Reforming Juvenile Justice A Developmental Approach (2013) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
9 Achieving Reform
9 Achieving Reform
Pages 241-280
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 241... ...
More often than not, they exist simultaneously in a jurisdiction. Sometimes we found that innovations were initially focused on one particular aspect of the juvenile justice system, such as reduction in the use of detention, but in the process of addressing a particular problem, the initiative took on a larger focus and was scaled up geographically or was broadened to address other issues (e.g., reducing racial/ethnic disparities)
|
From page 242... ...
. Retaining juveniles in the juvenile justice system -- Some states have raised the age of exclusive juvenile court jurisdiction (Connecticut, Il linois, Mississippi)
|
From page 243... ...
. Building multisystem approaches in child welfare and juvenile justice -- Approximately 40 counties across the country are advancing the Crossover Youth Practice Model, developed by Casey Family Pro grams and the Center for Juvenile Justice Reform at the Georgetown University Public Policy Institute.
|
From page 244... ...
Organizations and stakeholders supporting the re-authorization of OJJDP strongly advocate for its continued role in promoting reform and an increase in grant support to the states to carry out OJJDP's mandated reform activities (Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 2008; National Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Coalition, 2011a, 2011b)
|
From page 245... ...
In two widely touted examples of major statewide innovations, in Massachusetts and Missouri, the impetus for change came from elected officials and state administrators with juvenile justice oversight. The Massachusetts Experiment During the early 1970s, Jerome Miller, director of youth services in Massachusetts, conceived and led an effort to close the state's correctional training schools1 and replace them with a network of decentralized c ommunity-based services and several small, secure units for violent juvenile offenders.
|
From page 246... ...
After the Department of Youth Services, a free-standing agency within the Department of Social Services, was established, the idea of regional treatment was expanded and two large training schools were closed during the 1970s and 1980s. A major milestone occurred in 1987, when the legislature created a bipartisan Youth Services Advisory Board composed of local and state lawmakers and experts with responsibility for planning the state's juvenile treatment and placement services.
|
From page 247... ...
From 1979 to 1981, OJJDP also provided start-up funding to juvenile law centers. Two current legal centers funded during this period 2 The committee acknowledges that there may be other statewide juvenile justice reform e fforts that are more extensive or have had a greater impact than that of the Missouri model.
|
From page 248... ...
Mathew Cate lawsuit, which resulted in a far-reaching consent decree requiring the state to implement six different remedial plans. The work of the Juvenile Law Center and the Youth Law Center is highlighted in this report because of their longevity and the scope of their activities.
|
From page 249... ...
Changes i ncluded hiring up to 115 juvenile correctional officers. The agreement also supports improved mental health services, enhanced educational, medical and dental services and a capacity goal on the youth population.6,7 Juvenile Law Center The Juvenile Law Center was established in 1975 to deal with issues affecting juveniles and dependent children.8 Originally a walk-in clinic for any youth up to age 21 needing a lawyer, over the years it has broadened its scope to include not only on the juvenile justice system but also on the dependency and foster care systems, with a particular emphasis on youth aging out of foster care.
|
From page 250... ...
In December 2011, the plaintiffs were awarded partial settlement of more than $17 million subject to the court's approval.9 The Juvenile Law Center regards its most importance contribution to be the attention it has brought to the need for systemic change.10 Prison Litigation Reform Act Since the mid-1990s, privately funded juvenile law centers have found it more difficult to sue on behalf of their youthful clients (Mendel, 2011)
|
From page 251... ...
. Through several settlement agreements, the state addressed numerous safety, education, and medical remedial measures.14 Of great 13 From information compiled by the Youth Law Center in May 2011 and made available to the committee in July 2011.
|
From page 252... ...
because the investigation involved only four facilities. It also focused narrowly on mental health and conditions of confinement and did not address inadequate educational programs or lack of compli 15 Telephone interview with Judy Preston, staff attorney, special litigation unit, civil rights division, U.S.
|
From page 253... ...
