Diversion - A Collaboration with Court and Community Stakeholders (ft. Robert Bermingham)

Summary

Youth Justice Transformation in Action: Episode Summary

Episode Title: Diversion - A Collaboration with Court and Community Stakeholders
Host/Author: RFK National Resource Center for Juvenile Justice
Featured Guest: Robert A. Birmingham, Jr.
Release Date: November 29, 2022

---

Introduction

In this compelling episode of the RFK National Resource Center's podcast, Youth Justice Transformation in Action, hosts Jody Martin and John Toole engage with Robert A. "Bob" Birmingham, Jr., the retired Court Service Unit Director of Fairfax County's Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. Bob shares his extensive experience and insights on implementing diversion practices to transform the youth justice system, highlighting the collaborative efforts with various court and community stakeholders.

Guest Background

[01:42] Bob Birmingham:

"I spent the past 35 years with the Fairfax County Juvenile Domestic Relations District Court... over the last five years been doing some consulting, independent consulting with RFK..."

Bob provides a comprehensive overview of his 35-year tenure, detailing his roles from working in detention centers to managing the largest court service unit in Virginia. His recent endeavors include consulting with RFK, focusing on probation system reviews and youth work.

The Focus on Diversion

[03:04] Bob Birmingham:

"We weren't doing that to the level I thought we could... the numbers were astronomical. It just didn't make sense to me..."

Bob identifies diversion as a critical yet underutilized area in Fairfax County's youth justice practices. He observed excessively high numbers of youth on probation and in detention for low-risk offenses, prompting a reevaluation of existing practices to prioritize diversion.

Implementation of Diversion Practices

[04:53] Bob Birmingham:

"We were diverting somewhere in the range of 10 to 15% of complaints that were filed with our court... we were able to easily double those numbers or even higher..."

Bob outlines the strategic steps taken to enhance diversion, including the introduction of assessment and screening tools like Yazzie. These tools enabled the early determination of a youth's risk level, facilitating more appropriate and tailored diversion options. A standout initiative was the Alternative Accountability Program (AAP), a collaborative effort between courts, schools, prosecutors, and law enforcement, emphasizing restorative justice.

[07:50] Bob Birmingham:

"When I left, the last set of results that I saw, the kids that participated in AAP, 98% of them that were offered the opportunity, they selected the opportunity to do that program."

The AAP demonstrated remarkable success, with high participation rates and significantly reduced recidivism. Less than 10% of participants recidivated within six months, showcasing the program's effectiveness compared to traditional probation.

Collaboration with Stakeholders

[09:38] Bob Birmingham:

"When we started looking at those numbers... we needed to get a stronger look at what we were doing with diversion..."

Bob emphasizes the importance of collaboration with key stakeholders, including law enforcement, schools, and the prosecutor's office. This multi-faceted approach ensured that diversion programs were comprehensive and tailored to meet the needs of youth, families, and the community.

[11:35] Bob Birmingham:

"There was constant meetings. There was data sharing, there was discussions, there was disagreements... but over time, they saw the benefit of it."

Building partnerships, especially with the Commonwealth Attorney’s office, posed initial challenges. Resistance stemmed from skepticism about the efficacy of restorative justice. However, persistent engagement, transparent data sharing, and demonstrating tangible benefits gradually won over stakeholders.

Outcomes and Data

[16:36] John Toole:

"It's a smart approach that yields results that preclude those youth that are introduced through that initial diversion or alternative response into that opportunity, their desistance from future delinquency."

The implementation of diversion strategies in Fairfax County led to reduced court dockets, lower recidivism rates, and enhanced stakeholder collaboration. Data played a pivotal role in monitoring these outcomes, ensuring that diversion was not perceived as merely a lenient approach but as an effective, evidence-based strategy.

Challenges and Persistence

[14:53] Bob Birmingham:

"We continued to meet, and I was fortunate to work under a chief judge that was willing to pull together major stakeholders on a weekly basis."

Bob candidly discusses the initial resistance encountered, particularly from prosecutors wary of diverting cases. Persistent collaboration, guided by supportive leadership, was essential in overcoming these challenges and fostering a cooperative environment.

