Archive for Juvenile Justice

| December 13, 2011
No comments

Wisconsin: Is Cost Keeping 17 Year Old Kids in Adult Jails?

Wisconsin State CapitolWisconsin is one of 13 states that automatically place 17-year-olds in the adult criminal justice system, and has been so since 1996. Since then approximately 250,000 17 year-olds have been arrested, 75,000 of whom spent time in adult incarceration facilities (statistics from the nonprofit Wisconsin Council on Children and Families).

As always there are those who are willing to thump the drum for harsher penalties, neglecting the financial and social realities involved. Julie Strupp of the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism takes note of this in her recent coverage of the situation in The Wisconsin State Journal:

Rep. Robin Vos, R-Burlington, an outspoken supporter of keeping 17-year-olds in the adult system, said the law has worked well for 15 years. Ultimately, any age set for automatic consideration as an adult for criminal prosecution will be arbitrary, he said, and 17 is a good place to draw that line.

“What concerns me is making sure the victim gets justice,” Vos said. “We coddled (17-year-olds) in the past, and that didn’t work. If we treat them like an adult, hopefully they won’t offend.”

Many researchers disagree, citing a growing body of neurological and statistical evidence suggesting Wisconsin’s policy is counterproductive. But they and other advocates are finding themselves stymied, in part because of concerns over cost.

Here we hit a bottom line I see all too often in my research, money. In some cases it’s strained budgets, in others it’s profit motive. In this case it seems more of the former. Strupp continues:

It costs about $50 a day to house a jail inmate and about $87 a day to house a state prison inmate, while the daily cost in juvenile facilities ranges from $140 to $215, a fiscal analysis from the Department of Corrections shows.

The Wisconsin County Human Service Association, the group representing local human services departments, estimates putting 17-year-olds back in the juvenile system would collectively cost the state’s 72 counties an additional $75 million a year.

Strained state coffers and a $75 million short term saving. It’s easy to see how attractive that could be in the game of politics. Long term, however, is another story. Numerous studies have demonstrated that minors in adult facilities have higher rates of recidivism than their counterparts in the juvenile system. Not only that but they also offend in more serious ways. Think about that. Now think about the 75,000 17 year-olds who have spent their time in adult facilities since 1996.

Also casting doubt on the efficacy of the current approach is recent neurological evidence which suggests young people don’t have the same capacity to evaluate or appreciate the consequences of their actions.  This makes subjecting them to the adult criminal justice system even more unfair.

State Rep. Fred Kessler, D-Milwaukee, has tried for three  legislative sessions to fight these laws. He is responsible for the introduction of a bill that would place 17 year-olds back in the jurisdiction of the juvenile courts. This year he plans to offer it again. Let us wish him luck!

Image Source: Zonie_Zambonie on Flickr, used under its Creative Commons license

Category: Criminal Justice, Juvenile Justice | Tags: , , ,
| December 8, 2011
No comments

Like Day and Night: Rehabilitation and Incarceration

Cell - exhibition opening 14 Feb 2009Two huge reasons to support reform of our justice system, particular the juvenile segments of it. First, rehabilitation is cheaper and more effective. Second, the conditions within the American penal system and its adjuncts are often violent and deplorable.

Let’s put a face on that, shall we? Liz Ryan, writing on the Open Society Institute blog, brings us the words of Rachel Carron from her testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Education and Labor Healthy Families and Communities Subcommittee last March. Carron had been sentenced to one year in a placement center in Upstate New York, and her tales of the conditions there are disturbing to say the least:

[…] Rachel stated that she had ‘some horrible experiences’ which had left her ‘scarred for life.’  She witnessed and was subjected to violence, particularly excessive force by guards designed to ‘keep control in the center.’  She talked about the sexual exploitation of girls by guards and the rampant availability of drugs sold by guards to residents in exchange for favors by the girls.

In this case the location was New York, but studies show that this sort of environment is not uncommon across the U.S. Another thing supported by evidence is the difference between this and more rehabilitative approaches. Rachel’s case simply illustrates those findings, as Ryan continues.

