................................................................................... 32
REGION 1 ..................................................................................................................................................... 33 REGION 2 ..................................................................................................................................................... 41 REGION 3 ..................................................................................................................................................... 49 REGION 4 ..................................................................................................................................................... 57 REGION 5 ..................................................................................................................................................... 65
APPENDIX D: INDEPENDENT PROBATION ....................................................................................... 74
APPENDIX E: STATEWIDE DATA ......................................................................................................... 75

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this document is to present the results of the juvenile population forecasting initiative for
the Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice. This document presents factors that will affect the forecast
including historic trends, environmental and policy changes. These factors are used within the forecasting
process by subject matter experts in order to predict the most accurate trends possible. The result of this activity is to present population forecasts for all program types within the department, including Regional
Youth Detention Centers, Youth Detention Centers, Short Term Programs, Residential Programs and
supervision at Home.
Some of the key concepts that are presented in this document are summarized below: The department is supervising more youth in all legal statuses Scarcity of resources indicate the department must find additional cost effective methods of supervising youth while maintaining safety for the community In order to support change external stakeholders must support the strategic direction of the department

Factors affecting the Forecasts
Many factors affect the forecasts for utilization of secure and non-secure beds. Among the most significant factors are the following:

Environmental Trends

Environmental factors that may impact the department's populations are listed below: Population growth will continue for the at-risk population. Since fiscal year 2000 the at-risk
population has grown by 26,218 youth or 3.17%.
Since fiscal year 2000 arrests have increased by 764 arrests or 1.69%.
Filings have increased from 2000 to 2003 by 3,136 cases or 3.8%.
The probability that youth are assigned to the department for supervision has increased over the last 3 years by 8.8%.
The effect of these environmental changes in Georgia can be best seen in the growth of intake admissions between fiscal year 2000 and 2003, an increase of 4,631 youth or 13.6%.

Historical Trends

The statistics below describe the average daily population for each legal status of youth that the department serves. The percentages presented are changes the department has experienced between fiscal year 2000 to 2003. The numbers presented are the actual number of youth within each legal status (average daily population):

Youth Legal Status: Intake: STP:
Commitment: Probation:

% change since 2000 in ADP: -29.1% 77.2% 12.6% 16.4%

ADP (2003): 7,819 1,127 3,240 5,878

Comments:
Intake processes more efficient. Length of stay decreased. Increase in STP orders.
Increase in Commitment orders. Increase in Probation orders.

The legal status populations are distributed among placements to which youth are assigned. The statistics presented describe the average daily population and percentage change of youth assigned to placements between fiscal years 2000 and 2003.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 2

Program Name: RYDC: YDC:
STP: Residential:
Home:

% change since 2000 in ADP: -19.6% -28.2%
42.9% 68.2% -9.1%

ADP (2003): 1,030
916
679 879 14,619

Comments:
Intake processes more efficient. Length of stay decreased. Policy places youth in treatment oriented programs that serve the needs of both youth and community. Increase in STP orders.
Policy, decrease in YDC placements assigned to residential. Length of stay reduced from 178 days to 132 days.

Policy
Changes to state policy that may impact the department's populations are listed below: Legislation has affected utilization of secure and non-secure placements. Judicial discretion affects utilization of the department's bed space and programs. Departmental policy includes guidelines on the types of youth that should be admitted to secure
facilities, length of stay, and the development of alternative programs.
Forecast Summary
The information presented in this document provides a structured view of the department as a whole entity. The department's population forecast is based on a statistical analysis of youths various legal status to understand true increases or decreases in portions of the whole population. The department's management of these populations is then presented as a view of placements. Decisions concerning one placement will impact other placements as there are defined relationships between placements.
The statistics describe the average daily population for each legal status. The percentages presented below are changes the department forecasts between fiscal years 2003 to 2008. The numbers presented are the forecasted number of youth within each program in 2008:

Youth Legal Status: Intake: STP:
Commitment: Probation:

% change since 2003 in ADP: 43.2% 3.3% 9.4% 3.8%

ADP (2008): 11,200 1,164 3,544 6,103

Comments:
Length of stay stabilized. Increase in population displayed. Increase in STP orders.
Increase in Commitment orders. Increase in Probation orders.

The statistics describe the average daily population for each program. The percentages presented are changes the department has forecast between fiscal years 2003 to 2008. The numbers presented are the forecasted number of youth within each program in 2008:

Placement Name: RYDC: YDC:
STP:
Residential:
Home:

% change since 2003 in ADP: 34.1% -0.2%
-11.8%
22.3%
24.2%

ADP (2008): 1,381
914
599
1,075
18,159

Comments:
Length of stay stabilized. Increase in population displayed. Decrease proportion of youth served in YDC and use funds
to increase residential placements. Policy to provide alternatives to STP and decrease the
length of stay. Increase youth served in residential placements instead of
secure YDC placements. Increase the number of youth served at home with services.

Over the next five years the department forecasts increases in Intake, STP, Commitment and Probation populations. The department's preferred placement strategy is to increase community based placements and decrease usage of secure beds, as demonstrated in the increase in residential and home placements and a decrease in YDC and STP placements.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 3

INTRODUCTION
This report provides the population forecasts for the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2008. DJJ's success as a service provider depends, in part, on its ability to anticipate and meet the needs of youth under its supervision while continuing to ensure public safety. Even if population growth were the only consideration, forecasting secure bed needs would be an imprecise exercise. In addition to population growth, forecasts must include consideration of several external factors such as legislated policy, judicial discretion, and social trends. The need for reasonably accurate population forecasting 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.
The goal of this report is to present historic changes in populations, outline changes in environmental and political factors within Georgia and forecast the populations that the department serves. This knowledge can be then applied when reviewing current environmental and political changes that have recently occurred in order to combine it into an analysis of future population trends.
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 approach to juvenile justice, in which, youth are held accountable for their crimes and are responsible for restoration to the victim and the community.
The department established a 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.
The department 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 the department supports secure facilities (62.7 percent of the budget). Approximately 27.7 percent of the budget is expended on community corrections and the remaining 10 percent of the budget is for administration, training, transportation, and the Children's Youth Coordinating Council. The department serves over 54,000 youth annually in various settings. The average daily population of youth in 2003 for the department's service populations is 18,064. On average only 2,894 of these youth were in a secure facility on any one day.
Populations Served
The department is responsible for supervising youth that have been accused of violating Georgia's legal code and have been referred to the Department through a complaint by members of the community, including, but not limited to, parents and school officials. The Department provides commitment services for all youth within Georgia who are committed to the custody of the agency.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 4

Services Provided

The department serves both pre-adjudicated and post-adjudicated youth. Pre-adjudicated youth who are categorized in an intake status are served in Regional Youth Detention Centers (RYDC). Postadjudicated youth are generally served in probation, a short term program (STP), a Youth Development Campus (YDC), or community placements. 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 of determining whether the interest of the public or the juvenile requires the filing of a petition with the juvenile court. Intake status ends upon adjudication, informal adjustment, or abeyance.
Detained in Regional Youth Detention Center (RYDC) Youth awaiting hearing in juvenile or superior court, or placement elsewhere within the system are served in detention centers known as RYDCs. The RYDC population is composed primarily of pre-adjudicated youth, although youth may be held in RYDCs while awaiting placement after adjudication. How this issue is addressed in the forecast is discussed in more depth in the Methodology Report. The department operates 22 Regional Youth Detention Centers (RYDCs). As of March 31, 2003, the total capacity of all RYDCs was 1,123 beds.
Probation Probation is the community placement of a delinquent or unruly youth under certain conditions imposed by the court 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 the department serves, 11 shared and 132 dependent court counties.
Short Term Program (STP) After a petition is filed and a youth has an adjudicatory 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 remain 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 an alternative residential or non-residential program. Youth may 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 forecast in this report. Short term programs were originally conceived as a 90 day boot camp. Boot camps were discontinued in March 2000, however, the secure 90-day program is still a disposition option for judges. At 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 facilities for youth committed to DJJ custody by juvenile courts. Committed youth may be placed in 1 of 5 YDCs as a designated felon or Superior Court youth, or because the department 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 be admitted to YDC. Designated felons are those youth who have committed certain felony offenses, which require a stay in restrictive custody from 12 to 60 months. Superior court youth are determined by the court to be unamenable to treatment in the juvenile system and will stay in a departmental secure facility until the age of 17 when they are transferred to the adult system. The department utilizes the Comprehensive Risk Needs (CRN) assessment tool to determine whether a youth is better served in the YDC or the community. 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 is used to assess 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. These committed

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 5

youth are documented within this report under the headings of commitment residential and commitment at home.
In summary, the service population needs forecast in this report include secure detention, secure short term program, YDC committed service populations, and non-secure programs including probation, commitment residential and commitment at home.
Document Purpose
The purpose of this document is to present the contributing factors and results of the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) population forecasting initiative. The document is designed to explain what has happened to populations over the last seven years, changes in the environment, modifications to policy that will effect DJJ populations and the results of the forecasts with an explanation as to what factors contribute to the cause of the trends within the forecast.
This document is not intended to provide in depth analysis of the methodology used within this forecast, although it provides a high level overview. For more information concerning the method used within the forecast please refer to the document entitled Population Forecast Methodology Review, which has been published with this document.

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 forecast 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. The model combines departmental knowledge about policy changes, historical data trends and program initiatives with data from past years to forecast secure and non-secure bed needs for the next 5 years. The forecast model mainly consists of three parameters: average daily population (ADP) rates, average length of stay (ALOS) and admission rates of the specific program or category. The ALOS and admission rates will combine the historical data trend and DJJ policy strategies to project the forecast for the next five years. Average daily population can then be computed by the forecast of the two parameters.
Three alternative ADP trends are devised per region, using youth's legal status, which is based on different sets of historic data. The first trend uses information from fiscal year 1996 to 2003, seven years of data. The second trend uses information from fiscal year 2001 to 2003, three years of data. The third trend uses the rates of admission and average length of stay that are present within fiscal year 2003. These differing information sets provide alternative forecasts that are presented to subject matter experts within each of the five regions of the department. The subject matter experts evaluate each of the three trends and then select the trend that most accurately, in their opinion, provides the most realistic forecast for their region. After selection of each trend, the subject matter experts provide quantifiable reasons for selecting the trend. Each selected regional trend is then accumulated to form the overall state trends. The reason for this implementation is to enable subject matter experts the ability to provide input on the factors that may be driving these population trends.
One key feature of the methodology is the use of transitional probabilities to forecast the admission population and 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 (trend) and policy.
This model is then applied to two distinct population groups, the population as viewed by legal status and the population as viewed by placements. The relationship between legal status and placements is best viewed in the diagram presented below. More than one legal status can be served in more than one placement and a placement is comprised of more than one legal status.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 6

Legal Status

RYDC

STP

Intake



STP





Commitment



Probation



Placements

YDC

Residential









Home


STP Other

The first forecast is performed on the legal status populations. These populations are then assigned to placements using historical data to build placement ratios for each legal status. These ratios are used to assign the legal status increase or decrease in population to placements for future planning efforts. The planning efforts use this information to determine best utilization of resources for the benefit of the community and the youth in the departments care. The result of this planning effort is the assignment of legal status populations to placements that are presented as the forecast for placements.
While statistical projections are developed within a margin of error, forecasts also should not be viewed as an exact prediction of the future. The actual average daily populations will likely deviate from the forecasted trend.
The results presented in this document only provide an imprecise forecast for future years. There may be deviation from the trends presented due to future policy decisions and environmental trends that are unforeseen at this time. For more information concerning the method used within the forecast please refer to the document entitled Population Forecast Methodology Review, which has been published with this document.

Data Sources
For this analysis, five primary data sources were utilized. Data was 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 the department's 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 20101.
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 years.
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 and 2002, almost one third of the counties did not report filing data2.

