Archive for Prison Reform

| 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 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 8, 2011
No comments

Nine Principles: The National Juvenile Justice Network

Prison cell with bed inside Alcatraz main building san francisco califforniaThe National Juvenile Justice Network (NJJN)  is an organization that helps state-based groups in their efforts to institute reform of the American juvenile justice system.

The NJJN describe themselves on their website as follows:

Through education, community-building and leadership development, NJJN enhances the capacity of juvenile justice coalitions and organizations in 33 states to press for state and federal laws, policies and practices that are fair, equitable and developmentally appropriate for all children, youth and families involved in, or at risk of becoming involved in, the justice system.

We seek to return the U.S. to the core ideals that led to the formation of the juvenile court more than 100 years ago, when our country realized that youth are fundamentally and categorically different than adults.

By providing tools to state level groups the NJJN seeks to achieve these ends. Access to information, leadership training, community building and other similar techniques are at the core of their approach. The most vital thing to know about them is their nine principles of reform.  Every member adheres to these and must be actively working at the state level based on at least one of them. (These principles are from “A Blueprint for Juvenile Justice Reform,” developed by the Youth Transition Funders Group, associated descriptive text is my own paraphrasing and commentary on the original document.)

The Nine Principles are:

Reduce Institutionalization

While there will always be a few youth offenders that can only be dealt with through incarceration the vast majority of them can be more effectively treated in a community based environment.

Maximize Youth, Family and Community Participation

Community justice initiatives can engage a wide array of adults in the rehabilitation process, an important thing since active adult participation is often needed to keep youths involved in their own reform. Family conferencing is one example of how parents and jurisdictions are learning to work together rather than against each other.

Additionally they help both adults and youth become more active an effective in their efforts to lobby for reform.

Improve Aftercare and Reentry

With over 100,000 youths re-entering society after being institutionalized the question of how to re-integrate them into day to day life is of paramount importance. Youth programs and workforce development are key components here. For best effect many agencies, both government and non-profits, need to coordinate. Special needs kids – those with substance abuse or mental health issue in particular, need quick access to treatment if they are to have a fighting chance. Additionally there are questions of accessibility that need to be examined- if you cannot access the help it is not really helping.

Create Smaller Rehabilitative Institutions

Since the vast majority of youth are not chronic and violent offenders our system is ill suited for their needs. Those that are certainly need close supervision, but the impersonal and institutional atmosphere of jails, prisons, and detention centers have a poor track record. Especially when it comes to recidivism.

Smaller secure facilities run by youth specialists can provide developmentally appropriate programs for these youngsters. They can also be particularly effective if the family is closely engaged in the rehabilitative process.

Recognize and Serve Youth with Special Needs

It happens all the time. Youth whose primary problem stems from mental disorders, substance abuse, or emotional issues end up incarcerated with  criminal offenders. They state it succinctly on their website:

While good mental heath and substance abuse services are vital for incarcerated youth to facilitate their rehabilitation, it is critical that juvenile justice involvement is seen as appropriate only when a youth’s delinquency—not his disabilities—is the primary reason for confinement.

Create a Range of Community Based Programs

While NJJN endorses and supports a variety of community based programs there are some that are particularly stressed due to their proven effectiveness. The three most highly noted, and with solid scientific evidence as their efficacy, are:

  • Functional Family Therapy
  • Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care
  • Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST)

MST in particular has shown amazing results. Serious juvenile offenders demonstrate reductions of 25 to 70 percent in long-term rates of re-arrest, and reductions of 47 to 64 percent in out-of-home placements. Real results with no incarceration.

Ensure Access to Quality Counsel 

In an age where counsel is sometimes assigned mere minute before trial it is imperative that something be done about it. NJJN supports beneficial reform in a variety of ways ranging from special training for those representing youth cases to early assignment of counsel. Any American appearing in court has the right to counsel, but lack of effective counsel is almost as bad, and sometimes worse than, having none at all.

Reduce Racial Disparity

As I noted yesterday in my examination of restorative justice, there is a huge racial disparity in the way our system treats youth offenders. The numbers bear repeating:

In 2008 Pew Charitable Trusts reported that one out of every 15 black men over the age of 18 is serving time. For comparison only one out of 106 white men are incarcerated. One in every nine African American men between 20 and 34 are incarcerated, a striking contrast to the 1 in 30 of that age group across the rest of the general population.