Rachel eventually received assistance from a residential treatment program that helped her address her addiction, obtain her GED and get training to become a home health aide.  This program was close to home and gave her the opportunity to stay in contact and receive support from her family.  She had access to counselors and positive interaction with her peers.

The experience in the juvenile prison and the treatment center ‘could not be more different’ according to Rachel.  What she experienced in the juvenile prison not only did not help her to deal with the substance abuse issue she was facing, she was removed from her family support system and was subjected to exploitation and abuse from facility guards.  By contrast, she was able to get the positive rehabilitation support in another program that brought her closer to her community and family.

Pure punishment does not work, the merest glance at our national penal system illustrates that, whereas community driven approaches that address root causes like substance addiction can have substantive results. (Did I mention that it’s cheaper as well?)

Image Source: Egenerica on Flickr, used under it’s Creative Commons license

Category: Criminal Justice, Juvenile Justice, Prison Reform |
| December 5, 2011
No comments

New Study: Health Care in the Juvenile Justice System

SyringeHealth care is an issue that has been all over the news for quite some time now. Unfortunately the health care of the youthful and incarcerated has often been overlooked as Washington attempts to implement new programs for the voting masses.

Not anymore. The American Academy of Pediatrics’ Committee on Adolescence has released a policy statement, the first update in a decade to the Health Care for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System. It finds that incarcerated youth are at high-risk for health issues, physical, mental and developmental. Here is the statement’s abstract for an overview:

Youth in the juvenile correctional system are a high-risk population who, in many cases, have unmet physical, developmental, and mental health needs. Multiple studies have found that some of these health issues occur at higher rates than in the general adolescent population. Although some youth in the juvenile justice system have interfaced with health care providers in their community on a regular basis, othershave had inconsistent or nonexistent care. The health needs of these youth are commonly identified when they are admitted to a juvenile custodial facility. Pediatricians and other health care providers play an important role in the care of these youth, and continuity between the community and the correctional facility is crucial. This policy statement provides an overview of the health needs of youth in the juvenile correctional system, including existing resources and standards forcare, financing of health care within correctional facilities, and evidence-based interventions. Recommendations are provided for the provision of health care services to youth in the juvenile correctionalsystem as well as specific areas for advocacy efforts. Pediatrics 2011; 128:1219–123

According to the report nearly 11 million juveniles across the nation were arrested in 2008. Not all of them suffered detention, long or short term, but the average stay behind bars for the ones who did was 65 days as of 2006. Of those in custody, 80% remained in detention for at least 30 days and 57% for at least 90 days. All of them requiring health care of some sort. Unfortunately that health care often does not appear, and when it does it is often substandard.

Ryan Schill, a writer for the Juvenile Justice Information Exchange, shares some of the policy statement author’s views on why these changes have been enacted:

‘We wanted to advocate for these youth to have the same level and standards of care as non-incarcerated youth in the community,” the report’s lead author, Dr. Paula Braverman, Director of Community Programs at the Cincinatti Children’s Hospital Medical Center said in an email. She said the Committee on Adolescence also “outlined specific recommendations which included the training and skill of the health care providers.’

All too often health care in detention facilities is administered by people with insufficient training in the subject. She also touched on a subject that we here at HumaneExposures find to be vital:

‘We also wanted to highlight some areas for advocacy,’ she said, ‘including the need for adequate levels of funding to provide for the medical, behavioral health and educational needs of these youth.’ Equally important, she said, are intervention programs in the community ‘that address the risk and protective factors related to involvement in the juvenile justice system.’

Once more we have support for the idea that intervention, rehabilitation, and education are vital pieces to the puzzle. With such a preponderance of evidence that these tactics work there is still resistance to them. Hopefully as we see more high stature organizations like The American Academy of Pediatrics weigh in on the subject we will see the needed shift in public opinion.

Image Source: Yanivba on Flickr, used under it’s Creative Commons license

Category: Health, Juvenile Justice, Mental Health, Prison Reform, Substance Abuse | Tags: , , ,
| November 16, 2011
No comments

Congress To Slash Juvenile Justice Funds

MoneyThe Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has just taken a blow, one which could possibly put it’s connection with state governments at risk.

