| 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

Juvenile Justice – Five Facebook Resources

FacebookThe American juvenile justice system is fractured, costly, and inefficient.  American adults spend an amazing amount of time on Facebook.

Today I’m going to throw a spotlight on where those two subjects intersect. As you may have noticed, social media has become an instrumental tool for advocacy and activism over recent years.  It is only natural that we should find people and organizations mobilizing for reform of the way we treat juveniles.

Today I’m going to share a number of these with you, and since Facebook is the dominant platform at the moment let’s see what we can find there.  (The descriptions following each entry are directly quoted from each group’s Facebook page.)

The Virginia Juvenile Justice Association

Mission: To advocate for quality services for juveniles (due process, evidence-based practices, proven models,
program integrity/standards, outcome measures). To enhance the professionalism and skills of our members (professional development, skill building, practice improvement, resources, technical assistance,awards for excellence, recognition). To foster communication among our members (collaboration, networking, publications). To promote alternative approaches to resolving youth and family problems (diversion, risk-basedgraduated responses, least restrictive environment).

Coalition for Juvenile Justice

Mission: CJJ is a nationwide coalition of State Advisory Groups (SAGs) and allies dedicated to preventing children and youth from becoming involved in the courts and upholding the highest standards of care when youth are charged with wrongdoing and enter the justice system.

Since 1984, CJJ has supported a broad and active coalition across all 56 U.S. states, territories and the District of Columbia, as the nonprofit association of Governor-appointed SAG members operating under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA), along with allied staff, individuals and organizations. CJJ members include concerned individuals, practitioners, advocates and youth who voluntarily serve at the state and national levels. CJJ is governed by an Executive Board of national and regional officers. All of CJJ’s formal positions on policy and related matters are developed and approved by a super-majority of the CJJ Council of SAGs. The Council comprises the Chairs or Chair-designees of SAGs holding membership in CJJ.

Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance

Mission: The mission of the Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance is to reduce the number of children and youth entering the juvenile and criminal justice system, and advocate a safe, effective, and fair system for those involved.

The Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance accomplishes its mission by serving as a catalyst for systems reform. The Alliance employs the following strategies in pursuit of its mission: Legislative education and advocacy; Strategic communications; Community organizing; as well as National, state, and local partnerships.

Citizens For Juvenile Justice

Mission: Citizens for Juvenile Justice (CfJJ) is the only independent, non-profit, statewide organization working exclusively to improve the juvenile justice system in Massachusetts. We advocate, convene, conduct research, and educate the public on important juvenile justice issues. We believe that both children in the system and public safety are best served by a fair and effective system that recognizes the ways children are different from adults and focuses primarily on their rehabilitation.

CfJJ advocates for a fair and effective juvenile justice system in Massachusetts, designed to promote the healthy development of children and youth so they can grow up to live as responsible and productive adults in our communities.

Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana

Mission: To transform the juvenile justice system into one that builds on the strengths of young people, families and communities to ensure children are given the greatest opportunities to grow and thrive.

These are all good starting points for those who wish to engage this topic on Facebook. If you know of any other resources on the topic of juvenile justice please leave a link in the comments. I’ll be doing a follow up to this post soon with even more resources, and if you suggest one I use I will happily provide credit.

Now, go explore Facebook!

Image Source: Max – B on Flickr, used under it’s Creative Commons license

Category: Humane Exposures |
| 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: , , ,
| November 7, 2011
No comments

A Look at Restorative Justice

Justice, 50 Fleet Street, London

Restorative justice is a theory of justice that emphasizes repairing the harm caused or revealed by criminal behaviour. It is best accomplished through cooperative processes that include all stakeholders.  –Restorative Justice Online

Rehabilitating and reintegrating wrongdoers into society at large has proven to be both less costly and more effective than traditional incarceration This is a proven fact, that can be easily verified. Our criminal justice system, with it’s incarceration mentality, all too often merely creates hardened criminals out of the  youths that enter its doors.

This is especially damaging to the African American portion of our population. 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.

