|
|
|
DALLAS CHALLENGE TRUANCY ENFORCEMENT CENTER by Shelton Stogner Enforcing truancy laws has traditionally been low on the priority list of most police officials. Moreover, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Act of 1974 deinstitutionalized status offenders, making it impossible for juvenile systems to detain or incarcerate chronic truants. As a result, very few long-term or comprehensive juvenile justice programs have been initiated to intervene in “minor” offenses like truancy. Most truancy cases involve students that may have skipped classes a few times, but their unexcused absences rarely exceed double digits and usually do not wind up in court. There are other students that miss school 50 or more days in one school year. These students are labeled chronic truants. In most cases, there are serious psychological or emotional problems underlying the truant behavior. There is also the chance that these students are engaged in other delinquent behaviors when they are not attending school. Chronic truants often slip through the cracks in a system designed to focus on more serious forms of delinquency, even though “truancy is often a first step to a lifetime of problems” (Garry 1996). Truancy is a serious problem that adversely affects both youth and society at large. Daily absentee rates can exceed 30% in some cities (Garry 1996). The chronic truant falls behind and often drops out of school, creating a situation in which youth are without the educational background necessary to compete in the job market and where taxpayers bear the brunt of the negative fallout. Chronic truancy is also linked to other serious consequences for the youth: drug use, delinquency, and unemployment, and for society: daytime crime, auto theft, and vandalism (Garry 1996; Rohrman 1993; Martin, Schultze, and Valdez 1988). Several studies have successfully documented a clear correlation between drug use and truancy. One study found that 51% of juvenile detainees not in school at the time of their arrest tested positive for drug use (Wish, Grey, and Levine 1996). Another study reported that 53% of 403 male arrestees in San Diego, California, tested positive for drugs when taken to juvenile hall. Those who did not attend school were more likely to test positive, 67% vs. 49%, than those who did attend (San Diego Association of Governments 1996). Many police departments allege that daytime crime rates rise or fall in direct proportion to truancy interventions. Shoplifting arrests fell by 60% when police in Van Nuys, California, conducted a three-week truancy sweep (Shuster 1995), and crimes such as purse snatching dropped by 50% when police in St. Paul, Minnesota, began picking up truants and taking them to a school attendance center (Garry 1996). The Dallas, Texas Police Department’s statistical analysis revealed that adoption of an aggressive curfew and truancy program resulted in a 17.7% drop in juvenile victimization during curfew hours and a 14.6% reduction in juvenile arrests (Click 1994). One seminal study concluded that truancy is the single most powerful predictor of delinquency (Shuster 1995), which makes a strong case for police and courts to take an active role in deterring chronic truancy. Research also indicates that inmates who are much less literate and educated than the general U.S. population inhabit correctional facilities in the United States. In 1994, two-thirds of the one million adult prisoners in the U.S. scored 30 points lower than the general population on standardized literacy tests. The younger population does not fare much better. The Texas Youth Commission reports that incarcerated youth read at the 4th and 5th grade level, a full 4 or 5 years behind their peers. The TYC also reported that the 8th grade was the last grade completed and that 77% scored lower than the mean of 100 on IQ tests. On the local level, the Dallas County Juvenile Department reported that 50% of the 2000 or so youth on probation are at least one grade behind their appropriate level. Empirical evidence strongly suggests that educational level is directly correlated with drug use, delinquency, serious crimes, and future incarceration. Chronic truancy, left unattended, will continue to produce persons with below average educational skills and will perpetuate a system in which limited education equates to fewer opportunities for legitimate advancement. It is with these factors in mind that the truancy system in Dallas County was re-invented. THE SYSTEM: Texas statutes extant in 1995 did not lend themselves to effectively enforcing compulsory school attendance laws. The Texas Juvenile Justice Code and the Texas Education Code provided for truancy cases to be filed in court, but there were no mechanisms in place to graduate sanctions against chronic truants when they failed to return to school after a court hearing. The presiding judge would put the youth under a court order to attend school, but if the child failed to comply with the order, there were no avenues of effective enforcement available to the judge. The only option open at that point was to refer the case to the District Attorney and the local juvenile department for further action. In 1995, Dallas County’s juvenile justice system, including the D.A.’s office, was overloaded with serious delinquency cases and had little time and few resources available for what was considered a “minor” offense. Truancy cases filed prior to 1996 rarely made it to the district court level, and when they did, they were held in abeyance and were rarely adjudicated. Truants were never taken into custody nor did they face appropriate consequences for violating the compulsory school attendance laws. The most serious sanction they faced was expulsion from school, which was ironic in that it gave them exactly what they wanted in the first place: to avoid school. This situation frustrated local officials in Dallas, Texas, because they were beginning to recognize the need to address an issue that was spawning many related problems. A contingent of officials advocated