Appropriations leaders in both the House and the Senate have finalized a bill which cuts the office’s funding from $275 million in fiscal 2011 to $262.5 million for fiscal 2012.

John Kelly, a writer for YouthToday, has a wonderfully detailed explanation of how these funds are allocated and the series of bills leading to this point. As to the outcome, it seems funding will be cut from a number of programs and tactics that we at HE support:

Prospects on what will happen with the formula funds are complicated. The funds are allocated to the states in exchange for their compliance with four core standards of juvenile justice operations: not detaining or incarcerating status offenders; keeping all juveniles out of adult jails, and separating them by sight and sound from adult detainees in the rare exceptions when jail is allowable; and addressing disproportionate minority contact in the system.

Compliance with these practices is something we desperately need more of, not less. This stance will hobble rehabilitative and community based programs across the U.S. while putting more youth at risk. In the long run the money “saved,” here will probably be spent on incarceration. (In which case it really is not a “saving,” is it?)

SparkAction’s online petition sums it up well:

[…] deep cuts to federal funds that now support state and local juvenile justice and delinquency prevention efforts will hurt kids and families and jeopardize public safety. Cuts of this magnitude will result in more children in dangerous, costly lock-ups, greatly increasing risks of suicide, sexual and physical abuse, and disconnection from family, positive support, education and the workforce.

The timing on this is horrible. Studies consistently show that a rehabilitative approach is not only far more effective but also far less costly than incarceration, which has become a booming business here in the sates. Many states have been becoming pro-active about embracing more theraputic and community driven programs, the exact kind of programs facing the budgetary knife.

 The Wasington Post just ran an editorial spelling out exactly why this is bad legislation:

Delinquency prevention or diversion programs are significantly cheaper than incarceration. According to the American Correctional Association, states spent between $66,000 and $88,000 in 2008 to incarcerate each juvenile offender. The costs associated with imprisoning youths are substantially higher than for adults because of the additional services, including education, that incarcerated youths require. Incarceration may be appropriate for juveniles who commit violent offenses, but it is too often chosen for those who commit nonviolent infractions. The incidence of such counterproductive punishment will almost certainly rise if these federal funds are cut further.

This will not reduce juvenile crime, and it will probably end up costing much more than the alternatives. And when I say cost I mean cost to the youths and their communities as well as the budgetary numbers.

 Image Source: Images_of_Money on Flickr, used under it’s Creative Commons license

Category: Juvenile Justice, Legislation | Tags: ,
| November 15, 2011
No comments

Michigan’s Juvenile Lifers

Prison corridor with cellsOnly Pennsylvania has more juveniles serving life sentences than Michigan. Both states may be experiencing some change in the near future.

You see, the U.S. Supreme Court has recently agreed to hear two cases that challenge the idea of life sentences for juveniles. The basis of the argument is that it is cruel and unusual punishment to incarcerate a juvenile for life. The two cases involve a pair of 14 year-olds, one in Alabama and Arkansas.

If that challenge is upheld it will mean major changes for Michigan on many levels. For one thing it’s a big part of the economy, Michigan’s 359 juvenile lifers cost a whopping $10 million a year to house.

First let’s have a little background.

In 1988, as a response to the astounding spike in juvenile violence across the U.S., the Michigan legislature made is easier to try 15 and 16 year olds as adults. Then in 1996 they made is easier to charge 14 year olds as well under their “adult crime, adult crime” mandate. It was part of a national trend towards harsher sentencing for under age offenders. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics the number of juveniles incarcerated in adult prisons between 1983 and 1998 more than tripled in the U.S.

Since then some backtracking has been done, but there is a long way yet to go. John Barnes of MLive notes that the Supreme Court may be hearing these cases with an eye toward extending the reach of two of their earlier rulings:

In 2005, the court ruled minors 17 and younger could not be given the death penalty.

In 2010, the court extended protections, ruling a minor could not be sentenced to life without parole in non-homicide cases.

