The Adolescent Law Group by The Advocacy Foundation, Inc.

Proverbs 31:8-9

The e-Advocate The Adolescent Law Group

Juvenile Justice Professionals Determined to Keep Our Young People OUT of the Prison Pipeline Vol. I, Issue II â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Q-2 April | May | June 2015

Quarterly Magazine

The Advocacy Foundation, Inc. Helping Individuals, Organizations & Communities Achieve Their Full Potential

Since its founding in 2003, The Advocacy Foundation has become recognized as an effective provider of support to those who receive our services, having real impact within the communities we serve. We are currently engaged in many community and faith-based collaborative initiatives, having the overall objective of eradicating all forms of youth violence and correcting injustices everywhere. In carrying-out these initiatives, we have adopted the evidence-based strategic framework developed and implemented by the Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). The stated objectives are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Community Mobilization; Social Intervention; Provision of Opportunities; Organizational Change and Development; Suppression [of illegal activities].

Moreover, it is our most fundamental belief that in order to be effective, prevention and intervention strategies must generally be Community Specific, Culturally Relevant, Evidence-Based, and Collaborative. The Violence Prevention and Intervention programming we employ in implementing this community-enhancing framework include the programs further described throughout our publications, programs and special projects both domestically and internationally.

www.The AdvocacyFoundation.org

ISBN: ......... .........

../2015 Printed in the USA

Advocacy Foundation Publishers 3601 N. Broad Street, Philadlephia, PA 19140 (878) 222-0450 | Voice | Fax | SMS

Page 2 of 2

The Advocacy Foundation, Inc.

Juvenile Justice Professionals Determined to Keep Our Young People OUT of the Prison Pipeline

The Restorative Justice Project Pennsylvania/ New Jersey “Helping Individuals, Organizations & Communities Achieve Their Full Potential

100 Edgewood Avenue, Suite 1690 Atlanta, GA 30303

1735 Market Street, Suite 3750 Philadelphia, PA 19102

Shalamar J. Parham, Esq. Lead Counsel

(855) ADVOC8.0 (855) 238-6280 § (215) 438-6280 www.TheAdvocacyFoundation.org

Biblical Authority ______

Proverbs 31:8-9 (NASB) 8

Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all the unfortunate. 9 Open your mouth, judge righteously, and defend the rights of the afflicted and needy.

______ Proverbs 31:8-9The Message (MSG) 8-9

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Speak up for the people who have no voice, for the rights of all the down-and-outers. Speak out for justice! Stand up for the poor and destitute!â&#x20AC;?

Page 2 of 35

Table of Contents â&#x20AC; i. Our Lead Attorney and General Counsel ii. Our Mission iii. Legal Represent ation of Juveniles and Young Adults

Introduction and Background a.

The Right to Counsel i. The Causes of Juvenile Delinquency ii. The Role of Parents and/or Caregivers is Crucial

Delinquency Cases i. Avoiding Formal Charges ii. Juvenile Justice Reform

Deprivation Cases i. In Loco Parentis

Guardian Ad Litem Cases i. Juvenile Justice Practices Vary from One Jurisdiction to Another

Organizational Objectives i. Funding Forecast ii. Additional Personnel

II. The Restorative Justice Project a. Participant Selection Process b. Risk Factors/ Protective Factors c. Program Objectives d. Program Outcomes e. Youth and Family Goals f. Community Infrastructure Goals g. Community Collaboration h. Patterns in Juvenile Delinquency and Behavior i. Five-Year Strategic Community Development Plan j. Our First Community Initiative â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Clayton County Georgia k. Scare Tactics Have Proven Ineffective III. Expungements/ Pardons a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

Expungement Guilty and Nolo Pleas Dismissed and Nol Pros Cases Acquittals Misdemeanor/ Felony Charges Charges Dismissed by the Prosecutor Expungement Application Process

Page 3 of 35

IV. Pardons & Clemency a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

Definitions Commutation or Remission Criteria for Pardon US Office of the Pardon Attorney Waiting Period Eligiblilty Restoration of Rights State Pardon & Parole Board

V. The Youth Court Initiative a. Problem-Solving Courts b. Real Jurisdiction VI. The Accountability Court Initiative a. Fulton County Superior Court b. The Second Chance Act of 2007/ 2013 VII. The Second Chance Court Initiative a. Clayton County Juvenile Court Narrative b. Legislative Authority VIII. The Drug Court Initiative a. ... b. ... IX. The Truancy Court Initiative a. School System Referrals b. Deprivation c. Defiance d. Mental Health Disorders e. Truancy Reduction Architecture Model X. General Counsel a. Nonprofit Law & Procedure XI. Annual Budget

Page 4 of 35

The Adolescent Law Group a division of The Advocacy Foundation, Inc. a 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organization “Helping Individuals, Organizations & Communities A chieve T heir Full Potential”

Shalamar J. Parham, Esq. Lead Attorney/ General Counsel

Our Lead Attorney & General Counsel The Adolescent Law Group will be governed by Lead Attorney Shalamar J. Parham, Esq. M uch of her time is spent providing legal work, including representation of cases of her own choosing, however, she also manages the day-to-day administrative & management functions of the firm, and she also teaches and monitors the professional activities of her Associate and Outside Counsel. Attorney Parham was selected as one of Atlanta’s “ Super Lawyers – Rising Star” in both 2013 and 2014.