Rebecca M. Stone of the Central Virginia Restorative Justice recently wrote the following on Bikyamasr:

There are no easy answers to the question of what to do about the disproportionate incarceration rates of young African American men. Nor is there a single solution to address the many layers of structural inequalities that perpetuate cycles of poverty and violence in their lives. We know that incarceration does not solve the problem of crime; this is evident in the fact that around 40 per cent of released inmates are back in prison within three years. For some people, prison can induce change, but the reality is that once within the ‘system’, many people tend to stay.

This makes it imperative that we find more ways to help kids re-integrate into society rather than simply stashing them out of sight behind bars. Once they enter jail or prison facilities their chances of recidivism go through the roof. Far better to help salvage these lives by helping them avoid such circumstances. Restorative justice is one way of attempting to do so.

In her writing Stone explains that restorative justice is more concerned with people and relationships than with simple legalities. Rather than looking at what law has been broken and the mandated penalty, a restorative justice approach looks more at what harm has been done, how it can be rectified, and who is responsible for fixing it.

Offenders are often brought together with their victims in order to apologize and collaboratively develop a plan for fixing the damage done by the crime. Offenders write apology letters to those they have wronged, talk about their actions, and actively participate in figuring out how to prevent it from happening again. Stone reports that offenders find the process much more demanding than the usual justice system because they are forced to see the results of their actions.

She also reports her own first hand experience with the effects of this approach:

 Restorative justice works. Last year the Albemarle County programme I am involved in in Virginia had an 11 per cent recidivism rate for young offenders. In comparison, there was a 23 per cent recidivism rate among young offenders in the same area who did not engage in a restorative justice process.

I’d say cutting recidivism in half is pretty fair evidence, wouldn’t you?

Category: Humane Exposures |
| 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: , ,
| November 2, 2011
No comments

Youth Homelessness and Education

Homeless Children

Toro, Dworsky, & Fowler (2007) report that youthful offenders are likely to experience homelessness disproportionately. For example, at one large youth shelter in New York, 30 percent of youth served had been arrested or incarcerated previously (Toro, et al., 2007). Additionally, because their homelessness forces them to spend more time than their housed peers in public spaces, homeless youth are more likely to have contact with the juvenile justice system for offenses such as loitering, camping, and panhandling (Sedlak & Bruce, 2010).
Youth Homelessness and Juvenile JusticeTheir offenses are generally non-violent but recurring, likely as a result of their lack of stable homes and frequent moves.

So begins the report entitled Best Practices In Interagency Collaboration: Youth Homelessness and Juvenile Justice (pdf) by the National Center for Homeless Education.

The report is designed to help juvenile justice professionals ranging from attorneys understand the structure of the juvenile court system and the   McKinneyVento Homeless Assistance Act. This act is a critical tool  homeless youth and the  juvenile justice agencies that serve them to not only get them into school, but they work with to enroll and succeed in school. Obviously we support this approach, just take a look at our HumaneSmarts program just recently launched. After all, education is crucial to helping at-risk youth move forward into productive lives

Various groups worthy of support exist with this end in mind. In Pennsylvania there is The Homeless Children’s Education Fund, whose mission is listed on their website as follows:

To serve as a voice for the homeless children of Allegheny County and to ensure they are afforded equal access to the same educational opportunities and experiences as their peers.

Another useful resource comes to us through The U.S. Department of Education – a consolidated page of grants for the education of homeless youth. Of course the resources available at the national level can often be confusing to navigate, which brings me to a webpage compiled in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Education Rights of Homeless Children by Michael A. O’Connor, Esq. on WriteLaw.

When the storm left 200,000 school age children homeless after it struck our part of the coast  he saw the need to create a document that would allow people to know exactly what they had available to them. As a native of New Orleans myself I salute him for that, it’s a fantastic array of information and links to reseources, all presented in plain English.

The bottom line is that education is vital under the best of circumstances, but for the homeless children of our country it can make a fundamental difference between a life of incarceration and a life that is livable. The direct co

Image Source: i5a, used under it’s Creative Commons license

Category: Humane Exposures |
| 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 26, 2011
No comments

Tried As An Adult: The Harsh Realities

Fremantle Prison. CellsIt is often supposed that the threat of trial in an adult court will reduce crime. As with most fear based strategies it is far from the mark.

