Real Juvenile Justice Saves Our Youth-- and Our Tax Dollars
Sign Now
Three questions:
1. Do you think that our county and state should stop senselessly throwing our youth (and our tax dollars) away with our current system of juvenile detention and instead embrace the common-sense, cost-effective juvenile justice reforms laid out below proven to be effective in Santa Cruz and Alameda counties in California, Multnomah County in Oregon, and all across Missouri?
[see cjcj.org/jjic/reforming.php]
2. Do you agree with the July 28th letter to Dutchess County Legislators from Sam Busselle (long-time appointee to our county's Criminal Justice Council) on how Dutchess County should delay no longer in setting up a "Supervised Community Residence for Youth"?
[see PetitionOnline.com/ATIs]
Sam Busselle: "This recommendation has been made to the CJC and by the CJC to the legislature since the 1999 report. At that time it was stated that 12-15 jail beds would be saved. There has been nothing since then that has suggested that this residence would be anything but beneficial. It is substantiated in this report based on the number of youth in the Community Transitions day reporting Center who do not have adequate housing. Six years later we are still studying the feasibility of such a residence! Using the estimate of $40 per day for a supervised residence, this would save the county around $500,000 per year and as stated in the report: 'not only have an impact on the jail, but also on the rest of the criminal justice system.'"
3. Do you think that our state legislature should pass Assemblyman Vito Lopez' proposal (A.4211) to make sure that counties like ours can develop a "home detention program to permit juveniles who are pending adjudication, disposition or placement by the family court to remain in the custody of their parents instead of a detention facility if such juvenile poses minimal risk to the community and the parent or guardian agrees to assume responsibility, with supervision of such program and provision of services by local agencies"?
If you agree with the above, sign on to this petition and pass it along to all you know.
Joel Tyner
Dutchess County Legislator
Clinton/Rhinebeck
324 Browns Pond Road
Staatsburg, NY 12580
[email protected]
(845) 876-2488
--------------------------------
From the bill memo for the Lopez home detention bill (A.4211)...
[see assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A04211]
"To provide home detention programs as a constructive and cost
efficient alternative for juveniles placed in a detention facility.
Administrative agencies responsible for detention of alleged juvenile
delinquents need detention options which enable the agencies to
maximize public safety while at the same time care for juveniles in
the least restrictive environment necessary to ensure their appearance
in court. Home detention programs are a detention alternative, which
has proven to be effective, economically sound and responsive in other
states such as Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan. Home detention programs offer a structured and supportive environment without removing the children from their family or community. Such programs teach children to cope with the stresses of their environment and to develop independence, so that they may become productive citizens in their own communities.
Home detention programs in New York State would save the State and its localities the high cost of detention in institutions. One estimate of
the basic cost to supervise a child in a home detention for one day is
only $68. Based on one estimate of the cost of detention in a facility at $247 per day per child, home detention would save $179 every day for every child in a home detention program. This would be a savings of $89.50 for the locality and $89.50 for New York State per child per day.
Currently, because the definition of detention requires children to be
detained out of their homes, administrative agencies responsible for
juvenile detention are unable to institute a home detention program.
This bill would amend relevant State and New York City statutes to
include home detention programs and allow agencies the option of using this rehabilitative, cost-effective alternative to institutional
detention.
This bill would result in savings to the State as a result of avoiding
a greater cost for placement in a detention facility."
--------------------------------
From the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice...
[see http://www.cjcj.org/jjic/reforming.php ]
Models for Detention Alternatives
"Detention should be viewed as a legal status with varying levels of custody supervision, rather than as a prison."
[Guiding Principle #1 for developing effective detention alternatives from Annie E. Casey Foundation's Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiatives Program]
PRE-ADJUDICATION CONTINUUM
Instead of offering a continuum of options, according to the risks and needs of each individual child, the current system in many jurisdictions offers only two options for youth who have been arrested: they are sent home or detained in a secure facility.
Youth at this stage have not been convicted of any crime. Therefore detention is not intended to punish or rehabilitate them, but rather to ensure that they appear at court hearings, and to ensure that they do not commit new offenses.
With these goals in mind, there are many ways youth may be monitored before their hearings. Most do not need or benefit from secure detention, but because there are so few established alternatives juvenile halls are perpetually over-crowded with youth who should not be there.
Some successful alternatives include:
HOME CONFINEMENT
Home confinement is currently the most common alternative to detention in a Juvenile Hall. It is extremely cost-effective and has been very successful. Many counties have shown 90\% success rates or higher, determined by the number of youth who appear at all hearings and do not re-offend.
Youth live at home or with relatives, abide by a strict curfew and are restricted to an agreed upon schedule of activities, usually including school and church. Probation officers supervise youth through unscheduled visits or phone calls. If youth do not comply with the curfew or agreements, they can be moved into a more restrictive level of detention.
COMMUNITY SUPERVISION
Community Supervision is a model that works with Home Confinement and assigns a community representative to each case. Community representatives can be volunteers or staff from local nonprofits or private agencies that are familiar with the youth's neighborhood and can provide face-to-face supervision and, in some cases, advocacy. Some programs also include a community service component that the community representative oversees.
DAY OR EVENING REPORTING CENTERS
Day and Evening Reporting Centers provide 6-12 hours of daily supervision and structured activities for youth who need more intensive supervision. Youth who are not enrolled in school may be good candidates for a day center, because they need more structured time. Youth who are enrolled in school receive better supervision from Evening Reporting Centers, during the after-school hours when kids most often get in trouble.
Reporting centers offer tutoring, counseling and recreational activities. They are not meant to be treatment centers, which have different expectations that are more appropriate for post-disposition youth with assessed problems who are found guilty of specific crimes.
NON-SECURE SHELTERS
Non-Secure Shelters may be appropriate for youth who need a higher level of supervision or for youth who do not have a safe or suitable home environment.
A shelter is an unlocked facility where residential staff provide supervision 24-hours a day, seven days a week. There is usually a low staff to youth ratio and an on-site case manager. Programs include education, recreation, tutoring and life skills training.