Our Mission The Adolescent Law Group is a M ission-Related Subsidiary of The Advocacy Foundation, Inc, a 501(c)(3) approved Tax-Exempt organization. Its M ission is to provide the local indigent communities we serve with high-level legal services for Juvenile, and some Adult, Court matters. The underlying objective is to help balance the scales of justice for young persons, their families, and their communities, which are otherwise unable to obtain zealous and adequate legal representation.

Legal Representation of Juveniles and Young Adults The Adolescent Law Group (ALG) provides Juvenile Court legal services for the local indigent

community. These types of services range from delinquency to dependency matters and, due to the nature of the proceedings, may include representation for family members of dependents as well as for those of the accused young persons. These services will apply to individuals who qualify for them using the “Advocates M inimum Qualification System”, and/or a “Sliding-Fee Scale”, based on a variety of factors including income, access to other legal alternatives, and the type of representation needed.

Page 5 of 35

Introduction and Background Exodus 3:7-9

Attorneys Delinquency Deprivation

The Juvenile Court System

Administrative Support Administrative Assistants M eetings/ Contacts/ Docs/ Files Billing Investigations/ Paralegal Support Research & Writing Pre-Trial M otions Development Client Updates & Tracking Adjudicatory Hearings Development Training M ock Trial Disposition Hearings Pre/ Post-Trial M otions & Appeals

The Right to Counsel Although everyone has the same legal rights, attorneys are generally required for someone to enforce and assert them vigorously and properly. This is not a problem for people with money, but for those without it, legal rights are often compromised. The ALG reverses this trend by offering high-level legal assistance to those who could not otherwise afford it. The Causes of Juvenile Delinquency There is currently little explanation for the rise in violent crime, drug use, and gang involvement among young people in both large cities and small towns across the nation. M ost states view the rise in crime among its youth frightening, in part, because the 'safe' environment found in many sub-urban environments is something parents across America have often hoped to model in their own communities. Suburban neighborhoods and local schools have traditionally been thought of as childhood utopias that rear healthy citizens. Latent behind school programs, family diners, and calm country settings, however, is a propensity toward crime traditionally assumed to be a trait of 'distant' inner cities. Across American communities, both the number and severity of juvenile crime cases have increased dramatically over the last several years. The absence of substantial Page 6 of 35

motive, along with the intensity of violence associated with many recent homicide cases, for example, has been quite shocking. Recent events have called for a re-evaluation of American assumptions on what situations and circumstances produce criminals. It is now commonly believed that American adults must act to rid the US culture of elements that have thwarted a healthy uniting of children with their communities. In an effort to sell products, advertisers, for example, have researched and "exploited" motifs that captivate and stimulate youth, creating scenarios charged with "hyper sexuality, aggression, addiction, coldness, and irony-laced civic disaffection." Though juvenile crime cannot be reduced to the effects of the media, one writer makes the point that such advertising has "seeded" a youth culture that is enthralled with violence and detached from the effects of crime. M oreover, many young people do not receive the encouragement they need from adults to help them narrow in on their individual talents in order to experience confidence-giving success. The most effective way, thus far, to battle the growing separation between juveniles and their communities is with a campaign of "sustained mentoring." Despite a parent's best efforts, however, young people sometimes find themselves in trouble with the law. Peer pressure, the need to assert independence, or misjudgments can place them â&#x20AC;&#x153;atriskâ&#x20AC;? of involvement in activities that result in arrest and processing through the juvenile justice system. The Role of Parents and/ or Caregivers Is Crucial Parents and caregivers are well advised to seek legal counsel for children referred to the court system. Youth of families without financial resources can request counsel from their local public defender's office or from a Nonprofit Law Group established to assist in such matters. Even when an attorney is obtained to represent the child, however, the parents and/ or caregiver(s) should accompany the child through ALL juvenile justice system proceedings, including, but by no means limited to: intake, meetings with juvenile court staff and diversionary or treatment program staff, and any court hearings and proceedings. There may be several alternatives to a court hearing, court decision, or detention available. The main intent of most Juvenile Justice systems is to help young people redirect their lives, not simply to punish them. Hence, the advocateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s role for each child is crucial. Often, a child can be diverted, for example, into a treatment program rather than face long-term detention. Further, when a court hearing and decision are required, courts usually view a parent's involvement in the case positively when making disposition decisions. It is often in times of crisis that bonds between parents and adolescents are reaffirmed. At those times, young persons again turn to their parents for support and protection. Troubling circumstances may present parents of adolescents with opportunities to show their love and support, to help their children obtain services to deal with specific problems, and to strengthen interpersonal connections that will benefit the family for years to come.

