Currently, California operates a dual system of juvenile justice — probation, group homes, ranches and camps are provided by its 58 counties, while the state provides youth prisons reserved for adolescents who have committed a serious or violent offense as defined in the state’s Welfare and Institutions Code.

All parole and reentry services are provided by the counties. Currently, there are only 1,193 youths housed at the state level, approximately 190 of them are juveniles tried as adults but who are too young to be housed in adult prison.

The state youth prisons, operated by the Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF, formerly the California Youth Authority), have a devastating history. In 1996, California housed approximately 10,000 juveniles in its youth prisons, at more than 150 percent its capacity. As with all overcrowded correctional institutions nation-wide, these facilities were rampant with violence, gang activity and abuse. Programming was minimal, and suicide rates were high.

In 2003, after a string of investigations and public outcry, a lawsuit was brought against the state demanding it improve its conditions to a constitutionally-mandated level of care. This was followed in 2007 by Senate Bill 81, requiring that only the highest risk offenders could be housed in the state facilities, resulting in a dramatic decrease in its population, to 1,193 youth today.

Seven years after the court ordered the state to reform its facilities, California is still struggling to meet its mandate. While progress has been made in reducing its population and improving its medical care, many of the needed reforms have not happened.

 According to a recent 2011 audit, incarcerated youth with mental health needs are receiving education in closets, showers and storerooms due to inadequate staffing and high levels of ward violence, if they receive education at all. Many youth are housed in confinement for 23 hours at a time, violating institutional policies and “willfully disobeying” the court’s order. On Oct. 27, 2011, the court will decide if DJF will be held in contempt of court for its continued inappropriate use of isolation.

Since the 1980′s, California has known that the optimal way to serve this high-risk youth population is to deliver programs locally and in smaller facilities. Individual counties such as San Francisco, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz have already developed and implemented effective interventions locally and currently serve this population with high rates of success. By innovative use of Medicaid funding for example, San Francisco County has been able to provide specialized mental health services to at-risk youth, avoiding reliance on incarceration or out-of-home placement.

The state, the courts, national experts and advocates all agreed on what is needed. A model juvenile justice system emphasizes alternatives to incarceration, local community-based services and evidence-based programs that target the highest-needs youth. Individual counties should collaborate to provide a cohesive and consistent approach to juvenile justice statewide, and California’s state role should be limited to monitoring, funding and coordinating these county efforts.

Why then has it not happened? In February of this year Gov. Jerry Brown proposed the elimination of the DJF and realignment of all juvenile offenders to the counties. However, concern about county capacity fueled by interest groups such as the California District Attorneys Association, and an ingrained institutional culture has prevented California from breaking the cycle of youth incarceration and state-dependence.  Rather, California continues to invest in an archaic and harmful state-managed juvenile justice system in the hopes that it can be reformed, at the annual cost of more than $224,000 per incarcerated youth.

California is clinging to a broken and irreparable system. Instead, it should abandon the derelict institutional model, and build a more meaningful and responsible approach to change.

The study found 37 percent of Georgia children lived in a single-parent household in 2009, a 1 percent increase from the year before, ranking Georgia 41^st in the nation in this category.

Georgia saw increases in almost every measurement including:

Children living in poverty (+2 percent)
Children living in families where no parent has full-time, year-round employment (+4 percent)
Teens aged 16-19 not in school and not working (+1 percent)
Teen deaths from all causes (+2 percent)

Only two measurements improved: The teen birth rate declined across all age groups and the number of teens aged 16 to 19 not in high school, who have not graduated fell by one percent. The infant mortality rate also dropped but only by 0.1 percent.

The economy was the trigger for many of the deteriorating numbers, including the increase in children living in poverty, says Heidi Reese-Anderson, client services coordinator with the Juvenile Justice Fund, an Atlanta-based child advocacy organization.

”The borderline individuals or families with children that were just making it by, having a place to live and feeding their families on a very low income -– that borderline is no longer a borderline,” Reese-Anderson said. As a result many children were suddenly, “homeless, hungry and neglected because their parents couldn’t maintain the little that they were holding on to before.”