Shelters should never be used as long-term placement options. They are meant only for the temporary pretrial detention.
STAFF-SECURE SHELTER CARE
When secure detention is necessary, a small-scale regionally based locked residence can offer more individual programming and attention and can lead to lower recidivism rates.
POST-DISPOSITION CONTINUUM
Post disposition models are community-based alternatives for juveniles facing institutional incarceration. Following a sentencing hearing, offenders are placed somewhere on a continuum of community-based programs, based on an evaluation of the youth's criminal offense, risk to reoffend, and home environment.
Some successful alternatives include:
Nonresidential/ Community-Based
Nonresidential community-based programs link nonviolent youth at low risk to re-offend with resources in the community while allowing them to continue living at home. While incarcerating low-risk youth may have a negative influence on them, nonresidential programs promote the interaction between offenders and responsible community members to alter criminal tendencies.
Case managers supervise their participation in the community. Rules set by case managers govern the actions of youth in the community to monitor their devotion to rehabilitation. Attendance at program meetings is mandatory, and case managers monitor the programs to ensure that youth fulfill their duties.
Residential
Residential programs place dependent and neglected youth in stable, family environments. Foster care is a residential program that places one or two troubled youths with a family. A group home is a residential program that arranges 3-12 youth in a close environment where staff and youth simulate a family.
Case managers oversee their clients participation in residential programs and they consult with individual youth to design a continuum of care. Families and staff members secure the home by establishing a strict set of explicit rules. Youth must remain on home ground unless given permission to leave. Attending school, or working a job, is mandatory and they are expected to return directly home in the evening.
Staff-Secure Residential
Staff secure residential facilities offer a short-term, unlocked treatment alternative for nonviolent offenders, not in need confinement, but at-risk to re-offend. Small groups of youth are placed together according to similarities in age, gender and delinquency history. Along with intensive counseling and academic or vocational courses, youth are encouraged to build relationships with people outside the facility in order to prepare for a less restrictive environment.
Secure Care
A community-based secure care facility offers violent and chronic juvenile offenders the least restrictive setting for punishment and rehabilitation services. Secure care facilities offer an alternative to the training school model, with small, locked living units housing 10-15 youth where individual attention is granted and close-knit relationships can be formed.
Drug treatment, individual and family counseling, recreation, employment, and educational programs are available to treat the emotional and behavioral problems of youth. Offenders in secure care maintain contact with parents and community members while in confinement to build a support network in the community that is available upon release. Movement to a less secure facility is granted upon an assessment of the youth's performance in treatment programs.
References:
DeMuro, Paul. "Consider the Alternatives: Planning and Implementing Detention Alternatives," Pathways to Juvenile Detention Reform Series, No. 4. Annie E. Casey Foundation. [http://www.aecf.org/initiatives/jdai/pdf/4_consider.pdf] (PDF)
Principles of a Model Juvenile Justice System, Maryland Juvenile Justice Coalition, February 2002. [http://www.acy.org/juvenilejustice.htm]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Model Counties: Santa Cruz County, California
Since 1997, Santa Cruz County has been working with the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Youth Law Center and the National Juvenile Detention Association to reform the juvenile justice system.
Overcrowding was a key problem in Santa Cruz County. In January of 1997, the 42-bed juvenile hall was operating at 133\% of its capacity. Instead of building its way out of this problem, Santa Cruz instituted a host of detention alternatives that resulted in a 40-50\% drop in the detained youth population.
Santa Cruz County also streamlined its intake process, reduced the average length of stay in detention, and focused on removing racial bias from key decision points in the process.
Reforms in Santa Cruz County, California
61 -Number of youth detained in the Santa Cruz Juvenile Hall in January 1997 (42-bed facility)
36 -Number of youth detained in the Santa Cruz Juvenile Hall on June 21, 2002.
10 -Average length of stay in the Santa Cruz Juvenile Hall in 2000.
27 -Average length of stay in juvenile halls in California in 2000.
95 -\% of youth under home supervision who attend all court hearings and do not re-offend during court process.
18 -\% that disproportionate minority confinement has been reduced since 1997
Creating Alternatives to Detention
Recognizing the harmful effects of incarceration, particularly in overcrowded facilities, Santa Cruz made strides to reduce its detained population. By developing and implementing a risk assessment tool, intake officers could determine the level of risk youth posed, and detain only those at highest risk to run away or reoffend. For many other youth, the county developed viable alternatives.
* Home Supervision is used as the most common alternative to Juvenile Hall detention. Youth are not permitted to leave home except for school, work, authorized treatment programs or other approved appointments. Probation Officers supervise youth through unscheduled home visits, school visits and phone calls. Home supervision is often combined with community-based services like drug treatment or counseling. This program has had a 95\% success rate, defined by the portion of youth who attend all court hearings and do not reoffend during the court process.
* Electronic Monitoring is used for higher risk youth, who would otherwise be placed in juvenile detention. A transmitter attached to the youth's ankle sends a message to the Probation Officer each time he or she leaves the house. Combined with intensive supervision, the success rate for this program has been 98\%.
* Youth Community Restoration Program (Y-Corp) provides a community service alternative to commitment days in Juvenile Hall. Seven to ten youth work under supervision on weekend days doing community restoration projects instead of spending time in Juvenile Hall.
* System of Care was developed by the Probation Department in partnership with Santa Cruz Children's Mental Health as a community-based, service delivery system to be an alternative to post-disposition out-of-home placements. The core tenet of this program is that children benefit most from rehabilitation when they are in their own homes with their families or when they are in the least restrictive, most natural and culturally appropriate setting possible. Santa Cruz now has one of the lowest out of home placement rates in the state.
For youth who are detained, the County has reduced the average length to 9 or 10 days -- one of the lowest in the state. Cases are moved wherever the court orders them quickly and the county monitors all of its decision points regularly
Resources: Probation Department of Santa Cruz County [http://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/prb/org/juvenileservices.html]
Judith A. Cox, Assistant Chief Probation Officer, Santa Cruz County "Addressing Disproportionate Minority Representation within the Juvenile Justice System."