Page 7 of 35

Abysmal funding and inadequate resources for juvenile defense work has placed an additional strain on many states already overburdened by their caseloads. In the New Orleans, Louisiana's Juvenile Court System, for example, a staff of seven defense attorneys (six of which work part time) handles over 4,800 cases a year. M any of the accused juveniles, after receiving only minutes of legal counsel, are encouraged to plead guilty to reduce their sentences. The situation is even worse outside of New Orleans; throughout the rest of the state fewer than half of juvenile defendants even meet with an attorney. While, the advised "guilty" plea often allows for the juveniles to be convicted on "misdemeanor" charges - and thus receive lighter penalties than they would receive if, tried and found delinquent (aka “guilty”), they were convicted on "felony" charges - a "misdemeanor" conviction will remain on a juvenile's record and count against him/her should s/he face charges again. Key parental, and/ or guardian questions for arresting juvenile authorities should include, but by no means be limited to, the following: • • • • •

Why was the child arrested? Will s/he have to be detained, or can s/he be released into the custody of a parent or caregiver? Will we need to post bond? Will the child have a record simply as a result of the arrest? What happens next? Whom should the parent or caregiver speak with to get assistance if the child is referred to juvenile court? Here Are The Three Main Types of Juvenile Court Cases:

1. Delinquencies (Violations of Law): These are cases in which the child has committed an offense which would be charged as a crime if s/he were an adult; 2. Deprivation (Abuse and/or Neglect): These are cases in which the child has been mistreated by the parents, to the point where it becomes necessary for the court to take over temporary legal custody for the protection of the child. Depending on the circumstances, it may also be necessary for the state to take physical custody, removing the child from the parents' home and placing the child with relatives or in foster care; 3. S tatus Offenses: These are cases in which a child runs away from home, or is frequently truant from school, or is otherwise beyond parental control. DELINQUENCY CAS ES Juvenile Courts handle both Delinquency and Dependency (aka Deprivation) cases. Delinquency refers to crimes committed by minors, whereas Dependency/ Deprivation may include cases where a non-parental person is chosen to care for a minor. A Juvenile Delinquency Court (or Young Offender's Court) is a tribunal having special authority to Try (Adjudicate) and Pass Judgments (Disposition) for crimes (aka Page 8 of 35

Delinquent Acts) committed by children or adolescents who have not attained the age of majority. In most modern legal systems, crimes committed by children and minors are treated differently than the same acts committed by adults. Severe offenses, however, such as murder and gang-related acts, in 44 states are treated the same as crimes committed by adults. It was reported in 2007 that "Beginning around 35 years ago, increases in violent juvenile crime permitted judges to transfer juveniles to adult-criminal courts. No national data yet exist on the number of juvenile offenders prosecuted as adults." The procedure in juvenile court is not always adversarial. Although minors are entitled to legal representation by a lawyer, parents or social workers and probation officers may be involved in the process in order to achieve positive results and save them from future involvement with the court system. Serious crimes, however, and repeat offenses can result in sentencing juvenile offenders to either jail or prison, with transfer to a state prison upon reaching adulthood, with limited maximum sentences, often until the age of 18, 21, 23 or 25, depending on the jurisdiction. In all but four states, anyone charged with committing a criminal act before his or her seventeenth (or eighteenth) birthday is initially processed as a juvenile defendant. In New York and North Carolina the minimum age at which all accused persons are charged as adults is thirteen (13). In Georgia, Illinois, M ichigan, Texas and seven other states, the minimum age is seventeen (17). In other states, such as Washington, the minimum age depends on the severity of the crime. In Kent v. United States, 383 US 541 (1966), the US Supreme Court held that a juvenile must be afforded due process rights, specifically that a waiver of jurisdiction from a juvenile court to a district court must be voluntary and knowing. Then, in 1967, the US Supreme Court held that children accused in a juvenile delinquency proceeding have the rights to due process, counsel, and against self-incrimination, essentially the Miranda rights. Writing for the majority, Associate Justice Abe Fortas wrote, "Under our Constitution, the condition of being a boy does not justify a kangaroo court." However, most juvenile proceedings are held without a jury as McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 US 528 (1971) decided that minors do not have the same rights in this regard as adults. The Age of Criminal Responsibility There is no uniform national age from which a child is accountable in the juvenile court system; this varies between states, with many setting 10 as the minimum (some go as low as 8). Not all minors who commit a crime are committed to juvenile (or adult) court. A police officer has three choices: 1. Detain and warn the minor against further violations, and then let him/her go free; or 2. Detain and warn the minor against further violations, but hold him/her until a responsible parent or guardian comes to pick them up; or 3. Place the minor in custody and refer the case to a juvenile court officer. Page 9 of 35