In both cases, the majority of justices ruled juveniles’ mental abilities are lesser developed than adults, and sentencing them as such violates the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

The new cases would move the bar even further, banning mandatory life involving juvenile homicides, including when the juvenile was present at a crime, but did not commit the actual killing. About one-third of Michigan juvenile lifers fall in that category.

It is a hard debate, one fraught with emotion and thorny to navigate. In many ways though, it is the same debate we so often have: rehabilitation vs. incarceration. Yes, there are incorigibles who belong behind bars. There are also many cases where the childlike mind does not have the capacity to truly realize consequences. It is once more a question of how useful it is to try a child as an adult.

Even supporters of the original harsher penalties are beginning to doubt their efficacy. Angela Whittrock brings us one from MLive‘s ongoing series about this issue:

Supporters of the initial reforms have mixed views on whether sending juveniles to prison for life has been effective.

Leland, a Detroit Democrat, thinks he and his colleagues made a mistake. He points to the growing prison population, which tripled from 1980 to more than 45,000 in 2009, and the Department of Corrections budget, which grew from $193 million in fiscal 1980 to $1.94 billion this year.

Even factoring in inflation, that’s nearly a fourfold increase.

‘Now, 25 years later, I think locking youthful offenders up for life is ridiculous,’ Leland said. ‘Life in prison should be reserved for Hitler.’

This is just one of many aspects of our juvenile justice system that are flawed or broken. All deserve the utmost scrutiny lest we squander our children’s futures, and society’s as well.

For an array of further reading MLive has been doing an extensive series on the subject.

Image Source: Time Pearce on Flickr, used under it’s Creative Commons license

Category: Criminal Justice, Juvenile Justice, Prison Reform | Tags: , , ,
| November 10, 2011
No comments

The National Juvenile Justice Network: an Interview with Benjamin Chambers

Benjamin Portrait-1503-700pxToday the HE Blog takes you into the inner works of the National Juvenile Justice Network. Today we are interviewing Benjamin Chambers, the NJJN’s Communications Specialist. A professional writer for over 20 years, he also has over ten years of experience in the field of juvenile justice. So, without further ado, here is Ben!

HE: Thanks for joining us on the HE blog! Would you be kind enough to share with our readers a thumbnail view of what your organization’s mission is?

BC: We lead a movement of state-based organizations and coalitions focused on reforming the juvenile justice system at all levels to make it fair and age-appropriate for youth in trouble with the law.

HE: I get the impression that the NJJN acts as a bit of a meta-organization, an overarching group of groups. Is that an accurate perception and what made you decide to adopt such a strategy?

BC: Yes, that’s accurate. We were actually created in 2002 by 11 organizations that felt they could be more effective if they had help coordinating their efforts, sharing news and resources, and advancing a consistent national strategy.

HE: You have member organizations in 33 states now. How long did it take to build the network to that point?
.
BC: About seven years. We find that reformers are eager to connect with their colleagues and peers – being an advocate for teens can be lonely work, though rewarding. And they can see the benefits of sharing knowledge and experience with others working to help kids in trouble with the law.

HE: Have you seen any recent acceleration in the process as more news stories about our failing juvenile justice system make it to the evening news?

BC: I don’t think the media has been the biggest driver behind our membership growth, though news stories have done a lot to educate people about the many ways the justice system fails to keep our kids safe, or help them be successful — and that there are better options, backed by research.

But our primary membership is made up of organizations that subscribe to our nine principles of reform, and which work on multiple issues having to do with youth in trouble with the law. In some states there’s not yet an organization that can meet those criteria, which is why we recently created a new category for “affiliates”.

HE: One of the interesting projects started by your group is the Youth Justice Leadership Institute. What would you say are the greatest successes it has seen so far?

BC: We’re excited about it, too, and we’re incredibly grateful to our funder, the Public Welfare Foundation, for seeing the value in what we’re trying to do. As you know, the Institute’s mission is to develop a larger base of folks who are well-prepared to promote reforms for youth in trouble with the law who reflect the communities most affected by the the juvenile justice system — we’re making a special effort to cultivate and support leaders of color.

