Journal of the Institute
Yüklə 1,2 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Challenges/Needs
InterventionsThere is a close association of academic achievement to delinquency and recidivism. Smaller class size and small group instruction provide more opportunities for interaction and meeting the individual needs of the students. Intervention programs need to have a parent component. Parent involvement is just as critical, if not more so, for the youth offenders at-risk. Issues involving lack of proper assessment and evaluation can result in the lack of appropriate programming. Once success has been achieved with students using a number of alternative interventions, it does not come without certain drawbacks or limitations. Chief among such limitations, are a serious lack of resources, both human and fiscal. Having adequate support is crucial to realizing success with this population but even more critical to maintaining the success. The cost of prevention and intervention is more cost effective than incarceration. Glick and Sturgeon (1999) cite the cost to taxpayers to incarcerate one substance abuser in prison is approximately $25,000 per year, on average according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Spending these same funds in prevention programs, for example, can keep as many as 100 young people from ever using drugs in the first place. Interventions that take into consideration how children learn may be as helpful for behavior problems as they are for academics. For example, if the teacher notices that a child is a strong visual learner who responds well to information presented in graphs, pictures and other visual representations, a visual behavior intervention might be tried. Once youth, who was artistic and a strong visual learner, responded extremely well to an imaging technique that helped him learn to walk down the school hallway without getting into fights (Powell-Brown, 2002). For a month, the middle schooler worked with a teacher to visualize his walks to various classes, as he either saw himself ignoring rowdy classmates, or responding to them with humor instead of anger. He experienced moderate success, which declined when the teacher was no longer available to work with him on strengthening his new behaviors. The procedure revealed that the motivation of the youth, combined with proper coaching, created a successful intervention based on the student’s strengths. Just as parents are critical to the success of youth, youth themselves bring inner resiliencies that when noted, employed and celebrated, foster dignity and pride – feelings that most have not known. Wolin & Wolin, (1993, 1994) followed youth, who, despite lives that were burdened with challenges that seemed insurmountable, were able to rise victoriously above their circumstances. These victorious youth were observed and interviewed for the purpose of discovering the source of their resiliencies, their abilities to rise above debilitating situations. Out of their research the Wolins identified seven traits employed by these young people. Youth may innately carry one or several of these. The first is insight, described as the ability to ask tough questions and generate honest answers. The second, independence, is the ability to keep emotional and physical distance while acting on conscience. The third, relationships, refers to the ability to establish intimate and fulfilling ties to other people that results in a balance of meeting one’s own needs while developing the capacity to give to someone else. The fourth, initiative, is the ability to take charge of problems and to stretch oneself in demanding roles. The fifth is humor, finding the comic in the tragic. Creativity, the sixth, is the ability to bring order, beauty or purpose out of troubling experiences and the seventh is morality which is acting in such a way that extends one’s goal for a good personal life to all humankind. These inner resiliencies have not been explored in the field of juvenile justice nor in the field of education. The Wolins challenge those who are charged with the responsibility of youth to first recognize the resiliencies, second, note their implementation and third, to encourage youth to take pride in their abilities to be resilient. Alternative education programs that incorporate the total child or adolescent are critical. Programs need to have the same high standards, expectations and outcomes. There needs to be a clear focus on academic learning and to engage the students in creative endeavors. Students should be a part of the decision-making process and have ownership in their educational program. A collaborative effort among agencies and school districts is necessary to provide incarcerated youth with appropriate educational services. Such collaborations can be a solution to lesson the problems associated with providing the educational services to youth while incarcerated and when reentering their communities. Currently such collaboration and communication are minimal. The effectiveness of custodial-based services is likely compromised, and the risk increases that youth will not successfully be transitioned back into families, schools, and communities, or receive the disability-related services to which they are entitled by law (National Council on Disability, 2003).
Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1996. Annual Report. Washington, D.C. Christle, C., Nelson, M., & Jolivette, K. (2003). School characteristics related to the use of suspension. EDJJ Notes, Publication of the National Center on Education, Disability, and Juvenile Justice. Vol.2, No. 4. Facts about learning disabilities. Their World (1996/1997). NY: National Center for Learning Disabilities. Glick, B. and Sturgeon, W. (1999). Rising to the Challenge: Identifying and meeting the needs of juvenile offenders with special needs. Corrections Today, Vol. 61, Issue 2. Heidbrink, D.L. (2002). The incarceration rates of juveniles with special needs. Unpublished study. Lerner, J. (2003, 9th Ed.). Learning disabilities: Theories, diagnosis and teaching strategies. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Leone, P.E., Rutherford, R.B., and Nelson, C.M. (1991). Special education in juvenile corrections. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Morgan, D.I. (1979). Prevalence and types of handicapping conditions found in juvenile correctional institutions: A national survey. The Journal of Special Education, 13, 283-295. National Council on Disability Report. (2003). Addressing the needs of youth with disabilities in the juvenile justice system: The current status of evidence-based research. Osher, D. (1999). Addressing invisible barriers: Improving outcomes for youth with disabilities in the juvenile justice system. Washington, DC: Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice. Powell-Brown, A. ((2002). Imagine this! a technique to prevent explosive behavior. The School Discipline Advisor. Vol. 4, Issue 7. LRP Publications. Rempe, S.J. (1999). The state of juvenile justice: Issues and priorities for Missouri’s juvenile justice system 200-2003. Missouri Department of Public Safety. Robinson, T. and Rapport, M.J.K. (1999). Providing special education in the juvenile justice system. Remedial and Special Education, Jan/Feb, Vol. 20, Issue 1. Ross-Kidder, K. (2002, December 12) Learning disabilities, ADHD and delinquency: Is there a link? LDOnline [Online]. Available:
Rutherford, R.B., Nelson, C.M., and Wolford, B.I. (1985). Special education in the most restrictive environment: Correctional/special education. The Journal of Special Education, 19, 59-71. Snyder, H.N., and Sickmund, M. (1995). Juvenile offenders and victims: A national report. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Wolin, S.J. & Wolin, S. (1993). The resilient self: How survivors of troubled families rise above adversity. NY: Villard Books. Wolin, S.J. & Wolin, S. (1994). Survivor’s pride: Building resilience in youth at risk. NY: Insight Media.