Policy and Procedures

[19:22] Bob Birmingham:

"We have a juvenile intake department that falls under the court service unit... implement assessment and screening tools early on in the process..."

Reforming the intake process was crucial. By training intake officers in assessment and screening, Fairfax County ensured that diversion decisions were informed, transparent, and collaborative. Engaging youth and families in the decision-making process was institutionalized, enhancing the effectiveness and acceptance of diversion programs.

Reflections and Conclusions

[25:59] Bob Birmingham:

"We learned more... it really motivated us to look at all the work we did... It was the challenge to our staff to go out and how can we do that?"

Bob reflects on the transformation within Fairfax County's juvenile justice system, attributing success to a culture of continuous learning, data-driven decision-making, and unwavering commitment to improving outcomes for youth and families. He advocates for other jurisdictions to embrace change, collaborate effectively, and prioritize evidence-based practices to achieve similar successes.

Notable Quotes

• Bob Birmingham on the Importance of Data:

  [03:04] "The data was suggesting to us and indicated that we were detaining kids that were low risk and placing kids on probation that were low risk at high rates when the research would suggest those are kids that should have stayed outside of the system."

• Bob Birmingham on Stakeholder Collaboration:

  [11:35] "We all are trying to achieve the same goal, right? Public safety, supportive families, successful kids, and victims' rights being protected."

• Bob Birmingham on Professional Growth:

  [25:59] "Look at what's going on around you, around the country and see how you can fit that maybe into your jurisdiction to bring about the changes that you want."

• Bob Birmingham on System Comfort:

  [29:30] "I think systems have gotten comfortable where they live and work and breathe now... Juvenile justice across the country became a mini, an adult system."

Conclusion

Bob Birmingham’s insights offer a valuable blueprint for jurisdictions aiming to implement or enhance diversion programs within their youth justice systems. His emphasis on data-driven practices, stakeholder collaboration, and continuous professional development underscores the multifaceted approach necessary for meaningful transformation. The Fairfax County model demonstrates that with dedication and strategic partnerships, significant improvements in youth justice outcomes are achievable.

For more information on youth justice transformation, visit rfknrcjj.org/podcast.

Transcript

[Bob Birmingham]

Foreign.

[Jody Martin]

Welcome to Youth Justice Transformation in Action, a podcast for youth serving stakeholders. We are the RFK National Resource center for Juvenile justice and we're on a mission to transform the youth justice system by partnering with people like you who are passionate about improving outcomes for youth, families and communities you serve. You will hear from experts in the field and on the ground who have championed reform on the local, state and national level. We are your hosts. I'm Jody Martin.

[John Toole]

I'm John Toole.

[Jody Martin]

And I'm Michelle Darling. In today's episode, Diversion, a Collaboration with Court and Community Stakeholders, Bob Birmingham, retired Court Service Unit Director of the Commonwealth of Virginia's largest court service unit, delivers his firsthand account on how he successfully led the implementation of diversion practices and he offers takeaways for how other jurisdictions can do the same. The outcomes he achieved are impactful and include reducing court dockets, improving recidivism, and increasing collaboration among stakeholders. Let's listen to John and Bob.

[John Toole]

Greetings everyone and happy holiday season. Pleased to have you join us again for another episode of Our podcast series 2022. I'm thrilled to welcome my friend and colleague, Mr. Robert A. Birmingham, Jr. He is the now retired Court Service Unit Director for Fairfax County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court after maintaining that role for the past 12 years leading up to his retirement. Bob, could you share a little bit more about your background and your history for the audience listening in today?

[Bob Birmingham]

Yep. 35 years came to a halt this past January. I spent the past 35 years with the Fairfax County Juvenile Domestic Relations District Court and multiple positions ranging from working in the detention center to residential programs into management and as you said, the last 12 years as the director of the Court Service Unit. Five of those years I spent specifically just working with the county's gang initiative and leading the county and its response to gangs. And over the last five years been doing some consulting, independent consulting with rfk, focusing on probation system review, dual status, youth work and facility review. So I look forward to the continue doing that work in retirement and continuing to bring about some transformational change within juvenile just practices around the around the country.