NJJN helps to support jurisdictions that have reduced this disparity and endorse the following proven tactics for doing so.

  • analyzing data by race and ethnicity to detect disparities.
  • using objective screening instruments to eliminate subjectivity from decision-making.
  • coordinating with police to better control who enters the juvenile justice system.
  • changing hiring practices so that justice staff are more representative of youth in the system.
  • holding staff accountable for placement decisions.
  • developing culturally competent programming.
  • employing mechanisms to divert youth of color from secure confinement.

Keep Youth Out of Adult Prisons

Youth held in adult facilities are eight times as likely to attempt suicide as when incarcerated with their peers. They are five times more likely to report being rape victims; fifty percent more likely to be attacked with some sort of weapon; and twice as likely to be beaten by institution staff. These are not good numbers. Add in the much higher rate of recidivism and the over representation of people of color and the picture is bleak indeed.

Back in the 1990’s we saw 49 of the 50 states adopt measures that increased the number of juveniles being tried and sentenced as adults. Twenty years later we can see how much it has cost us as a society.

These are great principles, and ones which can lead the way to much improvement. Our juvenile justice system has some critical flaws and the active coordination of efforts to improve the situation is laudable.

Keep your eyes peeled as we will have an interview with some of the NJJN’s senior staff coming soon!

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

Category: Criminal Justice, Education, Prison Reform | 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: , , , ,
| October 18, 2011
No comments

The Polk County Incarceration Scandal

Despite the advances being made in nearby Texas, Florida finds itself at the middle of a controversy about it’s treatment of youth offenders. Let’s start withthis video report from Fox News:

Polk jail at center of debate over jailing juveniles : MyFoxTAMPABAY.com

Chase Purdy, a writer for The Ledger, called it “duelling press conferences.” I think that’s apt. Sheriff Judd’s rather dismissive comment about “y’all silly people,” when addressing his opponents is annoyingly condescending, although his point seems on the surface to be a good one. How can the ACLU complain without having visited the facility in question?

That first impression lacks both context and nuance. Yes, it may well be much more cost effective than their prior approach, but can it be as cost effective as the Texas way? There is still a huge sum of public money needed to incarcerate someone. Far less funding is required to rehabilitate and reintegrate them into society. The numbers demonstrably prove that, as does the increasing number of states moving away from a “lock ’em up” mentality about juveniles.

One thing that needs clarification is the language used. To clarify the difference jails are basically short term holding tanks and are operated by the county. Prisons on the other hand are run by the state and are geared toward long term incarceration.

As a result jails are geared for a more transitory population by nature. Anyone who has ever had a court date knows that it can sometimes be months, occasionally even years, before the day in court comes around. That’s a long time, doubly so for children. This is especially true when the facility in question is designed for adults, an age segment with wildly different needs.

We will be keeping an eye on Polk County as this develops.

Category: Juvenile Justice, Prison Reform | Tags: , , ,
| October 10, 2011
2 comments

What’s Up in Texas? Juvenile Incarceration in 2011

Texas FlagLast week I reported the findings of the Annie E. Casey Foundation in regards to juvenile justice.  The report overwhelmingly supports rehabilitation over simple incarceration, a stance we have long held here at Humane Exposures.

One of the examples referred to in the report was the state of Texas, a state whose juvenile justice system  has been on a rapid turnaround since the sex scandals it suffered in 2007. Allan Turner, a reporter for the Houston Chronicle takes note of this change as it has surfaced in Austin:

Among the more promising reforms, said Ana Yanez-Correra, director of the Austin-based Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, is a juvenile diversion program begun in March 2009 by the Harris County District Attorney’s office.

In that program, first-time, nonviolent offenders are placed in informal probation for up to 180 days. During that period, said Terrance Windham, chief of the district attorney’s juvenile division, they are required to attend school, report to a probation officer, stay drug free and, in some cases, participate in programs addressing special needs.

This is exactly what needs to be done in order to reintegrate these youths into society. The attention to education and special needs in particular are positive steps forward. Of couse, as is the case with any program like this, the big question is “how effective is it?” Turner rings us the numbers further down in his column:

Upon successful completion of the program, cases are closed without charges being filed.