John P. Rhoads, Chief Probation Officer, Santa Cruz County "Juvenile Detention Reform in Santa Cruz County." keynote speech, Second Annual Juvenile Defender Summit 2002. Cal Western Law School, San Diego, California, March 2, 2002.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Model Counties: Multnomah County, Oregon
For the past eight years, Multnomah County has been one of a few selected jurisdictions in the nation to take part in the Annie E. Casey Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative. With the help of grants and technical support from the foundation, this Portland-area County has dramatically reformed its juvenile detention system.
Results have been extraordinarily successful. The County has seen a consistent decline in detention admissions by increasing the number of detention alternatives. Crime rates have dropped, and case-processing time is now one of the fastest in the nation. One of the greatest impacts of these reforms is reducing the over-representation of minorities in secure detention.
Reforms in Multnomah County, Oregon
92 -Average daily detention population in 1992.
33 -Average daily detention population in 2000.
26 -\% decline in crime rates between 1994 and 2000.
42 -\% of minority youth referred to detention who were detained in 1994.
32 -\% of white youth detained in 1994.
22 -The identical \% of white and minority youth detained in 2000.
Reducing Disparate Minority Confinement
In 1994, minority youth in Multnomah County were 31\% more likely to be detained than white youth. By 2000, the detention rates were identical. Here are some of the reasons why:
* A Disproportionate Minority Confinement Committee was established to make racial equity a priority throughout the reform process. Committee members were drawn from the juvenile court, police department, district attorney, public schools, county commission, probation, and Portland State University to set up a collaborative relationships and a model for the reform process.
* Data-Driven Research Tools were used throughout the reform process to provide objective analyses that may have helped curb the defensiveness and emotion which surround politically sensitive subjects like race.
* Detention Alternatives were established, including shelter care, foster homes, home detention, and a day reporting center. Many programs were contracted out to local providers in communities of color, where the majority of detained youth live.
* A Sanctions Grid of Detention Alternatives for Violaters of Parole (VOP's) was developed. Before reform, 20-30\% of admissions to detention were VOP's, with little regard to actual need or threat that the youth posed. The county developed a "sanctions grid" that included things like a warning, and then community service before the intake staff could re-detain a VOP. This tool helped to minimize staff inconsistencies and detention levels.
* Objective Screening and Assessment Measures - A cross-agency team spent over a year developing and testing a Risk Assesment Instrument (RAI) to guide admissions decisions. The RAI avoids criteria like "good family structure" or "gang affiliation" that may be very subjective or skewed to the detriment of minority youth.
* A Detention Intake Team was created to implement the RAI and to hold itself accountable for equitable treatment of minorities. The team reviews every single youth in detention every day and looks at their RAI scores, their case status and their amenability to treatment. This level of close scrutiny and quality control have led to swift and successful compliance with the systems reform efforts.
* Increased Staff Diversity and Diversity Training
Resources: Department of Community Justice, Multnomah County Oregon [http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/dcj/jcjdetreform.html]
Reducing Disproportionate Minority Confinement: The Multnomah County, Oregon Success Story and its Implications, The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice [http://www.cjcj.org/pubs/portland/portland.html]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Model States: Missouri
While most of the country relies on youth training schools (large correctional institutions housing anywhere between 100-1200 youth) to confine juvenile offenders, Missouri has a well-developed system of community-based residential and non-residential programs. In 1983, Missouri closed its only large training school and transitioned from an incarceration model to a rehabilitation model. Youth now go to one of 30 regional, small-scale corrections centers, where they live in dormitories instead of cells, or they go to one of many non-residential programs.
By moving away from the monolithic large training school system, youth can be placed in more specialized programs according to their real needs.
Smaller, regionally based programs provide more individual attention and treat youth as part of their communities and families.
Missouri recidivism rates have been as low as 11\%, dramatically lower than the rest of the country.
Reform in Missouri
33 -The maximum number of beds in all but three of Missouri's juvenile detention facilities.
62 -The \% of youth nationwide who are housed in public correctional facilities with more than 110 residents.
11 -\% Missouri's average recidivism rate.
91 -\% California's recidivism rate for 98-99.
Missouri's Community-Based Rehabilitation Programs
Three-quarters of juvenile offenders committed to Missouri's Division of Youth Services are assigned to non-residential community programs, group homes or less-secure facilities.
* Non-Secure Group Homes (10-12 beds) are alternatives for youth who have committed status offenses or misdemeanors. They offer more structure, support and supervision than families can provide. Youth in group homes generally spend time in school, jobs, group projects, and community service. They also participate in group, individual and family counseling.
* Moderately Secure Group Homes (20-30 beds) are alternatives for youth who have committed more serious crimes and can benefit from more supervision. These youth also spend time in the community on service projects. Those who have demonstrated trustworthiness also have an opportunity to get jobs at local nonprofit or government agencies.
* Day Treatment Programs (15 youth) offer academics, counseling, community service, and tutoring for youth during the day and allow them to stay with their families at night. This is often a step-down from a residential program for many youth, and it provides extra structure and support to ease their transition.
* Treatment is an integral part of all residential and non-residential programs. Ninety-minute group sessions led daily by specialists help youth reflect on their emotions and behavior patterns.
* Family-Involvement is also an integral part of the rehabilitation process. Youth are rarely placed more than a one or two hour drive from their families. Therapists drive family members to the residential facilities to participate in family therapy sessions.
Resources:
Interview with Dennis Gragg, Asst. Deputy Director at the Missouri Division of Youth Services [http://www.dss.state.mo.us/dys/]
Challenge #1: Reduce Overreliance on Incarceration, American Youth Policy Forum [http://www.aypf.org/lesscost/pages/03.pdf] (PDF)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Promoting Juvenile Justice Reform: Alameda County
In Alameda County, the movement to reform the juvenile justice system isn't coming from the top. It's coming from the grass roots, and the leaders are the people most effected - youth.