Avoiding Formal Charges In an American Juvenile Court, it is possible to avoid placing formal charges. FindLaw lists seven official factors that can help formal charges be avoided (see the list below): M oreover, in Connecticut, a referral can be made to a non-court associated committee referred to as a Juvenile Review Board. These boards can present a resolution that does not result in a juvenile criminal record. The seven factors commonly used to screen for formal charges are: 1. The Severity of the Offense: A serious crime is more likely to result in the filing of a petition than a less serious crime. 2. The Young Person's Age: Petitions are more likely to be filed in cases involving older children. 3. The Young Person's Past Record: Charges are more likely when a minor has been previously involved with a juvenile court. 4. The S trength of the Evidence that the minor committed a crime: Obviously, stronger evidence leads to a greater likelihood of formal charges. 5. The Young Person's Sex: Charges are more likely to be filed against boys than girls. 6. The Young Person's S ocial History: Petitions are more likely to be filed when children have a history of problems at home or at school. 7. The Parent's or Guardian's Apparent Ability to Control the Minor: The greater the lack of parental control, the more likely the intake officer is to file a petition. Along with these seven, four "unofficial" factors can sway an official: 1. The Young Person's Attitude: Formal proceedings are less likely when a child shows remorse for committing a crime. 2. The Young Personâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Appearance: If the young person dresses well, is neatly groomed and is polite, intake personnel are more likely to handle the case informally. 3. Whether the Young Person Has Family Or Community Support: The more support, the more likely the intake officer is to deal with the case informally. 4. Whether the Young Person has an Attorney: Disposing of a case informally may be more likely when a child has a lawyer. Juvenile Justice Reform In his 1997 book No Matter How Loud I Shout, a study of the Los Angeles' Juvenile Courts, Edward Humes argued that the system is in need of a revolutionary reform. He stated that the system sends too many children with good chances of rehabilitation to adult court, while pushing aside and acquitting children early on the road to crime, rather than providing counseling, support, and accountability. 57% of children arrested for the first time are never arrested again, 27% are arrested one or two more times, and 16% commit four or more additional crimes.

Page 10 of 35

DEPRIVATION CAS ES In the United States, Family Court falls under the heading of Trial Courts of Limited Jurisdiction. These types of courts deal only with a specific type of case and they are usually presided over by a single judge without a jury. In the U S, a family will often use mediation instead of a family court. This allows families to find solutions that suit their specific needs, rather than being forced to adhere to the ruling of a judge. The idea of using family court is to put the child first and help parents resolve disputes. Mediation Achieving Results for Children (M.A.R.C.H) was established in M issouri in 1997. M .A.R.C.H is proven to be an effective Alternative Dispute Resolution process and is now used in 45 of the state's judicial circuits; it is the less costly alternative, both emotionally and financially. According to statistics, 75 percent of families who participate in mediation reach an agreement, and 92 percent of those that do reach the agreement are satisfied with the mediation process. The American Bar Association sites nearly 10,000 members in The Section of Family Law. In Loco Parentis Where children are “Deprived”, Family or Juvenile Courts will typically intervene under the legal doctrine of “in loco parentis1 ” to assist with the disposition of cases under the following circumstances: • • • • • • • •

M edically fragile infants (exposed to drugs, alcohol or HIV) Victims of child sexual abuse Victims of domestic violence and their children At-risk adolescents Young parents without a high school degree or job skills Families dealing with AIDS Low-income families and seniors Seniors with dementia and the adult disabled

Many of our Deprivation cases will also involve Child Custody issues. These issues may take the following forms:

• Alternating Custody is an arrangement whereby the child/children live for an extended period of time with one parent, and then for a similar amount of time with the 1

The term in loco parentis, Latin for "in the place of a parent" refers to the legal responsibility of a person or organization to take on some of the functions and responsibilities of a parent. Originally derived from English common law, it is applied in two separate areas of the law. First, it allows ins titution s such as colleges and schools to act in the best interests of the students as they see fit, although not allowing what would be considered violations of the students' civil liberties. Second, this doctrine can provide a non-biological parent to be given the legal rights and responsibilities of a biological parent if they have held themselves out as the parent. The in loco parentis doctrine is distinct from the doctrine of parens patriae, the psy chological parent doctrine, and adoption. In the United States, the parental liberty doctrine imposes constraints upon the operation of the in loco parentis doctrine.