According to Reese-Anderson, Georgia’s numbers will likely get worse before they get better, especially as the economy flirts with another recession.

For me, however, it was a strange and personal experience. Watching the show I was flooded by memories of my own time in prison, both as a young man and as an older prisoner in contact with “at risk youth.” I felt waves of emotion, mostly negative, as I watched fear and intimidation used, along with a smattering of humane connection, to bring about change in these young people.

When I first arrived at the youth prison in Alto (a notorious prison at the time in north Georgia) in 1985, I was placed in a dorm. The officer told us that if we were fighting and refused to stop when he called “break,” he would “bust our ‘tater” with his billy club.

This same officer, after catching me in an infraction, had me squat and walk around the dorm, quacking like a duck. I did this because I feared refusing and facing more severe punishment. This memory came back to me as I watched a similar scene on the show. The use of mindless exercise as punishment seemed similarly sadistic to me. I do not recall that this experience had any positive effect on me. Conversely, I instead became more skilled at not getting caught.

I was particularly disturbed by the threats of assault, extortion, rape and sexual slavery that were used in “Beyond Scared Straight,” to persuade the children that prison was not a good place to be. Not only did the prisoners use these threats, they were reinforced by the guards and even some of the parents. I saw all of these acts carried out during my time in prison, and to imagine that they would be endorsed in any fashion seems insane to me. I cannot imagine that threatening a child with rape will ever have a good result.

It seems that these types of behaviors appeal to the people who watch the show. Perhaps they experience some vicarious satisfaction in seeing people threatened and humiliated “for a good cause.” Like in a Hollywood movie, they enjoy seeing the bad kids get their comeuppance. Then, in the end, their sadistic fascination is justified, thanks to professional editing, when the children magically become “good.”

The scenes that brought back good memories for me were when the prisoners actually talked to the kids about their lives and experiences. When this authentic human communication was happening it seemed that the kids opened up and considered their own lives.

This was my experience when I had the opportunity to talk with young people from schools, YDCs and alternative programs. In one group we met with children every month of the school year. We were able to establish rapport and trust, and when we spoke about our lives they listened. In these meetings we learned about them and the problems they were facing.

For many of them there was little parental support. Often their parents were prisoners or drug addicts. For some of them we were the first adults they felt truly connected to, and because of that I believe we had a positive influence. When I saw the prisoners in the program really talking to the kids instead of playing a role, it seemed that the youngsters were listening. Kids can sense authenticity, and in those moments when the guards and prisoners were being honest, I think there was a positive effect.

Why cloud that with threats and manufactured stress and drama?

In my experience, most people respond to honesty and empathy. When a sergeant featured in the show was sharing that her mother was a drug addict, and that she understood the temptation to act tough, she was connecting with a kid named Jose in a way that helped him see himself. When she was screaming at him, or letting prisoners threaten him with rape and assault, he was further away from change than ever. Fear can create change, but it is usually short term, and it almost always comes at the price of resentment and hardening of the heart.

As appealing as the tactics displayed in “Beyond Scared Straight” might be to some, even if their motivation to help is honest, they are not as effective as programs that foster real connection and understanding.

I believe that not only are they unhelpful, they are actually harmful in the long run.

]]> http://www.literacyforincarceratedteens.org/2011/08/john-lash-on-scared-straight-from-a-personal-experience/feed/ 0 http://www.literacyforincarceratedteens.org/2011/08/kids-count-significant-decline-in-children%e2%80%99s-economic-well-being-over-past-decade/ http://www.literacyforincarceratedteens.org/2011/08/kids-count-significant-decline-in-children%e2%80%99s-economic-well-being-over-past-decade/#comments Wed, 17 Aug 2011 04:01:47 +0000 Clay Duda http://jjie.org/?p=20070

There has been a significant decline in economic well being for low-income children and families in the last decade, according to the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s annual KIDS COUNT Data Book.

Among the findings, the official child poverty rate, a conservative measure of economic hardship according to the report, increased 18 percent between 2000 and 2009. The increase represents 2.4 million more children now living below the federal poverty line, returning to roughly the same levels as the early 1990’s.