“Racing with Reading” highlights a partnership between a southern university and the local juvenile detention center. Funded through an Endowed Professorship, over $2,000 of books were given to the detention center, along with tape recorders, headsets, and audiotapes (See Figure 1). The goals of this partnership program were required to include benefits for students at the college as well as juveniles in the detention center. For the secondary education majors, goals included: exposure to excellent children’s books in their content area, increased motivation to use them to augment their textbook in their future classrooms, and exposure to research procedures and assessments were the targeted areas. For the juveniles at the detention center, exposure to excellent children’s literature was also a goal, along with increased motivation to read. Increased knowledge of science, social studies, English, and math topics was also gained, as well as a working understanding of different genres. Finally, the number of books permanently housed at the Center increased by 200 (See Figure 2).
Through self-selection of “one-sitting reads,” (picture books), favorites emerged with this at-risk diverse population of students. Using the nine different genres, one example is listed below. (See attached bibliography for all the most popular books during this study). American History: Ghosts of the Civil War (Harness, 2002) Biography/Autobiography: Float Like a Butterfly (re: Mohammad Ali) (Shange, 2002) Fiction: The Dancing Man (Bornstein, 1998) Geography: Don’t Know Much About the Fifty States (Davis, 2001) Legends: Shadow (Brown, 1982) Life Skills: Courage (Waber, 2001) Math: If you Made a Million (Schwartz, 1994) Science: True Book of Gemstones (Squire, 2001) World History: Auschwitz (Lawton, 2002)
Demographics: The demographics of the research populations in both the Control Group and the Experimental Group were very similar. Of the original 60 students that were pre-tested, the Control group had 10 participants remaining at the Center when the post-test was administered. All students were male with seven African Americans and three white Americans. Ranging from 13 to 17 years old, they had finished or were currently in the sixth to the eleventh grades. By self-report, out of the 10, students had repeated at least one grade. On the pre-test for comprehension (Informal Reading Inventory), their reading levels ranged from primer to 10th grade (Figure 3). Similarly, the Experimental Group started with 44 students, and 19 were still residing in the center at the time of the post-assessment. Of these 19 students, 15 were male, and four were female. With ages ranging from 12 to 17 years of age, they had finished or were currently in fifth to tenth grades. On the comprehension pre-test, their reading levels ranged from primer to 9th grades (See Figure 3). Statistical Results: Although the Experimental Group’s scores were higher on two of the three post-assessments, the results of the statistical analysis (independent t-test with alpha= .05) were not statistically significant. However, the Experimental Group gained a year in comprehension while the Control Group gained only .4 of a year. Additionally, on the Genre Interest Inventory, the Experimental Group increased to an average of almost five different types of books they would like to read, with the Control Group lagging behind with only almost two different types of books chosen to read (See Figure 4). Interestingly, the Control Group’s average score on the Reading Attitude Survey went up 3.4 points, while the Experimental Group’s average score increased 2.6 points over the pre-test. Qualitative Results: From a qualitative viewpoint, the teachers and researchers saw tremendous motivation and enthusiasm for reading in general and specific books as favorites. Even the guards came to class and asked to check out books to read to their own children at home. One student wrote at the end of the study that “I didn’t used to like to read. Now, I do. Thank you for bringing your books to us.”