We’re in the middle of our pilot year now; we have ten fellows engaged in trainings on things like the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, age-appropriate services and using communications to change policy. They’re an accomplished group of professionals in their own right, and we can’t wait to see what they’ll accomplish down the road.

Right now, each one has been matched with one to three mentors in the field, and they’re all working on individual advocacy projects. It’s safe to say that all of them feel more engaged and energized about juvenile justice reform, and more connected to the larger movement, than they did when they started. In fact, in the next few weeks, I hope to post some video interviews with them from our July training session, so you can hear from them directly.

We’re planning now for our 2012 Institute, and should be putting out a call for nominations soon.

HE: What about some of the most important lessons learned as it has evolved?

BC: Although we obviously knew there was some need for this sort of training, we were pleasantly surprised by the great desire for it among newer advocates and activists. We didn’t do a huge amount of outreach for our 2011 Institute, and we got quite a few applications from people who wanted intensive training in this fairly specialized field. So that was one important lesson.

Second, we’ve found that one of the most important skills young leaders need to develop is figuring out how to balance all the demands on them, in all areas of their lives, not just their work. Simply learning to apply the old lesson, “It’s not a race, it’s a marathon,” is an important step for people to take if they’re going to be successful leaders.

Third, when we put out the call for applications, we really didn’t know what to expect. We learned that there’s a good-sized pool of folks out there who have huge potential for leadership.

HE: Your Fiscal Policy Center is doing good work in attempting the change things at the governmental level. What sort of tools are you using and how do you see these efforts expanding in the future?

BC: The Fiscal Policy Center is another project we’re excited about. Basically, state-level groups are finding it difficult to promote new reforms to the juvenile justice system — or prevent reversals of past victories — because of the state budget crunch. This is ironic, since it would be much cheaper and far more effective if we stopped spending so much on locking kids up and shifted those monies to providing treatment and other services to kids in their own communities.

We actually published a short primer on this last year, called “The Real Costs and Benefits of Change: Finding Opportunities for Reform During Difficult Fiscal Times.” Another brief publication people should find helpful in this regard is “Bringing Youth Home: A National Movement to Increase Public Safety, Rehabilitate Youth, and Save Money.”

So the goal of the Fiscal Policy Center is help our state-level members learn more about how state budget processes work and where the funding is going (or could go), and put together compelling arguments for reform for youth in trouble with the law based on sound fiscal knowledge and effective communications strategies.

To do that, we’re providing online toolkits and resources for members and reformers through our Fiscal Policy Resource Center. (That’s also a work in progress – we’ll be adding a lot to it in the coming months.) We’re also doing webinars, in-person trainings, and in-depth technical assistance for our members that focus on both fiscal knowledge and effective communications.

As with the Youth Justice Leadership Institute, we’ve very grateful to the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Open Society Foundations, Public Welfare Foundation, and Tow Foundation for having the vision to help us meet this need in the field.

HE: Do you find that people are often surprised to discover that rehabilitation is vastly cheaper than incarceration? Do your efforts often encounter incredulous reactions based on this reasoning?

BC: Yes, I think people are often surprised to learn that. And frankly, it can be hard for people to care, when we have programs like “Beyond ‘Scared Straight'” promoting programs that are damaging and ineffective, but which — through the magic of television — *seem* to be effective. We need to promote more accurate depictions of young people, emphasizing their ability to change and the fact that interventions that don’t televise well — like therapy — are actually better for our kids and better for our communities.

HE: Your website speaks of “rightsizing,” the justice systems across the states. In this context that means reducing the size of institutions to an appropriate level but substituting proven community based measures for incarceration where possible. Where would you say you have experienced the most success with this? And the least?

BC: Actually, we’re in the middle of an incredible period of success with right-sizing juvenile justice nationally. The fiscal crisis helps, but research is also turning the tide. You can learn a lot more about what specific states have done on this score in the publication I mentioned above, “Bringing Youth Home: A National Movement to Increase Public Safety, Rehabilitate Youth, and Save Money.”