[John Toole]

Great, Bob. Looking forward to our conversation today as well. Bob, you were at the helm during a significant period of transformation in Fairfax County Juvenile Domestic Relations Court. We were privileged to be able to partner with you as one of the six jurisdictions who worked with us in the Denison Mondoro Transformation of Youth Justice Project. A lot of change occurred during that period, but you, you actually led the work that even preceded our partnership with you in that transformation and it really focused significantly from the outset on diversion. Why did you choose to focus so significantly on diversion as a centerpiece of your transformation efforts in Fairfax County?

[Bob Birmingham]

It was one of the areas that we paid least amount of attention to. We were still in an area of our practices where you were either placed on probation, formally prosecuted, going to detention, going to correctional facilities, out of home placements. That was where our focus was as we went back and did a couple of things, looked at the law to begin with, which dictated to us that we should be considering diversion before anything else when we could do that safely and without putting the community at risk. We weren't doing that to the level I thought we could. That was evident when I look at the number of kids that we had on active probation throughout our county and the number of kids in our juvenile detention center and our shelter care facility, Both in the facilities and in the probation caseloads. The numbers were astronomical. It just didn't make sense to me that those numbers that high when we had a county that was one of the safest counties of its. Of its size in the country, it just didn't connect. And so when we started looking at those numbers, why was our numbers of probation so high? Why were the kids in our detention there more often than not and there for longer periods of time? We really came across some. Some great data. And the data was suggesting to us and indicated that we were detaining kids that were low risk and placing kids on probation that were low risk at high rates when the research would suggest those are kids that should have stayed outside of the system. So that was really the alarms that set off to me is that we needed to get a stronger look at what we were doing with diversion and what we weren't doing with diversion and how we could enhance our opportunities to hold kids accountable, protect the public safety, protect the rights of victims, and ensure that there is some rehabilitative effort put in there while not driving kids into a system that sometimes was not doing what it should to help them move forward in their lives.

[John Toole]

Were you able to achieve some change in those data over the time that you made that focus?

[Bob Birmingham]

We were diverting somewhere in the. In the range of 10 to 15% of complaints that were filed with our court as we jumped into enhancing our diversion. And I'll talk about that in a second. But we were able to easily double those numbers or even higher at points in times of kids that we were safely diverting from the system. We were able to do that in multiple ways. Number one, we implemented assessment and Screening tools at the beginning of the process that weren't there to begin with. We were able to use those pre screenings through Yazzie and some other validated assessment and screening tools to determine risk levels for kids early on in the process. It also helped us develop how to divert those kids into where when we did divert, initially we diverted to something that was available, didn't necessarily meet what the child's needs or risks were, the family's needs or risks were. It was just say, hey, we diverted and we sent them somewhere. By implementing screening and assessment tools early on in the process, again, we're able to determine the risk level to reoffend, but we're also able to identify what would be an appropriate diversion to where they should be diverged, what service they and their family could benefit from moving forward. So that really kicked it off for us to do that. One of the largest programs, the best programs I think that we came up with, Alternative accountability program aap, which was a collaborative between the courts, the schools, the prosecutors and law enforcement. We went to a seminar, we studied together, we learned together, we planned together and developed a street level diversion program where law enforcement, while on the street, could divert cases with some consent from the court so that kids barely touched our system while getting the benefits of participating in a diversion program. Most likely it was going to be our restorative justice program where kids and families and victims agreed to participate in and produce tremendous results. When I left, the last set of results that I saw, the kids that participated in AAP, 98% of them that were offered the opportunity, they selected the opportunity to do that program. That number stayed consistent since its start. After a six month mark, less than 8% of the kids had recidivated or become involved with the court. And that number was pretty steady, maybe bumped up to 9 or 10% when we got to the one year mark. Those numbers were tremendously encouraging and were much better than the recidivism rates that we saw with kids that were on formal probation after they left the system where they were at six or 12 months. So the numbers were encouraging, but the numbers were just part of the story. Law enforcement loved it. It allowed them to see the process work. It allowed them to see the process firsthand, which typically they didn't because they would be part of the restorative justice process and see the meetings that would go on with victims. Victims liked the process too, because they were heard. And anybody that spent a lot of time in courtrooms and in hallways outside of courtrooms, Victims tend to get forgotten. And they were an integral part of the restorative justice process. And then most of all was the kids. The responses we got from kids was, was phenomenal. There was a lesson to be learned. They faced the victim, they, they apologized. There was relationships formed between the, between the child and, and the victim. So all in all, police liked it, prosecutors liked it because they didn't want to prosecute low level offenses. The judges had more time to be a part of more serious cases and kids and families enjoyed the opportunity. They learned from it and they weren't driven into the court system.