1 The Governor's Office of Planning and Budget uses the cohort-component model to project population growth, the same method used by the Census Bureau. The Governor's Office of Planning and Budget projected populations aged 10-14 and 1519. 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. 2 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 7

Historical data for the populations that DJJ serves was obtained from various databases maintained in DJJ's Juvenile Tracking System (JTS). During fiscal year 2000, JTS replaced approximately 130 standalone databases. The consolidated database includes data on all placements, demographics, services, offenses and dispositions, and the completed forms of various assessment 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.
Additionally Appendix C provides a list of independent counties whose data is not included in this forecast.
Report Organization
The remainder of this report addresses the following topics: Factors that influence each population group within the department such as at-risk population
growth, arrests, filings, judicial discretion, legislation, and internal policy.
Historical trends and policies that affect the use of the department's programs
The population forecast for both secure and non-secure populations
To review a detailed statement of the methodology used for this report please review the document entitled Population Forecast Methodology Review, which has been published with this document.
Changes since last year
At-risk population projected has been modified based on data from Governor's Office of Planning and Budget.
Filing and arrest data has been re-estimated based on new 2002 data from Administrative Office of the Courts and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation.
The data presented in this report is based on fiscal year rather than calendar year.
Re-organization of the presentation of the data within this report.
Two new programs have been added, commitment at home and commitment residential.
All populations have been forecast based on legal status then projected within placements. For more information see document entitled Population Forecast Methodology Review, published with this document.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 8

KEY FACTORS AFFECTING THE FORECAST
The factors that affect this forecast come from three major sources. Historic program indicators, the first factor that affects the forecast, outlines the internal business environment and enables the department to understand potential trends from the last seven years of operations. The second source, Georgia's changing social environment, describes the population's growth and the effects that this has on the rates of arrests or filings within the law enforcement and court systems. The third and final factor, governmental policy, includes legislation for the previous fiscal year, the ability for judges to implement judicial discretion and the Department of Juvenile Justice's own policies.
All factors interact to provide inputs into the forecast. Some are uncontrollable factors, such as population growth, while others are proactively designed to modify the business environment, such as the Department of Juvenile Justice's own policies. Therefore it is important to study the potential effects of each factor in relation to both the other factors presented and the population forecast.
Historic Program Indicators & Relationships
The indicators that are used to form future trends are the number of youth admitted to the department's facilities or supervision (admissions), the length of time that they stay under the department's supervision (ALOS) and the average daily population in each type of placement category that the department uses to house and treat youth (ADP).
To view the information presented in this document, it is important to understand the relationship between these indicators. The average daily population indicator is a calculated number that is based on the combination of admissions and average length of stay. The actual formula used to calculate ADP is admissions times the average length of stay divided by days in the year (365). This means that change in either admissions or the average length of stay affect the average daily population of youth within the system. For example, if admissions increase and the average length of stay remain constant, then the average daily population will increase, or, if admissions increase and the average length of stay decreases at an approximate equal rate then the average daily population will remain approximately constant. Therefore, when viewing changes in the average daily population for a specific program it will be helpful to view the indicators for admissions and average length of stay to understand why the change is occurring.
Refer to the section entitled `Population Forecast' for working examples of these concepts.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 9

Environment
This section describes the state of Georgia's population increase, number of arrests and arrest trends, and the filings made by the court systems. The data presented in this section presents indicators of future changes the environment have on the department's populations. An increase in the at-risk population will not necessarily develop into an increase in the populations that the department supervises. These indicators are not as important to the contribution of average daily population as admissions or the length of stay of youth.
Analysis of At-Risk Populations
The size and rate of growth of the "at-risk" population (i.e., boys and girls from 10 to 16 years of age) is critical to this forecast. Most youth that the department supervises fall within this age range. The at-risk population is the starting point for the transitional probabilities in each population the department 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.3 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 atrisk 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 (refer to Exhibit 2). The Hispanic at-risk populations 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. 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 Counties (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, 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.

3 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 10

Exhibit 2 Georgia Projected At-Risk Population by Race, 2000-2010

1,000,000 800,000

Asian

Hispanic

600,000

African American

400,000 200,000

Caucasian

0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

In 2003, the Atlanta metro area, or Region 3 has the highest proportion of at-risk population (42 percent) in Georgia as presented below. Region 2, the next populous region, contains 16 percent of the total at-risk population. Region 1, Region 4 and Region 5 have the similar at-risk populations and account for 14 percent each.
Projections for populations within Georgia indicate an increase of 5.12 percent to 43,700 in 2008. However, the 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 demonstrated below, Region 5, which lies in southeast Georgia, will decline by 2.42 percent from 2003 to 2008. Region 4 in southwest Georgia will exhibit a decline of -1.85 percent in at-risk population over the next five years. The Atlanta metro area, or Region 3, will continue to increase remaining the most populous region, while Region 2 will have the greatest percent increase in population, followed by Region 1. These regions are located in North Georgia.

At-Risk Population in 2003

14%

14%

14%

16%

Region 1

Region 2

42% Region 3

Region 4

Region 5

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 11

Arrests
Arrests are used in the transitional probability model to determine the ratio of the at-risk population that was arrested by law enforcement officials. From this probability, the ratio of those youth detained after arrest is determined. Therefore, understanding arrest statistics is crucial to determining the beds needed for RYDC placements.
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 the violent and property crime index below 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 between the years 1990 and 2000. 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 however this has reduced from 2001 to 2002.
The property crime index 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 although it has also declined between 2001 and 2002.

Georgia UCR Property Crime Index (Crime per 100,000 Residents) 1990-2002
7000
6000 5000
4000 3000
2000 1000
0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Georgia UCR Violent Crime Index (Crime per 100,000 Residents) 1990-2002
900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

For juveniles 16 years of age and under, arrests for both violent and property crimes have decreased substantially, as demonstrated in the diagrams below. Violent crime arrests have dropped by 21 percent from 1997 to 2001 and continue to decline. These arrests increased slightly from 1999 through 2001. 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, however the declining trend has continued between 2001 and 2002.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 12

Georgia Juvenile Arrests for Part I Property Crimes, Ages 16 and under ,1990 -2002
14000 12000 10000
8000 6000 4000 2000
0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Georgia Juvenile Arrests for Part I Violent Crimes, Ages 16 and under ,1990 -2002
2500 2000 1500 1000
500 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

As displayed above in the diagram for Juvenile arrests for Part I property, the numbers of arrests for 10 to 16 year olds have decreased over the past six years. The transitional probabilities of being arrested for part I property or violent crime have steadily decreased since 1996. The rate of decline 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 data4. The probability of arrests 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, as demonstrated in the diagram for Juvenile arrests for Part I violent crimes above.
Even though part I property and part I violent crimes are decreasing the total juvenile arrests has remained constant or increased slightly in a cyclical manner since 1999, as indicated by the diagram below.

Juvenile Arrests

60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000
0

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Filings
Filing data provides 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, which includes commitment YDC, commitment at home and commitment residential. Historical data show that court filings decreased from 1998-2000 and then increased from 2000 to 2003. Region 3 accounts for approximately 40 percent of the total state court filings, similar to the department's populations, as it is the most populous region. Region 2 and Region 4 makes up 16 percent each while region 1 and 5 comprise of 14% each. Consequently, Region 3 has a significant influence over the statewide pattern of filings.

4 A logarithmic model describes the relationship between year and arrest using the inverse of an exponential function.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 13

Filing Population in 2003

14% 16%

14% 16%

Region 1

Region 2

40% Region 3

Region 4

Region 5

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 10.02 percent. The rate dropped rapidly between 1998 and 2000 however it has increased consistently from 2001. In forecasting future changes in the at-risk to filing transitional probability, a linear regression has been implemented based on 1996-2003 data by region and by gender. The statewide combination shows that the transitional probability will decrease from 10.02 percent in 2003 to 9.87 percent in 2008 as shown in the diagram named statewide at-risk to filing transitional probability, displayed below.

89000 88000 87000 86000 85000 84000 83000 82000 81000 80000 79000

Statewide Filings 1996-2003
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

2003

Statewide At-Risk to Filing Transitional Probability 1996 - 2008
13.00%
11.00%
9.00%
7.00% 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Region 1 will have the most filing population increase by 8.42 percent. Region 3 also will experience an increase in its filings as it will change by 7.14 percent. Although these regions are growing, not all regions within the state will experience growth. Region 5 will decrease its filings by 6.29 percent and Region 4 will decrease by approximately 3 percent during the next five years.
Therefore, even though the forecasted at-risk to filing transitional probability will decrease for the next five years, the state filing population is projected to increase by 3.5 percent from 2003 to 2008 due to the increase of the at-risk population.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 14

Policy
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, election judges and prosecutors. Although the department 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 the department's service populations.
The budget allocated to the department 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 preadjudicated and post-adjudicated youth. The availability of funding affects whether, and how soon, these changes are implemented.
An example of legislation that greatly affects the department's populations is Senate Bill 440, which went into effect in 1994. The Governor's Juvenile Justice Reform Act (Senate Bill 440) gave Superior 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 the department served and the settings in which they are served.
Another example of policy changes that affect the department's service populations is the zerotolerance 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; for example, 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, drug possession near/at school 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 yet another factor that influences the size and composition of the department's service populations. In Georgia, for fiscal year 2003, there are 142 juvenile court judges including 47 fulltime 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 the department is responsible for can fluctuate from year to year. In counties managed by the department, 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. The department's staff (e.g., intake officers and expeditors) may exert influence on judges' decisions, to impact the number of youth entering the system, the number of youth confined or released to alternative settings.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 15

Department of Juvenile Justice Policy
The department's policy influences all populations it serves. The Department has policies for the types of youth that should be admitted to secure facilities and for how long. Using a standard detention assessment tool, the department 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 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 an YDC.
Below are policy goals that the department presented in its Service Development Plan in July of 2002. The following goals affect how the department serves its population groups:
Youth will be diverted to the least restrictive environments and private residential providers where community safety can still be assured.
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 departmental policies influences how services are provided and what types of services youth receive. External legislation such as stricter sentences for certain types of offenders may conflict with departmental policies. Judges may override the department's recommendations. In addition, budget constraints may prevent the department from attaining some goals as well.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 16

POPULATION FORECAST
The method that was used to produce this forecast, described in more detail in the Approach and Methodology section of this report, is based on analysis of the historical trends and possible projections for each of the five regions in the department. These projections were based on three different methods of historical analysis. The first method used the last seven years as a base set of data that formed the projections for the next five years, the second method used the last three years and the third method extends the current trend from FY2003 and applies the same rate to the trend until FY2008. The information that was presented was based on youth's legal status rather than placement data.
Each of these historical trends was presented to subject matter experts within the department in order to select the most realistic trend for their region based on current and future policy decisions, their business knowledge and evaluation of their region's internal plans. The reasons for each decision were recorded and are used to provide rationale for forecasted trends.
After collecting each of the five regions' input into the forecast, the department aggregated the trends of each region and used it to form the forecast data and trends for the state.
On completion of the legal status forecast a task force was asked to determine the future direction of the agencies placement strategy. The results of this task force were used to predict how the department is to allocate the youth in its supervision within available placements. The method used to analyze past and future placement strategies, as presented within the remainder of this section, was to view ratios of historical allocation of populations to placements.
This led to the development of three views of the potential futures. The first demonstrated what would occur if each placement trend would be unconstrained. The second demonstrated what would occur if the current level of resources remained in effect. After discussion, the third demonstrated where the task force believes the department should place its populations, taking into account availability of resources, judicial policy and treatment needs of the youth the department serves.
As a result of this initiative, the forecasts that are presented in this section are grouped into admissions, average length of stay and average daily population in order to enable the reader the ability to study the changes within each grouping together and provide greater understanding of the factors that contribute to the trends of the average daily population of both legal status and placements.

The following points are crucial to be taken into consideration in order to understand the effects of changes to this system:
The information is presented as a categorized "drill down" of populations. For example, the legal status, commitment, is a high level category that contains a larger population. This population is then segmented into smaller categories, placements, which house sub-sections of that population, RYDC, YDC, residential and at home. However, some of the placements also house multiple legal statuses. For example, RYDC placements house youth in the legal statuses intake, STP, commitment and probation. Therefore the final segment of this method is to summarize the changes to populations within placements so that the impact of the forecast of the legal status on individual placements can be understood.
The department is an integrated system. When a trend for a placement changes it will impact other placement trends within the same grouping. For example, committed youth are placed in RYDCs, YDCs, residential and home placements. If funds are removed for residential placements then the youth that form the committed population must be placed either within a RYDC, YDC or at home. A change in one part of an integrated system will cause an effect elsewhere.
Unlike the population forecast which uses legal status, the forecasted trends for placements will not occur naturally. The placement forecast is based on management decisions that require action to be taken to create. In addition to the efforts of the departments internal staff the forecast requires co-operation from the department's external stakeholders.
Forecasts for placements are projected to ensure the following concepts are supported. Safety for the community, best use of allocated resources, and offering services based on the risk and best interests in the least restrictive environment of the youth the department serves.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 17

Population Forecast
The population forecast uses youth's legal status to project changes in future populations over the next five years. Viewing youth by legal status provides a complete view of the total populations managed by the department. Legal status is used in the forecast rather than placements as the populations of placements react to philosophical and managerial change whereas legal status is not directly influenced by internal policies.
Admissions
The information presented in this section outlines the forecast of admissions for legal status of youth in the department's supervision between the fiscal years of 2004 and 2008. Refer to the graph and information presented to view forecasted trends.

60000

Statewide Admissions (Legal Status) Intake

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

12000

10000 8000 6000

4000 2000
0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

STP

Commitment

Probation

Admis Change 00-03; 2003;

Intake: STP: Commitment: Probation:

13.6% 38,686 -17.6% 4,252 23.4% 2,684 -2.0% 9,537

Admis Change 03-05; 2005;

Intake:

16.8% 45,177

STP:

4.9% 4,461

Commitment: 4.3% 2,800

Probation:

2.4% 9,766

Admis Change 03-08; 2008;

Intake: STP: Commitment: Probation:

40.3% 54,271 6.8% 4,541 9.1% 2,928 3.6% 9,884

Ideas of Interest:

All legal statuses admissions are forecast to increase.
The at-risk population is increasing.
Arrests are decreasing Filings are increasing Probability of youths placed
in supervision is increasing.

Observations: The ADP for intake and probation decreased from 2000 to 2003 and it is forecast to increase between 2003 and 2008.