As of Aug. 31, 4,246 of 5,347 offenders completed the program successfully. Only 9 percent of those who completed the program returned with new offenses, Windham said.

That’s a marked reduction- almost 80% completed the program followed by an extraordinarily low rate of recidivism. I love being able to report numbers like this!

This is truly a bipartisan win- fiscal conservatives should love the reduced spending while the social justice angle is one that should appeal to the political left. In the meantime the really important part is that the community overall benefits both from reduced crime and the destruction of fewer lives due to incarceration.

Peter Maloff, a writer for the Public News Service in Texas

‘Comprehensive, well-thought-out strategies in state juvenile-justice systems that will not only ensure that there’s fewer kids locked up but that will ensure that there’s less crime, and less money spent, and that kids have better odds of being successful in adulthood.’

Texas agencies responsible for youth incarceration and parole will be abolished Dec. 1 and replaced by a new Department of Juvenile Justice to direct nonviolent offenders to local rehabilitation services. [Ana] Correa [executive director of the nonprofit Texas Criminal Justice Coalition] praises its mission but says it will only succeed if it is backed by ongoing state support.

‘You can have a system – and you can have all of the wonderful intentions in the system – but without the funding, it’s going to be extremely difficult to pull off. That’s something that we still have to be very diligent about as advocates.’

And this is why advocacy is so extremely important. If funding does not materialize even the reduced costs of this approach will prove too expensive.

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

Category: Juvenile Justice, Prison Reform, Texas | Tags: , , ,
| October 7, 2011
One comment

The “Throw ‘Em in Jail,” Approach Doesn’t Work

Kilmainham JailRecidivism is a dirty word. Concretely it describes those who are imprisoned for a crime, serve time, and get out only to end up back behind bars. In the abstract it represents failure on a number of levels, not least of which is the failure of our current system to properly address and curtail criminal behavior.

Those familiar with my work here might recall that I examined this problem from a number of angles during my last tenure here. Once More, Rehabilitation Urged Over Incarceration, Recidivism May Be Worse Than We Think, and Education Based Incarceration in Southern California to name a few.  Those were written in mid to late 2010 so it’s time to take a look at what changes may have occurred over the past year.

One positive step forward comes to us in the form of a report from the Annie E. Casey Foundation:

The Annie E. Casey Foundation’s new report, No Place for Kids: The Case for Reducing Juvenile Incarceration assembles a vast array of evidence to demonstrate that incarcerating kids doesn’t work: Youth prisons do not reduce future offending, they waste taxpayer dollars, and they frequently expose youth to dangerous and abusive conditions. The report also shows that many states have substantially reduced their juvenile correctional facility populations in recent years, and it finds that these states have seen no resulting increase in juvenile crime or violence. Finally, the report highlights successful reform efforts from several states and provides recommendations for how states can reduce juvenile incarceration rates and redesign their juvenile correction systems to better serve young people and the public.

As I had predicted then,  the accumulation of evidence causes the conclusion to become clearer and clearer: simple incarceration simply does not work. Brian Zumhagen writes on the WNYC News Blog that the empirical evidence from New York supports these findings:

Over the past decade, New York City has reduced the number of kids it sends to upstate facilities by more than 60 percent, according to New York City’s Probation Commissioner Vincent Schiraldi.

At the same time, he says, the number of serious felony arrests for city juveniles has declined by more than 25 percent.

Rehabilitation, not incarceration, is the key.

In my next blog post I’l be taking a look at the current situation in Texas, where they stopped locking up juvenile offenders for non-felony crimes back in 2007.

Image by amanderson2 on Flickr, used under it’s Creative Commons license

Category: Humane Exposures, Juvenile Justice, Prison Reform | Tags: , , ,
| November 29, 2010
3 comments

The Economics of Incarceration in Arizona

MoneyThe economic side of the penal system is something we look at a lot. In so many cases, the return of preventative programs vastly outstrips the return we see from imprisoning people. Our documentary is titled It’s More Expensive to Do Nothing because that is, quite simply, the case.

Of course, there are also darker sides of the economic angle that bear scrutiny. When we speak of the economic factors, we are talking about ways in which to spend less and achieve better results. For some others, it is a matter of how much can be made from the business of incarceration.