In June 2001, Alameda County announced plans for a new, 540-bed Juvenile Hall. The proposed facility would be nearly 50\% larger than its current 330-bed facility. The new facility would be bigger than those in cities like Chicago, where they have nearly five times the population
Youth fought against this proposal, on the basis that 25\% of the current detained population is waiting to be placed in court-ordered community programs, and that concentrating funds in a super jail would increase incarceration and decrease funding for more effective alternative programs.
Alameda County Youth Take the Lead on Juvenile Justice Reform
In a startling victory, young activists organized and supported by Books Not Bars and a coalition of organizations, convinced the Board of Corrections to take back the $2.3 Million in pre-approved funding that was earmarked for the expansion. In another victory, they convinced the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to reduced the number of beds to 420, but the youth say this is still too many and the proposed hall is still too far away from the families and communities of most detained youth. Here are some alternative reforms that youth are advocating:
* Hire a Case Expediter to find placements for the youth currently in Juvenile Hall (25\%) and are waiting for non-residential community programs.
* Increase Alternatives to Detention like home supervision for youth waiting for trial and group homes for youth after their trials.
* Improve Risk Assessment Instrument to reduce the incarceration of low or moderate risk youth who are better served by detention alternatives.
* Prioritize Reducing Racial Disparities by following the models of Multnomah County, Oregon or Santa Cruz County, CA. In Alameda County, 59\% of the youth in Juvenile Hall are African American, although only 17\% of the youth in the County are Black. White youth, alternately, are 33\% of the County's youth population but only 14\% of the youth in Juvenile Hall.
Resources:
Alameda County at the Crossroads of Juvenile Justice Reform: A National Disgrace -or A National Model? Edited by Ying-Sun Ho and C. Lenore Anderson. Written by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights / Books Not Bars, the National Center for Youth Law, the National Council on Crime and Delinquency and the Youth Law Center. April 2002. [www.booksnotbars.org/popups/pop041602.html]
"Books Not Bars & Youth Force Score Stunning 'Upset' Win; Activists Block Money to Build 'Biggest' Juvenile Hall in U.S.: A Youth-Led Movement Against Prisons is Gathering Steam," Books Not Bars, May 2001. [http://www.booksnotbars.org/news/news.html#Anchor-47857]
--------------------------------
From the Coalition for Juvenile Justice...
[see http://www.juvjustice.org/resources/fs010.html ]
Alternatives to Detention in the Juvenile Justice System
CJJ Position Statement on Detention Reform
Youth accused of crimes should be held in secure detention prior to a decision of guilt for only the specific reasons prescribed by law.
Detention reform should be implemented around the country to reduce the number of youth inappropriately or unnecessarily detained, reduce racial inequalities in the juvenile court system and improve conditions of confinement for detained youth.
Creating alternatives to detention can help eliminate inequalities in the juvenile justice system, improve services for young offenders and keep communities safe.
Two legal reasons for pretrial detention
1. The child is deemed a risk to the safety of others or himself unless detained.
2. The child is deemed a risk not to show up in court for his hearing.
Three Basic Alternatives to Detention
1. Home confinement with frequent unannounced visits and phone calls by probation officers or surrogates from nonprofit agencies
2. Day/evening reporting centers that provide more intensive oversight and structured activities
3. Shelters serving runaways, homeless children and other youth who need 24-hour supervision or custodial care
Background
* The detention stage of the juvenile court process occurs after arrest and before a determination of guilt.
* "Detention center" is the official term for a juvenile jail.
* Detention reforms include a wide-range (or "continuum") of alternatives to detention with community-based programs and degrees of supervision. All keep at-risk youth close to home, community and enrolled in school.
Detention Facts
* A one-day snapshot of juvenile offenders in detention found that 34\% were status offenders-youth whose actions are considered delinquent because of their minor (usually under age 18) status.
* Only 22\% of detained youth are held for violent offenses.
* Overcrowding in juvenile detention centers leads to increased levels of violence and suicides.
* Nearly 70\% of children in public detention centers are in facilities operating above their design capacity.
* In 1996, secure detention was used nearly twice as often for black youth as for white youth who committed the same offense.
* African-Americans comprise 15\% of the general population under age 18, yet make up 31\% of juvenile cases formally processed through the juvenile court system and 44\% of youth detained prior to trial.
* In 1997, in every state in the country (except Vermont) the minority population of detained youth exceeded their proportion in the general population.
SOURCES: Annie E. Casey Foundation; Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; Building Blocks for Youth
Reducing Unnecessary Admissions
* Detention reforms in Chicago, Portland and Sacramento achieved significant reductions in unnecessary or inappropriate detention admissions, significant improvements in the conditions of confinement and saw no increase in failure-to-appear rates or pretrial crime rates.
* After legislative detention reforms in Florida, annual admissions to secure detention statewide decreased by 13 percent.
* Detention reforms have significantly reduced the percentage of youth unnecessarily or inappropriately admitted to secure detention centers (the "rate of admission for detention referrals") around the country:
* Sacramento County's rate declined 13\%;
* Cook County, Illinois reduced its rate from around 70\% to 45\%; and
* Multnomah County, Oregon lowered its rate from 15\% to 7\%.
* For accused young offenders in secure detention centers, Sacramento County, Cook County and Multnomah County each reduced case processing times-39\%, 28\% and 43\% respectively.
SOURCE: Annie E. Casey Foundation
Reducing Racial Inequality
* Since the start of detention reform efforts in 1996, the number of minority youth in unnecessary detention in Cook County dropped 31\%.
* Santa Cruz, California saw a 22\% decrease in the percentage of the detention population that was Latino (the county's largest minority youth population) since implementation of alternatives to detention initiatives in 1997.
* In Multnomah County, Oregon, a once wide gap in the odds that minority youth versus white youth would be detained was completely eliminated with the implementation of detention reform.