Analysis: In both of these cases the probability that a youth is ordered to be supervised by DJJ is increasing. This combined with the increasing in both filings and at risk population causes these statuses to be forecast to increase.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 18

Average Length of Stay (ALOS)
The information presented in this section outlines the forecast of the average length of stay for legal status of youth in the department's supervision between the fiscal years of 2004 and 2008. Refer to the graph and information presented to view forecasted trends.

ALOS Change 00-03; 2003;

Statewide Average Length Of Stay (Legal Status)
600

Intake: STP: Commitment:

-37.6% 74 115.2% 97 -8.7% 441

500

Probation:

18.7% 225

400

Intake

ALOS Change 03-05; 2005;

Intake:

-0.5% 73

300

STP

STP:

-1.3% 95

200

Commitment Commitment: 0.9% 444

Probation

Probation:

0.4% 226

100

ALOS Change 03-08; 2008;

0

Intake:

2.1% 75

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

STP:

-3.3% 94

Commitment: 0.3% 442

Probation:

0.2% 225

Observations: The average length of stay has stopped decreasing for intake.
The average length of stay has stopped decreasing for commitment.
The average length of stay for STP has increased between 2000 and 2003 dramatically.
The average length of stay for STP has been forecasted to decrease between 2003 and 2008.

Analysis: The increase in youth required to be served has stopped the department's ability to decrease the processing time for youth referred to the department. The department's policy on redirecting low risk youth out of secure placements has reached diminishing returns, indicating that the length of stay, once diluted by shorter term youth, has leveled out and will increase as sentence lengths for more serious crimes are increasing. Some youth are required to serve their sentence in STP placements and the time that is spent waiting for availability of these placements do not count to their time served. The department has exhausted supply of STP placements increasing the waiting time for these youth. The department is planning to provide more alternatives to STP and other initiatives to resolve STP placement shortages in future years.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 19

Average Daily Population (ADP)
The information presented in this section outlines the forecast of the average daily population for legal status of youth in the department's supervision between the fiscal years of 2004 and 2008. Refer to the graph and information presented to view forecasted trends.

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Statewide Average Daily Population (Legal Status)

12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000
0

Intake STP Commitment Probation

ADP Change 00-03; 2003;

Intake: STP: Commitment: Probation:

-29.1% 7,819 77.2% 1,127 12.6% 3,240 16.4% 5,878

ADP Change 03-05; 2005;

Intake:

16.1% 9,080

STP:

3.6% 1,167

Commitment: 5.2% 3,409

Probation:

2.8% 6,046

ADP Change 03-08; 2008;

Intake: STP: Commitment: Probation:

43.2% 11,200 3.3% 1,164 9.4% 3,544 3.8% 6,103

Observations: The ADP for intake has been decreasing between fiscal years 2000 and 2003. It is forecast to increase.
STP has increased between 2000 and 2003 at a high rate. It is forecast to slow its growth rate.

Analysis: Between 2000 and 2003 the admissions for intake have increased. The reason for the decrease in ADP has been due to the reduction in the average length of stay of 37.6%. The length of stay trend is not forecast to continue therefore the natural increase of admissions causes an increase in ADP. There is a movement of sentences from STP to commitment over the last fiscal year, as indicated in the forecast for commitment ADP.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 20

Placement Ratio Forecast
This forecast describes the current and projected future of the relationships between legal status and where youth of each legal status are placed. The ratios are the percentage of the total youth within each legal status that have been assigned to each placement. This percentage is determined based on the actual child days that were served within each placement. Historical trends are then used to forecast changes to these ratios projecting future ratios of placements.
The department has little influence over the sentencing of youth to particular legal statuses however once sentencing occurs the department can determine, within boundaries, where youth should serve their sentence. Therefore the information in this section presents the forecast of the departments preferred method of managing populations that is based on the forecast for youth's legal status, presented in the previous section. Hence placement ratios and actual placements can be dynamic due to changes in policy internal to the department.
As stated previously, the ratios presented in this section are a part of a system. If internal or external decisions affect one of the trends presented within each section it will impact other trends within the system. Additionally, the forecast in this section will not occur without the commitment of external stakeholders of the department and work of internal resources to achieve these goals.
Intake Ratios
The information presented in this section outlines the forecast for the placement of youth between the fiscal years of 2004 and 2008. The department places youth in intake in RYDCs, residential and at home under supervision. Refer to the graph and information presented to view forecasted trends for each placement ratio.

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

100.00% 80.00% 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00%

Intake Placement Ratios

RYDC Ratio Residential Ratio Home Ratio

Intake Change 00-03; 2003;

RYDC: Residential: Home:

-1.01% 7.48% 0.38% 2.42% 0.62% 90.10%

Intake Change 03-05; 2005;

RYDC: Residential: Home:

0.41% 7.89% -0.21% 2.21% -0.20% 89.90%

Intake Change 03-08; 2008;

RYDC: Residential: Home:

0.99% 8.47% -0.64% 1.78% -0.34% 89.75%

Observations: Placements of intake youth are stable in each placement type.

Analysis: Due to the volume of youth served in this legal status over time a balance has been achieved between these placements. RYDC or Residential placements are only used if the following are present: Youth is a danger to the community or themselves Adequate supervision is not available at home Youth cannot stay at home due to family circumstances

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 21

STP Ratios
The information presented in this section outlines the forecast for the placement of youth between the fiscal years of 2004 and 2008. The department places youth in STP in RYDCs, YDCs, residential and within other STP programs. Refer to the graph and information presented to view forecasted trends for each placement ratio.

80.00%

STP Placement Ratios

60.00%

40.00%

20.00%

0.00% 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

RYDC Ratio YDC Ratio Residential Ratio Other STP Programs

STP Change RYDC: YDC: Residential: Other STP:

00-03; 2003; 4.84% 15.08% -14.5% 60.28% 2.05% 3.49% 7.61% 21.15%

STP Change RYDC: YDC: Residential: Other STP:

03-05; 2005; -6.11% 8.97% 0.75% 61.04% 1.73% 5.22% 3.63% 24.77%

STP Change RYDC: YDC: Residential: Other STP:

03-08; 2008; -5.76% 9.32% -8.82% 51.47% 4.61% 8.10% 9.97% 31.11%

Observations: The average daily population of STP within the legal status is growing. Both RYDC and YDC STP placements are forecast to decrease.

Analysis: The department prefers to manage its population in less restrictive programs that treat both youth and their families. This service is available in residential and other STP programs. Therefore the department prefers to serve youth in the best possible placement in order to successfully reintegrate them back into the community, reducing the potential for the youth to recidivate and encourages the youth to be a productive member of society.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 22

Commitment Ratios
The information presented in this section outlines the forecast for the placement of youth between the fiscal years of 2004 and 2008. The department places committed youth in RYDCs, YDCs, residential and at home under supervision. Refer to the graph and information presented to view forecasted trends for each placement ratio.

80.00%

Commitment Placement Ratios

60.00%

40.00%

20.00%

0.00% 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

RYDC Ratios YDC Ratios Residential Ratios At Home Ratios

CMT Change 00-03; 2003;

RYDC:

-0.46% 6.02%

YDC:

-16.1% 28.29%

Residential: 10.04% 20.06%

At Home:

6.49% 45.63%

CMT Change 03-05; 2005;

RYDC:

-0.19% 5.83%

YDC:

-1.06% 27.22%

Residential: 0.92% 20.98%

At Home:

0.33% 45.97%

CMT Change 03-08; 2008;

RYDC:

-0.17% 5.85%

YDC:

-2.49% 25.80%

Residential: 1.99% 22.05%

At Home:

0.67% 46.31%

Observations: The decreasing rate in YDC and increasing rate of residential and at home placement ratios has slowed.

Analysis: Over the last three years the department has focused on placing youth where both the community and the youth can best be served. Low risk committed youth has been assigned to residential and at home placements rather than YDC placements, causing the trends as demonstrated above. The department has reached the point where the highest risk youth are generally detained in secure placements, and will continue to be. Therefore, the respective increases and decrease in placement ratios have stabilized.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 23

Placement Forecast
The forecast for placements presented in this section are based on the legal status forecast and placement ratio forecast. The legal status forecast presents the growth or decline in populations and the placement ratio forecast projects the assignation of the proportion of each legal status population per placement. The placement forecast then combines the legal status that each placement serves into a single view of that placement.
The admissions, average length of stay and average daily population are presented to view detailed information concerning each placement.
This space left blank intentionally.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 24

Admissions
The information presented in this section outlines the forecast for the admissions to placements served by the department between the fiscal years of 2004 and 2008. Refer to the graph and information presented to view forecasted trends for each placement.
Admis Change 00-03; 2003;

Statewide Admissions (Placement)

RYDC:

7.4% 16,735

70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
RYDC Home

YDC: STP: Residential: Home:

-61.8% 1,001 60.9% 3,383 103.8% 2,320 22.1% 40,247

Admis Change 03-05; 2005;

RYDC: YDC: STP: Residential: Home:

11.8% 18,712 -12.6% 875 7.4% 3,632 13.9% 2,643 17.7% 47,356

4000

Admis Change 03-08; 2008;

3500

RYDC:

44.9% 24,246

3000

YDC:

-34.2% 658

2500

STP:

-5.3% 3,205

2000

Residential: 27.2% 2,951

1500

Home:

51.5% 60,967

1000 500 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Ideas of Interest:
Admissions are increasing in RYDC, Residential and Home placements.

YDC STP Residential

Admissions are decreasing in YDC and STP Placements.

Observations:

Analysis:

Admissions to RYDC are This trend is following the increase in intake due to an increase in the at risk

forecast to increase by

population, an increase in the filings and an increase in the probability that

44.9% by 2008.

youth are referred to the department.

YDC admissions are forecast to continue to decrease.

Only high risk youth are to be placed in YDCs. Low and medium risk youth are to be placed in supervision in residential or at home.

STP is forecast to increase then decrease by 2008.

The department wishes to serve STP youth in an actual STP placement rather than in the RYDC, as can be seen in the 7.4% increase. The decline of 5.3% is due to alternatives or other STP programs being developed.

Admissions to Residential and Home placements are forecast to increase.

Both of these placements are to be used to offset the increase in populations the department is forecast to experience. Residential will service youth with more serious and specific treatment needs while home will service lower risk youth and the family together.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 25

Average Length of Stay (ALOS)
The information presented in this section outlines the forecast for the average length of stay for placements served by the department between the fiscal years of 2004 and 2008. Refer to the graph and information presented to view forecasted trends for each placement.

Statewide Average Length Of Stay (Placement)
700.00 600.00 500.00 400.00 300.00 200.00 100.00
0.00
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
YDC Home Residential
100.00 90.00 80.00 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
RYDC STP

ALOS Change 00-03; 2003;

RYDC: YDC: STP: Residential: Home:

-25.2% 22.5 87.9% 334.1 -11.2% 73.3 -17.5% 138.2 -25.6% 132.6

ALOS Change 03-05; 2005;

RYDC:

-3.19% 21.8

YDC:

15.8% 387.1

STP:

-2.3% 71.6

Residential: -2.4% 134.9

Home:

-6.7% 123.6

ALOS Change 03-08; 2008;

RYDC:

-7.4% 20.8

YDC:

51.7% 506.9

STP:

-6.9% 68.2

Residential: -3.8% 132.9

Home:

-18.1% 108.6

Ideas of Interest:

YDC ALOS is forecast to increase.
All other placements are forecast to decrease.

Observations: The average length of stay for YDC is forecast to increase to 506.9 days by 2008.
All other length of stays is forecast to decrease.

Analysis: Over the last three years the department has assigned low to medium risk youth to be served in residential placements rather than YDCs. Typically these types of youth have shorter sentences than high risk committed youth or designated felons. With the removal of youth with shorter sentences the average length of stay has increased. Additionally, a study of judicial sentencing has demonstrated an increase in the minimum sentence length for high risk committed youth and designated felons. The average minimum sentence length has increased to almost two years. Due to resource constraints the department has created a policy to release youth as close to their minimum length of stay as possible.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 26

Average Daily Population (ADP)
The information presented in this section outlines the forecast for the average daily population for placements served by the department between the fiscal years of 2004 and 2008. Refer to the graph and information presented to view forecasted trends for each placement.

Statewide Average Daily Population (Placement)

20000 18000 16000 14000

Home

12000 10000
8000

6000 4000

2000 0

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

1600.00 1400.00 1200.00 1000.00
800.00 600.00 400.00 200.00
0.00 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

RYDC YDC STP Residential

ADP Change 00-03; 2003;

RYDC: YDC: STP: Residential: Home:

-19.6% 1,030 -28.2% 916 42.9% 679 68.2% 879 -9.1% 14,619

ADP Change 03-05; 2005;

RYDC:

8.2% 1,115

YDC:

1.3% 928

STP:

4.9% 712

Residential: 11.2% 977

Home:

9.9% 16,064

ADP Change 03-08; 2008;

RYDC:

34.1% 1,381

YDC:

-0.3% 914

STP:

-11.8% 599

Residential: 22.3% 1,075

Home:

24.2% 18,159

Ideas Of Interest:

YDC and STP ADP are forecast to decrease.
All other placements are forecast to increase.