“In 2009, 42 percent of our nation’s children, or 31 million, lived in families with incomes below twice the federal poverty line or $43,512/year for a family of four, a minimum needed for most families to make ends meet,” Laura Speer, associate director for Policy Reform and Data at the Casey Foundation, said in a press release. “The recent recession has wiped out many of the economic gains for children that occurred in the late 1990’s.”

In the past two decades, since the Casey Foundation started the KIDS COUNT report, significant gains have been recorded in the overall health and safety of children.

Since 2000, five of the ten key indicators of child well being examined by the Foundation improved, three areas worsened and two were not comparable to earlier data, but show a negative trend since 2007, the earliest year comparable data is available.

Areas that showed improvement since 2000:

]]> http://www.literacyforincarceratedteens.org/2011/08/kids-count-significant-decline-in-children%e2%80%99s-economic-well-being-over-past-decade/feed/ 0 http://www.literacyforincarceratedteens.org/2011/08/beyond-scared-straight-program-%e2%80%9cincoherent%e2%80%9d-according-to-conflict-management-expert/ http://www.literacyforincarceratedteens.org/2011/08/beyond-scared-straight-program-%e2%80%9cincoherent%e2%80%9d-according-to-conflict-management-expert/#comments Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:41:14 +0000 Ryan Schill http://jjie.org/?p=20202 Set to air Thursday at 8 p.m., the premier episode of the new season of the controversial reality show, “Beyond Scared Straight,” adheres to the themes that made it A&E’s most watched show: A small group of at-risk youth spend the day in prison where they are yelled at, intimidated and humiliated by sheriff’s deputies and inmates alike. The screaming and threats of prison rape are followed by emotional conversations with the inmates as they describe to the teens where they went wrong and how the teens can avoid the same fate.

The episode features Mecklenburg County, N.C.’s “Reality Program,” created by Sheriff Daniel “Chipp” Bailey.

“Our Reality Program stresses education, not intimidation,” Bailey is quoted as saying on the program’s website.

According to the website, the mission of the program is to “provide the community with a program which will help educate young people about the long-term effects of participating in criminal activity.”

After watching the show, non-violent communication and conflict management expert Dr. Heather Pincock was baffled.

“There is no coherent approach in the diversion program,” Pincock said. “Most of the episode they [the deputies] were there to intimidate the youth or break the youth down or humiliate them. Then they suddenly start saying. ‘We’re your friends, we’re here to help you.’ There are very mixed messages around their role. It doesn’t make any sense.”

The scenes with inmates were also troubling to Pincock. “The way the inmates are represented, it’s complete chaos, and it is kind of glorifying or sensationalizing this idea that the people that are incarcerated there are completely out of control or inhuman.” But later, she said, the same inmates were shown having intimate conversations with the teens. “It seems highly incoherent as an intervention or a way to communicate a message to at-risk youth. It didn’t strike me as well thought at.”

Teens applying for the program must come from local schools, according to the application for the program. JJIE also obtained a release form parents must sign when enrolling their children in the “Reality Program.” The form absolves the Sheriff’s Office from any liability should their child be injured while participating in the program.

The form also states that it is a “program of the Mecklenburg County Sheriff’s Office, in cooperation with Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools” and others.  When asked about the school district’s involvement with the program, a school district spokesperson said they do not endorse the “Reality Program.”

Despite having no involvement with the program, spokesperson Lauren Bell said that school resource officers, some of whom are employed by the Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department, are permitted to provide information about the program to students. Resource officers do not provide information about other diversion programs, Bell said.

“The resource officers do not endorse or discourage the program,” she said.

As JJIE reported previously, “Beyond Scared Straight” has been drawing criticism from juvenile justice experts who say the program is ineffective and a waste of money. They cite studies that show scared straight programs are actually counter-productive.

But the show’s producer, Arnold Shapiro, claims those studies are wrong and too old to be relevant. He says today’s scared straight programs work better because of the added counseling portion.

Over 110 years ago in Chicago, America changed direction in its criminal justice system and began to recognize the needs of young people required differential treatment when compared to the needs of adults. This was the birth of the juvenile justice system we now have today. More than a century of research and best-practice support this founding premise that youth are fundamentally different than adults, in both their level of responsibility as well as their potential for rehabilitation. This investment in the potential of our young is reaping positive benefits.