Page 11 of 35

other parent. While the child/children are with the parent, that parent retains sole authority over the child/children. • S hared Custody is an arrangement whereby the child/children live for an extended period of time with one parent, and then for a similar amount of time with the other parent. Opposite to alternating custody, both parents retain authority over the child/children. • Bird's Nest Custody is an arrangement whereby the parents go back and forth from a residence in which the child/children reside, placing the burden of upheaval and movement on the parents rather than the child/children. • Joint Custody is an arrangement whereby both parents have legal custody and/or physical custody. • S ole Custody is an arrangement whereby only one parent has physical and legal custody of the child/children. • S plit Custody is an arrangement whereby one parent has full-time custody over some children, and the other parent has full custody over the other children. • Third-Party Custody is an arrangement whereby the children do not remain with either biological parent, and are placed under the custody of a third person. GUARD IAN AD LITEM C AS ES We also act, where needed, as Guardians ad litem (GAL). GAL’s are not the same as 'Legal Guardians' and are often appointed in under-age-children cases, many times to represent the interests of the minor children. Guardians ad litem may be called, in some US states, Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA). They are supposed to be the voice of the child and may represent the child in court, with many judges adhering to any recommendation given by a GAL. Because of their absolute power over the fate of the child and absolute trust by the court, in many states, GALs do not necessitate the use of an attorney. Their recommendations are sometimes applied without research, evidence, or even talking to the child. GALs may assist where a child is removed from a hostile environment, usually by the (state) Department of Social Services, and in those cases may assist in the protection of the minor child. In some cases, the power of the GAL adversely affects a child because there are little, and in many states, no requirements for the qualifications of becoming a GAL. Any person, with training and approval, and in some states with no training at all, may be appointed as a guardian ad litem. Qualifications vary by state, ranging from no experience or qualifications, to volunteers, to social workers, to attorneys, to others. In many states, the GAL's only job is to represent the minor children's best interest and advise the court. In those states, the GAL speaks to the court for the child. In some states, however, the GAL is not just the voice of the child, but may instead assist in resolving conflict between parents, acting more as a mediator without giving the child a voice at all. In many states the GAL must go Page 12 of 35

through training and course work to qualify for the responsibility of being the voice of a child. In some states there is no required training, and anyone can be labeled a GAL to testify to the court as to their opinion about what should happen to the child. Guardians ad litem are also appointed in cases where there has been an allegation of child abuse, child neglect, PINS, juvenile delinquency, or dependency. In these situations, the guardian ad litem is charged to represent the best interests of the minor child which can differ from the position of the state or government agency as well as the interest of the parent or guardian. These guardians ad litem vary by jurisdiction and can be volunteer advocates or attorneys. For example, in North Carolina, trained GAL volunteers are paired with attorney advocates to advocate for the best interest of abused and neglected children. The program defines a child's best interest as a safe, permanent home for each child. Legal guardians may also be appointed in guardianship cases for adults (see also conservatorship). For example, parents may start a guardianship action to become the guardians of a developmentally disabled child when the child reaches the age of majority. Or, children may need to file a guardianship action for a parent when the parent has failed to prepare a power of attorney and now has dementia. Guardians ad litem can be appointed by the court to represent the interests of mentally ill or disabled persons. The Code of Virginia requires that the court appoint a "discreet and competent attorney-at-law" or "some other discreet and proper person" to serve as guardian ad litem to protect the interests of a person under a disability. Juvenile Justice Practices Vary from One Jurisdiction to Another Juvenile Justice systems vary widely between communities. If a child becomes involved in the juvenile justice system, their first step is to learn how the system in which s/he is caught-up actually works. Successful navigation through this system, however, should result in the preservation of his or her prospects for the future. In many cases, particularly for minor offenses or a first-time arrest, young persons will be released into their parent or caregiver's custody. They also may be diverted into a community service program where they will be expected to perform volunteer services, or participate in a variety of curricular and/ or extra-curricular activities. In exchange, the charges against them may be dropped or modified. If the child is referred to Juvenile Court, what happens next will depend on the structure of the local system, the quality of Defense Counsel, the actions of the prosecutor's office, and the availability of appropriate Diversionary Resou rces or Treatment Programs. The prosecutor and juvenile court staff should always know what to expect from the process. Juvenile Court staff includes intake or probation department staff who often conduct preliminary investigations. These investigations provide juvenile court judges with limited background information often used in the Disposition phase of the process.

Page 13 of 35

Organizational Objectives The objectives for the first three years of operation include: 1. To provide high-level and vigorous legal representation for eligible young persons and their families who could not otherwise afford it; 2. To increase funding and donations by at least 20% per year. The Adolescent Law Group will provide legal services to people who do not qualify for other types of legal aid because: 1.

they do not fit the economic profile(s) for indigency but never-the-less cannot afford high-level legal representation;

2. the other organizations do not have the time, resources, or do not specialize in the particular area(s) of law needed; 3. The Adolescent Law Group will be in constant contact with the other legal aid organizations to develop a referral system to support the local indigent community.

Funding Forecast The initial funding forecast is slow. After month four, however, as the organization is truly up and running and has gained visibility in the community, donations and subscriptions should begin to flow in at a more consistent rate. This applies to both fiscal donations as well as attorneys' donations of their guided pro-bono time with certain case loads.

Source Law Firms Corporations Total

Funding Forecast Year 1 Year 2

Year 3

$29,546 $29,445 $58,991

$38,985 $41,888 $80,873

$38,954 $37,455 $76,409

Page 14 of 35

Additional Personnel The ALG will also recruit law student interns through various local Law Schools in and around each jurisdiction served, including, but by no means limited to: Pennsylvania: Temple, Rutgers, Villanova, University of Pennsylvania, University of Delaware and various additional Law Schools in and around The Greater Philadelphia region; Georgia: Georgia State University Law School, Emory Law School, and John M arshall Law School in Atlanta. In the Northeast Region: New York and Washington, DC Law Schools are also expected to participate in our Internship and young attorney scholarship and recruitment programs. Local attorneys will also be recruited to donate time, and to help out with the case loads, young attorney development & training, and ongoing outreach to the entire local Legal community.