Observations: The average daily population of YDC and STP placements is forecast to decrease.
The average daily population of all other placements is increasing.

Analysis: The department's preference is to rely less on secure beds and more on community based treatment services. Treatment services can be less expensive than secure confinement while meeting the needs of the youth. With an increase of population and a reduction in resources the department must choose how to effectively expend its resources for maximum effect. The forecast plans for the youth that were assigned to these placements in prior years to be assigned to residential or community placements in future years. Residential and at home placements are forecast to increase due to the increase in legal status populations and a shift from a focus in secure to nonsecure placement allocations. It is the department's belief that youth will be more productively served closer to home and in community based environments. RYDC placements will increase due to the increase in intake population.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 27

CONCLUSION
The population forecast, based on legal status, projects that all populations that the Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice serves are increasing. This is due to the following information:
Increase in the at risk population in Georgia Increase in the arrest rate in Georgia Increase in the filings in Georgia Increase in the probability that youth will be referred to the department
The department plans to reduce its reliance on secure beds in future years. This value on serving appropriate youth outside of secure facilities coupled with the increases in population identified in the forecast will result in the following shifts in placement capacity:
Increase in RYDC bed capacity Slight decrease in YDC bed capacity Decrease in STP secure bed capacity Increase in Residential program capacity Increase in Home placement capacity
The intent of the department is to provide all youth (and their families) with appropriate services and placements based upon their identified risks and needs. A reduced reliance on expensive secure facilities allows the department to redirect resources to provide needed services to a greater number of youth.
In the final analysis the citizens of Georgia expect and deserve to be safe. The role of the DJJ is to enhance accountability and competency in youth thereby reducing repeat offending. Reduction in recidivism protects the public and reduces costs to the taxpayer.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 28

APPENDIX A: 60 DAY STP PROJECTIONS
The information included in this section includes data that has been simulated to enable the department to project the population impact for STP if judges modify their sentencing patterns. This projection is based on time in the RYDC and YDC counting towards an STP sentence and the sentence length not exceeding 60 days.
Population Forecast
For more information concerning the population forecasting method please refer to page 17, entitled population forecast, of this document.
60 Day STP Admissions

STP Admissions
5000

4000 3000

2000

1000

0 2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

YDC RYDC

Admis Change 01-03; 2003;

RYDC:

37.8% 2,277

YDC:

-20.4% 3,754

Admis Change 03-05; 2005;

RYDC:

-13.7% 1,966

YDC:

-10.2% 3,370

Admis Change 03-08; 2008;

RYDC:

-20.6% 1,807

YDC:

-17.5% 3,097

Observations: The number of RYDC admissions has increased while the number of YDC admissions has increased between fiscal year 2001 and 2003.

Analysis: The total number of STP admissions is decreasing however the RYDC admissions increased due to lack of space within YDC and alternative STP programs.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 29

60 Day STP Average Length of Stay

Average STP Length Of Stay
60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0
0.0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Total RYDC YDC

Admis Change 01-03; 2003;

RYDC: YDC: Total:

0.3% 9.0 -10.0% 49.4 -5.5% 54.8

Admis Change 03-05; 2005;

RYDC: YDC: Total:

0% 9.0 -3.8% 47.5 -3.8% 52.7

Admis Change 03-08; 2008;

RYDC: YDC: Total:

0% 9.0 -3.8% 47.5 -3.8% 52.7

Observations: The average length of stay remained relatively constant for all fiscal years.

Analysis: Length of stay was a controlled factor in this study. The variance comes from the sentences that were less than 60 days originally.

60 Day STP Average Daily Population

800.0 700.0 600.0 500.0 400.0 300.0 200.0 100.0
0.0

2001

STP Average Daily Population
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

2007

2008

Total RYDC YDC

Admis Change 01-03; 2003;

RYDC:

38.2% 56.0

YDC:

-28.3% 507.7

Total:

-24.7% 563.7

Admis Change 03-05; 2005;

RYDC:

-13.7% 48.3

YDC:

-13.7% 438.3

Total:

-13.7% 486.6

Admis Change 03-08; 2008;

RYDC:

-20.6% 44.4

YDC:

-20.6% 402.9

Total:

-20.6% 447.3

Observations: The forecast presents a reduction in the YDC population and a constant level in RYDC populations.

Analysis: The reduction in YDC average daily population is due to a reduction in both the reduction in sentences that are sent to YDC, because of alternative programs. The consistency of the RYDC population is due to the YDC staying under capacity and not forcing extended stays in the RYDC. If capacity in the YDC is reached the RYDC populations will increase.

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 30

APPENDIX B: EVENTS THAT AFFECT POPULATIONS

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

ID

Events That Affect Populations

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

1 DJJ Implementation Policies

2 Facilities:

3

YDC & STP Programs

4

Wrightsville Closed

300 STP, 200 LT

5

McIntosh Opened

6

McIntosh Capacity Decrease

168 STP

60 STP

7

Emanuel Opened

168 STP

8

Irwin & Lorenzo Benn Closed

Irwin 316 STP, Lorenzo Benn 100 LT, 24 STP, 30 AP

9

Sumter Opened

150 LT

10

Savannah River Challenge Opened

150 STP

11

RYDC Programs

12

Fulton Closed

132

13

Metro Opened

200

14

Paulding Opened

100

15

Gainesville Expanded

64

16

Augusta, Macon & Rome Expanded

64 Each

17 Initiatives & Policy:

18

Memorandum Of Agreement

19

DAI, Case Expeditors

20

Alternatives To Detention

21

Comprehensive Risk Needs (CRN)

22

Alternatives To Secure Placement

23

Alternatives To STP

24

Assessment At RYDCs

25

Service Development Plan

26

Not Exceed RYDC Capacity

27

28 Environmental Factors

29

Juvenile Crime Rate Constant

30

Juvenile Crime Rate Increase

31

Juvenile Crime Rate Decrease

32

At Risk Population Increase

33

34 External Policies

35

Judicial Increase in STP Usage

36

SB 440 Continued

37

Local Judicial Policy Override DAI

38

Decrease In Mental Health Svcs DHR

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 31

APPENDIX C: REGIONAL FORECASTS

Dade

Catoosa h itfield

W1

Walker

Chattooga Gordon

Floyd
I Bartow

Murray

Fannin Gilmer Pickens

Cherokee

Towns
Union
2
White Lumpkin
II

Habersham

Rabun
Stephens

Dawson
Forsyth

Banks Franklin Hart Hall

Jackson Madison

Elbert

Polk Haralson

Paulding

Carroll

Heard Coweta

4 Troup

Meriwether

3A Cobb 3BGwinnett

Clayton Rockdale

Douglas

III De Kalb

Fulton

3A Fayette Henry

Spalding Butts Pike
Lamar

Putnam

5 Barrow Clarke Oconee Walton

Oglethorpe

Wilkes

Lincoln

Morgan Newton
Jasper

McDuffie

Greene Taliaferro

Columbia

Warren

Richmond

7 Hancock Glascock

Jefferson Washington

Burke

Upson

Baldwin Monroe Jones
6

Johnson

Jenkins Screven

Harris

Talbot

Bibb

Wilkinson

Crawford

Twiggs

MuCschoagettea

Marion

Taylor

Peach Houston

hoochee
8

Macon

Schley

Dooly

Pulaski

Bleckley

Laurens

Emanuel

Treutlen

Candler Bulloch

Effingham

Montgomery

Dodge

9
Wheeler

Wilcox

Telfair

Toombs

Evans Tattnall

12
Bryan

Chatham

Webster

Stewart

Sumter

Quitman Randolph

Terrell Lee
IV

Clay Calhoun Dougherty

Crisp Worth

Early

Baker

Miller

Mitchell

Colquitt

10
Decatur

Grady

Thomas

Turner

Ben Hill

Jeff Davis

Appling

Long Liberty

Irwin Tift

Coffee

Bacon

Wayne

McIntosh

11
Berrien Atkinson

Pierce

Ware

Brantley

Glynn

Cook

V Lanier

Brooks

Clinch

Charlton

Camden

Lowndes
Echols

Seminole

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 32

Region 1

A population forecast meeting for region 1 was held on December 16, 2003. The purpose of this meeting was to analyze the regional population forecast and to select the most realistic scenario that would contribute to the state forecast. The participants of the meeting and their roles are listed below:

Chris West Cameron Kelsey Eddie Sherrer Margaret Cawood Bobby Hughes Gail Wise Martha Dalesio Liggett Butler Nairong Zhou Llewellyn Jenkins Doug Engle

Regional Administrator District Director Asst. District Director Asst. District Director Director, Dalton RYDC Director, Bob Richards RYDC Director, Griffin RYDC Director, Paulding RYDC Statistical Research Analyst Planning Consultant Director, Office of Technology and Information Services

The results of the regional forecast are presented below:

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 33

Region 1 Admissions (Legal Status) Intake
7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000
0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

1800 1600 1400 1200 1000
800 600 400 200
0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

STP

Commitment

Probation

Admis Change 00-03; 2003;

Intake: STP: Commitment: Probation:

-0.2% 5,196 -2.9% 704 40.9% 417 -10.9% 1,478

Admis Change 03-05; 2005;

Intake: STP: Commitment: Probation:

10.4% 5,736 17.4% 827 13.5% 473 4.3% 1,542

Admis Change 03-08; 2008;

Intake: STP: Commitment: Probation:

10.0% 5,717 42.9% 1,006 25.5% 523 8.4% 1,602

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 34

ALOS Change 00-03; 2003;

Region 1 Average Length Of Stay (Legal Status)
800

Intake: STP: Commitment:

-21.3% 99 145.2% 125 -15.6% 416

700

Probation:

40.6% 242

600

ALOS Change 03-05; 2005;

500

Intake

Intake:

-0.5% 99

400

STP

STP:

-3.2% 121

300

Commitment Commitment: -1.1% 421

200

Probation

Probation:

0.9% 244

100

ALOS Change 03-08; 2008;

0

Intake:

-0.5% 99

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

STP:

-5.6% 118

Commitment: 0.9% 420

Probation:

-1.2% 239

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

Region 1 Average Daily Population (Legal Status)

3500

3000

2500

Intake

2000

STP

1500

Commitment

1000

Probation

500

0

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

ADP Change 00-03; 2003;

Intake: STP: Commitment: Probation:

-21.5% 1,416 138.1% 241 18.8% 476 25.3% 979

ADP Change 03-05; 2005;

Intake:

9.9% 1,556

STP:

13.6% 274

Commitment: 14.8% 546

Probation:

5.2% 1,031

ADP Change 03-08; 2008;

Intake: STP: Commitment: Probation:

9.5% 1,551 34.9% 325 26.6% 602 7.1% 1,049

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 35

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

100.00% 80.00% 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00%

Intake Placement Ratios

RYDC Ratio Residential Ratio Home Ratio

Intake Change 00-03; 2003;

RYDC: Residential: Home:

-2.30% 4.91% 0.39% 2.47% 1.91% 92.62%

Intake Change 03-05; 2005;

RYDC:

0.29% 5.20%

Residential: 0.30% 2.77%

Home:

-0.59% 92.03%

Intake Change 03-08; 2008;

RYDC: Residential: Home:

-0.24% 4.67% 0.41% 2.88% -0.17% 92.45%

80.00%

STP Placement Ratios

60.00%

40.00%

20.00%

0.00% 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

RYDC Ratio YDC Ratio Residential Ratio Other STP Programs

STP Change 00-03; 2003;

RYDC: YDC: Residential: Other STP: STP Change

2.79% 15.20% -12.67% 44.29% 3.82% 7.45% 6.05% 33.06% 03-05; 2005;

RYDC: YDC: Residential: Other STP:

-5.40% 9.80% -5.07% 39.22% 3.46% 10.91% 7.01% 40.07%

STP Change 03-08; 2008;

RYDC: YDC: Residential: Other STP:

-5.70% 9.50% -20.37% 23.92% 8.65% 16.10% 17.42% 50.48%

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 36

80.00%

Commitment Placement Ratios

60.00%

40.00%

20.00%

0.00% 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

RYDC Ratios YDC Ratios Residential Ratios At Home Ratios

CMT Change 00-03; 2003;

RYDC:

-0.09% 5.68%

YDC:

-21.93% 22.38%

Residential: 11.70% 22.72%

At Home:

10.32% 49.22%

CMT Change 00-05; 2005;

RYDC:

-0.68% 5.00%

YDC:

1.17% 23.56%

Residential: -0.01% 22.71%

At Home:

-0.50% 48.73%

CMT Change 00-08; 2008;

RYDC:

-1.18% 4.50%

YDC:

2.94% 25.32%

Residential: -0.52% 22.20%

At Home:

-1.24% 47.98%

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 37

Region 1 Admissions (Placement)

10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
RYDC Home

700 600 500 400 300 200 100
0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

YDC

STP

Residential

Admis Change 00-03; 2003;

RYDC: YDC: STP: Residential: Home:

2.1% 2,315 -58.8% 136 99.2% 526 103.8% 371 9.4% 5,884

Admis Change 00-05; 2005;

RYDC: YDC: STP: Residential: Home:

10.4% 2,556 -7.5% 126 -1.3% 519 38.2% 513 19.1% 7,006

Admis Change 00-08; 2008;

RYDC: YDC: STP: Residential: Home:

14.6% 2,652 -18.3% 111 -27.4% 382 74.6% 648 39.6% 8,214

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 38

Region 1 Average Length Of Stay (Placement)
1200.00 1000.00
800.00 600.00 400.00 200.00
0.00 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
YDC Home Residential
100.00 90.00 80.00 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
RYDC STP

ALOS Change 00-03; 2003;

RYDC: YDC: STP: Residential: Home:

-19.6% 23.1 45.7% 285.7 -7.1% 74.1 -7.4% 158.3 -8.3% 161.3

ALOS Change 03-05; 2005;

RYDC: YDC: STP: Residential: Home:

6.8% 21.5 30.6% 373.0 2.0% 75.6 -11.4% 140.2 -8.5% 147.6

ALOS Change 03-08; 2008;

RYDC: YDC: STP: Residential: Home:

-11.0% 20.6 75.4% 501.1 0.4% 74.4 -17.9% 130.0 -19.2% 130.2

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 39

Region 1 Average Daily Population (Placement) Home
3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000
500 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
RYDC YDC STP Residential

ADP Change 00-03; 2003;

RYDC:

-17.9% 147

YDC:

-40.0% 106

STP:

85.2% 107

Residential: 88.7% 161

Home:

0.2% 2,600

ADP Change 03-05; 2005;

RYDC:

2.9% 151

YDC:

20.8% 129

STP:

0.6% 107

Residential: 22.4% 197

Home:

9.0% 2,833

ADP Change 03-08; 2008;

RYDC:

1.9% 149

YDC:

43.2% 152

STP:

-27.1% 78

Residential: 43.3% 231

Home:

12.7% 2,931

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 40

Region 2

A population forecast meeting for region 2 was held on December 12, 2003. The purpose of this meeting was to analyze the regional population forecast and to select the most realistic scenario that would contribute to the state forecast. The participants of the meeting and their roles are listed below:

Micki Smith Vonnie Guy Mable Wheeler Kim Conkle Glenda Bullard Patrick Simmons Anderson Jones Rodney Pegram Nairong Zhou Llewellyn Jenkins Doug Engle

Regional Administrator District Director District Director Assistant District Director Assistant District Director Director (Athens RYDC) Director (Gainesville RYDC) Director (Sandersville RYDC) Statistical Research Analyst Planning Consultant Director, Office of Technology and Information Services

The results of the regional forecast are presented below:

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 41

Region 2 Admissions (Legal Status) Intake
14000 12000 10000
8000 6000 4000 2000
0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

STP

Commitment

Probation

Admis Change 00-03; 2003;

Intake:

12.8% 7,578

STP:

-6.4% 771

Commitment: 6.9% 384

Probation:

3.8% 2,485

Admis Change 03-05; 2005;

Intake:

23.8% 9,380

STP:

2.8% 793

Commitment: -15.3% 325

Probation:

7.9% 2,681

Admis Change 03-08; 2008;

Intake: STP: Commitment: Probation:

56.5% 11,857 -0.3% 769 -20.9% 304 14.8% 2,853

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 42

ALOS Change 00-03; 2003;

Region 2 Average Length Of Stay (Legal Status)

Intake: STP:

-36.5% 85 71.6% 102

800

Commitment: -1.3% 399

700

Probation:

29.3% 240

600

ALOS Change 03-05; 2005;

500

Intake

Intake:

-2.1% 83

400

STP

STP:

-1.7% 100

300

Commitment Commitment: 0.9% 403

200

Probation

Probation:

1.3% 243

100

ALOS Change 03-08; 2008;

0

Intake:

1.4% 86

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

STP:

-4.7% 97

Commitment: 2.2% 408

Probation:

1.3% 243

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Region 2 Average Daily Population (Legal Status)

3000

2500

2000

Intake

STP 1500
Commitment

1000

Probation

500

0

ADP Change 00-03; 2003;

Intake:

-28.3% 1,761

STP:

60.6% 215

Commitment: 5.5% 420

Probation:

34.1% 1,633

ALOS Change 03-05; 2005;

Intake: STP: Commitment: Probation:

21.2% 2,133 1.0% 217 -14.6% 359 9.3% 1,785

ADP Change 03-08; 2008;

Intake:

58.7% 2,794

STP:

-5.0% 204

Commitment: -19.1% 340

Probation:

16.3% 1,899

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 43

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

100.00% 80.00% 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00%

Intake Placement Ratios

RYDC Ratio Residential Ratio Home Ratio

Intake Change 00-03; 2003;

RYDC:

-1.50% 3.32%

Residential: -0.86% 1.31%

Home:

2.36% 95.37%

Intake Change 03-05; 2005;

RYDC:

0.11% 3.43%

Residential: -0.11% 1.20%

Home:

0.0% 95.37%

Intake Change 03-08; 2008;

RYDC:

0.48% 3.80%

Residential: -0.48% 0.83%

Home:

0.0% 95.37%

80.00%

STP Placement Ratios

60.00%

40.00%

20.00%

0.00% 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

RYDC Ratio YDC Ratio Residential Ratio Other STP Programs

STP Change RYDC: YDC: Residential: Other STP:

00-03; 2003; 10.3% 19.30% -27.4% 56.35% 2.0% 2.99% 15.1% 21.37%

STP Change RYDC: YDC: Residential: Other STP: STP Change RYDC: YDC: Residential: Other STP:

03-05; 2005; -6.7% 12.64% 2.9% 59.28% 0.7% 3.67% 3.0% 24.41% 03-08; 2008; -5.8% 13.46% -3.5% 52.89% 1.7% 4.69% 7.6% 28.97%

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 44

80.00%

Commitment Placement Ratios

60.00%

40.00%

20.00%

0.00% 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

RYDC Ratios YDC Ratios Residential Ratios At Home Ratios

CMT Change 00-03; 2003;

RYDC:

1.86% 6.64%

YDC:

-23.56% 29.01%

Residential: 13.48% 25.50%

At Home:

8.22% 38.86%

CMT Change 03-05; 2005;

RYDC:

0.25% 6.86%

YDC:

-2.80% 26.21%

Residential: 1.65% 27.15%

At Home:

0.89% 39.75%

CMT Change 03-08; 2008;

RYDC:

1.39% 8.03%

YDC:

-7.00% 22.01%

Residential: 3.37% 28.87%

At Home:

2.23% 41.09%

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 45

Region 2 Admissions (Placement)
14000 12000 10000
8000 6000 4000 2000
0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
RYDC Home
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100
0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
YDC STP Residential

Admis Change 00-03; 2003;

RYDC:

13.3% 2,458

YDC:

-66.4% 152

STP:

17.0% 577

Residential: 85.9% 396

Home:

21.7% 9,245

Admis Change 03-05; 2005;

RYDC:

9.0% 2,678

YDC:

-40.2% 91

STP:

12.4% 648

Residential: -3.0% 384

Home:

16.0% 10,731

Admis Change 03-08; 2008;

RYDC: YDC: STP: Residential: Home:

47.9% 3,634 -63.2% 56 3.2% 596 -6.7% 370 43.5% 13,270

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 46

Region 2 Average Length Of Stay (Placement)
600.00 500.00 400.00 300.00 200.00 100.00
0.00 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
YDC Home Residential
140.00 120.00 100.00
80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00
0.00 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
RYDC STP

ALOS Change 00-03; 2003;

RYDC:

-23.8% 20.6

YDC:

73.1% 292.6

STP:

-7.7% 76.6

Residential: -28.4% 125.9

Home:

-20.3% 138.9

ALOS Change 03-05; 2005;

RYDC:

-8.4% 18.9

YDC:

29.1% 377.9

STP:

-5.4% 72.5

Residential: -1.1% 124.5

Home:

-1.7% 136.7

ALOS Change 03-08; 2008;

RYDC: YDC: STP: Residential: Home:

-13.6% 17.8 66.8% 488.1 -13.6% 66.2 2.6% 129.2 -5.8% 130.9

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 47

Region 2 Average Daily Population (Placement) Home
6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000
0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 RYDC YDC STP Residential

ADP Change 00-03; 2003;

RYDC: YDC: STP: Residential: Home:

-13.7% 139 -41.8% 122 8.0% 121 33.1% 137 -2.9% 3,518

ADP Change 03-05; 2005;

RYDC: YDC: STP: Residential: Home:

-0.2% 139 -38.7% 94 -10.8% 129 -4.1% 131 14.1% 4,015

ADP Change 03-08; 2008;

RYDC: YDC: STP: Residential: Home:

27.7% 177 -38.7% 75 -10.8% 108 -4.3% 131 35.4% 4,762

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 48

Region 3

A population forecast meeting for region 3 was held on December 19, 2003. The purpose of this meeting was to analyze the regional population forecast and to select the most realistic scenario that would contribute to the state forecast. The participants of the meeting and their roles are listed below:

Neil Kaltenecker Diana Aspinwall Annette Rainer Paul Pursell Melissa Aaron Preben Heidemann Linda Cofer Bedarius Bell James Smith Donna Jean Hess Emma Forte Stella Murray Rob Rosenbloom Leander Parker Joi Sabrina Fields Nairong Zhou Claus Tjaden Llewellyn Jenkins Doug Engle

Regional Administrator Assistant Director (Fulton Multi-Service Center) Assistant Director (Delkalb Multi-Service Center) Assistant Director (Marietta RYDC) Director (Bill Ireland YDC) District Director Director (Dekalb RYDC) Director (Gwinnett RYDC) Metro RYDC Director Assessment and Classification Specialist Assessment and Classification Specialist Assessment and Classification Specialist Assistant Deputy Commissioner Marietta RYDC Director Assessment and Classification Specialist Statistical Research Analyst Methodology Consultant Planning Consultant Director, Office of Technology and Information Services

The results of the regional forecast are presented below:

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 49

25000

Region 3 Admissions (Legal Status) Intake

20000

15000

10000

5000

0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

1800 1600 1400 1200 1000
800 600 400 200
0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

STP

Commitment

Probation

Admis Change 00-03; 2003;

Intake:

51.9% 10,627

STP:

-21.7% 1,056

Commitment: 57.6% 974

Probation:

3.0% 1,293

Admis Change 03-05; 2005;

Intake:

33.0% 14,131

STP:

2.9% 1,087

Commitment: 5.4% 1,027

Probation:

1.9% 1,317

Admis Change 03-08; 2008;

Intake:

80.1% 19,138

STP:

7.1% 1,131

Commitment: 14.3% 1,113

Probation:

3.5% 1,338

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 50

ALOS Change 00-03; 2003;

Region 3 Average Length Of Stay (Legal Status)

Intake: STP:

-37.7% 65 193.0% 80

600

Commitment: -14.9% 405

500

Probation:

14.3% 215

ALOS Change 03-05; 2005;

400

Intake

Intake:

-0.7% 65

300

STP

STP:

-1.3% 79

200

Commitment Commitment: 2.3% 415

Probation

Probation:

-0.3% 214

100

ALOS Change 03-08; 2008;

0

Intake:

3.9% 68

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

STP:

-5.1% 76

Commitment: 1.9% 413

Probation:

-1.7% 211

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Region 3 Average Daily Population (Legal Status)

4000

3500

3000

Intake

2500 STP
2000

1500

Commitment

1000

Probation

500

0

ADP Change 00-03; 2003;

Intake:

-5.4% 1,905

STP:

129.6% 232

Commitment: 34.1% 1,082

Probation:

17.7% 760

ADP Change 03-05; 2005;

Intake:

32.1% 2,516

STP:

1.6% 235

Commitment: 7.9% 1,168

Probation:

1.5% 772

ADP Change 03-08; 2008;

Intake:

87.1% 3,565

STP:

1.7% 236

Commitment: 16.4% 1,259

Probation:

1.7% 773

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 51

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

100.00% 80.00% 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00%

Intake Placement Ratios

RYDC Ratio Residential Ratio Home Ratio

Intake Change 00-03; 2003;

RYDC: Residential: Home:

-1.26% 15.39% 0.63% 3.94% 0.63% 80.68%

Intake Change 03-05; 2005;

RYDC:

0.72% 16.11%

Residential: -0.93% 3.01%

Home:

0.20% 80.88%

Intake Change 03-08; 2008;

RYDC:

1.34% 16.73%

Residential: -1.82% 2.12%

Home:

0.47% 81.15%

80.00%

STP Placement Ratios

60.00%

40.00%

20.00%

0.00% 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

RYDC Ratio YDC Ratio Residential Ratio Other STP Programs

STP Change 00-03; 2003;

RYDC: YDC: Residential: Other STP: STP Change

1.46% 10.56% 6.27% 69.23% -0.28% 2.71% -7.45% 17.50% 03-05; 2005;

RYDC: YDC: Residential: Other STP:

-6.16% 4.40% 3.15% 72.38% 0.68% 3.39% 2.34% 19.83%

STP Change 03-08; 2008;

RYDC: YDC: Residential: Other STP:

-6.05% 4.51% -1.49% 67.74% 1.70% 4.41% 5.84% 23.34%

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 52

80.00%

Commitment Placement Ratios

60.00%

40.00%

20.00%

0.00% 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

RYDC Ratios YDC Ratios Residential Ratios At Home Ratios

CMT Change 00-03; 2003;

RYDC:

-1.57% 6.79%

YDC:

-15.55% 23.12%

Residential: 9.72% 19.27%

At Home:

7.40% 50.82%

CMT Change 03-05; 2005;

RYDC:

-0.41% 6.39%

YDC:

0.05% 23.17%

Residential: 1.10% 20.37%

At Home:

-0.74% 50.08%

CMT Change 03-08; 2008;

RYDC:

-0.43% 6.36%

YDC:

0.12% 23.24%

Residential: 2.16% 21.43%

At Home:

-1.85% 48.97%

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 53

Region 3 Admissions (Placement)
20000 15000 10000
5000 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 RYDC Home
1200 1000
800 600 400 200
0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 YDC STP Residential

Admis Change 00-03; 2003;

RYDC:

35.6% 6,388

YDC:

-52.9% 317

STP:

178.3% 896

Residential: 150.6% 797

Home:

65.1% 7,839

Admis Change 03-05; 2005;

RYDC: YDC: STP: Residential: Home:

25.6% 8,027 -6.1% 298 6.2% 952 10.5% 881 35.7% 10,640

Admis Change 03-08; 2008;

RYDC: YDC: STP: Residential: Home:

77.3% 11,324 -21.8% 248 -0.5% 892 21.4% 968 107.7% 16,283

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 54

Region 3 Average Length Of Stay (Placement)
1200.00 1000.00
800.00 600.00 400.00 200.00
0.00 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
YDC Home Residential
80.00 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00
0.00 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
RYDC STP

ALOS Change 00-03; 2003;

RYDC:

-29.8% 24.1

YDC:

70.2% 288.0

STP:

-9.3% 65.3

Residential: -21.2% 132.7

Home:

-33.3% 134.2

ALOS Change 03-05; 2005;

RYDC:

-0.5% 24.0

YDC:

15.1% 331.6

STP:

0.0% 65.3

Residential: 0.4% 133.2

Home:

-12.2% 117.7

ALOS Change 03-08; 2008;

RYDC:

-2.0% 23.6

YDC:

49.7% 431.1

STP:

0.0% 65.3

Residential: 1.1% 134.2

Home:

-27.6% 97.1

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 55

Region 3 Average Daily Population (Placement) Home
5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000
500 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
800.00 700.00 600.00 500.00 400.00 300.00 200.00 100.00
0.00
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
RYDC YDC STP Residential

ADP Change 00-03; 2003;

RYDC: YDC: STP: Residential: Home:

-4.9% 422 -19.8% 250 152.8% 160 97.4% 290 10.1% 2,882

ADP Change 03-05; 2005;

RYDC: YDC: STP: Residential: Home:

24.9% 527 8.1% 270 6.2% 170 11.0% 322 19.1% 3,432

ADP Change 03-08; 2008;

RYDC: YDC: STP: Residential: Home:

73.7% 733 17.0% 293 -0.48% 160 22.8% 356 50.3% 4,332

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 56

Region 4

A population forecast meeting for region 4 was held on December 3, 2003. The purpose of this meeting was to analyze the regional population forecast and to select the most realistic scenario that would contribute to the state forecast. The participants of the meeting and their roles are listed below:

Natilyne Young Sandra Fordham Carl Brown Diane Harris Earnest Baulkmon Carl Harrison Ted Lynch Carolyn Whitehead Ervin Warren Marie Martin Racquel Stinson Nairong Zhou Llewellyn Jenkins Doug Engle

Regional Administrator Administration Office of the Courts District Director District Director District Director Residential Placement Specialist Case Expeditor Case Expeditor Case Expeditor Case Expeditor Residential Treatment Services Specialist Statistical Research Analyst Planning Consultant Director, Office of Technology and Information Services

The results of the regional forecast are presented below:

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 57

Region 4 Admissions (Legal Status) Intake

8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

3000 2500 2000 1500 1000
500 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

STP

Commitment

Probation

Admis Change 00-03; 2003;

Intake: STP: Commitment: Probation:

-4.6% 6,760 -28.1% 857 -8.7% 379 -2.7% 2,381

Admis Change 03-05; 2005;

Intake:

1.0% 6,826

STP:

6.9% 916

Commitment: 2.3% 388

Probation:

0.03% 2,382

Admis Change 03-08; 2008;

Intake: STP: Commitment: Probation:

3.7% -3.7% -9.1% -2.9%

7,011 825 345 2,311

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 58

Region 4 Average Length Of Stay (Legal Status)

700 600 500 400 300 200 100
0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Intake STP Commitment Probation

ALOS Change 00-03; 2003;

Intake: STP: Commitment: Probation:

-44.7% 67 84.0% 85 -9.8% 490 0.9% 198

ALOS Change 03-05; 2005;

Intake:

0.1% 67

STP:

-1.5% 84

Commitment: -1.4% 483

Probation:

-0.5% 197

ALOS Change 03-08; 2008;

Intake: STP: Commitment: Probation:

3.1% 69 -5.0% 81 -1.8% 481 -1.5% 195

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Region 4 Average Daily Population (Legal Status)

2500 2000 1500 1000
500 0

Intake STP Commitment Probation

ADP Change 00-03; 2003;

Intake: STP: Commitment: Probation:

-47.3% 1,239 32.3% 200 -17.6% 509 -1.9% 1,292

ADP Change 03-05; 2005;

Intake:

1.1% 1,253

STP:

5.3% 211

Commitment: 0.9% 513

Probation:

-0.5% 1,286

ADP Change 03-08; 2008;

Intake: STP: Commitment: Probation:

6.9% 1,325 -8.5% 183 -10.7% 454 -4.4% 1,235

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 59

Intake Placement Ratios
100.00% 80.00% 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00% 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
RYDC Ratio Residential Ratio Home Ratio

Intake Change 00-03; 2003;

RYDC: Residential: Home:

-0.86% 5.86% 0.76% 1.66% 0.10% 92.47%

Intake Change 03-05; 2005;

RYDC:

-0.13% 5.73%

Residential: 0.0% 1.66%

Home:

0.14% 92.61%

Intake Change 03-08; 2008;

RYDC: Residential: Home:

-0.34% 5.52% -0.14% 1.52% 0.49% 92.96%

STP Placement Ratios

80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00%
0.00%
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

RYDC Ratio Residential Ratio

YDC Ratio Other STP Programs

STP Change 00-03; 2003;

RYDC: YDC: Residential: Other STP: STP Change

5.32% 17.53% -11.48% 68.40% 1.43% 1.83% 4.72% 12.24% 03-05; 2005;

RYDC: YDC: Residential: Other STP:

-7.23% 10.30% 3.31% 71.71% 2.48% 4.30% 1.45% 16.69%

STP Change 03-08; 2008;

RYDC: YDC: Residential: Other STP:

-6.08% 11.45% -3.74% 64.66% 6.19% 8.02% 3.63% 15.87%

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 60

Commitment Placement Ratios
80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00%
0.00%
1996 1997R1Y99D8 C19R99at2i0o0s0 2001 2002 Y20D03C2R00a4ti2o0s05 2006 2007 2008 Residential Ratios At Home Ratios

CMT Change 00-03; 2003;

RYDC:

0.49% 5.21%

YDC:

-11.09% 38.49%

Residential: 10.10% 17.79%

At Home:

0.50% 38.51%

CMT Change 03-05; 2005;

RYDC:

0.84% 6.05%

YDC:

-3.10% 35.40%

Residential: 2.13% 19.92%

At Home:

0.13% 38.64%

CMT Change 03-08; 2008;

RYDC:

1.98% 7.19%

YDC:

-7.74% 30.75%

Residential: 5.44% 23.23%

At Home:

0.32% 38.83%

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 61

Region 4 Admissions (Placement)

12000 10000
8000 6000 4000 2000
0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
RYDC Home

900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100
0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

YDC

STP

Residential

Admis Change 00-03; 2003;

RYDC: YDC: STP: Residential: Home:

-19.7% 2,502 -69.8% 176 22.9% 645 108.9% 306 9.6% 8,184

Admis Change 03-05; 2005;

RYDC: YDC: STP: Residential: Home:

-8.1% 2,299 -18.5% 143 14.0% 735 19.4% 365 8.1% 8,848

Admis Change 03-08; 2008;

RYDC: YDC: STP: Residential: Home:

-8.6% 2,286 -59.9% 81 -6.1% 606 26.5% 387 24.7% 10,449

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 62

Region 4 Average Length Of Stay (Placement)
700.00 600.00 500.00 400.00 300.00 200.00 100.00
0.00 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
YDC Home Residential
120.00 100.00
80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00
0.00 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
RYDC STP

ALOS Change 00-03; 2003;

RYDC: YDC: STP: Residential: Home:

-18.7% 21.4 111.5% 406.0 -7.8% 77.5 -20.5% 136.9 -34.9% 118.4

ALOS Change 03-05; 2005;

RYDC: YDC: STP: Residential: Home:

3.1% 22.0 13.8% 462.6 -3.2% 75.0 -3.5% 132.0 -7.0% 110.1

ALOS Change 03-08; 2008;

RYDC: YDC: STP: Residential: Home:

7.6% 23.0 54.8% 628.6 -7.9% 71.3 -3.3% 132.4 -21.3% 93.2

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 63

Region 4 Average Daily Population (Placement) Home
4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000
500 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
400.00 350.00 300.00 250.00 200.00 150.00 100.00
50.00 0.00 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
RYDC YDC STP Residential

ADP Change 00-03; 2003;

RYDC: YDC: STP: Residential: Home:

-34.7% 146 -36.0% 196 13.1% 137 65.5% 115 -28.6% 2,655

ADP Change 03-05; 2005;

RYDC: YDC: STP: Residential: Home:

-5.2% 138 -7.2% 182 10.4% 151 15.2% 132 0.7% 2,673

ADP Change 03-08; 2008;

RYDC: YDC: STP: Residential: Home:

-1.7% 144 -28.7% 140 -13.5% 118 22.3% 140 0.65% 2,672

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 64

Region 5
A population forecast meeting for region 5 was held on November 20, 2003. The purpose of this meeting was to analyze the regional population forecast and to select the most realistic scenario that would contribute to the state forecast. The participants of the meeting and their roles are listed below:

Lorr Elias Max Silman Tracy Lide Marrion Mitcham Adam Kennedy Mary Ellen Thrift Warnell Anthony Diane Fitch Kim Jenkins Debbie Morris Jeff Alligood Carolyn Tedders Heath Holloway Cliff Barber Barbara Davis Laura Ryan David Moran Pat Donaldson Renee Mumford Paul Reed Rodney Dinkins Bonnie Johns Sally Moncrief Ronnie Woodard Angie Lann Corey Butler Todd Weeks Jack Lee W D Strickland Sue Riner Pat Ford Rudy Gordon Donna Carnley Tara Jennings William Collins Gary Pattman Luz Cloy Trin Clark Nina Davis John Benner Tarry Rogers Patricia Stone Sheila Phillips Shauneen Moss Zack Mercer Hollie Martin Michael Cantlebary Linda Julian

Regional Administrator Region 5 Case Expeditor District 11 JPPS II District 9 Assessment/Classification Specialist District 9 Dist. Director District 9 AOC II District 9 JPM District 12 Assistant Dist. Director District 12 AOC I Eastman RYDC Director District 9 Assistant Dist. Director Eastman RYDC AOC II Eastman RYDC Assistant Director Claxton RYDC Director District 12 JPM District 12 Assessment-Classification Specialist District 12 Assessment Classification Specialist Savannah RYDC Director Waycross RYDC Director McIntosh YDC Director Claxton RYDC Assistant Director District 11 AOC I Claxton RYDC AOC II Eastman YDC Director Eastman YDC Secretary III District 11 JPM Eastman YDC Chief of Operations Eastman YDC Assistant Director Regional Principal Region 5 Residential Placement Specialist Region 5 Case Expeditor District 11 Assistant Dist. Director Ogcechee Judicial Circuit Bryan County Family Connections Prembroke Police District 11 District Director Juvenile Court Judge Savannah State University District 9 DFCS Field Director Pineland CSB Family Connection Juvenile Court Judge, Chatham County DJJ, Investigator II DFCS Community Mental Health Juvenile Court Judge, Tifton Circuit JPM Regional Health Services Coordinator

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 65

Tammy Taylor Nelda Ryan Deanne Bergen
John Clem
Lou Caputo Chris Ludowise Brenda Davis Kim Armstrong Wayne Anderson Adaire Spaulding Stanley Williams Margaret Coley Jean Newton-Cottier Paul Engen Nairong Zhou Llewellyn Jenkins Doug Engle

Regional Behavioral Health Services Coordinator Department Of Labor DHR
Georgia Department of Labor
Family Connection GA Southern University Chatham MSC Southwest Region MH/AD Adult Specialist District 12 DFCS Field Director Region V AOC-II Gateway CSB Medicaid Eligibility Specialist Case Expeditor Assessment Classification Specialist Statistical Research Analyst Planning Consultant Director, Office of Technology and Information Services