SOURCE: Annie E. Casey Foundation
1. Do you think that our county and state should stop senselessly throwing our youth (and our tax dollars) away with our current system of juvenile detention and instead embrace the common-sense, cost-effective juvenile justice reforms laid out below proven to be effective in Santa Cruz and Alameda counties in California, Multnomah County in Oregon, and all across Missouri?
[see cjcj.org/jjic/reforming.php]
2. Do you agree with the July 28th letter to Dutchess County Legislators from Sam Busselle (long-time appointee to our county's Criminal Justice Council) on how Dutchess County should delay no longer in setting up a "Supervised Community Residence for Youth"?
[see PetitionOnline.com/ATIs]
Sam Busselle: "This recommendation has been made to the CJC and by the CJC to the legislature since the 1999 report. At that time it was stated that 12-15 jail beds would be saved. There has been nothing since then that has suggested that this residence would be anything but beneficial. It is substantiated in this report based on the number of youth in the Community Transitions day reporting Center who do not have adequate housing. Six years later we are still studying the feasibility of such a residence! Using the estimate of $40 per day for a supervised residence, this would save the county around $500,000 per year and as stated in the report: 'not only have an impact on the jail, but also on the rest of the criminal justice system.'"
3. Do you think that our state legislature should pass Assemblyman Vito Lopez' proposal (A.4211) to make sure that counties like ours can develop a "home detention program to permit juveniles who are pending adjudication, disposition or placement by the family court to remain in the custody of their parents instead of a detention facility if such juvenile poses minimal risk to the community and the parent or guardian agrees to assume responsibility, with supervision of such program and provision of services by local agencies"?
If you agree with the above, sign on to this petition and pass it along to all you know.
Joel Tyner
Dutchess County Legislator
Clinton/Rhinebeck
324 Browns Pond Road
Staatsburg, NY 12580
[email protected]
(845) 876-2488
--------------------------------
From the bill memo for the Lopez home detention bill (A.4211)...
[see assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A04211]
"To provide home detention programs as a constructive and cost
efficient alternative for juveniles placed in a detention facility.
Administrative agencies responsible for detention of alleged juvenile
delinquents need detention options which enable the agencies to
maximize public safety while at the same time care for juveniles in
the least restrictive environment necessary to ensure their appearance
in court. Home detention programs are a detention alternative, which
has proven to be effective, economically sound and responsive in other
states such as Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan. Home detention programs offer a structured and supportive environment without removing the children from their family or community. Such programs teach children to cope with the stresses of their environment and to develop independence, so that they may become productive citizens in their own communities.
Home detention programs in New York State would save the State and its localities the high cost of detention in institutions. One estimate of
the basic cost to supervise a child in a home detention for one day is
only $68. Based on one estimate of the cost of detention in a facility at $247 per day per child, home detention would save $179 every day for every child in a home detention program. This would be a savings of $89.50 for the locality and $89.50 for New York State per child per day.
Currently, because the definition of detention requires children to be
detained out of their homes, administrative agencies responsible for
juvenile detention are unable to institute a home detention program.
This bill would amend relevant State and New York City statutes to
include home detention programs and allow agencies the option of using this rehabilitative, cost-effective alternative to institutional
detention.
This bill would result in savings to the State as a result of avoiding
a greater cost for placement in a detention facility."
--------------------------------
From the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice...
[see http://www.cjcj.org/jjic/reforming.php ]
Models for Detention Alternatives
"Detention should be viewed as a legal status with varying levels of custody supervision, rather than as a prison."
[Guiding Principle #1 for developing effective detention alternatives from Annie E. Casey Foundation's Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiatives Program]
PRE-ADJUDICATION CONTINUUM
Instead of offering a continuum of options, according to the risks and needs of each individual child, the current system in many jurisdictions offers only two options for youth who have been arrested: they are sent home or detained in a secure facility.
Youth at this stage have not been convicted of any crime. Therefore detention is not intended to punish or rehabilitate them, but rather to ensure that they appear at court hearings, and to ensure that they do not commit new offenses.
With these goals in mind, there are many ways youth may be monitored before their hearings. Most do not need or benefit from secure detention, but because there are so few established alternatives juvenile halls are perpetually over-crowded with youth who should not be there.
Some successful alternatives include:
HOME CONFINEMENT
Home confinement is currently the most common alternative to detention in a Juvenile Hall. It is extremely cost-effective and has been very successful. Many counties have shown 90\% success rates or higher, determined by the number of youth who appear at all hearings and do not re-offend.
Youth live at home or with relatives, abide by a strict curfew and are restricted to an agreed upon schedule of activities, usually including school and church. Probation officers supervise youth through unscheduled visits or phone calls. If youth do not comply with the curfew or agreements, they can be moved into a more restrictive level of detention.
COMMUNITY SUPERVISION
Community Supervision is a model that works with Home Confinement and assigns a community representative to each case. Community representatives can be volunteers or staff from local nonprofits or private agencies that are familiar with the youth's neighborhood and can provide face-to-face supervision and, in some cases, advocacy. Some programs also include a community service component that the community representative oversees.
DAY OR EVENING REPORTING CENTERS
Day and Evening Reporting Centers provide 6-12 hours of daily supervision and structured activities for youth who need more intensive supervision. Youth who are not enrolled in school may be good candidates for a day center, because they need more structured time. Youth who are enrolled in school receive better supervision from Evening Reporting Centers, during the after-school hours when kids most often get in trouble.
Reporting centers offer tutoring, counseling and recreational activities. They are not meant to be treatment centers, which have different expectations that are more appropriate for post-disposition youth with assessed problems who are found guilty of specific crimes.
NON-SECURE SHELTERS
Non-Secure Shelters may be appropriate for youth who need a higher level of supervision or for youth who do not have a safe or suitable home environment.
A shelter is an unlocked facility where residential staff provide supervision 24-hours a day, seven days a week. There is usually a low staff to youth ratio and an on-site case manager. Programs include education, recreation, tutoring and life skills training.
Shelters should never be used as long-term placement options. They are meant only for the temporary pretrial detention.
STAFF-SECURE SHELTER CARE
When secure detention is necessary, a small-scale regionally based locked residence can offer more individual programming and attention and can lead to lower recidivism rates.