In conclusion, detention centers are filled with at-risk youths from diverse populations. “Racing with Reading” was a successful partnership program that increased reading comprehension levels as well as motivation to read. With the element of choice and tape-recorded enticing books, even the “nonreaders” were able to retell the story to the teacher, gain information, and achieve. Bibliography (FAVORITES BOOKS at the Florida Parish Detention Center) Adler, D. (1993). A picture book of Rosa Parks. New York: Holiday House. Allen, D. (1999). Brothers of the knight. New York: Dial Books. Bornstein, R. (1978). The dancing man. New York: Clarion. Brown, D. (2002). Lord of the rings: The two towers. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Brown, G. (1995). Things change: Troy Aikman. Dallas: Taylor. Brown, M. (1982). Shadow. New York: Atheneum Books. Harness, C. (2002). Ghosts of the Civil War. New York: Simon & Schuster. Granger, S. (2003). Colin Powell. Bear, DE: Mitchell Lane. www.mitchellane.com. Jordan, D. (2000). Salt in his shoes: Michael Jordan in pursuit of a dream. New York: Simon & Schuster. Lawton, C. (2002). Auschwitz. Cambridge, Mass: Candlewick. McBrier, P. (2001). Beatrice’s goat. New York: Ann Swartz Books. Myers, W. D. (2002). Patrol: An American soldier in Vietnam. Hong Kong: HarperCollins. Osborne, M. (2002). New York’s bravest. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Richards, K. (2002). Men in black: The movie storybook. New York: HarperCollins. Schwartz, D. (1994). If you made a million. New York: HarperCollins. Shange, N. (2002). Float like a butterfly. New York: Hyperion. Smith, W. (2001). Just the two of us. New York: Scholastic. Squire, A. (2002). True book of gemstones. New York: Children’s Press. Van Allsburg, C. (1981). Jumanji. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Waber, B. (2001). Courage. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Wilson, W. (2003). Allen Iverson. Bear, DE: Mitchell Lane. www.mitchelllane.com.
Retrieved March 24, 2004 at http://coents2.fcoe.iup.edu/nice/clearinghouse/Facts/factsataglance1.htm. Figure 1: Budget for Racing with Reading Program
Figure 4. Results of Independent t-test 
Figure 5. Total Books Read at the Center 
Disproportionate Minority Confinement Sloan T. Letman and Katherine Leslie* Disproportionate minority confinement (also known as “DMC”) has been and remains the largest problem facing juvenile corrections today. Why are there greater numbers of minorities (compared to that of the rest of the population) so disproportionately sent to juvenile institutions? One way to examine this question is through the use of available statistics, the garnering of which is a problem itself. To address this DMC issue, one must also not forget about the racism and sexism that are so pervasive throughout the criminal justice system. Are there other outside factors which would lead an otherwise “straight” kid to begin behaving badly? Are there any sociological, psychological, or political implications surrounding this issue? Why are the courts locking up so many of these children so rapidly? And we must also consider reactions from the hometowns from which these children come who are now branded as “juvenile delinquents”. How is this situation to be handled? How can these youths be successfully re-incorporated back into their communities? An attempt will be made to answer these questions, as well as provide some solutions to eliminate this most important and insidious juvenile justice problem. The Scope and Extent of Disproportionate Minority Confinement Today In his article entitled “The DMC Initiative: The Convergence of Policy and Research Themes”, William H. Feyerherm (1995) states that much of the entire focus of the National Coalition of State Juvenile Justice Groups held in 1988 was on this issue of minority youths in the juvenile justice system. This represented the first time that such an issue was given such chief emphasis. This group issued a report entitled A Report on the Delicate Balance which stated, in part: …disparate juvenile and criminal justice rates for minorities are not a new phenomenon. Yet until recently we have not been sufficiently concerned to ask the important questions: Why do these rates exist? What can we do about them? How can we avoid this continued problem in the future? These questions are not easy ones to ask, particulary for those of us who are participants in the operation or management of juvenile justice at the state or national level. (National Coalition of State Juvenile Justice Advisory Groups, 1989, p. 2). As was previously alluded to in the Introduction, Feyerherm believed that such hard inquiries were not made by those in policy-making positions because there were no existing procedures for gathering such information. Congress became involved when it asked that this issue of the “over confinement” of these minority youths be investigated by those involved with accomplish its goals, Congress also included the proviso that if a state did not provide the required information, such state would no longer receive federal funds under the JJDPA. Although it does not seem like anyone was overjoyed to look into this matter, it was at least a much needed attempt at demonstrating the urgent need for interrelationships and cooperation between policymakers and researchers. We find it doubtful if the states would have voluntarily provided what few statistics that were in their possession, especially something involving this potentially volatile matter. The author seems to agree. He states that “all federal OJJDP formula” (block grant) funds going to a state must be directed to meeting these mandated areas, until compliance is achieved… As a result, there is some considerable incentive to reach a condition of compliance in order to have available federal funds with relatively few conditions (Feyerhem, 1995: 4). More than any other set of information that we have been able to locate thus far regarding DMC, Feyerherm’s work appears to be the most comprehensive regarding its history. Regardless of what position you take regarding this issue, it is really dismal that volumes of information on the subject cannot be located. Amongst other things, Feyerherm continues in subsequent sections to discuss the “Current Status of DMC” (1995: 4) and “Issues in the Implementation of the DMC Mandate” (1995: 5). When the JJDP was re-instituted in 1988, they had to meet three mandated areas for the receipt of their federal fundings:
This issue of overrepresentation appears to have created quite a conundrum for the local and state groups who have had to deal with it. Simply understanding what the word connotes and in what manner and by whom it was being used caused problems. Feyerherm (1995) states that the first issue may be considered an issue at confinement versus penetration: Congressional language deals with confinement, the holding of juveniles in secure settings such as detention centers, juvenile institutions, and so on. However, with any forms of systems perspective on the juvenile justice area, it is clear that the real issue starts well before the decision to place a youth in training school. That is, the “supply” of youths available to be potentially placed in a training school environment is dependent on earlier decisions by law enforcement as to which youths will be handled with informal counseling, and by workers who decide which youths are in need of child welfare services, in need of supervision, or in need of mental health services. Thus, the end condition of secure confinement is the result of decisions made about which youths will be handled with informal counseling, and by workers who decide which youths go furthest into the juvenile justice system. Understanding that this penetration is the key factor leads to a much wider range of possible policy changes and research issues and, in general, enormously complicates the issue. On the other hand, without dealing with the penetration issue there is no hope of addressing the confinement issue. Parenthetically, it appears that the primary sources of information used to propel Congress into concerns for DMC were based on The Children in Custody studies, which ignore the factors leading to custody, focusing instead on the numbers, conditions, and legal rationale for custody. We have several concerns regarding the author’s (and/or the policy maker’s) “need” for all of this to occur to correct the DMC problem. If one must go through all of the steps the purpose, we cannot see any of the states making any timely progress soon regarding disproportional court ordered confinement. Perhaps it is impatience on our part to want to go from Step A directly to Step Z, but surely some of the above-mentioned steps could be consolidated to hasten a resolution to this problem. Or perhaps, as we have seen so often in the past, the subject matter is not on the “powers-that-be” priority list. Minorities simply don’t “rate”, even if they are confined in obviously disproportionate numbers. Feryerherm goes on to state that there is also a second important concern that needs to be considered. He asserts in this piece (1995: 6) that the issue is “essentially correlational rather than descriptive”: By this, I mean that it raises the question of the relationship of a youth’s racial and ethnic identification to that youth’s processing by the juvenile justice system. This is different from asking how many youths of various groups are in the system. We cannot measure overrepresentation by simple counting. Nor can the issue be addressed by eliminating a certain type of treatment. Most practitioner and policymakers agree that there are some youths who require secure confinement. The issue is not to eliminate confinement, but to ensure its equitable usage. That requires consideration of the comparative conditions of potential inhabitants of secure confinement. That cannot be met by the simple elimination of a type of treatment or confinement, nor one that for which success (compliance) can be measured in a simple counting operation. In that respect, this is a much more complex undertaking than the previous JJDPA mandates. While we agree that certain supplemental actions will have to occur to deal with this DMC nightmare, we again see all of the politics and nothing of substance that can actually be done to more hurriedly rectify the situation. Feyerherm’s reference to not eliminating secure confinement, “but to ensure its equitable usage…” seems to be the most straightforward statement regarding disproportionate minority confinement. What continues to be bothersome to us regarding all of the above is the fact that in an ideal world, there would be enough time to work out all of the kinks in the system. However, this is real life and DMC still continues despite the fact that it was to be seriously studied way back in the late eighties. These are people who’s very existence is already undervalued in our society. How much longer will it take to solve the ills of disproportionate minority confinement? At the rate our policy makers and judicial system is going, it will take well into the next century to do away with this scourge in our society. Now “scourge” appears to be a very harsh word to describe this problem. This last thought is probably better left for the conclusion of this paper. But we feel that it is vital to introduce the thought at this point since we have already had a rather lengthy background on DMC, its scope and some of the extent of the problem. If not introduced now, then this paper continues in the same vein as the judicial system as it already exists and it would appear that there is still much time to debate this issue forever. Lest we think everyone is in general agreement regarding the fact that DMC is a problem, there are those who believe the problem has no real relevance at all in terms of people, overcrowding, and judicial discretion, but view it in terms of a capitalist system problem. In his paper “The Left’s Prison Complex: The Case Against The Case Against Jail” (Notional Review, October 9, 2000), Eli Lehner states: Ever since prominent left-wing journalist Mike Davis popularized the term “prison industrial complex” in a 1995 Nation article, self-styled Progressives have relentlessly decided America’s burgeoning prison system is a racist, profit-driven monster that enriches corporations and wastes tax dollars while doing little to reduce crime. He goes on to say that there is scant evidence that criminals who are black face discrimination in our system of criminal justice. “Black overrepresentation in that system is in the number of criminals arrested.” The author cites a sentencing disparity study that was commissioned by the Center for Equal Opportunity in which former University of Maryland professor Robert Lehner found that Blacks “get sent to prison at a lower rate than arrested whites in just about every category that the government measures… The difference in favor of black offenders existed in 12 out of 14 categories of crime.” As with perhaps any study, Lehner cites a counter study which represents his view that minorities are not more prevalent in the system than whites. This is also true in areas such as Atlanta and Washington, D.C., where the political systems are overwhelmingly composed of minorities. His view on the DMC problem is legitimate for him and his fellow Americans on the right, but to view disproportionate minority confinement in terms of a capitalist system and monies instead of human lives and the toll on society as a whole, the family structure, the criminal justice systems and its ills, and any far-reaching consequences that DMC may account for somewhat narrow-minded and short-sighted. There are more blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and women in the system