Laura Sullivan has a very illuminating piece on NPR (you can read it or listen to the audio) focusing on this very subject. She takes a look at the spiderweb of business interests that stand to reap serious financial gains from Arizona’s new immigration law. [Note: this is not a debate about the law itself, but an examination of the way in which the prison industry has influenced the letter of the law for its financial gain. Comments debating immigration law will be considered off topic and not published.]

While there has been both forceful opposition and support for the law, it would behoove both sides to look closer at the way the law came about. NPR did some digging:

NPR spent the past several months analyzing hundreds of pages of campaign finance reports, lobbying documents and corporate records. What they show is a quiet, behind-the-scenes effort to help draft and pass Arizona Senate Bill 1070 by an industry that stands to benefit from it: the private prison industry. The law could send hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to prison in a way never done before. And it could mean hundreds of millions of dollars in profits to private prison companies responsible for housing them.

What follows is a hard look at the influence of lobbyists. It starts with the Arizona State Sen. Russell Pearce, who claims the bill was his idea. His stated stance is that Americans need to look at the cost of not enforcing our laws and securing the border. The interesting part is that instead of bringing his idea up on the Senate floor, he instead brought it to a meeting of a group called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) that took place last December at the Grand Hyatt in Washington, D.C.

If you look at the composition of the group, an interesting picture develops:

It’s a membership organization of state legislators and powerful corporations and associations, such as the tobacco company Reynolds American Inc., ExxonMobil and the National Rifle Association. Another member is the billion-dollar Corrections Corporation of America — the largest private prison company in the country.

Both members of the Corrections Corporation of America and Pearce are not only members but also sit on several of ALEC’s boards. Model legislation was developed at the Hyatt, legislation that was adopted almost verbatim four months later. Pearce claims that even though lobbyists were in attendance, he did not go to meet with them, but rather to meet with other legislators:

Pearce may go there to meet with other legislators, but 200 private companies pay tens of thousands of dollars to meet with legislators like him.

As soon as Pearce’s bill hit the Arizona statehouse floor in January, there were signs of ALEC’s influence. Thirty-six co-sponsors jumped on, a number almost unheard of in the capitol. According to records obtained by NPR, two-thirds of them either went to that December meeting or are ALEC members.

That same week, the Corrections Corporation of America hired a powerful new lobbyist to work the capitol.

This is an economic angle that we need to watch. There is no way to fight the bloating of our prison system without realizing that this is big business. There are so many jobs and so much money wrapped up in the penal system that it’s truly frightening. The approach to imprisonment being taken in Arizona and many other places seems to view an increase in the number of people incarcerated as a good thing, since, after all, it creates jobs and salaries. The fact that it costs taxpayers far more than the alternatives does not enter into that kind of logic.

This is not merely a problem in the areas near the border when immigration is such a massive issue. On the first of last month, I wrote about the astounding and disturbing state of affairs in Canon City, CO, the town with 13 prisons. Just to put it into perspective, Canon City has 36,000 residents, which makes it roughly one prison per 2,700 people. Sounds like big business to me, especially since one of those 13 is the Supermac, the new “Alcatraz of America.”

It does not matter whether this happens in Arizona, Colorado, or some other state. The fact remains that we have 5% of the global population and roughly a quarter of the world’s incarcerated here in the U.S.A. If the trend of embracing the corrections system as a revenue-generating business continues, those numbers will become even more out of balance.

So, as the prison system in Arizona hits a major growth spurt, I’d like to leave you with two short quotes to keep in mind:

‘When we provide treatment, we can cut recidivism rates down 25, 35, sometimes 40 percent.’
— Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D., Chief of Science, Policy and Law, National Association of Drug Court Professionals

and

‘It makes long term economic sense to try and take care of these people in a humane way, and help them heal.’
— Bruce Perry, M.D., Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Child Trauma Academy

Source: “Prison Economics Help Drive Ariz. Immigration Law,” NPR, 10/28/10
Image by AMagill, used under its Creative Commons license.
Visit Us on Facebook: Humane Exposures Publishing, downTownUSA, Maggots in My Sweet Potatoes, It’s More Expensive To Do Nothing.

Category: Arizona, Criminal Justice, Humane Exposures, It's More Expensive to Do Nothing, Legislation, Prison, Prison Reform | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
« Older Entries   Recent Entries »