for a change in State law that would put teeth in the truancy enforcement process. The intent was to modify the existing statute to make it more effective in dealing with a growing truancy problem. The law was changed in 1996, empowering local courts to initiate contempt proceedings against youth failing to obey orders of the court to return to school. It was a minor adjustment, but it opened the door for jurisdictions in Texas to design and implement effective sanctions for chronic truants. This new contempt clause provided an avenue for local jurisdictions to hold truants accountable for their behavior. Dallas County officials heralded the law change as a significant breakthrough in the effort to combat truancy, but policy makers quickly realized it was only the first step toward assembling a comprehensive system to take full advantage of the legislative change in the Texas Juvenile Justice Code. It was apparent that vertical integration, from the schools through the District Attorney and juvenile department, was mandatory if truancy were to be taken seriously by students, schools, and courts. Historically, Dallas County managed truancy cases through the Justice of the Peace (JP) court structure. There were fourteen (14) JP courts in Dallas County in 1995 and 1996, and each of the fifteen (15) school districts could file truancy cases in any one of them. The JP courts were responsible for many different kinds of cases, so the priority given to truancy cases tended to vary from court to court. The judges justifiably didn’t put much stock in the efficacy of the process given that truancy cases were not taken seriously by other components of the juvenile justice system. Schools were equally disenchanted with the way in which truancy cases were handled by the local system. Due to the ineffectiveness of the system at large, all parties concerned with truancy took a “why bother” approach to the issue. Changing the culture of the local truancy community required several major alterations in ideology and process. The first change involved developing a way in which the new “contempt” cases could be processed without overtaxing an already overloaded juvenile justice system, while simultaneously assigning appropriate sanctions to a new category of juvenile offender. This goal was partially achieved by creating the Dallas Challenge Contempt Enforcement Center. The Contempt Center was designed by a local non-profit agency (Dallas Challenge, Inc.), initially funded by the Criminal Justice Division of the Governor’s Office, and sanctioned by the Dallas County Commissioners Court and the Dallas County Juvenile Board. It was brought on line in September of 1996 as a deferred prosecution program tasked with receiving contempt referrals from the JP system, stabilizing truant youth in an educational setting, and preventing their progression in the juvenile justice system. A critical agreement was reached that gave increased credibility to the program: failures at the Contempt Center would be sent to the Dallas County Detention Center, at which time the District Attorney would file the contempt cases in district court. This was a major step forward and lent credence to the idea that Dallas County was serious about truancy. It insured that truancy cases would not fall through any “cracks” in the system. Another important change centered on the process by which the system would maintain legal integrity. The fourteen (14) JP courts and fifteen (15) independent school districts had to follow a prescribed plan of action if the new process were to be legal and functional. The District Attorney and a County Commissioner designed all the legal forms, outlined a process, and met repeatedly with judges and school officials to construct the legal documents necessary to file cases. The JP courts agreed to use standardized adjudication orders and contempt orders, the D.A. agreed to pursue the cases in court, and the juvenile department agreed to accept contempt referrals after all options had been exhausted. It took approximately one year for this process to culminate in an agreement, but an agreement was reached and the new system was put into action in September of 1996. Structurally, vertical integration had been achieved. The system worked as designed for the first five years of operation. Then, in 2001, frustration with one component of the process led to another major change. School districts, particularly the Dallas Independent School District, had become increasingly disenchanted with the length of time it took to get a case on the docket and heard by the JP courts. A typical case took 77 days from the time the school filed it to actually being heard by a judge. The JPs on the other hand felt that they were overloaded with cases from areas other than truancy and did not have the time and staff to fully accommodate school district demands for timely hearings. It was a frustrating situation for both sides, but a partial solution was reached through the design and implementation of specialized Truancy Courts. Two Specialized Truancy Courts became operational in the fall of 2002. A third one was brought on line in the fall of 2003. These specialized courts hear nothing but truancy cases. They have no other responsibilities. Currently the Dallas Independent School District is the only school system that has access to the specialized courts. Cases which once took 77 days to hear are now placed on the docket within 18-20 days of the initial filing. The goal is to have truancy cases from all 15 school districts heard by specialized courts within the next 2 years. Expedient hearings by the court system has functioned to lower the number of unexcused absences a student will have by the time he appears for a hearing. There was one other major development underway that paralleled and enhanced the work being done in the truancy arena. Dallas County initiated a project in 1999 that was designed to expand and fully integrate the county’s juvenile justice information system. The intent was to roll out a system over a 