than there ought to be. We must begin thinking in terms of its toll on real people, and not simply on statistics which assure federal funding to the states. But there are others who have a different take on the subject of disproportionate minority confinement and minorities. In a May 14, 1999 Washington Post article written by William Raspberry entitled “Race, Crimes, and Punishment”, he proffers some disturbing statistics regarding disproportionate minority confinement. Now this is eleven years after Congress mandated that the problem be investigated. In his article, Raspberry states that “African American youths constitute 15 % of 10- to 17-years-olds but account for 26 % of juvenile arrests…This same 15% accounts for 41% of those detained as delinquents, 46% of the juveniles in corrections institutions and 52% of the juveniles transferred to adult criminal court after judicial hearings.” These numbers were reported through the NAACP Washington Bureau. They still imply that something else is going on out there in the streets that cause these youths to be brought to the attention of the police department and other law enforcement agencies. Raspberry offers the following as a possible reason for some of these statistics. He states: I don’t mean to suggest that disproportionate minority confinement results solely from the willful unfairness of bigoted authorities. It results from all sorts of things, including the greater likelihood that minority parents will be poor, uneducated or politically unconnected, which means they will be less likely to have their children released to their custody by police officers and judges. It may result as well from the greater tendency of white officials to see white juvenile offenders as “troubled youth” and black offenders as troublemakers, gang bangers, or predators – as Littleton made clear. The point, though, is that whatever the source of the disproportion, state and local officials ought to want to know about it, if only to satisfy themselves that they are carrying out their duties as fairly as they know how. It just won’t do (again, citing the NAACP statistics from 1992) that African American boys are six times more likely than their white counterparts to be incarcerated for crimes against people, four times more likely to be locked up for property crimes or 30 times more likely to be confined in a state facility for drug offenses. Raspberry is not the only prominent columnist calling for continued investigations into DMC. There is a very good article, dated May 5, 2000 in “WireTap”, an online community forum newsletter, by guest columnist Nisa Islam Muhammad entitled “Young, White, and Criminal”. She begins by saying “Crime may pay…that is if you’re young, white and a criminal.” A new report released by the Building Blocks for Youth Initiative states that white youth receive better treatment than their minority peers do at every stage of the juvenile justice process.” She validates this by adding that this disparity begins at the very start of the judicial process, from initially charging the youth in juvenile court to deciding to detain the youth prior to trial to the decision to transfer them to adult criminal court. It continues through the decision as to where to house them, either in juvenile facilities or to send them to adult prisons. However, according to Mark Soler, president of the Youth Law Center, “Moreover, recent legislative and policy trends throughout the country make it clear that these disparities will continue for the foreseeable future unless political leaders and public officials take significant action at the federal, state, and local levels.” Muhammad confirms this by saying that young whites will continue to have these advantages over their minority counterparts for the foreseeable future. According to a report by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD), the following was and remains true: Substantially fewer whites than blacks were detained in every crime category (person, property, drugs, public order). White youth are underrepresented in nearly all states in the detained population. White youth are less likely to be formally charged in juvenile court than black youth, even for the same offense. White youth were much less likely to be waived from juvenile court to adult criminal court than black youth, even for the same offense (this was true in every offense category). When white youth and minority youth were charged with the same offenses, black youth with no prior admissions were six times more likely to be incarcerated in public facilities than white youth with the same background; Latino youths were three times more likely than white youth to be incarcerated. The previously cited 1999 Washington Post article by William Raspberry must have fallen on deaf ears because he gets a bit more personal in April 27, 2001 article written for the same publication. The article, entitled “The Big Illinois Crack-Up” discusses an Illinois law that sought to automatically transfer certain juvenile drug offenders to adult court. The drug that was of most concern seemed to be “crack” cocaine, a drug of choice primarily for black folks, the result of bearing down on the crack sellers and users was the overcrowding of prisons with black inmates. According to Raspberry, there is a 100-to-1 disparity between the amounts of crack and cocaine (the white’s drug of choice) and crack was seen as the most serious. Therefore, 99% of the automatic transfers to adult court in Cook County during 1999 and 2000 were either black or Hispanic. And of the 393 juveniles that were automatically excluded from the juvenile court, only three were white. As far as lawmakers were concerned, they were not trying to be overly racist with their legislation; they were probably trying to protect black neighborhoods from users and sellers of crack cocaine. The so-called “War on Drugs” is responsible for putting more minorities in jail than practically anything else. America still has not won its “war”. But the result have proven to be horrible. The consequence have been the overcrowding of institutions, and law enforcement personnel asserting their authority on the street when they saw a group of minorities congregating. What is highlighted here is the real possibility that the minority youth were doing nothing wrong. What turned out to be a racist law would have “upped the ante” for crimes related to drugs in white or affluent neighborhoods, so this one targeted largely black neighborhoods who were vulnerable to such law enforcement actions. Raspberry concludes that “however innocent – even constructive – the original intent of that law, Illinois legislators now know its hugely unfair consequences. They must know, too, how such manifest unfairness erodes and undermines respect for the law in general.” We also must indicate that women and girls were also becoming more familiar with the criminal