Page 15 of 35

The RESTORATIVE JUSTICE PROJECT An Evidence-Based Alternative to Detention Initiative

The Transformative Justice Project – A M ulti-Disciplinary Approach (hereinafter referred to as the “RJP-AMA”) is a multi-year, multi-faceted, Alternative to Detention EvidenceBased Program designed to address the needs of “at-risk” youth and change the disenfranchisement paradigm encompassing dysfunctional family cycles and restore the youth to good standing in their families and communities. This particular program has proven effective in urban, suburban, and rural environments. We have been highly successful in helping the young people we’ve served, as well as their families and communities, understand and break negative social and familial patterns regarding their education, literacy, pregnancy, substance abuse, mental health, and an array of other issues. The overall objective of the program is to teach selfdiscipline, personal responsibility, academic and time-management skills (including study skills, test-taking techniques, and life skills) designed to promote community bonding, while simultaneously decreasing anti-social behaviors, as well as extrinsic and intrinsic risk-factors. The RJP-AMA is designed to encourage young people to stay in school and complete either their high school education, or a vocational training program, in preparation for college, military service, or the workforce. Participant Selection Process The RJP-AMA serves adolescents, and young adults, from ages six (6) through twentyfour (24); residing either at home or in foster or relative care; and enrolled in the local public school system or GED program. These “Children of Promise” have been identified as “at-risk” due to their high truancy rates, delinquent behavior, multiple placements, failure in two or more subjects in school, drop-out rates, and their close proximity to a multitude of potentially life-threatening dangers within or near their surrounding communities. Through extensive outreach efforts, we identify no less than two hundred fifty (250) “Children of Promise” over a twelve (12) month period in each jurisdiction to participate in the program. Eligible participants typically display one or more of the following characteristics: Risk Factors/ Protective Factors • • • • • • •

Poor attendance at school; M arginal academic achievement and/or low probability of graduating; Little or no previous job experience; Involvement in gang-related activities; Limited or lack of family and/or community support; Appear to have low self-motivation or low self-esteem; History of victimization and/or substance abuse; Page 16 of 35

• • • • • •

Negative involvement with law enforcement; History of running away or temporary periods of homelessness; Parents without adequate parenting skills and/or child care; Violence or fighting with others without provocation; General lack of positive direction and guidance; and Other high-risk factors. Program Objectives

The program’s primary objective is to reduce the incidence of pre- and post-delinquent behaviors, including, but not necessarily limited to, marginal academic performance, gang affiliation and violence, acting disruptive and stealing, running away, truancy, and/or the low probability of high school graduation and most, if not all, of the above risk-factors as well. Coordination of the Evaluation Process: To evaluate the ongoing effectiveness of the program, meetings occur quarterly with the local school system, the Department of Family and Children’s Services (“DFCS”), Juvenile Probation, and/ or the Juvenile Courts to coordinate the evaluation process and to make recommendations, as appropriate, for each participant. (the System of Care Initiative). We also provide the school system, DFCS, Juvenile Probation, and/or the Courts, with monthly reports, which include each youth’s assessment and progress achieved, after their completion of the Program. Follow-Up: In addition, we provide follow-up and supportive services on an ongoing basis, up to ninety (90) days after services are completed, and we track program participants over one (1), three (3), and five (5) year intervals, as the budget permits. Program Outcomes By the end of the first project cycle (1 year from the date of inception), we attain the following Youth and Family Goals and Community Infrastructure Objectives:

Page 17 of 35

Youth and Family Goals Replacing Risk Factors with Protective Factors

1. Increased Pro-S ocial Behaviors in the Community Internships, Jobs, and/ or Community Service a. 75% of our program participants are placed in Jobs, Internships, and/ or longterm Community Service activities. 2. Decreased Criminal Activity and Violence a. 85% of our program participants demonstrate decreased aggressive behaviors by 25% or better; b. There is minimally a 45% reduction in program participant arrests by the end of the second cycle year. 3. Decreased Involvement in Gangs a. 85% of our program participants demonstrate a 40% or better reduction in gang-related activities; 4. Decreased Alcohol and Drug Use a. 85% of our program participants demonstrate a 50% or better reduction in alcohol and drug use; 5. Improved S chool Functioning and Performance a. 85% of our program participants demonstrate a 65% or better increase in school attendance; b. 85% of our program participants demonstrate improved performance (measured by report cards).