5-year period that would include the police, district attorney, juvenile department, schools, all courts (including municipal, justice, truancy, and juvenile courts), and social service agencies. All parties agreed to use the system to track juvenile offenders, electronically file cases, and produce aggregate status reports. The system included schools for the express purpose of efficient and timely filing of truancy cases. This new information management network ensured that truancy was given due weight in the overall scope of the juvenile justice system. The net effect of all the changes that were designed and implemented over the past eight (8) years is that truancy in Dallas County will never again be shuffled off into obscurity as a “minor” offense unworthy of attention as a serious phenomenon. THE PROCESS: The truancy intervention process begins in the local schools. Most districts use some form of diversion when it is first noticed that a student is accruing unexcused absences. The Dallas Independent School District (DISD), the largest in the county, requires the parent(s) and child to attend a mandatory meeting once the student has three unexcused absences. The intent of the class is to clarify the laws governing truancy, the consequences for continuing to be truant, and suggestions to the family for improving attendance. The DISD might also use other programs such as boot camps, counseling, or educational programs to get the youth back on track. All efforts are ultimately geared toward improving attendance and avoiding the need to use the court system as leverage. It is the first stage in a process that is designed to filter out the less serious cases so that only those students requiring more intensive sanctions end up in court. Once the school district exhausts all diversion options, youth that continue missing school are filed on in one of the specialized truancy courts or, in the case of suburban districts, a Justice of the Peace court. The case is then put on the docket and a hearing is conducted to determine guilt or innocence. This procedure is the same regardless of the court in which it is heard. If the student is guilty of truancy, the case is held in abeyance pending compliance with the order to attend school with no unexcused absences. A review process is used in which a student returns to court within four to six weeks to determine whether or not he has adhered to the conditions outlined in the court order. A presiding judge has discretion over subsequent actions. The judge might file contempt at the first review if the child has violated any of the court order, or the child might be given a second chance if it appears that he is trying to comply with the court order. It is a decision contingent upon the circumstances surrounding the case. If, however, non-compliance continues to be an issue, the judge will file contempt and remand the student to the custody of the Dallas Challenge Truancy Enforcement Center. Once the presiding Judge decides to issue the contempt allegation, the offender is immediately taken into custody and transported to the Dallas Challenge Truancy Enforcement Center (TEC) by a uniformed officer of the court. The youth’s parent or legal guardian is ordered to appear at the TEC within ninety minutes of the time the youth is transported. The TEC is not a 24-hour facility and is only authorized to hold youth in custody a maximum of 6 hours before they must appear before a Magistrate. This “custody” step is designed to get their attention and reinforce the idea that the consequences for chronic truancy are real and inevitable. Youth are booked into the TEC by a uniformed court bailiff. A background check is then conducted to find out if the youth is already active in the juvenile justice system for other, more serious offenses. If they are in the system on previous charges, roughly 20% of the referrals, the youth is transported to the juvenile detention center for further action. The next step is to use a screening instrument (MAYSI) with each eligible youth to determine if there are issues requiring immediate attention. The main thrust is to assess whether or not the youth appears suicidal or homicidal. If either risk is present, the youth is referred to a psychiatric facility or a detention center. This is necessary in less than 5% of referrals. When the parents arrive at the TEC, they and the remaining youth are escorted into an on-site courtroom where a Magistrate explains the program and finds out if the parents and youth are willing to cooperate with a deferred prosecution program. The parents have the option of working with the TEC for three to six months, or having the case filed with the District Attorney and being heard by a juvenile District Judge. Nearly all (99%) of the parents agree to the deferred prosecution option, at which time they are assigned a date and time to return for a complete assessment by an assigned TEC case manager. The return time averages one week from initial point of contact. The assessment process and related recommendations and actions are at the heart of what the TEC is about. Research supports the idea that serious companion issues generally accompany chronic truancy, and it is almost axiomatic that a youth will not be stabilized in an educational setting until these issues are addressed. Young women that are being physically or sexually abused (35%-40%) are not likely to prioritize school attendance until they receive help in extricating themselves from a dangerous and harmful situation. Youth caught up in drug experimentation and drug addiction (over 50%) require specialized interventions before they are able to focus on school. Depression and other mental health issues (25%) are also prevalent among the chronically truant youth, which act as impediments to school attendance. A thorough assessment of youth and parents is an important component in determining the actions necessary to a successful plan of action. A case plan is developed from the assessment process. The case plan serves as a means of assigning