The results of the regional forecast are presented below:

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 66

Region 5 Admissions (Legal Status) Intake
12000 10000
8000 6000 4000 2000
0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
2500
2000
1500

Admis Change 00-03; 2003;

Intake: STP: Commitment: Probation:

5.9% 8,525 -19.6% 864 8.6% 530 -3.7% 1,900

Admis Change 03-05; 2005;

Intake:

6.8% 9,103

STP:

-3.0% 838

Commitment: 10.8% 587

Probation:

-3.0% 1,844

Admis Change 03-08; 2008;

Intake: STP: Commitment: Probation:

23.7% 10,548 -6.3% 810 21.4% 644 -6.3% 1,780

1000

500

0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 STP Commitment Probation

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 67

Region 5 Average Length Of Stay (Legal Status)

700 600 500 400 300 200 100
0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Intake STP Commitment Probation

ALOS Change 00-03; 2003;

Intake: STP: Commitment: Probation:

-41.3% 64 100.2% 101 5.8% 519 15.7% 233

ALOS Change 03-05; 2005;

Intake:

1.3% 65

STP:

-0.77% 100

Commitment: -1.3% 512

Probation:

-0.4% 232

ALOS Change 03-08; 2008;

Intake: STP: Commitment: Probation:

6.0% 68 -3.7% 97 -2.9% 504 0.9% 235

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Region 5 Average Daily Population (Legal Status)

3000 2500 2000 1500 1000
500 0

Intake STP Commitment Probation

Admis Change 00-03; 2003;

Intake:

-37.8% 1,498

STP:

60.9% 239

Commitment: 14.9% 753

Probation:

11.3% 1,213

ADP Change 03-05; 2005;

Intake:

8.2% 1,621

STP:

-3.7% 230

Commitment: 9.3% 824

Probation:

-3.4% 1,172

ADP Change 03-08; 2008;

Intake:

31.2% 1,965

STP:

-9.8% 215

Commitment: 18.0% 889

Probation:

-5.5% 1,146

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 68

Intake Placement Ratios
100.00% 80.00% 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00% 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
RYDC Ratio Residential Ratio Home Ratio

Intake Change 03-08; 2008;

RYDC: Residential: Home:

-2.02% 6.07% 0.48% 2.38% 1.54% 91.54%

Intake Change 03-05; 2005;

RYDC:

-0.83% 5.24%

Residential: -0.19% 2.19%

Home:

1.03% 92.57%

Intake Change 03-08; 2008;

RYDC: Residential: Home:

-0.98% 5.09% -0.57% 1.81% 1.56% 93.10%

STP Placement Ratios

80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00%
0.00%
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

RYDC Ratio Residential Ratio

YDC Ratio Other STP Programs

STP Change 00-03; 2003;

RYDC: YDC: Residential: Other STP: STP Change

4.83% 13.48% -17.17% 64.51% 1.75% 2.09% 10.60% 19.92% 03-05; 2005;

RYDC: YDC: Residential: Other STP:

-5.50% 7.98% 2.82% 67.33% 0.51% 2.60% 2.17% 22.09%

STP Change 03-08; 2008;

RYDC: YDC: Residential: Other STP:

-4.92% 8.56% -1.79% 62.72% 1.28% 3.37% 5.43% 25.35%

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 69

Commitment Placement Ratios
80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00%
0.00%
1996 1997R1Y99D8C19R99at2i0o0s0 2001 2002 Y20D03C2R00a4ti2o0s05 2006 2007 2008 Residential Ratios At Home Ratios

CMT Change 00-03; 2003;

RYDC:

-1.96% 5.32%

YDC:

-9.37% 32.14%

Residential: 7.07% 18.03%

At Home:

4.26% 44.51%

CMT Change 03-05; 2005;

RYDC: YDC: Residential: At Home:

-0.34% 4.98% -1.39% 30.76% 0.65% 18.68% 1.08% 45.59%

CMT Change 03-08; 2008;

RYDC: YDC: Residential: At Home:

-0.81% 4.51% -3.47% 28.67% 1.58% 19.61% 2.70% 47.21%

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 70

Region 5 Admissions (Placement)

14000 12000 10000
8000 6000 4000 2000
0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
RYDC Home

900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100
0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

YDC

STP

Residential

Admis Change 00-03; 2003;

RYDC:

-7.2% 3,073

YDC:

-62.3% 220

STP:

48.4% 739

Residential: 61.9% 450

Home:

17.3% 9,095

Admis Change 03-05; 2005;

RYDC:

2.7% 3,156

YDC:

-1.3% 217

STP:

5.3% 778

Residential: 11.2% 500

Home:

11.4% 10,132

Admis Change 03-08; 2008;

RYDC:

41.6% 4,351

YDC:

-26.1% 162

STP:

-1.2% 730

Residential: 28.7% 579

Home:

40.2% 12,751

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 71

Region 5 Average Length Of Stay (Placement)
700.00 600.00 500.00 400.00 300.00 200.00 100.00
0.00 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
YDC Home Residential
100.00 90.00 80.00 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
RYDC STP

ALOS Change 00-03; 2003;

RYDC:

-30.5% 20.9

YDC:

136.3% 401.8

STP:

-14.4% 76.0

Residential: -7.8% 143.1

Home:

-28.3% 119.0

ALOS Change 03-05; 2005;

RYDC:

-11.8% 18.5

YDC:

6.0% 425.8

STP:

-4.5% 72.6

Residential: -0.5% 142.5

Home:

-6.2% 111.5

ALOS Change 03-08; 2008;

RYDC:

-28.8% 14.9

YDC:

42.5% 572.5

STP:

-11.3% 67.4

Residential: -4.4% 136.8

Home:

-17.0% 98.7

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 72

Region 5 Average Daily Population (Placement) Home
4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000
500 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
350.00
300.00 250.00
200.00 150.00
100.00 50.00
0.00 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
RYDC YDC STP Residential

ADP Change 00-03; 2003;

RYDC:

-35.5% 176

YDC:

-11.0% 242

STP:

27.0% 154

Residential: 49.2% 176

Home:

-15.9% 2,964

ADP Change 03-05; 2005;

RYDC:

-9.4% 159

YDC:

4.6% 253

STP:

0.5% 155

Residential: 10.7% 195

Home:

4.4% 3,096

ADP Change 03-08; 2008;

RYDC:

0.8% 177

YDC:

5.2% 255

STP:

-12.3% 135

Residential: 23.0% 217

Home:

16.3% 3,447

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 73

APPENDIX D: INDEPENDENT PROBATION

The following list of counties operates their own probation systems. The department does not include data from the following counties in its probation forecasts. The forecasts only represent department run service areas. The following counties data are not included in this forecast.

Chatham Dougherty Gordon Troup

Clayton Floyd Gwinnett Whitfield

Cobb Fulton Hall Crawford

Dekalb Glynn Spalding Peach

Dade
Whitfield

Department of Juvenile Justice Shared & Independent Courts

Catoosa

Fannin

Towns Rabun

Union

DDJJJJPPrroovviiddeessAAllll SSeerrvviicceess

Habersham Murray

Walker
Chattooga
Floyd

Gordon Bartow

Gilmer

Pickens

White

DawsLounmpkin Hall

Banks

Stephens Franklin

Hart

Forsyth

Cherokee

Jackson Madison Elbert

DJJ Shares Services IInnddeeppeennddeenntt CCoouunnttyy

Paulding

Greene Jefferson

Polk Haralson
Carroll

Cobb
Douglas

Coweta Heard

Fulton
Rockdale

Clayton
Fayette

Barrow Gwinnett
Walton

OcoCnleareke

OglethorpWe ilkes

Lincoln

De Kalb

Newton Morgan Henry
Spalding Butts Jasper Putnam

Talieafr-roWarren Hancock Glascock

McDuffie

Columbia
Richmond

Meriwether
Lamar

Troup

Pike

Monroe Jones Baldwin Washington

Burke

Harris

Upson

Talbot

Crawford Bibb

Wilkinson

Johnson

Jenkins Screven

Twiggs
Webster

Muscogee Chhoatoac-hee

Marion

Taylor

Peach

Macon

Houston Bleckley Laurens

Schley

Dooly Pulaski Dodge

Emanuel Treutlen Candler Bulloch

Toombs

Stewart

Sumter

Wheeler

Bryan

Quitman

Lee Terrell

Randolph

Wilcox

Crisp

Telfair

Turner

Ben Hill

Jeff Davis

Tattnall

Appling

Liberty Long

Effingham Evans
Montgomery

Chatham

Clay Calhoun Dougherty Worth Early Baker

Irwin Tift
Berrien

Miller

Mitchell Colquitt Cook

Coffee Atkinson

Bacon

Wayne

Pierce

Ware

Brantley

McIntosh
Glynn

Lanier Lowndes
Seminole

Decatur Grady Thomas Brooks

Clinch Echols

Charleton

Camden

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 74

APPENDIX E: STATEWIDE DATA

Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

At Risk 749544 762191 777281 793900 826990 835728 844469 853208 861950 870690 879428 888169 896908

Arrest TP 5.45% 5.29% 6.31% 5.93% 5.48% 5.64% 5.37% 5.40% 5.39% 5.37% 5.36% 5.34% 5.33%

Arrests 40881 40291 49029 47046 45323 47145 45388 46087 46423 46759 47094 47430 47766

Intake INT TP 24.98% 39.78% 34.78% 47.30% 75.14% 70.67% 84.55% 83.94% 90.63% 96.62% 102.53% 108.09% 113.62%

Intake 10211 16027 17051 22254 34055 33316 38374 38686 42072 45177 48288 51267 54271

ALOS 384 234 213 167 118 109 84 74 73 73 74 75 75

ADP 10747 10263 9942 10202 11036 9943 8812 7819 8431 9080 9791 10492 11200

ChildDays 3922766 3745947 3628920 3723692 4028083 3629204 3216502 2853990 3077386 3314018 3573605 3829732 4088069

Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Adm TP 78.80% 72.71% 71.88% 58.36% 34.86% 35.39% 29.73% 26.51% 27.14% 28.19% 29.45% 30.78% 32.20%

Admission 8046 11654 12256 12987 11870 11790 11410 10257 11417 12737 14223 15781 17477

RYDC ALOS 37.7 28.8 26.9 27.2 28.8 26.9 20.8 20.8 20.7 20.5 20.3 20.1 19.8

ADP 831.5 920.7 904.7 969.3 936.6 867.9 650.5 584.8 646.2 716.2 792.1 869.2 948.3

ChildDays 303505 336041 330204 353777 341866 316795 237416 213445 235863 261418 289124 317260 346113

Ratio 7.74% 8.97% 9.10% 9.50% 8.49% 8.73% 7.38% 7.48% 7.66% 7.89% 8.09% 8.28% 8.47%

Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Adm TP 0.2% 0.3% 0.9% 1.4% 1.6% 2.1% 2.3% 2.7% 2.6% 2.5% 2.4% 2.3% 2.2%

Residential

Admission ALOS ADP

25

162.1 11.1

54

160.3 23.7

149

144.8 59.1

318

158.1 137.7

548

149.8 224.9

701

149.0 286.2

884

107.1 259.4

1026

67.4 189.4

1111

65.7 200.0

1132

64.7 200.8

1168

63.1 201.9

1199

61.4 201.6

1205

60.3 199.1

ChildDays 4053 8657 21570 50270 82094
104445 94681 69117 72998 73287 73685 73582 72689

Ratio 0.10% 0.23% 0.59% 1.35% 2.04% 2.88% 2.94% 2.42% 2.37% 2.21% 2.06% 1.92% 1.78%

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 75

Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Adm TP 21.0% 26.9% 27.2% 40.2% 63.5% 62.5% 68.0% 70.8% 72.1% 74.1% 77.1% 80.5% 83.7%

Admission 2140 4319 4646 8949 21637 20825 26080 27403 30343 33482 37223 41290 45402

Home ALOS ADP 1689.3 9904.7 787.5 9318.5 705.4 8978.5 371.0 9094.9 166.6 9874.3 154.0 8788.9 110.6 7902.5 93.8 7045.0 91.2 7585.1 89.0 8162.5 86.3 8796.6 83.3 9421.5 80.8 10052.7

ChildDays 3615208 3401249 3277146 3319645 3604123 3207964 2884405 2571428 2768549 2979304 3210769 3438860 3669234

Ratio 92.16% 90.80% 90.31% 89.15% 89.47% 88.39% 89.68% 90.10% 89.96% 89.90% 89.85% 89.79% 89.75%

Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

At Risk 749544 762191 777281 793900 826990 835728 844469 853208 861950 870690 879428 888169 896908

Filing TP 11.24% 11.24% 11.32% 10.75% 9.96% 10.24% 10.04% 10.02% 10.01% 9.97% 9.94% 9.90% 9.87%

Filing 84271 85697 88013 85329 82364 85544 84780 85500 86290 86843 87399 87945 88494

