Blog

The juvenile justice system in California has been evolving faster than most other parts of the country. While Missouri, Texas and other states have reduced their youth prison populations, California has made the most drastic reductions. At its peak in 1996, California housed more than 10,000 adolescents in its youth prisons. Today there are 1,096 youth held in just four facilities with one of those scheduled to close in a little more than a month.
The idea of de-incarceration is not new. This year marks the 40th anniversary of the closure of Massachusetts’ youth training schools. Dr. Jerome G. Miller, then commissioner of youth corrections in Massachusetts implemented sweeping reforms, transferring more than 1,500 adolescents out of youth prison and into community-based alternatives. Subsequent research revealed that when youth are not subject to the harsh conditions of institutional prison environments, they are less prone to serious and violent behavior upon release. We’ve known since the late 1970s, then, that well- implemented community- based treatment alternatives are more effective at reducing recidivism.
Today, after decades of de-incarceration, juvenile crime is at an all time low both nationally and in California. Contrary to popular belief, the streets and our communities are safer when more adolescents are present. This is great news for society, and signals an opportunity to end the use of institutional monolithic structures such as California’s youth prisons for good.

Good news! Materials from the OJJDP's 2011 National Conference for Children's Justice & Safety are now available online. 
For those unable to attend, the two-and-a-half day national conference addressed many of the key issues and strategies in the field of juvenile delinquency and victimization. Leading experts and researchers gave workshops and sessions that promoted evidence-based practices that incorporate emerging concerns in prevention, juvenile justice and victimization.
We hosted an all-day pre-conference workshop, focused on the Reclaiming Futures model and drug court. Video from the session is available below:
Video I
Introduction (Susan Richardson, National Director of Reclaiming Futures)
Why reform is needed – Reclaiming Futures' history and purpose (Susan Richardson)
What's happening in your court?  (The Honorable Anthony Capizzi, Reclaiming Futures Montgomery County) 
How many youth in your courts have a substance abuse problem? What happens to them as a result of that, and how do you measure progress and/or success with those efforts?
Reclaiming Futures model (Dan Merrigan, Ed.D., M.P.H., Reclaiming Futures Leadership Consultant and Christa Myers, Project Director, Reclaiming Futures Hocking County)

Across the country, youth offenders are wearing tracking devices as an alternative to detention facilities. The ankle monitors are part of a house arrest program that allows authorities to keep tabs on offenders. Since being implemented in Mississippi, 130 offenders have worn the trackers and officials say the initiative is working.
WTOK reports:

"For first time offenders, those who are brought in and they just need a second chance, I think it works very, very well," said Terrence Roberts, YET, Detention Alternative Director. "For those who are hardened and think, 'I'm just going to do what I'm going to do,' it may not work as well. But what it does is provide evidence that, 'Here I am at this location doing this crime."

Mississippi is not the first state to use ankle monitors to keep track of its young offenders. Georgia has used the monitors for awhile, as has Washington. And now a county in South Dakota is considering implementing them into their juvenile justice system.
Meanwhile, the Juvenile Justice Reform and Adolescent Substance Abuse Treatment group on LinkedIn seems to be split about this practice. What do you think?

David Onek, senior fellow at the Berkeley Center for Criminal Justice, recently spoke with Gena Castro Rodriguez about the unique needs of girls in the juvenile justice system. Castro Rodriguez is the executive director of the Youth Justice Institute and has worked with youth in the juvenile justice system for the past 18 years. 
In this Criminal Justice Conversations podcast, Castro Rodriguez explains that girls have a very different experience with the juvenile justice system than boys. In particular:

• Girls get involved in the juvenile justice system for, with, or because of another person (often a romantic partner)
• Girls have multiple contact with the system, often working their way up to serious crime

The U.S. House of Representatives and Senate appropriations leaders finalized a “minibus” spending package that further reduces the relevance of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and possibly jeopardizes the office’s connection with state governments.
The bill – which funds the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, and Housing and Urban Development – trims the allocation from an already-reduced $275 million in fiscal 2011 to $262.5 million for fiscal 2012.
The minibus package contains another continuing resolution allowing the government to operate through December 16.
The structure of the juvenile justice funding comes from the Senate Appropriations Committee’s bill, which drastically reduced funding but kept some for each program of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act.
Under the agreement reached by appropriations confereees, the funding levels for OJJDP’s biggest programs, which include state formula grants, mentoring and missing and exploited children, more closely mirror what was proposed by the House appropriators.
These are the funding levels, by fiscal year, for the office’s major programs:
Title II Formula Grants to States

A post written this week on the Department of Justice's Justice Blog 
The post, titled School-Level Interventions Reduce Dating Violence, looks at key findings in a new report from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) that suggests school-level interventions can significantly reduce dating violence among middle school students.
From the blog post:

The NIJ’s study on middle school prevention programs is one of the only studies on the effectiveness of initiatives designed to reduce dating violence among 6th and 7th graders. We hope these findings will allow groups to better optimize their resources and improve the tools they’re using to prevent dating violence.
Relationships early in life can have a lasting impact on the maturation of young people, and the NIJ study is a hopeful sign that a few low-cost initiatives could go a long way to improving the lives of our young people and setting them up for a healthier future.
The multi-level, randomized trial found that:

• School-level interventions such as school-based "boundary agreements," which are akin to restraining orders between students, and increased faculty and security presence in "hot spots" effectively reduced dating violence and sexual harassment — in some cases reducing dating violence by as much as 50 percent.
• Combining these school-level interventions with a classroom-level intervention administered through a six-session curriculum also reduced sexual harassment.
• Classroom-level interventions alone, which included instruction on state laws and penalties, consequences for perpetrators, and the construction of gender roles and healthy relationships, were not effective.

At their Annual Meeting in October, the Athens-Hocking-Vinton 317 Board recognized two Hocking County, Ohio community members for their work in substance abuse and mental health advocacy.
Carol Martin, Reclaiming Futures Hocking County (RFHC) Community Fellow, received the Hocking County Substance Abuse Prevention Award. She was nominated by Dr. Joe Gay, Executive Director of Health Recovery Services, Inc., a partner member of Reclaiming Futures Hocking County.
"I am humbled and honored to receive the award from the 317 board," Martin said, "but I feel the entire Reclaiming Futures team in Hocking County deserves to be recognized. We all understand the importance of advocating for the youth - the future of our community. They're all our children, and they deserve and need the support of our community."
The event was held at the Vinton County Middle School Cafetorium in McArthur, Ohio. From the event program: "Ms. Martin has tirelessly served in the Community Fellowship position in the Hocking County Juvenile Court Reclaiming Futures grant. She champions the need for quality substance abuse service coordination to benefit children and families involved in Hocking County Juvenile Court."
Carol has served in her Community Fellow role for three and a half years and during her tenure has established the Hocking County Youth Fund, at the Hocking County Chamber of Commerce, in order to help support activities for court-involved youth and their families.  She has also been responsible for developing a mentoring program for Hocking County Juvenile Court and is working closely with Bonnie Loudner from Good Guides Mentoring Program, a part of Good Will Industries, to match youth to adults and recruit and train adults in the community to become mentors.
As an "RFHC Cheerleader," Carol and her husband Roy have personally sponsored monthly activities and awards for Juvenile Treatment Court and Treatment Court graduations.

Photo caption: Roy (left) and Carol (right) Martin at the recent Athens-Hocking-Vinton 317 Board Annual Meeting. Carol Martin received the Hocking County Substance Abuse Prevention Award at recent Athens-Hocking-Vinton 317 Board Annual Meeting. 

Attorney general Eric Holder has published a new blog post about youth violence prevention, highlighting the efforts of cities participating in the National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention.
Here's an excerpt:

Throughout my career, I have seen the devastating effects of youth violence far too often. As a prosecutor and a judge; as a U.S. Attorney, as Deputy Attorney General – and, above all, as the father of three teenage children – I’ve been determined to make the progress that our nation’s young people deserve.
In September of 2009, this country was shocked by a video depicting the brutal beating and murder of a 16-year-old Chicago honor student. That savage attack was seared into our collective memory, and it left an indelible mark on the community where it took place. But, tragically, it is just one horrifying example of the violence that many young people face every day, in cities and towns across this country.
In response to this crisis, last year, President Obama directed the Departments of Justice and Education to partner with other federal agencies – and with representatives from six cities – to launch the National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention, a network of committed stakeholders dedicated to stopping the brutality and bloodshed that devastates too many of the youngest members of our society. The six cities participating in the Forum — Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Memphis, Salinas, Calif. and San Jose, Calif. — have made great strides toward developing and implementing comprehensive crime prevention strategies tailored to eradicating the violence that has ravaged their communities and stolen so many promising futures.

A recent YouTube video of a Texas judge beating his then 16-year-old daughter with a leather belt has reignited the debate over the effectiveness and morality of corporal punishment in the home.
Judge William Adams, 51, contended he did nothing wrong and was simply punishing his daughter for stealing after the teen was caught downloading illegally distributed music from the internet.
Local police in Aransas, Texas have launched an investigation into the judges actions, but under state law — provided the actions were administered in the interest of “reasonable punishment” – prosecutors may not have a statute to stand on.
Nineteen states, in red, have laws permitting corporal punishment in school.
Corporal punishment in the home had long been permissible under Texas law, and in 2005 state legislators took steps to strengthen those rights. House Bill 383 effectively set the standard for parental discipline as “reasonable punishment” and placed the burden of proof for abuse cases in the hands of the prosecutors. What exactly qualifies as reasonable punishment was not outlined in the bill.