justice system. They are coming into prison systems, jails, and detention centers at rates faster than that of their male counterparts. According to the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) (nd), 25 years ago, women were “virtually invisible” in the criminal justice system. In 1995, NCCD calculated that some 800,000 women (about 1 out of every 130 adult women) were under the control of the U.S. correctional system (either in prison, jail, or on parole). “Today, there are 140,000 women incarcerated in prisons and jails (nearly triple the number since 1985), and close to one million under criminal justice control. Importantly, this historically unprecedented phenomenon is not due to more serious and violent offending by women, but largely to “War on Drugs” legislation. As a result of harsh drug laws and sentencing practices, women are roughly twice as likely as men to be incarcerated for drug-related offenses and less likely to receive drug treatment.” Once again, we see that the failed “War on Drugs” has significantly impacted another segment of our society. The men who were mostly responsible for this legislation probably had no idea that women and young girls would be so caught up like this, but once it became apparent, the legislation should have been revisited so as to not have the number of results that it did. We are not saying that all women and girls should be given a “pass” when it comes to drug-related offenses. But treatment programs rather than locking them up might have a much better effect on these females. The statistics for girls eighteen years and younger are not at all good. The U.S. Department of Justice, between 1993 and 1997, saw increases in arrests for these girls over the numbers for boys. Even though we are now seeing more violent offenses taking place by girls, the majority of confinements were for such status offenses as running away, truancy, or other such “low level” offenses. Also according to the report: Studies of this population have consistently shown that girls rarely pose a threat to the safety of their home communities, but are at the highest risk of becoming substance dependent and sexually active at an early age, or experiencing school failures. Tragically, these problems are almost always correlated with histories of violent victimization, poverty, and deeply fragmented families and public service systems. Further, NCCD and Amnesty International have found that both girls and women are also being violently abused within the juvenile and adult justice systems. 80% of adult women prisoners are mothers and most are single mothers of minor children. A surprisingly high percentage of adolescent offenders are also mothers. The children of the nation’s female offenders, severed from their mothers, often under traumatic circumstances, are at the highest risk of becoming tomorrow’s offenders and inmates…In summary, no credible policy to promote public safety can ignore these women and girls. Besides simple looking at some of the statistics of DMC and its effect on our youth, we must also look at where they are being housed after being committed to an institution. According to an article entitled “The Rights of Juveniles Confined in Training Schools” by James D. Silbert and Alan Sussman (1973), they contend that the detainees have certain rights that must be accorded to them while incarcerated and that the states must be mindful of them. The children are normally confined for an “indeterminate term” until they reach the age of majority. However, “since the purpose of confinement is treatment and not punishment, once it is determined that the child requires no further treatment, he/she should be released even if the legal time period has not expired”. (Silbert and Sussman, 1973: 360). Perhaps not in every state, but in New York, juveniles have a right to a parole revocation hearing with counsel prior to being returned to an institution. The following appears to be one of the most important of the child’s rights, once again according to Silbert and Sussman (1973: 360): Right to Extension of Placing Hearing: Many states that authorize placements of juveniles for indeterminate terms provide that the need for continued confinement and/or provide that the need for continued confinement and/or parole supervision be reviewed periodically by the juvenile court (N.Y. Family Court Act, Section 756 [b]). Since such an extension is, in effect, a new right to confront witnesses, and the right to an attorney (People ex rel. Arthur F. v. Hill, 29 N.Y. 2d 17, 271 N.E. 2d 911, 323 N.Y.S. 2d 426 [1971]). Absent such a hearing, a juvenile’s continued confinement and/or parole status is improper. Unlike adult inmates who do lose some of their civil rights as a result of incarceration, a child does not lose his/her right to sue civilly. They may sue for damages suffered within the institution from negligence or abuse. “These suits, however, may have to be brought by a parent, next friend, or legal guardian.” The claim for damages may be brought in a state or federal court as part of a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 (Silbert and Sussman, 1973: 360-361). The two authors are ombudsmen for juveniles at New York Training Schools and also do special litigation in the Law Reform Unit, Juvenile Rights Division, as well as do work for the Legal Aid Society. So it is exceptionally apparent from this article that they are very much on the side of these youth. Without citing every paragraph and its especial importance to juvenile rights, we will list the titles in which they go to great lengths to explain. However, several segments do require special mention and they will be pointed out as such. The titles included are: 1. Right to Release Upon Expiration of Commitment Order or When It Is Determined That One Needs No Further Treatment, Whichever Is Sooner 2. Right to a Parole Revocation Hearing With Counsel 3. Right to Extension of Placement Hearing 4. Right to Maintain a Civil Suit 5. Right to Procedural Due Process Within the Institution 6. Right to Notice and Knowledge of Written Rules and Regulations 7. Right to Be Free from Arbitrary Institutional Punishment 8. Right to Be Free from Arbitrary Transfers 9. Right to Treatment Juvenile court philosophy is firmly rooted in the concept that a child is not committed to an institution for punishment but rather for rehabilitation and treatment. Statutes under which juveniles are civilly committed are constitutional only because treatment is to be provided (Robinson v. California, not 9, Supra: Millard v. Cameron, 373 F. 2d 466 [D.C. Cir. 1966]; Miller v. Overholser, 206 F. 2d 415 [D.C. Cir. 1953]; Commonwealth v. Page, 159 N.E. 2d 82 [Mass. 1959]; see also symposia on the Right to Treatment, 57 Geo. L. Rev. 673 [1967] and 36 U. Chi. L. Rev. 742 [1969]; “The Courts, the Constitution and Juvenile Institutional Reform,” 52 Boston Univ. L. Rev. 33 [1972]). Commitment of a juvenile without treatment, therefore, is a violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. (Martarella v. Kelley, note 8, supra, at 599; cf. Robinson v. California, note 9, supra; Rouse v. Cameron, 373 F. 2d 451 [D.C. Cir. 1966]; Nason v. Superintendent of Bridgewater State Hospital, 233 N.E. 2d 908 [Mass. 1968]). Recent federal cases have specifically focused on this right as applied to juveniles in training schools (Robin R. v. Wyman, note 10, supra). They indicate that the term “treatment”, while not specific, includes at the minimum adequate food, shelter and clothing; academic, vocational, and physical education; medical care; social services; psychiatric services; supervision by trained child care staff. 10. Right Not to be Treated 11. Individual Rights 12. Right to be Free from Cruel and Unusual Punishment 13. Right to Free Expression and Choice of Personal Appearance 14. Right to Coeducational Activities