[John Toole]

Well, packed into that response is a lot of information that you took into consideration when you moved in this direction, not only within the court, but with your partners. One comment I'd make is those victims, those law enforcement officials, and the court's dockets were also less clogged with cases. Those things weren't now being resolved in a hallway, but in a much less frantic atmosphere where everyone got the opportunity to be heard. And again, for law enforcement, not having to appear in court time and time again on cases that could be resolved through a community response provides great benefits to the youth and to the law enforcement officials as well. What you've also characterized there is that this wasn't simply a diversion program. That was going to be your approach. It was going to be a more comprehensive approach. What you said there took into account that there are partners in this effort. You've commented on not only your own intake department, which is part of that decision and screening methodology, but law enforcement. Could you comment a little bit about schools and their involvement with you to further make this a more comprehensive response to formal prosecution?

[Bob Birmingham]

So we, as I mentioned earlier, had partnered with the school system in our training around restorative justice. After we've completed our training, they went off and started their own restorative justice program within the school system. And here in Fairfax county, the school system's large, over 200 school buildings, about 185,000 students. So they had quite a task. Their task was more focused on doing restorative justice efforts within the school to reduce suspensions and expulsions. So low level offenses and behaviors that occurred in school. The restorative justice team within the school system, which was fairly significantly sourced, handled those cases. The court service unit partnered with a nonprofit organization in the county that helped us do the restorative justice conferencing. We brought a non county agency into a county effort. Over time, all three entities then started sharing and exchanging resources. When schools were backed up, we would use some of our staff to help do restorative work and vice versa. When we got backed up, we get some school resources. So there was the sharing and exchanging of time and resources and experience between all three entities. One of the great outcomes from is what the school of prison pipeline, which we've all heard a lot about, was curtailed greatly. Not that it was ever an overwhelming problem in Fairfax county, but what it was was diminished. And most things were handled within the school system. Unless there was some provision within school rules and regulations or the code of Virginia that disallowed that from happening, they would handle most of their stuff in school.

[John Toole]

So again, this comprehensive approach that you took on in all arenas with the school, with law enforcement, through your intake as partners, it actually reduced significant percentages of overall recidivism in your court. That also speaks to the outreach necessary with your prosecuting attorney. In Virginia it's known as the commonwealth attorney. But can you speak a little bit about the challenges of working with the commonwealth attorney's office and achieving these kind of partnerships and results?

[Bob Birmingham]