academic

6. Improved Family Functioning and Interaction a. 85% of the parents of program participants, and their families, attend at least one (1) Family Involvement trip; i. increase time spent in family activities; ii. higher, more fulfilling quality of interactions. 7. Increased Invol vement in Extra-Curricular Activities (Sports/ M usic/ Arts/ etc.) a. 85% of our program participants participate in at least one extra-curricular activity; Page 18 of 35

i. 50% of those participate for at least 5 months. 8. Increased Youth Workforce Development S kills and Access to Jobs a. 85% of our program participants participate in Workforce Development activities; b. 85% of our program participants demonstrate increased workforce readiness skills (pre/ post assessment). 9. Improved Attitudes Toward S elf, Home, and S chool a. 85% of our program participants demonstrate increased self-esteem; b. 85% of our program participants demonstrate increased positive perceptions of home life and an understanding of the importance of school for the future (pre/ post youth surveys). 10. Improved S ocial Competence Skills Self-Esteem, Peer Relations, Socialization, S ocial Problem-Solving, and Cognitive Problem-S olving S kills a. 85% of our program participants demonstrate increased self-esteem (pre/ postassessment); b. 85% of our program participants demonstrate increased positive peer interaction(s); c. 85% of our program participants demonstrate a 50% or better increase in utilization of positive problem-solving techniques. The projected outcomes for young persons successfully completing the program also include increased motivation to attend or return to school due to: • • • • • • •

Development of the skills and savvy needed to negotiate the educational system; Knowledge of available resources; Enrollment in appropriate educational programs; Knowledge of how to read and understand school educational records; Improved self-esteem; development of support networks for youth; Improved socialization skills; attainment of realistic goals for the future; and Development of mentoring talents and personal gifts needed to help others.

Page 19 of 35

Community Infrastructure Goals The Transformative Justice Model

1. Increased Service Providers to Address Specific Community Needs Related to Juvenile Delinquency (Transformative Justice): a. By the end of year one, 98% of unmet community needs related to Juvenile Delinquency are identified; b. By the end of year two, 90% of youth risk-factors, needs, and issues related to Juvenile Delinquency have corresponding long-term community service providers assigned to prevent, address and treat those behaviors; c. Within six (6) months, each jurisdiction served has identified resources for longterm, free, or stipend-reimbursement, services provided by professionally-trained interns (education, psychology, social work, criminal justice, business, etc.) and have M emorandums of Understanding or Agreements with the Department Field Training Programs at local Colleges, Universities, and Public Health/County Centers; 2. Increased Service Integration and Coordination a. Within three months, 85% of identified services and providers are located at the Centralized Community Site; b. Within six months, Providers jointly create intake forms, develop a Comprehensive Integrated Service Intake to be completed by youth and families at a Central, Single-Point of Entry to be shared among service providers in compliance with HIIPA regulations, and 95% of providers will use the developed document. c. By the end of the year, 85% of Service Providers attend M onthly Provider CaseConference M eetings; d. By the end of the year, 85% of Service Providers have increased HIIPA compliant confidential communication and sharing about Individual Youth and Family Treatment Plans (with Parental Releases); 3. Development of Policies and Procedures for Integrated Service Networking, from Referral to Case Closure a. Within six months, a Policies and Procedures M anual describing Program Processes from referral to case closure is collaboratively developed by each Site Coordinator with input from Collaborative Providers.

Page 20 of 35

4. Development of Client Tracking Mechanism(s) a. Within three months, a Client Tracking M echanism is jointly developed and described by the Site Coordinator in the Policies and Procedures M anual. 5. Development of Quality Assurance Teams & Client Feedback Mechanisms a. Within six months, a Quality Assurance Team is developed including Key Stakeholder staff, Service Providers, Supervisors or Professors from Field Training programs, Program Consultants and a Program Evaluator; b. By the end of the year, the Quality Assurance Team will have conducted one visit at each site to assess and improve quality of services; 6. Identification and Utilization of Safe and Accessible Community Sites a. Within one month, each community identifies and secures a safe (free of violence, drug-free) site that is centrally located and accessible by youth and families, and accessible by ADA (American Disabilities Act) compliant transportation. 7. Increased Transportation to S ervice Delivery Sites a. Within three months, each team will identify and implement the best method (determined by community focus groups) of transporting clients (public transportation, van with grant resources, in-kind community church bus, parents, etc.) to the centralized service site. Community Collaboration Appropriate personnel from the Local School System, the Juvenile Court, Department of Family & Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Services, Juvenile Probation, M ental Health Care Providers, and other Key Community Stakeholders, are designated to perform the following: 1) Oversee and administer work performance under the Agreement; 2) M onitor program activities and services; 3) Provide technical leadership to ensure that program objectives are met. Collaborative Program M anagers, or their designee(s), have the authority to:2 â&#x20AC;˘

M onitor program performance in the day-to-day operations;

â&#x20AC;˘

Provide guidance and suggestions to program personnel in areas relating to policy, information, and procedural requirements;

Collaborative Program Managers are not authorized, however, to make changes to the terms and conditions of any written Agreement(s) and are not authorized to obligate their respective collaborative entity (ies) in any way whatsoever bey ond the terms of any written agreement(s).