Juvenile crime is trending downward. According to the U.S. Department of Justice

Between 1994 and 2001, violent crime arrest rates declined for all age groups, but the declines were greater for juveniles than for adults. More specifically, the rates dropped 43 percent for youth ages 15-17, compared with 23 percent for adults ages 18-24, 27 percent for those ages 25-29, and 19 percent for those ages 30-39.

The national juvenile Violent Crime Index arrest rate fell for the second consecutive year and is down 5 percent since 2006.

As these numbers seem to indicate, the application of scientific principles to juvenile justice is not “being soft on crime” but in fact, an effective crime prevention strategy.

In spite of these successes, our juvenile system is under attack:

Critical juvenile justice funding is at stake

On the federal level, Congress has cut federal juvenile justice funds it provides to states more than 50 percent in the past 10 years and even more draconian cuts are being considered.
Many state budgets have been squeezed by the economic downturn and one of the more popular cuts has been juvenile services.
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), the federal office under the Department of Justice that oversees juvenile justice still has not had an administrator appointed, a vacancy of more than over, leaving a void in national leadership and advocacy.

Season 2 of Beyond Scared Straight premieres, Thursday August 18^th on A&E

After becoming the highest rated program in the history of the Disney-owned A&E network, a new season of this “reality” show returns to titillate the curious and misinformed. (See my previous piece on the dangers of Scared Straight.)

While the first two bullets are disheartening to juvenile justice professionals nationally, it is the third bullet, “Beyond Scared Straight,” that will be my focus.

Despite:

Several states suspending or discontinuing this programming (California, Maryland, Rohde Island and South Carolina)
20+ years of scientific research that shows the negative results of this type of programming
Position pieces by the U.S. Department of Justice and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges condemning Scared Straight programming

The producers of “Beyond Scared Straight” think they are the experts. They know more than juvenile justice researchers, practitioners and juvenile court judges who deal with youth on a daily basis? Why? What could be the possible reason? Is it their education? Is it proven results? Is it overly inflated Hollywood egoism? Do they truly have a better idea for helping children?

No, the producers just have a better soapbox. This television show is their cash cow.

They are lining their pockets on the misery of children (and hapless prison accomplices) while enhancing the bottom line of the network’s parent company Disney. Watch if you will, but know what you are supporting.

Now for even bigger questions:

Why should we support programming that uses threats of physical and sexual violence against children in order to (hopefully) change their behavior? Would we allow our school teachers to engage in this type of behavior? More importantly, would we allow parents to engage in this behavior? ‘Scared Straight’ models the very behaviors we are attempting to prevent our young from engaging!

Let’s say what the producers of this program are afraid to admit:

The scared straight approach is an inappropriate and unacceptable means for disciplining children. This approach has been shown to cause short- and long- term harm and actually INCREASES the likelihood of re-offending among some participants.

Given the nature of the abuses witnessed over the show’s first season, I am surprised that child abuse/maltreatment charges have not been brought forth.

Should we as a society give in to our base impulses, give up and embrace the bleak vision ‘Scared Straight’ offers our children?

There is a difference between tough love and abuse. There is a difference between holding youth accountable and punishment. And there is a critical difference between a parent and a prisoner.

‘Scared Straight’ programming follows a course of action that is at odds with reason, compassion and scientific principles. It is a desperate short-sighted, short-term solution offered to frustrated parents and juvenile administrators to solve a long-range problem, changing the behavior of their youth.

Unfortunately there are no short-cuts. There is not a magic vaccine to inoculate against juvenile crime. Now is not the time to turn our back on the investments we have made, the knowledge gained through research and the countless lives changed through the application of these scientific principles.

We must stay the course set more than 110 years ago.

Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives everything its value. –Thomas Paine

As JJIE reported at the time of the show’s debut in January, juvenile justice experts are concerned the show may be sending the wrong message. They point to studies that say scared straight-style programs are not only ineffective, but also counter-productive.