Certainly I'd be lying if I, if I start off this conversation saying this is an easy process and all you got to do is set it up and people will come and it'll work perfectly. One of the groups of our major stakeholders that we, we brought to the table later than sooner and that was probably a mistake on my behalf, but when we got them to the table, they weren't quite sure about this, this isn't how they had operated. And they really weren't excited about the idea of restorative justice. In fact, our, our general assembly here in Virginia, when we first asked for their assistance to change some laws so that law enforcement could share information during a conference and we said it was restorative justice, the request got denied in the general Assembly. We came back the next year and called it AAP Alternative Accountability Program and they approved it wholeheartedly. And so you can see that there were some people that were tippy toeing into this and weren't quite sure our prosecutor was one of them. But over time, the usage of data, sharing information, them hearing from victims, they started to see the benefit of the system. We're a large jurisdiction just Outside of Washington D.C. high caseloads, busy courthouse. This took a lot of low level, first time offenses off of their plate. And they saw the benefit benefit from that because it allowed their attorneys to focus on more serious offense and crimes and offenses in the community than what we were seeing, what they were seeing a lot of in our courts. So it took time. There was constant meetings. There was data sharing, there was discussions, there was disagreements. It wasn't always, you know, hugging and handshaking on the way out the door. But over time, they saw the benefit of it. They believed in giving kids second chances, and they believed us when we dispelled the fallacy that we were simply just diverting kids by slapping kids on the wrist and letting them out the door. When we were able to demonstrate to them what we did in diversion, how we made the decisions around diversion, where kids went, how we tracked the data, how we track them, I think they were surprised, and I think they were happy to see it wasn't just us patting a kid on the back and wagging our finger at him and sending them out the door. And that was one of the big things we had to overcome with not just our prosecutors, but also law enforcement, who also saw it just as a. A slap on the wrist. You guys aren't doing anything. But when they got underneath the COVID and saw, well, you guys are really working these cases without being formally involved in the justice system, we developed a lot of credibility with them.

[John Toole]

So, Bob, I think a lot of your colleagues and peers in the field, and certainly it's been our experience that we hear this when we're focusing on this effort, this comprehensive approach to diversion, which we more likely term alternative responses to formal prosecution, while still holding youth accountable and protecting community safety, you're going to get resistance. And we hear a lot of your colleagues say, there's just no way I could ever develop that relationship. I have enough knowledge of the interrelationships in Fairfax county to know that there's certainly at least one of those partners that you could say that on behalf of in this effort. And yet you persisted. I think I'd let you comment on that persistence, because I think some of your colleagues would like to hear that through that persistence, through all those meetings, those discussions, those exchanges of data, they did yield results, positive results. Is that a fair characterization?

[Bob Birmingham]

Absolutely. As you know, started off, our relationship with our prosecutor, when we started transformation, but more specifically around diversion, was a little bit rocky, to say the least. There may or may not have been an incident where I was threatened with arrest for impeding an investigation by diversion, diverting the case. Fortunately, that didn't happen, but that's just kind of what the contentiousness that existed at first, but we continued to meet, and I was fortunate to work under a chief judge that was willing to pull together major stakeholders on a weekly basis. The meetings, again, at first, were a Little contentious, but by the end of it, by the time I left, the meetings were extremely productive. We produced great results. And what we essentially said was this. We all are trying to achieve the same goal, right? Public safety, supportive families, successful kids and victims rights being protected. We honored everybody's role in the process. We never asked anybody to diminish their responsibility or give up what they are supposed to be doing or what oath they took to serve in the justice system. What we did ask them to do is look at opportunities where we could collaborate whereas major stakeholders could come together, look at where we could support one another in achieving common goals. And that's how we got to really having a significant diversion program as well as other things that we were able to institute over the years. But it took a lot of talking. It took leadership from a judge. I found early on that when I called a meeting, some people showed up. When a judge that everybody respects calls a meeting, everybody shows up. And we had great attendance, great participation. People spoke their minds, people challenged each other. But in the end, people worked together too, to produce the outcomes that we were all shooting for.

[John Toole]

Thank you. Bob, I want to ask a couple of granular questions. You mentioned using the suite of pre screening instruments that might screen for risk levels to inform your decision. I think I'm aware that in Fairfax county it wasn't just low risk scores that allowed you to make a decision for a diversion opportunity or an alternative response. Bob, I believe it's true that you also considered some moderate risk when you diverted cases. Could you comment a little bit about that, please?

[Bob Birmingham]