POST-DISPOSITION CONTINUUM
Post disposition models are community-based alternatives for juveniles facing institutional incarceration. Following a sentencing hearing, offenders are placed somewhere on a continuum of community-based programs, based on an evaluation of the youth's criminal offense, risk to reoffend, and home environment.
Some successful alternatives include:
Nonresidential/ Community-Based
Nonresidential community-based programs link nonviolent youth at low risk to re-offend with resources in the community while allowing them to continue living at home. While incarcerating low-risk youth may have a negative influence on them, nonresidential programs promote the interaction between offenders and responsible community members to alter criminal tendencies.
Case managers supervise their participation in the community. Rules set by case managers govern the actions of youth in the community to monitor their devotion to rehabilitation. Attendance at program meetings is mandatory, and case managers monitor the programs to ensure that youth fulfill their duties.
Residential
Residential programs place dependent and neglected youth in stable, family environments. Foster care is a residential program that places one or two troubled youths with a family. A group home is a residential program that arranges 3-12 youth in a close environment where staff and youth simulate a family.
Case managers oversee their clients participation in residential programs and they consult with individual youth to design a continuum of care. Families and staff members secure the home by establishing a strict set of explicit rules. Youth must remain on home ground unless given permission to leave. Attending school, or working a job, is mandatory and they are expected to return directly home in the evening.
Staff-Secure Residential
Staff secure residential facilities offer a short-term, unlocked treatment alternative for nonviolent offenders, not in need confinement, but at-risk to re-offend. Small groups of youth are placed together according to similarities in age, gender and delinquency history. Along with intensive counseling and academic or vocational courses, youth are encouraged to build relationships with people outside the facility in order to prepare for a less restrictive environment.
Secure Care
A community-based secure care facility offers violent and chronic juvenile offenders the least restrictive setting for punishment and rehabilitation services. Secure care facilities offer an alternative to the training school model, with small, locked living units housing 10-15 youth where individual attention is granted and close-knit relationships can be formed.
Drug treatment, individual and family counseling, recreation, employment, and educational programs are available to treat the emotional and behavioral problems of youth. Offenders in secure care maintain contact with parents and community members while in confinement to build a support network in the community that is available upon release. Movement to a less secure facility is granted upon an assessment of the youth's performance in treatment programs.
References:
DeMuro, Paul. "Consider the Alternatives: Planning and Implementing Detention Alternatives," Pathways to Juvenile Detention Reform Series, No. 4. Annie E. Casey Foundation. [http://www.aecf.org/initiatives/jdai/pdf/4_consider.pdf] (PDF)
Principles of a Model Juvenile Justice System, Maryland Juvenile Justice Coalition, February 2002. [http://www.acy.org/juvenilejustice.htm]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Model Counties: Santa Cruz County, California
Since 1997, Santa Cruz County has been working with the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Youth Law Center and the National Juvenile Detention Association to reform the juvenile justice system.
Overcrowding was a key problem in Santa Cruz County. In January of 1997, the 42-bed juvenile hall was operating at 133\% of its capacity. Instead of building its way out of this problem, Santa Cruz instituted a host of detention alternatives that resulted in a 40-50\% drop in the detained youth population.
Santa Cruz County also streamlined its intake process, reduced the average length of stay in detention, and focused on removing racial bias from key decision points in the process.
Reforms in Santa Cruz County, California
61 -Number of youth detained in the Santa Cruz Juvenile Hall in January 1997 (42-bed facility)
36 -Number of youth detained in the Santa Cruz Juvenile Hall on June 21, 2002.
10 -Average length of stay in the Santa Cruz Juvenile Hall in 2000.
27 -Average length of stay in juvenile halls in California in 2000.
95 -\% of youth under home supervision who attend all court hearings and do not re-offend during court process.
18 -\% that disproportionate minority confinement has been reduced since 1997
Creating Alternatives to Detention
Recognizing the harmful effects of incarceration, particularly in overcrowded facilities, Santa Cruz made strides to reduce its detained population. By developing and implementing a risk assessment tool, intake officers could determine the level of risk youth posed, and detain only those at highest risk to run away or reoffend. For many other youth, the county developed viable alternatives.
* Home Supervision is used as the most common alternative to Juvenile Hall detention. Youth are not permitted to leave home except for school, work, authorized treatment programs or other approved appointments. Probation Officers supervise youth through unscheduled home visits, school visits and phone calls. Home supervision is often combined with community-based services like drug treatment or counseling. This program has had a 95\% success rate, defined by the portion of youth who attend all court hearings and do not reoffend during the court process.
* Electronic Monitoring is used for higher risk youth, who would otherwise be placed in juvenile detention. A transmitter attached to the youth's ankle sends a message to the Probation Officer each time he or she leaves the house. Combined with intensive supervision, the success rate for this program has been 98\%.
* Youth Community Restoration Program (Y-Corp) provides a community service alternative to commitment days in Juvenile Hall. Seven to ten youth work under supervision on weekend days doing community restoration projects instead of spending time in Juvenile Hall.
* System of Care was developed by the Probation Department in partnership with Santa Cruz Children's Mental Health as a community-based, service delivery system to be an alternative to post-disposition out-of-home placements. The core tenet of this program is that children benefit most from rehabilitation when they are in their own homes with their families or when they are in the least restrictive, most natural and culturally appropriate setting possible. Santa Cruz now has one of the lowest out of home placement rates in the state.
For youth who are detained, the County has reduced the average length to 9 or 10 days -- one of the lowest in the state. Cases are moved wherever the court orders them quickly and the county monitors all of its decision points regularly
Resources: Probation Department of Santa Cruz County [http://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/prb/org/juvenileservices.html]
Judith A. Cox, Assistant Chief Probation Officer, Santa Cruz County "Addressing Disproportionate Minority Representation within the Juvenile Justice System."
