Juvenile Justice Reform

It was like a giant switchboard, the kind you see in 30s and 40s movies, a bevy of operators plugging in a crisscross of wires, taking calls, making connections, a cacophony of chatter.
That image came to me recently as I walked into the lobby of the MassMutual Center in Springfield, Mass. The only difference was that the conversations filling the hall were about the same thing: girls and young women in the juvenile justice system.
We were there — teachers, social workers, lawyers, mentors, youth workers, college students and professors — for the Through Her Eyes conference sponsored by the Center for Human Development, a regional social services agency. This annual gathering, now in its seventh year, came about when a number of professionals expressed concern over the increased number of at-risk young females in “the system,” and the need for “best practices” to help this growing population. The Center for Human Development stepped up to address their concerns with the first Through Her Eyes conference in 2004.
This increase isn’t just a regional issue, however. It is a nationwide trend. According to the Institute on Women & Criminal Justice the number of women in prison has grown 832 percent in the past three decades. (The male population grew 416 percent during the same period.) Of this population African American girls and young women are the fastest growing group. The Department of Justice reports that black females are 2.5 times more likely to be arrested than Hispanics and 4.5 times more likely than whites.

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.

• Is moving a juvenile to adult court a mistake?
  As many as 9,000 times a year, U.S. judges move youth into criminal court, making it more likely that they will be held in adult jail. These transfers are meant for those suspected of dangerous offenses, but the Scripps Howard News Service found that only 2 out of 5 these kids stand accused of a violent crime against another person.
• District judges in Texas have new options for holding youth to be tried as adults
  In 29 states a loophole in a federal law allows juveniles facing prosecution as adults to be kept in county jails instead of juvenile detention facilities, where they face higher risks of suicide, physical assault and mental health problems — with limited access to therapy, education and specialized staff for juveniles. But in Texas, a new law passed by the Legislature allows district judges to order youth held at a juvenile facility.

• Using judo and grant funding to keep young people out of the system
  A new federal grant will help Ansonia, Connecticut, bolster programs and look at new ways to keep the city’s youth out of trouble. The funding addresses needs like mentoring, employment, family support, mental health, and diversion programs, like judo, to keep kids out of the juvenile justice system.

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)

Recently signed legislation in Maryland requires the state’s Department of Juvenile Services to report the recidivism rates for each juvenile in residential treatment, broken down by program and placement. This is excellent news for juvenile justice reform in Maryland.
According to an analysis by Maryland’s Department of Legislative Services, this reporting will not cost any additional taxpayer dollars, and yet the citizens of Maryland will receive two huge benefits. First, the legislature and the public will now have easy access to data on recidivism, broken down by type of program. This is a key reform because general recidivism rates can mask the success and failures of different programs, and particularized data is necessary to make informed legislative choices.
Second, the simple act of being required to report this data to the Maryland legislators will put the onus on Maryland’s juvenile justice stakeholders to improve their system. By having to publicly state their Department’s outcomes annually, Maryland will reach new levels of accountability in juvenile justice each year.
This bill is win-win: no additional costs and positive returns for taxpayers and justice in Maryland.

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?

• OJJDP launches DMC virtual resource center
  This online forum provides Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) coordinators, state advisory group members, and other juvenile justice professionals with tools to exchange ideas, share trainings and communicate about new practice standards.
• Treatment Center alters schedule in response to adolescent sleep data
  Because sleep can affect a teen's mood and emotional self-control, Rosecrance Health Network, the largest adolescent treatment center in Illinois, restructured their program to reduce patients’ sleep deficit. Outcomes are encouraging.
• Update: Illinois juvenile prisons 
  Conditions in Illinois juvenile prisons are improving, according to a report by the John Howard Association on Illinois, but problems of overcrowding, lack of education and inadequate staffing linger.

• New guide helps identify youth at risk for alcohol-related problems
  The National Institute for Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism has released Screening and Brief Intervention for Youth: A Practitioner’s Guide. This free tool can help healthcare professionals identify youth at risk for alcohol-related problems, counsel or advise them, and connect them to external sources of treatment. It contains a risk assessment survey and links to motivational interviewing resources.

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

I know a woman in Tennessee whose son was just sent to a youth detention center. He has had some problems with petty crime and drugs, and was sent to a treatment program for kids awhile back. He did not adapt very well to the program, and now he has been sent to this YDC for an indefinite period. He is 17 and the state can hold him until he is 21 if authorities decide he is not ready to be released.
She is trying to figure out how she can go see him for Thanksgiving. He is housed several hours away, and she doesn’t have a reliable vehicle to get her there. She is hoping the boy’s father, who lives in another town, will be willing to take her. Maybe he will.
This is her Thanksgiving.
There is something about the holiday season that makes these situations especially poignant for me. When I was on the inside, holidays weren’t so bad. Often the prisoners would come together and make meals, and guys would normally be a little nicer. We were all missing our families, and somehow that drew us together a little more than during the rest of the year. Somehow we were able to humanize one another a little more.
It’s only been since my release in December of 2009 that I have seen the other side of this story. For the families on the outside it is not a better time of year. When they gather around the table to eat a big meal and celebrate life there is a conspicuous absence. There is a gaping hole where their loved one should be.

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