Furthermore, DOJ is requiring New York City to carry out the settlement and policies developed prior to it, after the city assumes responsibility for city youth in state custody.18 In conclusion, litigation provides an incentive to reform policies and practices of juvenile justice systems. As one might imagine, state juvenile justice agencies want to avoid unfavorable media attention and protracted litigation.
|
From page 254... ...
Casey Foundation initiated in 1992 the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) -- perhaps the most widely replicated reform initiative since the passage of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974.
|
From page 255... ...
JDAI sites reported a one-third decrease in the average daily population of detention facilities, a 30 percent decrease in detention admissions, and a 5 percent decrease in average length of stay across all JDAI jurisdictions in comparison to the baseline year. JDAI reported that annual commitments to state youth corrections by the JDAI sites decreased by one-third and out-ofhome placements decreased by 16 percent across all sites in comparison to the baseline year.
|
From page 256... ...
Casey Foundation, 2011, p.
|
From page 257... ...
The network's research efforts focused on understanding the capabilities and limitations of adolescents, their risk for public safety, and their potential for change.25 Among the important findings of the network's research was that a significant proportion of adolescents age 15 or younger are probably incompetent to stand trial, as judged by adult measures of competency; that there are significant age-related changes in a youth's ability to consider the consequences of his or her actions and susceptibility to peer pressure; that unconscious racial stereotyping causes African American adolescents to be seen as more "adult-like" and thus more blameworthy; and that the huge variability among serious offenders makes it difficult to predict future offending based on the presenting offense (MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice, 2006)
|
From page 258... ...
and Catherine T MacArthur Foundation, 2010)
|
From page 259... ...
Casey Foundation) and Georgetown's Center for Juvenile Justice Reform is implementing and testing the Crossover Youth Practice Model, specific practices aimed at reducing the number of youth who cross over between the two systems, the number of youth entering and reentering care, and the length of stay in out-of-home care (Herz et al., 2012)
|
From page 260... ...
Although helpful in categorizing the range and scope of activities supported under the mantle of Models for Change, the report concedes that 29 Examples of indicators include admissions to detention, average length of stay, and average daily population on a quarterly basis. Data are broken down by race, ethnicity, and gender.
|
From page 261... ...
32 Abby Anderson, executive director, Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance, Children's Law Center webinar, July 11, 2011. Available http://www.childrenslawky.org/webcasts/2011/5/9/ trends-and-challenges-in-juvenile-justice-reform-experiences.html [November 2011]
|
From page 262... ...
. 36 Sue Burrell, staff attorney, Youth Law Center, Children's Law Center webinar, July 11, 2011 (Children's Law Center, Inc., 2011)
|
From page 263... ...
JJPL teamed with Family and Friends of Louisiana's Incarcerated Children (FFLIC) , an organization formed in 2001 to serve as the collective voice of parents 38 Sue Burrell, staff attorney, Youth Law Center, Children's Law Center webinar, July 11, 2011 (Children's Law Center, Inc., 2011)
|
From page 264... ...
; Felony Commitments and Revocations of Parole for FY2002-2011 spreadsheet provided in an e-mail from Ryan Gies, deputy director, Courts and Community Services, Ohio Department of Youth Services, August 24, 2012; e-mail from Cherie Townsend, former executive director, Texas Department of Juvenile Justice (December 14, 2011)
|
From page 265... ...
Casey Foundation, the Youth Law Center, the Justice Policy Institute, and the Grassroots Initiative. Two years of intense advocacy work resulted in the passage of the Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 2003 (known as Act 1225)
|
From page 266... ...
Incentives have been offered to jurisdictions with the highest placement rates to divert youth from detention, and reinvestment funds have been targeted to community-based services in those jurisdictions that are home to the greatest number of youth placed in state custody.42 PROMOTING AND SUSTAINING REFORM Previously reviewed evidence shows convincingly that reforming juvenile justice in accord with well-established principles of adolescent development can reduce offending and promote accountability while treating juvenile offenders fairly and serving their individual needs. There is no need to trade public safety for due process and individualized treatment.
|
From page 267... ...