Yeah, certainly. We started off with low risk because we needed to a let our law enforcement partners and our prosecutor and our community know that we were not simply taking moderate or high risk offenders and doing some diversion with them and send them out in the community. So we really had to hit the low hanging fruit which we believed were the first time low risk offenders. A lot of reasons why, but the primary reason why, as we know, is that entering those kids into the system not only uses up a lot of resources unnecessarily, but the outcomes aren't very good for those kids that are entered into the system under those circumstances. So by keeping them out initially that was our initial goal and we produced the outcomes we wanted and we're able then to demonstrate that, hey, you know, we can move this up the ladder a little bit and see how we can do with those moderate risk offenders. And again, you know, we had a list of agreed upon charges that could be diverted. Moderate risk offenders that for Instance created bodily harm to somebody were not, not eligible. But you know, somebody throwing an egg at a car is moving, throwing a missile at a moving vehicle could, could rank up there as a moderate to high offense. But as we looked into it, we wanted to see where the child fell on that scale as well. It just wasn't just offense based is which we had historically done if it was the offense, that's all. Now we're looking at the offense, the child, the family, the circumstances and the needs moving forward. So yeah we, we moved into moderate risk, I would say rarely into a high risk case. If it was, we would, and this is where the collaboration came in. We would sit down with the prosecutor's office and review the pros and cons of diverting a higher risk case. We for sure make sure the victim was aware of those decisions because we wanted them actively involved in the, in the decision making process to the extent possible and we would divert those. So ye, we went from just low risk first time offenders to some moderate risk offenders and tippy toed very lightly into high risk. But that wasn't without a consultant with our prosecutor's office.

[John Toole]

And all those produce the kind of positive results that we're really striving for across the country. And the notion of diversion and alternative response. Regarding the intake process, which is considerable part of this process in Fairfax county, could you comment a little bit about the policies that you develop for intake's involvement in that diversion process In Virginia?

[Bob Birmingham]

It's a little bit different than many of the jurisdictions I've been in before. We have a juvenile intake department that falls under the court service unit. They are specially trained probation officers that receive complaints from law enforcement or other sources. If it be family, store security community member would come to our juvenile intake department and file their complaint. It was a role of the intake officer to determine first of all, is there probable cause to believe that an offense occurred and then secondly determine the next step in the process. Does the child need to go to detention? Did the court case need to go to court, could the case be diverted and how those diversions would occur. When I first started in the field, it was really a conversation between the law enforcement officer and the intake officer and the law enforcement officer or the complainant kind of led the show on what decisions were made as far as probable cause has been established. Now what to do. There wasn't much discussion or review or taken into account assessments or history and so forth and so on. So what we did was say we need, we can slow the roll here Unless an officer has somebody in custody for a violent felony or some very, very serious offense, we don't have to make a decision on the spot. We can take our time. We can pull the child in, we can bring the family in if they're willing, and meet with them, employ our assessment and screening tools, which was something that our intake officers never had to do before. So they had to be trained in those areas as well, deploy those and to meet with the family and discuss what the findings are. There was no secretive process or shocking anybody with what we found. They were there, everybody was a part of the process, and then discuss with them what our next steps were and why. Now, sometimes when we were looking at diversion, you know, families certainly have the right to say, no, we don't want to divert. We want our day in court. And we honored that. And those cases went to court. But as indicated earlier, it was about 98%, 96, 98% of the individuals that were offered the opportunity to participate in the diversion program, such as AAP or some other type of diversion program opted to do so. And so we really had to change our practices within juvenile intake from simply, and I don't mean this in a disrespectful way because both you and I served as intake officers, but as processing paperwork to evaluating and determining next steps for kids and families that met our responsibilities, which was public safety, accountability, rehabilitation, and protection the rights of victims. So it was a wholesale change at the front end of our process.

[John Toole]

And what you built into that in policy was the engagement of youth and families in those alternative response decisions. And that's really what I was aware of, that I wanted to highlight. It's a key to the success of any approach and the research would support this, that youth and families in the decision making process, while it may run counter to some stakeholders in the youth justice system thinking it's a key to this overall success of that kind of approach. So I wanted to highlight that and I applaud Fairfax county for instituting that and maintaining that, not only in practice, but certainly expectation in policy and procedure as well. So, Bob, the results are amazing. I happen to be aware of them. If our colleagues in the field who are listening in on this podcast would want to know.

[Bob Birmingham]

So.

[John Toole]

So what are the data? I've seen the data. You can promise that there is data not only on the percentage of cases diverted, but what happens to those cases that are diverted, often what they are diverted to, and whether or not they successfully connected with and followed through on the recommendations that were part of the diversion decision or an alternative response on behalf of that youth, family, community, and victim. That data is available within Fairfax county, correct?