Joe Vignati is the head of justice programs at the Governor’s Office for Children and Families in Georgia. In January, he wrote in an op-ed on JJIE.org that “the research is clear, once the trauma of Scared Straight has worn off, meta-analysis shows that this intervention actually INCREASES the odds of offending compared to a no-treatment control group.”

The program’s producer, Arnold Shapiro, claims the studies are wrong. He says current scared straight programs incorporate counseling along with the yelling making them more beneficial.

“Academic studies don’t work,” Shapiro told JJIE in January.  “It’s all about follow-up.  I’ve done more follow-up than anyone. Scared Straight: 20 Years Later is the longest study ever done.”

The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges issued a statement in January claiming, “’Beyond Scared Straight’ misrepresents the effectivenesss of such interventions with youthful offenders . . . It is clear these types of interventions as portrayed are neither developmentally appropriate nor trauma-informed.”

My sister Wendy was a therapist who was passionate about supporting young people with mental health problems. Almost 20 years ago she was murdered by one of her patients. All these years later, I only now am at a place where I can consider this crime from a position of empathy. I understand that I can choose what meaning to make of this experience.

I will never “get over” her death nor do I expect to shed the feeling of loss and deep sadness that comes from not having her in the world. She was truly a bright light in the world. She was my big sister and I looked up to her. I admired her commitment to justice, her warmth, her seemingly endless energy.

But, I believe it dishonors my sister’s memory every time a young person is sentenced to die in prison. In California prisons, nearly 300 youth have been sentenced to life in prison without parole. How can we decide that a young person’s life is entirely without worth when they are still unformed and immature?

Our broken system is far from offering real justice to either victims or offenders. Real justice would address the needs of victims through supportive services. Real justice would require meaningful accountability and provide opportunities for rehabilitation for young people. Real justice would take into account the scientific truth that young people’s brains differ from those of adults in fundamental ways including a lack of impulse control, short-sighted decision making and vulnerability to peer and adult influence.

Over the last year, I have been working to help pass Senate Bill 9, a California law that would give young people sentenced to life without parole a second chance. If passed, it would give the more than 300 (and counting) people serving this sentence in California prisons the possibility of a hearing to determine if they deserve to be re-sentenced to a minimum sentence of 25-years-to-life.

At that meeting in May, I reflected on what had brought me to that particular place. This is how I explain it: In that room with me were three women, all of whom have brothers who were sentenced to life without parole as juveniles. Like me, each one of them has personal knowledge of the irrevocable nature of loss. Every day they wake up, knowing that no matter what happens in the future, no matter who their brothers become as 40-, 50- or 60- year-old men, they may never leave prison. I cannot and will not compare our losses. I do know that we share a belief in redemption, transformation and people’s capacity for change.

Every act of violence creates ripples of destruction. The ripples are immeasurable; a child lost his mother, my siblings and I lost our sister, parents lost their daughter, another family lost their son. For me, working to pass SB9 is an interruption of those circles of loss and despair. I can’t bring my sister back, but when I imagine stopping those ever-widening circles from flowing outward, I can feel her presence.

]]> http://www.literacyforincarceratedteens.org/2011/08/rebecca-weiker-on-the-need-to-pass-crucial-juvenile-justice-reform-in-california/feed/ 0 http://www.literacyforincarceratedteens.org/2011/08/riots-in-u-k-force-a-renewed-look-at-juvenile-justice-system/ http://www.literacyforincarceratedteens.org/2011/08/riots-in-u-k-force-a-renewed-look-at-juvenile-justice-system/#comments Mon, 15 Aug 2011 15:40:56 +0000 Staff http://jjie.org/?p=20117 The recent riots in Britain have forced policy makers to look anew at a juvenile justice system that has historically focused on rehabilitation and diversion.

An AP story details growing public outrage and frustration of officials within the system to what they see as a soft approach to juvenile crime.

The change in tone has been set by Prime Minister David Cameron, who as recently as 2006 was celebrating programs aimed at understating marginalized youth, including one dubbed “Hug a Hoodie.”

Today, however, after major riots in London, Birmingham and Manchester and other U.K cities, the prime minister threatens not only jail but a loss of government support, including housing subsidies for young people participating in the disturbances.

Thousands have been arrested during and after the riots with about half of them, police say, under the age of 18.