The real key going forward will be making sure that states don’t reverse these advances and start locking kids up again once the economy improves. That’s one reason why it’s critically important that advocates avoid relying solely on economic arguments to justify reducing the number of kids who are locked up. That’s not hard, really, since the research is clear that kids are actually harmed by being locked up — they’re more likely to commit new crimes then they get out, and that’s not good for anyone.

HE: Thanks a lot Ben! We appreciate your taking the time to speak with us and look forward to touching base with you in the future as things evolve! 

Benjamin Chambers is NJJN’s Communications Specialist. He has been writing professionally for over 20 years, and has over ten years of experience in the field of juvenile justice.

Between 2000 and 2007, he worked for the Multnomah County Department of Community Justice in Portland Oregon, where he served on the juvenile management team and directed the local Reclaiming Futures project, an initiative designed to improve alcohol and drug treatment services for teenagers caught in the cycle of drugs, alcohol, and crime.

After a stint at the Reclaiming Futures national program office at Portland State University, he was hired by Prichard Communications in 2008 to launch and edit the Reclaiming Futures blog and social media channels, which he built into premier venues for juvenile justice news and resources.

chambers@juvjustice.org  | 202-467-0864 x556

Category: Interview, Juvenile Justice, Prison Reform | Tags: , , ,
| November 4, 2011
No comments

Crumbs For The Future – Murder Victim’s Mother Speaks Out Against Mandatory Sentencing

Canada“How can we afford to focus so many resources on locking up the past so there are only crumbs left for the future.”These words come from the mother of Canadian murder victim Candace Derksen.

The occassion was her recent testimony (via videoconference from Winnipeg) at the Canadian House of Commons justice committee. The same committee which is studying their government’s new omnibus crime legislation.

Wilma Derksen’s daughter was murdered 27 years ago at the age of 13. Mark Grant was arrested for the crime much, much later in 2007. After his conviction last February he has a long wait for parole, as he is not even eligible for it until 2036.

Mia Rabson of the Winnipeg Free Press brings us additional details:

‘The sentencing of the man who murdered our daughter did not satisfy our need for justice,’ [Derksen] said.

She said in fact it will cost a lot of money to keep Grant in prison.

She fears the new bill will put more of the limited government dollars available into incarceration and not into the education system and social programs to help raise kids who are healthy and good members of society.

Derksen is not the only one coming out in opposition to the Omnibus Crime Bill, a  recently introduced piece of Tory legislation. It is a Frankenstein monster cobbled together from nine prior bills, all of which the Canadian Parliament refused to pass. Along with amendments to parts of the penal code, mostly geared towards mandatory sentencing, it will also make changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.  Among other things those changes include making it easier to prosecute juvenile repeat offender as adults.

One big sticking point with the incarceration mentality is the sheer cost involved. It is that financial bottom line which is finally motivating some Canadian politicians where statistics have failed. The Winnipeg Sun reports  that provincial Justice Minister Jean-Marc Fournier  has estimated the cost to Quebec alone would be hundreds of millions of dollars.

Quebec, he argued, doesn’t have the means to pay for it.

‘This bill does not offer the financial support for these changes,’ he said.

‘Quebec refuses to absorb these costs.’

It is to be hoped that the hasty attempts to push the bill through are slowed enough for real debate and a survey of the facts. Even here in the U.S. where prisons are big business, the states are drifting away from the broken and primitive incarceration mentality.

Image Source: alexindigo, used under its Creative Commons license

Category: Juvenile Justice, Legislation | Tags: , ,
| October 31, 2011
No comments

Incarceration: The World Experienced by Child Offenders

Bart Lubow, who directs the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Juvenile Justice Strategy Group minces no words when it comes to the subject of juvenile incarceration. WNYC 93.9 FM brings us his comments:

Putting young offenders in correctional facilities, he said, isn’t paying off.

‘It results in extraordinarily high recidivism rates, exposes youth to abuse and violence and does little, if anything, to enhance public safety,’ Lubow said.