[Bob Birmingham]

Absolutely. They can reach out to Matt Thompson, who's the director of court services, and he can point them in the right direction. I know they produce annual reports as well, so those could be made available as well. I would just continue to add to that, John, that this program and this effort continues to evolve way past me, and I do appreciate you giving me a lot of credit for starting it. But it's the staff that have kept it going and kept engaged in this process, and they've seen it grow from just a portion of law enforcement using the program to it expanding incrementally over time. And one of the changes that they just made, and I referenced earlier, that law enforcement had a. A large role in convincing intake officers if kids should be detained or what we should do at juvenile intake. We offered them the opportunity to simply just be the conveyor of facts about the offense, to establish probable cause, and then to allow us, the professionals in this area, to assess and screen and determine the next steps. And so we got agreement from the police department. Happily, they didn't want to tell us what to do. They just wanted to bring the cases to us and let us make sure that we knew what we were doing. And over the years, they've developed that confidence in us that we're able to now, our intake officers, really, after establishing probable cause, take the entire case on and make the determinations from there. It continues to evolve.

[John Toole]

Well, it maintains the possibility of evolution toward even greater results because of the commitment that you and your colleagues that include the current director of the court service unit, certainly the current director of intake, and so many others that were part of your leadership team, continues to evolve because you memorialized or institutionalized the relationships and the policies and the procedures that were the expectations of all of the stakeholders. I think you've captured for the audience a blueprint, a map of really what we hope to see in growing numbers of jurisdictions, that this focus on diversion is not just a soft approach. In fact, it's not a soft approach at all. It's a smart approach that yields results that preclude those youth that are introduced through that initial diversion or alternative response into that opportunity, their desistance from future delinquency. It also perhaps offers the right sizing of the justice system. You spoke about this in your opening comment, Rightsizing of the justice system that those who do need the ongoing oversight, supervision, and services to ameliorate the Risk can be more properly and adequately served because you're keeping those youth out of the youth justice system that don't need to be a part of that population. You want to comment on that quickly?

[Bob Birmingham]

One of the things that, you know, we did right off the bat when I took over is really started relying on research and data and best practices. And it really led us to learn more. And I think that's what our system did. We learned more. I don't know that AAP would, would, in its form in Fairfax county, would work in every county or every city or every town across the country. But I think the, the roots of it, the foundation of it, the reasons behind it, can be relayed to almost any jurisdiction in the country. But it just doesn't happen because you think it's a good idea or it's kind of neat. We had to go out and really do some research. We had to learn. Probably one of the greatest things that I tried to do with our staff when we hit almost 400 staff members, was push them on the intellectual side of what we do. You know, we knew how to talk to kids pretty much, and families and, and work and keep safe detention centers and group homes, but we didn't know how to make things better. Right. We didn't know if we were making things better. We didn't know how to measure if we were making things better. We didn't know what our outcomes were, frankly, we didn't have discussions about what those outcomes would be. And so when we really started diving into this and learning and looking at research and best practices and science and in the law and bringing all those together, it really motivated us to look at all the work we did. And again, AAP and diversion was just a part of it, a large part of it, but just a part of what we did. You know, we really looked at what were we doing to kids and families and were we serving them to the best of our ability. We weren't doing a very good job with those low risk offenders particularly and engaging them in a formal court system, placing them into detention to teach them a lesson. Meanwhile, they were sitting next to kids that had committed serious offenses that were teaching them a lesson that they would never learned otherwise. And so it was that effort to be willing to change, to be willing to look at alternatives, to continue to strive to be better. I thought we were a good court service unit. My striving was to be a great court service unit and a leader court service unit. And that was the challenge to our staff to go out and how can we do that? And how can we engage in learning opportunities and create a learning culture that would lead to better outcomes for kids and families? But also, what we heard back from many of our staff members after they got over the initial, oh, this is changed, was it made their jobs better. They got more fulfillment. They saw families being successful and changing. Instead of seeing them revolving through the same door and coming back and saying, that's the same family, they started to see the successes in the efforts that they were making. And it really led to where the court stands today.