However, the committee is impressed with the reformers' ability to generate and consolidate stakeholder coalitions, build a consensus regarding the necessary changes, create the infrastructure needed to maintain momentum, and sustain the effort over the long run. This accumulated experience inspires optimism that juvenile justice reform can be achieved successfully on a national scale.
|
From page 268... ...
. In summary, resolving data issues and having good data systems appear to be paramount to launching reform activities.
|
From page 269... ...
Accommodations on specific issues will be needed, such as satisfying prosecutorial concerns about the jurisdictional borders between juvenile courts and criminal courts, but prosecutors are not institutionally or professionally opposed to the juvenile justice reforms described in this report if they are presented with the evidence and are convinced that interventions will be undertaken to ensure public safety and satisfy legitimate public expectations about accountability. The organizational culture of juvenile justice agencies may impede innovation.
|
From page 270... ...
. They also attribute the longevity of the Missouri model to stable leadership, an unusual occurrence in the United States, where a juvenile corrections administrator serves an average of 2.8 years.45 One common feature of many successfully implemented reforms is a significant investment in TTA to address organizational culture and to smooth the way for implementation by teaching specific operational skills and techniques essential to implementing reforms.
|
From page 271... ...
Texas passed legislation in 2011 combining two separate agencies, the Texas Youth Commission and the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission, into a unified state juvenile justice agency that has direct responsibility for youth committed to the state agency as well as responsibility to establish regulations and to pass through state funding to support youth who come to the attention of local juvenile justice agencies (Senate Bill 653, 82nd Regular Legislative Session [TX2007]
|
From page 272... ...
. 46 E-mail correspondence from Gladys Carrión, commissioner, New York Office of Children and Family Services, March 16, 2012.
|
From page 273... ...
Casey Foundation has acknowledged that rigorous replication of its JDAI model has been a challenge and attributes the difficulty to the demands of the model itself and the lack of a single dedicated funding source. A 2008 survey of its 54 sites revealed that almost all had formed leadership collaborations, had site coordinators and annual work plans with measurable outcomes, and had developed a data capacity.
|
From page 274... ...
• etween April 2009 and July 2012, Ohio more than halved the B average daily population of its state facilities. Source: Ryan Gies, deputy director, Courts and Community Services, Ohio Depart ment of Youth Services.
|
From page 275... ...
. The committee thinks that scientifically valid evaluations could contribute to replication efforts by providing solid evidence of the impact of reform activities and identifying effective elements of any reform model.
|
From page 276... ...
The new law, which went into effect on July 1, 2011, allows juveniles charged with arson, drug offenses, robbery, and child abuse to remain under the original jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system. Sustaining Reforms Sustaining juvenile justice reforms is regarded by at least one foundation as "the most challenging issue facing new and innovative juvenile justice programs today" (Wiig et al., 2010, p.
|
From page 277... ...
As described earlier, the reforms in Missouri have been sustained by four factors: stable leadership, organizational change, treatment strategies, and constituency buy-in. Critical to its political success has been a bipartisan Youth Services Advisory Board (see Appendix B)
|
From page 278... ...
have played an increasingly important role in building consensus around the need for reform and bringing reform activities to fruition. Collaboration among the foundations and reform-minded stakeholder organizations is urgently needed if the reforms achieved during the past decade are to be sustained.
|
From page 279... ...
The committee is puzzled about why systematic evaluation has not been undertaken and can only theorize that it has not been a priority given its expense and the practical difficulty of conducting them in sites that lack adequate research expertise and an infrastructure to conduct them successfully. The federal government can play an important role in facilitating efforts to improve data collection and analysis and supporting evaluations that will promote the adoption of developmentally appropriate policies and practices.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.