16. Right to Receive and Send Uncensored Mail Most juvenile institutions inspect, censor, and at times prohibit mail from coming in and going out of the facility. While courts have generally permitted prison officials to open and read all incoming and outgoing mail of convicted prisoners (Sostre v. McGinnis, note 68, supra), they have made a distinction between convicted inmates and those awaiting trial. In cases dealing with unconvicted inmates, it has been held that they retain all rights of ordinary citizens except the right to come and go as they please. Thus, as the court stated in Palmigiano v.Travisono (317 F. Supp. 776 [D.R.1.1970]) censorship of mail addressed to public officials, courts, and counsel cannot be permitted, and while incoming mail may be inspected for contraband and read in certain instances, outgoing mail cannot be inspected or read at all. Children in institutions have not been convicted of any crime, have not been denied any of their civil rights, and are not being held for punitive reasons; consequently their mail should be neither censored nor read. If the purpose of confidential communication is to have meaning for a child in an institution, it must be extended beyond that of judicial and legal personnel. Since most confined children do not have attorneys nor realize that they have access to them once they leave court, it is imperative that they have someone outside the institution in whom they may confide. For a training school to prohibit a child from writing a letter to his parents because it is “not in his best interest”, contains “inaccurate information” or “profanity”, or because it “may harm the parent-child relationship” is prior restraint on the freedom of expression in violation of the First Amendment and violates a child’s right to privacy. In addition to security as a justification for censorship, juvenile institutional authorities assert that their restrictive mail policy is related to the treatment program. However, isolating a child from potential bad news from the outside and preventing him from freely communicating his feelings about his treatment on the inside not only prevent a child from dealing realistically with these situations but stifle and frustrate his attempts to come to terms with his problems. 17. Right to Vote 18. Right to Adequate Compensation for Work 19. Right to Confidentiality of Training School Records
They are there in great numbers as we have seen and realistically, this is perhaps a place to start. In an article entitled “Toward a Model Secure Detention Program: Lessons from Shuman Center”, Joseph T. Christy, director of the juvenile detention center for Allegheny County in Pittsburgh, PA, presents what he admits is an ideal institution. However, many of the ideas could be implemented without much effort and the facilities could all be substantially improved. Some of Christy’s proposals are as follows:
In another article entitled “Implementing Detention Policy Changes” (nd.), juvenile justice authority William H. Barton also proffers suggestions for the improvement of the current system. He states that implementation of human service policies are carried out by those employed in such areas and are based on decisions made by “legislative, judicial, or administrative bodies” who may be far removed from the actual working situations faced by these employees in the real world. Barton further postulates that there are some disconnects in the system because of the following reasons:
In answer to the above questions, the Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission, in conjunction with the Illinois Department of Human Services, found the Burns model as “promising” hits efforts to reduce DMC. In an article entitled “Youth Law Center Model for Addressing Disproportionate Minority Confinement” which was created approximately in July of 2002, it was agreed that the Burns model would also help to include the community in its efforts. It first gives a brief history of the YLC model. Both departments managed to obtain funds specifically for the purpose of putting the model into practice in selected Illinois cities (not identified in the document) to make possible equal treatment of youth in the juvenile justice system. The Youth Law Center also began working with the cities of Santa Cruz, Seattle, and Phoenix for the same purposes. The State of Missouri was also planning to begin its own involvement with the model, as were other unnamed United States cities. The Youth Law Model also sought several outcomes as a result of instituting the Burns model. Primarily, it strove to facilitate the reduction of the extraordinary numbers of “youth of color” that were a part of the juvenile justice system and in confinement. They also suggested several project goals towards these ends. They included doing a complete analysis of criminal behavior and detention data for the involved community; identifying and refining certain policy changes as became necessary; bringing the DMC issue and related juvenile justice issues to the forefront for those unfamiliar with the problems; seeking reductions in arrests, court referrals, and detention of minority youth; and bringing about a change in the community and their attitudes regarding youth in general. When one attempts to change policy or influence those who make such decisions, it would behoove everyone involved to communicate in the same language. Unfortunately, this sometimes leads to concerns. Feyerherm (1995: 6) refers to these additional concerns as a tendency of most systems toward homeostasis. The authors of the Delicate Balance report explain this as “the convergence of a number of unseen forces that permits isolated decision makers of substantially different backgrounds to produce consistent systemic behavior that is racist in its consequence, if not intent” (National Coalition of State Juvenile Justice Advisory Groups, pp. 10-11). Author Feyerherm explains that even though “counterbalancing