when did making adults mad become a crime? keeping kids in school and out of courts

When Did Making Adults Mad Become

A Crime?

Keeping Kids in School and Out of Courts

IMPACT OF SRO WITH & WITHOUT MOU

93 94 95 96 97 98 99 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 130

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

MisdemeanorsFelonies

School/Justice MOU Signed

SRO Program Begins

Negotiations Begin on MOU

The process of enabling the participation of students to improve school safety and

climate using positive behavioral techniques,

practices, and interventions that yields a willingness,

capacity, and opportunity to safely participate in the

prevention and solving of discipline and safety concerns

THE POSITIVE STUDENT ENGAGEMENT MODEL FOR SCHOOL POLICING: A DEFINITION ST

Best Practices Improves Safety

99 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 130

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

ComplaintsPetitions

Reform Begins

Don’t Let Appearances Fool You!2013 data as compared to the same measures in 2002

• 80% decrease in average daily detention population (ADP)• 75% reduction in ADP of minority youth• 47% reduction in average length of stay • Felony re-arrest (prior to adjudication) is 0%• 72% fewer commitments to state custody• 66% fewer commitments of minority youth, BUT a• 72% reduction in formal petitions • 62% reduction in complaints

Keeping Kids in School, Out of Court, Improves Community Safety

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Graduation RatesArrest Rates

OSS Alternatives & Court Diversion

Quad C-ST

System of Care: Col-lective Impact

Protocol Begins

JDAI Begins

STAKEHOLDER GROUP DECISION TREE

D SCHOOL-JUSTICE PARTNERS

PUBLIC AGENCIES

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

PRIVATE PROVIDERS

PUBLIC PROVIDERS

FAITH-BASED

ADVOCATES

CORPORATE

VOTING MEMBERS

ADVISORY MEMBERS

School-Justice Stakeholder Group Decision ChartRule One: School-Justice Partners responsible for school, law enforcement, and court decision-making are mandatory voting members;

Rule Two: Only those providing financial or in-kind support have voting authority;

Rule Three: All others are advisory members; and

Rule Four: School-Justice Partners may veto decisions affecting school, law enforcement, and court regulatory or legal authority.

REFERRAL TO COURT

Will the offense be diverted from a formal

petition?

MISDEMEANORS & NON-VIOLENT

FELONIES

Is it more probable than not the judge will divert or informally adjust the case?

upon adjudication?

FOCUS ACT

Stakeholder group decides which offenses will be included as a Focus Act

FOCUS ACT DECISION TREE

YES

YES

YES

MEMORANDUM OF

UNDERSTANDING

SAMPLE GRADUATED RESPONSE GRID LEVEL FOCUS ACTS RESPONSES

HIGH

2nd Drugs

Drug Assessment/Treatment Behavior Improvement Room

Saturday School School Based Community Service

Class-to-Class Escort Restrict School Events

MEDIUM

2nd Affray/Fight

2nd Disorderly Conduct 2nd Disrupting Public School

Sexual Battery 2nd Theft

2nd Battery (no physical injury) Battery (physical injury)

Sexual battery Drugs

Drug Awareness Education

Conflict Workshop Boundaries

Theft Workshop Mediation

Behavior Improvement Room School-Based Community Service

Class-to-Class Escort Restitution

Behavior Contract Letter of Apology

Restrict School Events

LOW

Disorderly Conduct Disrupting School

Affray/Fight Theft

Battery (no physical injury)

Verbal Warning

Written Warning Essay

Restitution Letter of Apology

SHARED RESPONSIBILTY: THE STEPS TO CREATE A BACKBONE AGENCY

Backbone Agency Development Process

1. Schools do not have capacity to assess & treat the causes of chronic disruptive behavior

2. Community should bridge the schools and community resources through backbone agency

3. Backbone agency focuses on underlying needs where schools are prohibited or lack resources

4. Backbone agency should include the private and public sectors of the community.

ST

SCHOOL-JUSTICE AGREEMENT DECISION TREE

COMPONENT PURPOSE GOALS/CONDITIONS

Preamble or Introduction

Why an agreement?

1. The Research: What works in school discipline;

2. The Law: What supports doing this? Interagency agreements Restorative Justice Diversion Delinquency/Status/Depend

ency prevention Promote Graduation Coordination of Services Other

3. Existing agreements in support of School-Justice Initiative (Ex. School Based Probation)

Definitions What terms

need definition

1. Focus Acts (See Focus Act Decision Tree)

2. Felony vs Misdemeanor 3. Student/Juvenile 4. Delinquent/Status/Dependent 5. IDEA/IEP 6. Diversion/Adjustment 7. Term or phrase describing the

response to the Focus Act (Ex. Graduated Response Grid or System)

1. Role of the SRO/LE 2. Prerequisites to referring to court

What is the general rule? What are the exceptions

(Exigent Circumstances) Response System:

Graduated system with high, medium low?

What are the responses associated to each level?

3. Special Cases IEP students Chronically disruptive:

Referral for assessment & Treatment

What does referral process look like (backbone agency, collaborative, etc)

Probation Bullies

4. Treatment of Elementary Students

Terms of Agreement

How to operationalize

the MOU

FOLLOW TO NEXT PAGE

COMPONENT PURPOSE GOALS/CONDITIONS

Quality Control

Who & How on implementation

& oversight

•Data Collection•Who collects it?•How is it collected?•How is it used?•How is it reported?•Periodic quality control meetings•Who attends?•How often?•What are the Performance measures?•What are the outcome measures?•What is the process for modifications?

INTER-AGENCYAGREEMENT/MOU

Children respond to

what they see and hear

Steve.Teske@co.clayton.ga.us

Twitter @scteskelawFacebookLinkedinPhone (770) 477-3260

Geniene Lewis, Judicial Assistant