[John Toole]

Bob, thank you so much. I think you've shared a wealth of information for any prospective court leader, court administrator, probation chief, who might want to advance their commitment to diversion. Building upon that opportunity in those states and beyond is the opportunity that you've spoken about today. And that's the more comprehensive approach to an alternative response to formal prosecution that still serves the interests of all of our stakeholders and that is accountability for that youth behavior change, the community safety, and certainly the victim's rights in this whole equation. I appreciate you sharing your experience, and I think that same experience, even in retirement, still warrants an opportunity for you to share. If you could change one thing about youth justice, what would that be?

[Bob Birmingham]

I think systems have gotten comfortable where they live and work and breathe now, and we get comfortable in how we interact with kids and families. And it kind of just stayed dormant. I think the lines between the adult system and the juvenile system, because of the crime outbreaks in the 80s and 90s, those lines became blurred. And I think juvenile justice across the country, it did certainly with us, became a mini, an adult system. And there was a lack of time spent looking at the purpose and intent of the juvenile court. You know, one of the first things we did was go back with our stakeholders, with my staff, and reviewed what the Code of Virginia said was the purpose, intent of the juvenile court. And when you compare that to what the purpose and intent of the adult court is, they're very different and really bringing people back to that. Some of the work that I've had the opportunity to do around the country is the lack of time spent reviewing data, looking at research, how data, if you have the data, how it's used, who it's shared with, and for what, what purposes, you know, what are the best practices, evidence based practices, learning more. Look, this is a profession. You know, there was a day that people kind of looked down at probation is probation, and you guys just go around and chase kids around and put them in detention. If this is done right It's a profession. And to be a professional, you need to be able to continue to learn, improve and grow as a professional so that kids and families benefit and move forward with their lives in a successful manner. You know, the fear of change, don't be afraid of it. It may take time, it may look different in your jurisdiction, in other jurisdictions, but look at what's going on around you, around the country and see how you can fit that maybe into your jurisdiction to bring about the changes that you want, that your community demands, that your families deserve, that your kids deserve moving forward. None of this has to do with going easy on crime. None of this has to do with being soft on crime. I just think we're to an era, at least in my career, where the data, the research, the outcomes, best practices are there. More than they ever were, more than I had to rely on when I was a brand new probation officer. And it allows us to be more effective in the work that we do in the profession that we've chosen to work in to really make the difference that we all got involved in this work to do. So don't be afraid to change, look at the opportunities for change and continue to work with stakeholders in a collaborative manner. It's not a battle. And you and I see that sometimes around the country where system stakeholders want to fight each other, we never ask anybody to give up their roles or responsibility. But there is a responsibility, I think, to be more collaborative in nature where all parties can achieve the ultimate outcomes that we all want for our communities.

[John Toole]

Thank you, Bob. I would amplify that only by saying, I think you're also talking about the courage to be introspective about your current status, your current status quo. And if we're not achieving the mission, the goals, the vision, the outcomes, then how can we lead that change to enhance our performance, to enhance what is happening for our youth, to protect their future, protect the community safety. I think you among many of our colleagues in the field are among a few that have had that courage and have led that drive. So certainly a reliable source for the method by which we can undertake that self examination and really achieve the goals and missions of an improved youth justice system. I really appreciate you taking time to outline the work that you have been committed to throughout your entire career and appreciate the information you've shared with our colleagues. Bob, just a very sincere and heartfelt thank you for joining us.

[Bob Birmingham]

Thanks John. I appreciate the opportunity.

[Jody Martin]

Thanks for joining us for season one of Youth Justice Transformation in Action. We'll be back with season two in January 2023 with new topics like family engagement and positive youth development. We've appreciated your feedback and topic ideas for the season, and we love hearing from you, so continue to reach out to share your ideas and input by emailing [e-mail] and to learn more about the RFK National Resource center for Juvenile justice, visit our website at rfknrcjj.org and follow us on Twitter FK Youthjustice or our new LinkedIn page at RFK National Resource center for Juvenile Justice.

[Bob Birmingham]

SA.