Unfortunately there are times when the situation is even worse than that. In Texas Jordan Adams died after being strangled with a sheet at Granbury Regional Juvenile Justice Center. Another 14 year old was the one holding the sheet at the time.

Here’s some of the news coverage:

This shows another pernicious aspect of our incarceration based approach to juvenile justice. Evidence that has continued to mount pointing out the ineffectiveness of incarceration for quite some time, but examination reveals an array of failings of the most egregious sort.

Many readers will consider this boy’s death a tragic but isolated instance, and thankfully juvenile fatalities of this sort are not what you could call common. That is, of course, shallow solace.

It is not just death that faces incarcerated kids. The vile specter of rape is one faced by 30% of all youth inmates. All of them, both male and female.  The U.S. Department of Justice has provided some truly disturbing figures (as reported by AmplifyYourVoice) :

Rates of reported sexual victimization varied among youth:
– 10.8% of males and 4.7% of females reported sexual activity with facility staff.
– 9.1% of females and 2.0% of males reported unwanted sexual activity with other youth.
– Youth with a sexual orientation other than heterosexual reported significantly higher rates of sexual victimization by another youth (12.5%) compared to heterosexual youth (1.3%).
– Youth who had experienced any prior sexual assault were more than twice as likely to report sexual victimization in the current facility (24.1%), compared to those with no sexual assault history (10.1%).

The violence often found in these facilities, coupled with the frequently inadequate staffing and supervision, is part of the reason that institutions like these tend to produce repeat offenders. Criminal behavior is learned and reinforced in these facilities far more often than not.

When you consider the plight of chidren in these environments it is good to recall the words of  Bruce Perry, M.D., Ph.D., Senior Fellow of The ChildTrauma Academy and author of The Boy Who Was Raised as a Dog and BORN FOR LOVE: Why Empathy Is Essential — and Endangered:

What we are as adults is the product of the world we experienced as children. The way a society functions is a reflection of the childrearing practices of that society. Today, we reap what we have sown.

Category: Humane Exposures, Juvenile Justice | Tags: , ,
| October 21, 2011
One comment

Juvenile Justice: Five Online Resources

Don Jail.The old saying goes that information is power. It’s certainly vital for making informed decisions.

With that in mind today I’d like to present a round-up of online resources for those wishing to become more well informed about the vital issue of juvenile justice. It seems like each day brings more data, and the majority of that data points toward a desperate need for us to change our approach from incarceration to actual rehabilitation.

So, without further ado, here are seven virtual fonts of information on the topic. If you have others that you think should be listed here, let us know in the comments.

The Center for Juvenile Justice Reform at Georgetown Universitys Public Policy Institute‘ –  This one is geared more towards those of you who work in juvenile justice. The Center seeks to amplify upon good work being done across the country in the field of juvenile justice reform by providing a multi-systems perspective and set of resources in support of this work.

The Annie E. Casey Foundation, Juvenile Justice Page – The Casey Foundation’s juvenile justice reform agenda is designed to improve the odds that delinquent youth can make successful transitions to adulthood, primarily by reforming juvenile justice system so that they lock up fewer youth, rely more on proven, family-focused interventions, and create opportunities for positive youth development. You might be familiar with my recent posts about their new report, No Place for Kids: The Case for Reducing Juvenile Incarceration , which is particularly worthwhile reading.

The Child Welfare League of America – “Our vision is that every child will grow up in a safe, loving, and stable family.” CWLA leads and engages its network of public and private agencies and partners to advance policies, best practices and collaborative strategies that result in better outcomes for vulnerable children, youth and families.

The National Criminal Justice Reference Service – Established in 1972, the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) is a federally funded resource offering justice and drug-related information to support research, policy, and program development worldwide. It’s a great place for finding numbers and statistics on topics such as juvenile recidivism.

PBS Frontline: Juvenile Justice – “Four kids, four crimes. Two were sent to adult court, two treated as juveniles. Read their stories. How would you decide?” This is one of my personal favorites. This website is jammed full of facts and commentary as well as an extensive history of American juvenile justice and an extensive array of relevant reports. Frontline did a great job with putting it together!