Does treating juveniles as adults help reduce crime? In a word, no.

Frontline answered this one succinctly in their website dedicated to juvenile justice:

To date, only two studies have examined whether stricter transfer laws result in lowered juvenile crime rates. Both found that there was no evidence to support that the laws had the intended effect.

Criminologists Simon Singer and David McDowell evaluated the effects of New York’s Juvenile Offender Law on the rate of serious juvenile crime. This landmark piece of legislation was passed in 1978, and lowered the age of criminal court jurisdiction to thirteen for murder, and to fourteen for rape, robbery, assault, and violent categories of burglary. Singer and McDowell analyzed juvenile arrest rates in New York for four years prior to the enactment of the law, and six years after. These rates were compared with those for control groups of thirteen and fourteen year olds in Philadelphia, and with slightly older offenders in New York. The researchers found that the threat of adult criminal sanctions had no effect on the levels of serious juvenile crime.

A later study by social scientists Eric Jensen and Linda Metsger reached a similar conclusion. They sought to evaluate the deterrent effect of the transfer statute passed in Idaho in 1981, which required that juveniles charged with certain serious crimes (murder, attempted murder, robbery, forcible rape, and mayhem) be tried as adults. They examined arrest rates for five years before and five years after the passage of the law, and found no evidence that it had any deterrent effect on the level of juvenile crime in Idaho. The researchers also compared the arrest rates for the target offenses with those in neighboring states Montana and Wyoming, which were demographically similar to Idaho, and had in place a discretionary waiver system similar to the system Idaho had before the new legislation. They found that juvenile arrests for the offenses targeted by the legislation actually increased in Idaho, while decreasing in the other two states.

Yet despite this we still have laws on the books all over the country that encourage sending underage offenders to adult courts. An unfortunate situation that disproportionately affects youth of color.

According to the report Youth Crime/Adult Time: Is Justice Served? there is a distinct over representation and a measurable difference in treatment given to youth of color. Disparities that call into question just how fair or appropriate it is to prosecute youth in adult courts. 82% of the cases studied involved minority youth and more than half of those were African-American youths.

The study From Time-Out to Hard Time: Young Children in the Adult Criminal Justice System made several recommendations to national and state policymakers back in 2009.

  • Children should be kept in the juvenile justice system and mandatory sentencing for young children in adult criminal court should be disallowed.
  • Judges should have the discretion to take into account a youth offender’s attitudes toward rehabilitation.
  • Regardless of sentence length, youth offenders should always be provided parole opportunities and should never be housed with the adult criminal population.

This is an approach to juvenile enforcement that is not only inhumane but also very costly to taxpayers. The time has come to change that.

Lets close with a slideshow of art created by incarcerated juveniles that was created as a companion to our upcoming book- Born, Not Raised. It should give you glimpse into the disturbing and hopeless world experienced by incarcerated juveniles. Imagine how much worse for those tried as adults and remanded to adult facilities.

Category: Humane Exposures |
| October 26, 2011
One comment

Britain Contemplates Mandatory Sentencing for Juveniles Found With Knives

Union JackBritain is set to take over the chairmanship of the Council of Europe soon and as a result they are considering their priorities for reforming the European court of human rights at Strasbourg. This is why so many eyes are looking towards the UK right now as the political class skirmishes over a proposal that would institute mandatory sentencing for juveniles found carrying knives.

British home secretary Theresa May and Justice Secretary Ken Clarke are having a fine old row. Earlier this October the two clashed when Theresa May clashed with Clarke during the Conservative party conference. A conference where he called her comments about the Human Rights Act both “laughable” and “childlike.” As you may imagine their relationship has been a bit chilly since.

At the core of this particular conflict is the Justice Secretary’s belief that mandatory sentencing is rarely effective, and that applying such sentencing to youth offenders is out of line. He has further stated that the occurrence of  mandatory sentences in British law are actually an innovation adopted from our side of the ocean here in America. Clarke quarrels with the basic assumption behind mandatory sentencing which he sees as an  assumption that judges can’t be trusted to sentence cases based on the individual circumstances of each case.