appropriate intervention programs and monitoring participation and progress in the programs. The TEC uses over 50 community-based organizations to address these significant and deleterious presenting issues. The most common problems requiring interventions are: drug use, physical abuse, sexual abuse, mental health issues, pregnancy/parenting, and anger management. Alternative schools are also an option in those cases where the student is not likely to succeed in the school environment from which he was originally referred for truancy. Charter schools and private institutions are used about 10% of the time as an alternative to the student’s home school. Moreover, most of the youth are behind academically and require tutoring and special attention. Individualized programs are frequently used in which a student has the opportunity to recover credits at an accelerated rate. Once the case plan is developed and agreed to by the participants, they appear before a Magistrate who explains their legal situation, reviews the conditions of participation, and makes sure they understand the necessity of attending assigned programs. The Magistrate also allows parents and students to ask questions about the case, the process, and the court’s expectations. Participants are then assigned a report back date and time. A court report back strategy allows the judge and case manager to monitor progress in the case and to make adjustments in the plan as required. In most cases, a student will report back to the court 5 or 6 times during the time his case is active. Attentive and thorough case management is a critical component of a successful deferred prosecution program. The assigned TEC case manager is responsible for monitoring the case and taking action when necessary. School attendance and program participation is monitored bi-weekly. This system allows the case manager to proactively intervene when it appears that a youth is deviating from the assigned plan. Preparing progress reports to the court is also a key part of the case management process. The case manager documents all aspects of the case, ensures that each youth periodically appears before an on-site Magistrate, and makes a final recommendation on case disposition. If a case is closed successfully, no further action will be taken against the parent or child on the specific charge that got them to the TEC. Unsuccessful cases are forwarded to the District Attorney for filing in the District Courts. The District Attorney reviews these cases and ultimately makes a decision as to whether or not the case merits prosecution. Prosecuted cases are usually placed on formal probation for three to six months and are supervised and monitored by an officer of the court (probation officer). The TEC is an important part of the truancy management system in Dallas County, but it does not stand-alone. The process is vertically integrated and combines the efforts of local school districts, truancy courts, the TEC, the District Attorney, the District Judges hearing juvenile matters, and the Dallas County Juvenile Department. Each of these entities plays an important role in the process, and the outcomes would not be as good as they are if any one were missing or non-cooperative. Many communities have truancy intervention programs, but few have the support and cooperation of the entire juvenile justice system that is found in Dallas County. OUTCOMES: The 15 school districts in Dallas County will file approximately 30,000 truancy cases in a given school year. The Dallas Independent School District (DISD) alone will file between 18,000-20,000 of the cases. Truancy is a serious problem, and it is treated seriously by the school districts. Dallas courts give priority to truancy cases. The DISD files truancy cases in any one of three specialized truancy courts. Cases are on the docket within 18-20 days of the case being filed. The truancy judge takes the initial plea, issues an order containing certain conditions with which the student must comply, and periodically reviews the case to check progress. In addition to the legal procedures, the presiding judge supervises a social worker that is responsible for intervening in cases where there are apparent needs for intervention services. Unfortunately, many students do not comply with the orders of the truancy courts. They continue to miss school without valid reasons. The presiding judge only has one option in cases where the student continues the truant behavior: file the contempt charge and remand the youth to the custody of the TEC. In excess of 7,800 youth have been referred to the TEC by truancy courts since opening for business in 1996. Approximately 20% of the cases were not opened due to the students already being active in the system on more serious charges. The remaining 6,240 cases were accepted in the program and received the full complement of services. Cases stay active in the TEC for an average of 4 ½ months. To date 65% of the youth have completed the program successfully, with successful meaning that the youth was stabilized in an educational setting and had an 85%- 90% improvement in attendance. Of the 35% that failed the program, 30% were sent to the district attorney for filing delinquency charges in the district courts. The remaining 5% were not filed due to age or leaving the jurisdiction. So, regardless of the success or failure at the TEC, the students did not fall through any perceived cracks in the system. All components have been integrated to the point where that cannot and does not happen. Research has been conducted to determine recidivism rates. Based upon sample data, only 4% return to the TEC on new contempt charges. Moreover, less than 12% of the students enter the system on new delinquency charges one year or more after their successful discharge from the TEC. These data offer compelling evidence of the efficacy of early and sustained intervention in truancy cases. This program, and the truancy system at large, has helped make Dallas County a safer and more productive place to live. |