John P. Rhoads, Chief Probation Officer, Santa Cruz County "Juvenile Detention Reform in Santa Cruz County." keynote speech, Second Annual Juvenile Defender Summit 2002. Cal Western Law School, San Diego, California, March 2, 2002.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Model Counties: Multnomah County, Oregon
For the past eight years, Multnomah County has been one of a few selected jurisdictions in the nation to take part in the Annie E. Casey Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative. With the help of grants and technical support from the foundation, this Portland-area County has dramatically reformed its juvenile detention system.
Results have been extraordinarily successful. The County has seen a consistent decline in detention admissions by increasing the number of detention alternatives. Crime rates have dropped, and case-processing time is now one of the fastest in the nation. One of the greatest impacts of these reforms is reducing the over-representation of minorities in secure detention.
Reforms in Multnomah County, Oregon
92 -Average daily detention population in 1992.
33 -Average daily detention population in 2000.
26 -\% decline in crime rates between 1994 and 2000.
42 -\% of minority youth referred to detention who were detained in 1994.
32 -\% of white youth detained in 1994.
22 -The identical \% of white and minority youth detained in 2000.
Reducing Disparate Minority Confinement
In 1994, minority youth in Multnomah County were 31\% more likely to be detained than white youth. By 2000, the detention rates were identical. Here are some of the reasons why:
* A Disproportionate Minority Confinement Committee was established to make racial equity a priority throughout the reform process. Committee members were drawn from the juvenile court, police department, district attorney, public schools, county commission, probation, and Portland State University to set up a collaborative relationships and a model for the reform process.
* Data-Driven Research Tools were used throughout the reform process to provide objective analyses that may have helped curb the defensiveness and emotion which surround politically sensitive subjects like race.
* Detention Alternatives were established, including shelter care, foster homes, home detention, and a day reporting center. Many programs were contracted out to local providers in communities of color, where the majority of detained youth live.
* A Sanctions Grid of Detention Alternatives for Violaters of Parole (VOP's) was developed. Before reform, 20-30\% of admissions to detention were VOP's, with little regard to actual need or threat that the youth posed. The county developed a "sanctions grid" that included things like a warning, and then community service before the intake staff could re-detain a VOP. This tool helped to minimize staff inconsistencies and detention levels.
* Objective Screening and Assessment Measures - A cross-agency team spent over a year developing and testing a Risk Assesment Instrument (RAI) to guide admissions decisions. The RAI avoids criteria like "good family structure" or "gang affiliation" that may be very subjective or skewed to the detriment of minority youth.
* A Detention Intake Team was created to implement the RAI and to hold itself accountable for equitable treatment of minorities. The team reviews every single youth in detention every day and looks at their RAI scores, their case status and their amenability to treatment. This level of close scrutiny and quality control have led to swift and successful compliance with the systems reform efforts.
* Increased Staff Diversity and Diversity Training
Resources: Department of Community Justice, Multnomah County Oregon [http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/dcj/jcjdetreform.html]
Reducing Disproportionate Minority Confinement: The Multnomah County, Oregon Success Story and its Implications, The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice [http://www.cjcj.org/pubs/portland/portland.html]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Model States: Missouri
While most of the country relies on youth training schools (large correctional institutions housing anywhere between 100-1200 youth) to confine juvenile offenders, Missouri has a well-developed system of community-based residential and non-residential programs. In 1983, Missouri closed its only large training school and transitioned from an incarceration model to a rehabilitation model. Youth now go to one of 30 regional, small-scale corrections centers, where they live in dormitories instead of cells, or they go to one of many non-residential programs.
By moving away from the monolithic large training school system, youth can be placed in more specialized programs according to their real needs.
Smaller, regionally based programs provide more individual attention and treat youth as part of their communities and families.
Missouri recidivism rates have been as low as 11\%, dramatically lower than the rest of the country.
Reform in Missouri
33 -The maximum number of beds in all but three of Missouri's juvenile detention facilities.
62 -The \% of youth nationwide who are housed in public correctional facilities with more than 110 residents.
11 -\% Missouri's average recidivism rate.
91 -\% California's recidivism rate for 98-99.
Missouri's Community-Based Rehabilitation Programs
Three-quarters of juvenile offenders committed to Missouri's Division of Youth Services are assigned to non-residential community programs, group homes or less-secure facilities.
* Non-Secure Group Homes (10-12 beds) are alternatives for youth who have committed status offenses or misdemeanors. They offer more structure, support and supervision than families can provide. Youth in group homes generally spend time in school, jobs, group projects, and community service. They also participate in group, individual and family counseling.
* Moderately Secure Group Homes (20-30 beds) are alternatives for youth who have committed more serious crimes and can benefit from more supervision. These youth also spend time in the community on service projects. Those who have demonstrated trustworthiness also have an opportunity to get jobs at local nonprofit or government agencies.
* Day Treatment Programs (15 youth) offer academics, counseling, community service, and tutoring for youth during the day and allow them to stay with their families at night. This is often a step-down from a residential program for many youth, and it provides extra structure and support to ease their transition.
* Treatment is an integral part of all residential and non-residential programs. Ninety-minute group sessions led daily by specialists help youth reflect on their emotions and behavior patterns.
* Family-Involvement is also an integral part of the rehabilitation process. Youth are rarely placed more than a one or two hour drive from their families. Therapists drive family members to the residential facilities to participate in family therapy sessions.
Resources:
Interview with Dennis Gragg, Asst. Deputy Director at the Missouri Division of Youth Services [http://www.dss.state.mo.us/dys/]
Challenge #1: Reduce Overreliance on Incarceration, American Youth Policy Forum [http://www.aypf.org/lesscost/pages/03.pdf] (PDF)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Promoting Juvenile Justice Reform: Alameda County
In Alameda County, the movement to reform the juvenile justice system isn't coming from the top. It's coming from the grass roots, and the leaders are the people most effected - youth.
In June 2001, Alameda County announced plans for a new, 540-bed Juvenile Hall. The proposed facility would be nearly 50\% larger than its current 330-bed facility. The new facility would be bigger than those in cities like Chicago, where they have nearly five times the population
Youth fought against this proposal, on the basis that 25\% of the current detained population is waiting to be placed in court-ordered community programs, and that concentrating funds in a super jail would increase incarceration and decrease funding for more effective alternative programs.