Clarke is reported by the UK Guardian as having said:

‘We have – because of the seriousness that we attach to knife crime and we think a strong message has got to be sent to people indulging in knife crime – agreed such a mandatory sentence for adults,’ said Clarke.

But, he added: ‘This is being tabled and that is the government’s proposal. The idea that mandatory sentences for certain types of offence, should be extended to young offenders, to children, to juveniles is a bit of a leap for the British judicial system.’

This is a hot topic in England following in the wake of the riots they experienced last August. A topic the justice secretary also touched on. Criticism made in hindsight is always easy. Dina Rickman brings us the pertinent quote in her piece on The Huffington Post:

‘It’s usually easy in the Dog and Duck 48 hours later, to start saying what the police should have done in an unexpected and violent situation… It was totally unexpected and the scale was a surprise to all of us.’

Of course Clarke has also made public comments that the rioters we part of a criminal “underclass,”  who exhibited a “irresponsible feckless reaction” from those involved. He also stated that the percentage of young people involved was lower because they have “not had time to get a conviction yet.”

No matter how you cut it things are pretty dicey in the UK right now for juveniles. If this goes through kids will suffer jail time for carrying a knife. While I doubt many would argue that kids with knives is something to endorse, the act remains that summary incarceration is not the solution.

Category: Humane Exposures |
| October 24, 2011
No comments

Chemical Restraint in Florida?

pillsSen. Ronda Storms, chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Children, Families and Elder Affairs, is on the warpath in Tallahassee.

The Republican senator is not happy with the responses she is getting to her investigation of the Department of Juvenile Justice’s (DJJ) use of psychotropic drugs on the kids in it’s care. Critics of the practice call it “chemical restraint. ” Gayla Sumner, a spokesperson for the DJJ has stated that it is against the agency’s policy to use mind-altering drugs for discipline or punishment. On Tuesday the 18th Storms roundly blasted the DJJ in her committee and now she is turning up the heat.

With 34% of the minors in its system on psychotropic medication the DJJ certainly seems to require scrutiny. When DJJ secretary Wansley Walters, didn’t appear before Storms’ committee it was bad enough, but when another DJJ testimony included no mention that Walters believed the issue to be  serious enough that she ordered the investigation herself last May.

Dara Kam of the Palm Beach Post provides some details:

On Wednesday, Storms, R-Valrico, admonished Department of Juvenile Justice Secretary Wansley Walters in a letter after Walters failed to appear before Storms’ Children, Families and Elder Affairs Committee on Tuesday. At that meeting, Storms upbraided Walters’ aides for not being candid with the committee about the use of the mind-altering medicines.

Storms ordered Walters to appear at the committee’s next meeting in November.

On Thursday, in the Senate Criminal and Civil Justice Appropriations Committee, Storms ordered DJJ’s director for administrative services, Fred Schuknechts, to come back with a financial analysis of the department’s spending on psychotropic drugs ‘for your entire population for whatever the reason. … And I would like that post-haste.’

Skipping a meeting when you know you’re being investigated does not cast your case in a positive light. Whether there is anything wrong or not, and it does appear there probably is, that sort of behavior gives the appearance that something shady is going on.

In an extremely unflattering comparison Storms notes that the DJJ uses psychotropics almost three times as much as the Department of Children and Families. Margie Menzel, a writer for The Ledger, brings us the pertinent quote:

She also noted that DJJ’s 34 percent medication rate was much higher than the 14.8 percent rate of use of medication reported by another agency, the Department of Children and Families.

‘Our children in [DCF] care have been badly burned, some of them have been starved, some of them have been sexually molested, some of them have been abandoned,’ she told Anderson. ‘Your [DJJ] population cannot be more needy. Everyone in our population has had some form of maltreatment.’

If the DJJ provides Storms with the requested update the situation should return to committee soon.

Category: Humane Exposures |
« Older Entries   Recent Entries »