But, in the end, I had to remind myself that I was dealing with children. – Alex Kotlowitz, End Note, There are No Children Here

Image Source: Rick Harris on Flickr, used under it’s Creative Commons license

Category: Juvenile Justice | Tags: ,
| October 18, 2011
One comment

Is Oklahoma Slipping Back Into Its Old Ways?

Seal of OklahomaThe Oklahoma Legislature approved House Bill 2028 in 2009. This bill allows the use of pepper spray and electromagnetic shock devices in juvenile detention centers. It was signed into law. The office of juvenile affairs, which requested the bill in the first place, has not yet changed its own rules to allow these measures. Rumor has it that might change soon.

This year that same body approved Senate Bill 247. This bill allows  maximum security spaces to be added to existing juvenile detention centers. It was also signed into law last May.

Why the sudden embrace of such extreme measures?

Multiple violent incidents at the Central Oklahoma Juvenile Detention Center in Tecumseh are commonly cited as the cause. One juvenile suffered a brain injury after being beaten in one incident, while in another local law enforcement had to be brought in to preserve order following a violent incident involving multiple juveniles.

The recent outbreak came after the closure of the L.E. Rader Center in Sand Springs the state’s only maximum-security juvenile facility. The youths incarcerated there were transferred

Office of Juvenile Affairs closed the state’s only maximum-security juvenile facility, the L.E. Rader Center in Sand Springs, and transferred some of the youths from there to the state’s two other juvenile institutions.

Tulsa attorney Steven Novick does not think this reaction is justified. This is worth mentioning because Novick is the attorney who spearheaded the 1978 federal lawsuit that began a series of sweeping reforms to the juvenile system.
The suit was filed on behalf of a boy, under the pseudonym of Terry D.,  who described conditions that often included  the use of hogties and days of solitary confinement. After touring one of the facilities Novik deemed the stories well founded.  Barbara Hoberock comments on this in her recent article in Tulsa World:
He said the staff was proud of what it had been doing, adding that staff members were ‘every bit as institutionalized as the kids were. They didn’t see what they were doing as possibly wrong or harmful. That was the springboard.’
The allegations mounted, Novick said, and the suit alleged that children were subjected to abusive use of restraints and solitary confinement and that staff used tranquilizing drugs to control juveniles, rather than treat them.
‘There was compelling evidence to support all those allegations,’ he said. In addition, children who had done nothing wrong – such as victims of neglect – were housed with those who had been adjudicated of crimes, Novick said.

The lawsuit was an arduous battle, leading to a consent decree in 1984 that banned abusive practices and closed many juvenile detention facilities. The case finally reached it’s conclusion in the late 1990s with an order of dismissal outlining guidelines for treatment.

Since the dismissal order Novik believes the system has started moving toward more of a corrections model than a true juvenile justice system. The current bills which would allow pepper spray, tazers, and maximum security spaces would seem to bear that out.

Of course supporters have a different view. House Speaker Kris Steele, R-Shawnee, is reported in the Bixby Bulletin as saying:

‘In the grand scheme of things, the proposals before the agency’s board are band-aids to a larger problem,’ Steele said. ‘Eventually, the state needs to address how to create proper space and methods to handle high-risk juvenile offenders. Until that happens, we’ve got to do the best we can with what we have, and I thank the agency, its board members and my fellow legislators for working to do exactly that.’

Hoberock’s article supplies the needed riposte:

Linda Terrell, executive director of the Oklahoma Institute for Child Advocacy, is concerned that the proposals offered by OJA are more punitive.

‘We need to remember that they are children,’ she said.

Well said, Ms. Terrell, well said. All you need to do is look through our blog posts to see ample evidence that this incarceration based model is more expensive, less effective, and more dangerous than rehabilitation programs that focus on getting the youth integrated back into society.

Oklahoma is clearly taking steps in the other direction.

Category: Juvenile Justice, Prison Reform | Tags: , , , ,
« Older Entries   Recent Entries »