Alameda County Youth Take the Lead on Juvenile Justice Reform
In a startling victory, young activists organized and supported by Books Not Bars and a coalition of organizations, convinced the Board of Corrections to take back the $2.3 Million in pre-approved funding that was earmarked for the expansion. In another victory, they convinced the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to reduced the number of beds to 420, but the youth say this is still too many and the proposed hall is still too far away from the families and communities of most detained youth. Here are some alternative reforms that youth are advocating:
* Hire a Case Expediter to find placements for the youth currently in Juvenile Hall (25\%) and are waiting for non-residential community programs.
* Increase Alternatives to Detention like home supervision for youth waiting for trial and group homes for youth after their trials.
* Improve Risk Assessment Instrument to reduce the incarceration of low or moderate risk youth who are better served by detention alternatives.
* Prioritize Reducing Racial Disparities by following the models of Multnomah County, Oregon or Santa Cruz County, CA. In Alameda County, 59\% of the youth in Juvenile Hall are African American, although only 17\% of the youth in the County are Black. White youth, alternately, are 33\% of the County's youth population but only 14\% of the youth in Juvenile Hall.
Resources:
Alameda County at the Crossroads of Juvenile Justice Reform: A National Disgrace -or A National Model? Edited by Ying-Sun Ho and C. Lenore Anderson. Written by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights / Books Not Bars, the National Center for Youth Law, the National Council on Crime and Delinquency and the Youth Law Center. April 2002. [www.booksnotbars.org/popups/pop041602.html]
"Books Not Bars & Youth Force Score Stunning 'Upset' Win; Activists Block Money to Build 'Biggest' Juvenile Hall in U.S.: A Youth-Led Movement Against Prisons is Gathering Steam," Books Not Bars, May 2001. [http://www.booksnotbars.org/news/news.html#Anchor-47857]
--------------------------------
From the Coalition for Juvenile Justice...
[see http://www.juvjustice.org/resources/fs010.html ]
Alternatives to Detention in the Juvenile Justice System
CJJ Position Statement on Detention Reform
Youth accused of crimes should be held in secure detention prior to a decision of guilt for only the specific reasons prescribed by law.
Detention reform should be implemented around the country to reduce the number of youth inappropriately or unnecessarily detained, reduce racial inequalities in the juvenile court system and improve conditions of confinement for detained youth.
Creating alternatives to detention can help eliminate inequalities in the juvenile justice system, improve services for young offenders and keep communities safe.
Two legal reasons for pretrial detention
1. The child is deemed a risk to the safety of others or himself unless detained.
2. The child is deemed a risk not to show up in court for his hearing.
Three Basic Alternatives to Detention
1. Home confinement with frequent unannounced visits and phone calls by probation officers or surrogates from nonprofit agencies
2. Day/evening reporting centers that provide more intensive oversight and structured activities
3. Shelters serving runaways, homeless children and other youth who need 24-hour supervision or custodial care
Background
* The detention stage of the juvenile court process occurs after arrest and before a determination of guilt.
* "Detention center" is the official term for a juvenile jail.
* Detention reforms include a wide-range (or "continuum") of alternatives to detention with community-based programs and degrees of supervision. All keep at-risk youth close to home, community and enrolled in school.
Detention Facts
* A one-day snapshot of juvenile offenders in detention found that 34\% were status offenders-youth whose actions are considered delinquent because of their minor (usually under age 18) status.
* Only 22\% of detained youth are held for violent offenses.
* Overcrowding in juvenile detention centers leads to increased levels of violence and suicides.
* Nearly 70\% of children in public detention centers are in facilities operating above their design capacity.
* In 1996, secure detention was used nearly twice as often for black youth as for white youth who committed the same offense.
* African-Americans comprise 15\% of the general population under age 18, yet make up 31\% of juvenile cases formally processed through the juvenile court system and 44\% of youth detained prior to trial.
* In 1997, in every state in the country (except Vermont) the minority population of detained youth exceeded their proportion in the general population.
SOURCES: Annie E. Casey Foundation; Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; Building Blocks for Youth
Reducing Unnecessary Admissions
* Detention reforms in Chicago, Portland and Sacramento achieved significant reductions in unnecessary or inappropriate detention admissions, significant improvements in the conditions of confinement and saw no increase in failure-to-appear rates or pretrial crime rates.
* After legislative detention reforms in Florida, annual admissions to secure detention statewide decreased by 13 percent.
* Detention reforms have significantly reduced the percentage of youth unnecessarily or inappropriately admitted to secure detention centers (the "rate of admission for detention referrals") around the country:
* Sacramento County's rate declined 13\%;
* Cook County, Illinois reduced its rate from around 70\% to 45\%; and
* Multnomah County, Oregon lowered its rate from 15\% to 7\%.
* For accused young offenders in secure detention centers, Sacramento County, Cook County and Multnomah County each reduced case processing times-39\%, 28\% and 43\% respectively.
SOURCE: Annie E. Casey Foundation
Reducing Racial Inequality
* Since the start of detention reform efforts in 1996, the number of minority youth in unnecessary detention in Cook County dropped 31\%.
* Santa Cruz, California saw a 22\% decrease in the percentage of the detention population that was Latino (the county's largest minority youth population) since implementation of alternatives to detention initiatives in 1997.
* In Multnomah County, Oregon, a once wide gap in the odds that minority youth versus white youth would be detained was completely eliminated with the implementation of detention reform.
SOURCE: Annie E. Casey Foundation
Sign The Petition
Continue with Google
OR
If you already have an account please sign in, otherwise register an account for free then sign the petition filling the fields below.
Email and password will be your account data, you will be able to sign other petitions after logging in.
Shoutbox
Goal
0 signatures
Goal: 50
Tags
No tags
Embed Codes
direct link
link for html
link for forum without title
link for forum with title