reaction(s) may not be intentional, they may occur simply because of all of these different backgrounds working in isolation from one another since, unfortunately, the cooperation of many agencies is required to achieve these necessary changes. Instead of agencies, we would like to discuss those in the community, the real stakeholders, who are or may become involved in this process. There are several types of people who may belong to the community and in working with them, it must be ensured that everyone’s needs are being met, everyone is “on the same page”, and everyone is speaking the same language. For the “academics” who may be involved from the community, the model would/should speak to their research interests in the situation, or what possible studies they could do as a result of following up with the initiation of the initial model. Those in law enforcement, the judiciary, or policy makers should still feel that they are not being shut out of the process or being blamed for the ills of a system that has been “broken” for so very long. This group would probably have to be handled with somewhat “kid gloves” because in many instances, they were the ones responsible for creating the situation in which we now find ourselves. However, their cooperation will still be needed at some future points in time, so pushing them further away by not involving them in the process would be futile. And for the senior citizens of the area, the most that they want to feel is safe in their homes, out on the street walking their dogs, driving through the neighborhood, and not becoming a victim of a drive-by shooter. The moment one mentions “juvenile delinquent” or refers to someone as “having done time in the joint” immediately sends a red flag to them and they without delay want the person returned from whence they came in order to maintain neighborhood safety. We cannot say that they are all wrong in their assessment. Many of them probably have had intimate contact with some of these same juveniles that the model is seeking to be handled in another manner, other than locking them up. The approach to them would have to be handled gingerly as well. They would have to be assured that their safety would not be in jeopardy if some of the these youngsters were returned to their communities. As a part of their community re-entrance, it would also be very helpful if neighborhood churches became involved. Many churches now have community outreach programs, some specifically dealing with ex-offenders. A lot of them also have Youth Ministries, which reach out to both males and females “coming home” from various institutions. We are not suggesting that all of these youth will instantly become “holly rollers for the Lord”, but at least they would have somewhere to go and someone in whom they could confide besides family members or probation and parole officers. Community involvement is further expounded on in the Youth Law Center Model. They suggest that an Advisory Group comprised of “stakeholders of color” as well as stakeholders in the juvenile justice system be convened to specifically address the issue of disproportionality in their particular neighborhoods. Being flexible at this juncture is suggested insofar as who would sit on this Advisory Board. But at a minimum, it is suggested that this group ought to include: affected community groups, youth and their parents, politicians and the judges that carry out their requirements, law enforcement, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and detention and parole officers. There should be a certain amount of project coordination that would go along with such a new undertaking. The YLC should work closely with the above-referenced advisory group and provide ongoing technical assistance and support. The Advisory Group should also hire a project coordinator who has knowledge of the community, and who could work closely with everyone involved. There is also other assistance in this “war” on DMC that states are still facing. Research and Evaluation Associates (http://www.rea-inc.com/Projects.html) has completed more than 150 projects since their inception. Some of their current or recent projects include “Training and Technical Assistance for National Innovations to Reduce Disproportionate Minority Confinement” (n.d.). The group entered into a cooperative agreement with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice in October 2000. The primary goal of the program was to test various approaches to providing training and other technical assistance to support both state and local governments in their efforts to reduce DMC. The group provided workshops to disseminate information and share ideas about innovative approaches to reducing overrepresentation of minority youth within the juvenile justice system. They also developed materials to distribute to both state and local governments in their efforts to reduce DMC. “Customized technical assistance” to states is also offered, as well as keeping track of progress that is made towards its goals. As of the time of this document (n.d.), the organization was providing intensive technical assistance to the States of Delaware, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New Mexico, and South Carolina. The following organizations also provide technical assistance and training to states to assist in the reduction of DMC. Development Services Group, Inc( http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/dmc/resonrces/train.html) is operated under the control of the OJJDP Formula Grants and State Challenge Grants Training and Technical Assistance program. The DSGI group is a management and research firm that specializes in providing services to international, federal, state, and local governmental agencies, nonprofit organizations and private industry clients. Those interested in availing themselves of this group’s services should contact their State Juvenile Justice Specialist, who then submits a written request to the appropriate OJJDP State Representative. After a request has received approval by the State Representative, OJJDP then forwards it to Development Services Group, Inc. They will then contact the requester to finalize details of service delivery of technical assistance or training. Each state also has a Juvenile Justice Specialist and DMC Coordinator. According to the Disproportionate Minority Confinement Contacts List, provided by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). It is certainty encouraging that each state has someone in this position to oversee efforts towards the reduction of disproportionate minority confinement. It is just a shame that it took a “threat” by Congress in 1988 to cause the states to look into such an obvious problem that they ALL shared. But at least there are now resources available for those wanting to take advantage of them. Yüklə 1,2 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|