STP Sentences

Comit TP Adm STP

5.33%

4489

6.55%

5609

6.43%

5661

6.50%

5546

6.27%

5164

5.69%

4871

5.42%

4599

4.97%

4252

5.14%

4436

5.14%

4461

5.13%

4487

5.13%

4513

5.13%

4541

ALOS 2 4 11 26 45 71 89 97 97 95 95 94 94

ADP 19 62 166 391 636 942 1124 1127 1175 1167 1166 1164 1164

ChildDays 6875 22549 60588
142641 231999 343747 410236 411186 428911 425947 425476 425018 424682

Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Adm TP 0.82% 2.37% 6.02% 14.17% 21.84% 34.37% 52.47% 60.65% 36.29% 35.80% 35.33% 34.81% 34.40%

Admission 37 133 341 786
1128 1674 2413 2579 1610 1597 1585 1571 1562

RYDC ALOS 36.8 27.1 21.4 21.0 21.1 19.8 21.8 24.0 23.4 23.9 24.4 24.9 25.3

ADP 3.7 9.9 20.0 45.2 65.1 90.8 143.9 169.9 103.2 104.7 106.1 107.1 108.4

ChildDays 1362 3610 7299 16480 23765 33158 52517 62002 37682 38216 38738 39097 39565

Ratio 19.81% 16.01% 12.05% 11.55% 10.24% 9.65% 12.80% 15.08% 8.79% 8.97% 9.10% 9.20% 9.32%

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 76

Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Adm TP 1.0% 3.5% 9.9% 23.4% 40.7% 61.8% 75.5% 79.6% 85.2% 81.4% 77.9% 74.4% 70.6%

Admission 43 194 562
1296 2102 3011 3473 3383 3780 3632 3497 3356 3205

YDC ALOS 92.7 75.3 80.6 80.7 82.5 82.4 75.8 73.3 72.7 71.6 70.5 69.4 68.2

ADP 10.9 40.0 124.0 286.4 475.3 679.9 721.2 679.1 752.9 712.3 675.2 637.6 598.8

ChildDays 3984 14610 45278
104551 173495 248166 263232 247881 274793 259995 246464 232730 218571

Ratio 57.95% 64.79% 74.73% 73.30% 74.78% 72.19% 64.17% 60.28% 64.07% 61.04% 57.93% 54.76% 51.47%

Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Adm TP 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.5% 0.9% 2.3% 3.5% 4.2% 4.8% 5.4% 6.1% 6.6%

Residential

Admission ALOS ADP

4

74.0 0.8

4

45.5 0.5

3

68.3 0.6

11

143.5 4.3

27

123.7 9.2

46

135.2 17.0

105

109.6 31.5

147

97.7 39.3

186

99.9 50.8

215

103.5 60.9

244

107.1 71.7

273

110.7 82.8

301

114.4 94.3

ChildDays 296 182 205 1579 3340 6217
11510 14356 18528 22231 26177 30233 34415

Ratio 4.31% 0.81% 0.34% 1.11% 1.44% 1.81% 2.81% 3.49% 4.32% 5.22% 6.15% 7.11% 8.10%

Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Adm TP 0.3% 0.4% 0.9% 1.9% 3.8% 9.9% 15.3% 19.9% 21.7% 23.2% 24.9% 26.8% 28.8%

Alternative

Admission ALOS ADP

15

82.2 3.4

23

180.3 11.4

50

156.1 21.4

108

185.5 54.9

196

160.2 86.0

484

116.1 154.0

703

118.0 227.3

846

102.8 238.2

962

101.8 268.3

1034

102.1 289.1

1119

102.0 312.6

1210

101.6 336.9

1309

100.9 362.0

ChildDays 1233 4147 7806 20031 31399 56206 82977 86947 97914
105516 114095 122960 132131

Ratio 17.93% 18.39% 12.88% 14.04% 13.53% 16.35% 20.23% 21.15% 22.83% 24.77% 26.82% 28.93% 31.11%

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 77

Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

At Risk 749544 762191 777281 793900 826990 835728 844469 853208 861950 870690 879428 888169 896908

Filing TP 11.24% 11.24% 11.32% 10.75% 9.96% 10.24% 10.04% 10.02% 10.01% 9.97% 9.94% 9.90% 9.87%

Legal Commitments

Filing Comit TP Adm Cmt

84271 1.18%

996

85697 1.40%

1198

88013 1.63%

1435

85329 2.05%

1751

82364 2.64%

2176

85544 2.40%

2051

84780 3.13%

2657

85500 3.14%

2684

86290 3.17%

2731

86843 3.22%

2800

87399 3.25%

2843

87945 3.28%

2882

88494 3.31%

2928

ALOS 392 479 489 491 483 561 437 441 444 444 444 442 442

ADP 1069 1571 1924 2355 2878 3155 3185 3240 3322 3409 3460 3494 3544

ChildDays 390361 573531 702297 859533 1050375 1151473 1162411 1182463 1212565 1244322 1263008 1275389 1293500

Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Adm TP 55.92% 65.78% 64.88% 70.25% 66.87% 77.18% 78.36% 79.88% 82.59% 86.05% 91.59% 95.59% 100.53%

RYDC

Admission ALOS

557

54.3

788

40.9

931

43.7

1230

47.1

1455

46.8

1583

41.3

2082

30.3

2144

33.2

2256

31.4

2409

30.1

2604

28.4

2755

27.1

2944

25.7

ADP 82.8 88.2 111.5 158.6 186.5 179.2 173.1 195.0 194.2 198.6 202.8 204.5 207.2

ChildDays 30229 32193 40715 57874 68056 65418 63180 71176 70873 72501 74007 74639 75642

Ratio 7.74% 5.61% 5.80% 6.73% 6.48% 5.68% 5.44% 6.02% 5.84% 5.83% 5.86% 5.85% 5.85%

Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Adm TP 107.9% 78.0% 93.1% 102.5% 120.5% 118.4% 54.2% 37.3% 35.4% 31.3% 27.8% 24.8% 22.5%

Admission 1075 934 1336 1795 2621 2428 1440 1001 967 875 789 716 658

YDC ALOS 96.2 146.5 151.1 159.3 177.8 212.3 267.3 334.1 349.3 387.1 427.4 467.6 507.0

ADP 283.3 374.9 553.0 783.3 1276.7 1412.1 1054.7 916.4 925.1 928.1 924.2 917.3 914.3

ChildDays 103416 136853 201829 285907 466003 515405 384955 334479 337660 338749 337334 334816 333719

Ratio 26.49% 23.86% 28.74% 33.26% 44.37% 44.76% 33.12% 28.29% 27.85% 27.22% 26.71% 26.25% 25.80%

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 78

Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Adm TP 3.3% 5.9% 11.5% 19.6% 25.9% 37.7% 38.5% 42.7%
45.39% 46.30% 47.32% 48.24% 49.37%

Residential

Admission ALOS ADP

33

186.8 16.9

71

167.4 32.6

165

178.5 80.7

343

187.8 176.5

563

186.9 288.2

774

206.2 437.3

1023

206.0 577.5

1147

206.8 649.9

1240

202.5 688.0

1296

201.4 715.3

1345

200.3 738.3

1390

199.1 758.4

1446

197.3 781.3

ChildDays 6165 11886 29458 64411
105199 159601 210781 237205 251118 261089 269494 276824 285192

Ratio 1.58% 2.07% 4.19% 7.49% 10.02% 13.86% 18.13% 20.06% 20.71% 20.98% 21.34% 21.71% 22.05%

Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Adm TP 61.4% 68.0% 60.6% 63.0% 63.6% 79.1% 86.3% 91.7% 100.4% 109.8% 120.2% 132.6% 149.3%

Admission 612 815 870 1104 1385 1622 2292 2461 2744 3074 3417 3822 4372

Home ALOS 409.4 481.7 494.6 408.8 296.8 253.4 219.7 219.3 201.5 186.1 170.4 154.1 137.0

ADP 686.4 1075.6 1178.9 1236.6 1126.3 1126.2 1379.4 1478.4 1514.7 1567.1 1595.0 1614.0 1641.0

ChildDays 250551 392599 430295 451341 411117 411049 503495 539603 552866 571991 582174 589103 598962

Ratio 64.18% 68.45% 61.27% 52.51% 39.14% 35.70% 43.31% 45.63% 45.59% 45.97% 46.09% 46.19% 46.31%

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 79

Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

At Risk 749544 762191 777281 793900 826990 835728 844469 853208 861950 870690 879428 888169 896908

Filing TP 11.24% 11.24% 11.32% 10.75% 9.96% 10.24% 10.04% 10.02% 10.01% 9.97% 9.94% 9.90% 9.87%

Filing 84271 85697 88013 85329 82364 85544 84780 85500 86290 86843 87399 87945 88494

Probation

Prob TP Adm Prob

5.49%

4623

7.61%

6521

8.55%

7525

10.04%

8563

11.81%

9731

11.18%

9565

12.07%

10234

11.15%

9537

11.27%

9727

11.25%

9766

11.22%

9806

11.19%

9845

11.17%

9884

ALOS 163 168 166 178 189 214 217 225 226 226 226 225 225

ADP 2066 3004 3427 4165 5051 5618 6092 5878 6013 6046 6062 6065 6103

ChildDays 753993 1096279 1251000 1520116 1843635 2050530 2223646 2145389 2194584 2206614 2212790 2213791 2227532

Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Adm TP 5.39% 8.65% 9.67% 9.14% 7.63% 7.55% 8.45% 8.65% 8.65% 8.63% 8.57% 8.52% 8.53%

RYDC

Admission ALOS

249

40.14

564

29.2

728

24.38

783

22.58

742

28.42

722

22.26

865

10.2

825

9.121

841

9.135

843

9.155

841

9.164

839

9.183

843

9.195

ADP 27.4 45.1 48.6 48.4 57.8 44 24.2 20.6 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.2

ChildDays 9995 16467 17752 17684 21088 16073 8822 7525 7684 7714 7703 7705 7753

Ratio 1.33% 1.50% 1.42% 1.16% 1.14% 0.78% 0.40% 0.35% 0.35% 0.35% 0.35% 0.35% 0.35%

Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Adm TP 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Admission 4623 6521 7525 8563 9731 9565 10234 9537 9727 9766 9806 9845 9884

Home ALOS 160.9 165.6 163.9 175.5 187.3 212.7 216.4 224.2 225.6 226.0 225.7 224.9 225.4

ADP 2038.4 2958.4 3378.8 4116.3 4993.3 5573.9 6068.0 5857.2 6012.6 6045.5 6062.4 6065.2 6102.8

ChildDays 743998 1079812 1233248 1502432 1822547 2034457 2214824 2137864 2186900 2198900 2205088 2206086 2219779

Ratio 98.67% 98.50% 98.58% 98.84% 98.86% 99.22% 99.60% 99.65% 99.65% 99.65% 99.65% 99.65% 99.65%

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 80

Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Total State RYDC

Admissions ALOS ADP

8961

39.0 956.4

13275

29.6 1077.6

14460

27.9 1106.2

16006

28.4 1245.0

15574

30.0 1281.3

16297

27.3 1220.7

17602

21.7 1044.5

16735

22.5 1030.5

17152

22.0 1032.1

18712

21.8 1115.4

20476

21.5 1204.1

22269

21.2 1291.2

24246

20.8 1381.7

ChildDays 349103 393316 403762 454433 467675 445567 381247 376115 376725 407125 439503 471288 504315

Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

State Secure Long Term Program

Admissions ALOS ADP ChildDays

1075

96.2 283

103416

934

146.5 375

136853

1336

151.1 553

201829

1795

159.3 783

285907

2621

177.8 1277 466003

2428

212.3 1412 515405

1440

267.3 1055 384955

1001

334.1 916

334479

967

349.3 925

337660

875

387.1 928

338749

789

427.4 924

337334

716

467.6 917

334816

658

507.0 914

333719

Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

State Secure Short Term Program

Admissions ALOS ADP ChildDays

43

92.7 11

3984

194

75.3 40

14610

562

80.6 124

45278

1296

80.7 286 104551

2102

82.5 475 173495

3011

82.4 680 248166

3473

75.8 721 263232

3383

73.3 679 247881

3780

72.7 753 274793

3632

71.6 712 259995

3497

70.5 675 246464

3356

69.4 638 232730

3205

68.2 599 218571

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 81

Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

State Non-Secure Residential

Admissions ALOS ADP ChildDays

62

169.6 29

10514

129

160.7 57

20725

317

161.6 140

51233

672

173.0 319

116260

1138

167.5 522

190633

1521

177.7 740

270263

2012

157.5 868

316972

2320

138.2 879

320678

2536

135.1 939

342645

2643

134.9 977

356607

2757

133.9 1012 369356

2863

133.0 1043 380639

2951

132.9 1075 392296

Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

State Home

Admissions ALOS ADP

7390

623.9 12633

11678

417.7 13364

13091

378.0 13558

18724

282.7 14503

32949

178.1 16080

32496

175.7 15643

39309

144.6 15577

40247

132.6 14619

43775

128.1 15381

47356

123.7 16064

51564

118.5 16767

56167

113.2 17438

60967

108.6 18159

ChildDays 4610990 4877807 4948495 5293449 5869186 5709676 5685701 5335842 5606229 5855711 6112125 6357009 6620107

Statewide Population Forecast

Page 82