Page 21 of 35

Patterns in Juvenile Delinquency and Behavior After School Hours Kids Need Access to Constructive Activities at No Cost to Them or to Their Families

Victimization of and by Juveniles occurs most frequently between the hours of 2pm and 8pm every school day, with violent crimes peaking at 3pm on weekdays.3 The most recent Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention study indicates that serious violent crimes by juveniles occur most frequently in the hours immediately following the close of school on school days. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of all violent crimes by juveniles occur on school days.4 On non-school days, the incidence of juvenile violence increases through the afternoon and early evening hours, peaking between 8pm and 10pm.5

Five-Year S trategic Community Development Plan Over the next five (5) years, having already completed the aforementioned programmatic and Community Structuring plan over the previous five (5) years, we plan to accomplish the following: 1. Develop enhanced Evidence-Based programming in our service delivery areas for the following organizations: a. b. c. d.

Nonprofits; Churches; School Systems; Government M unicipal Groups (Police, Sheriff, Court and Probationary personnel, and Child-Care A gencies); e. etc. While developing these programs, we will also continue to: a. Represent the Interests of Young People within their local Court, School, and other systems as needed; b. Educate Community S takeholders and Professionals about the Alternative to Detention programs we develop; 3

4 5

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency P revention (ojjdp.ncjrs.org)

id. Ibid. Page 22 of 35

c. Train Juvenile Justice Professionals with an aptitude and desire to work effectively in the Juvenile Justice system with an emphasis on Transformative Justice and Community Re-Engineering. ______ Our First Community Initiative – Clayton County Georgia The Demographics of Juvenile Delinquency & Deprivation

At the time of our first initiative, according to the statewide census, 65.1% of all Georgia residents were white, 28.7% are black, and 5.3% are Hispanic. In Clayton County, the total households with children under 18 was 40.7%, while the statewide total households with children under 18 was 35.0%. Hence, while the total number of non-minority residents residing in the county and state comprised around 37.9% and 65.1% of their respective populations, the total number of Juvenile minorities in trouble with the law in Clayton County was around 82.8% of case filings year after year. Due to both judicial and community activism, however, total filings were significantly reduced (since 2000). 6 From 2000 through 2004, there had been an average of over 9,500 cases filed in the local Juvenile Court each year.7 The cases were filed under the following five (5) categories: Unruly offenses; Traffic offenses; Delinquent offenses; Deprivation; and Special Proceedings. Delinquent and Unruly cases comprised the vast majority of these matters by an extreme margin. Delinquencies comprised 6,721 cases, a total of seventy-one percent (71%) of all filings. In the Delinquency category, young black males accounted for 4,090 of the cases, or 60.9%. Young black females accounted for 1,472 cases, or 21.9%. These two categories alone accounted for 82.8% of all Juvenile Delinquency filings in the county. All other categories combined, such as white males (6.7%), white females (3.3%), and others (7.2%) accounted for a total of only 17.2% of all Delinquency filings. Conversely, according to the most recent Census,8 in Clayton County, 37.9% of all residents were white, while 51.6% of all residents were black. That accounted for 89.5% of all county residents. S care Tactics Have Proven Ineffective The hard-time scare tactic strategies of the 1990’s have proven ineffective. That approach was grounded in the idea that youth could be managed through fear. Courts imposed harsher sentences on young offenders and in some instances relinquished rights to adjudicate juveniles accused in certain [heinous] crimes to the adult system. No direct correlation has ever been realized, however, between harsher punishments and fewer arrests. In fact, juveniles placed in the adult system actually have a higher recidivism rate than similar young persons placed in juvenile detention facilities. M oreover, “Juvenile Boot Camp” and “Scared Straight” programs were reported by the U.S. Surgeon General’s office to be almost completely ineffective.

6 7 8

Clayton County Government Website (www.co.clayton.ga.us) Id. Georgia Magazine (www.georgiamagazine.com/counties/clayton/demographics.htm) Page 23 of 35

EXPUNGEMENTS/ PARDONS/ CLEMENCY 9 Expungement Defined: Expungement is the process through which information about an arrest and the result will be removed from a criminal history. Expunged arrests are not visible to employers, housing providers, or licensing agencies that are reviewing the official criminal history. Expunged information will still be visible, however, to law enforcement agencies, including prosecutors and courts. Guilty and Nolo Pleas A guilty plea, or guilty verdict at trial results in conviction. Under the former Expungement law, convictions were not eligible to be removed from a criminal history. A plea of Nolo Contendere is considered a guilty plea for purposes of expungement. Under the new state law (GA), which went into effect July 1, 2013, certain limited categories of convictions will, however, be eligible for expungement: •

if convicted of certain misdemeanors before you turned 21 we may be able to petition the court for the expungement of those records.

•

if charged with a misdemeanor offense and sentenced under the Conditional Discharge statute (O.C.G.A. 16-13-32) the record will also be eligible for expungement. Dismissals and Nol Pros Cases

If the charges were dropped before the case was formally charged (indicted or accused) then the charge(s) will be eligible for expungement as long as: 2. there are no additional pending charges; and 3. there is no probation or parole; and 4. there are no convictions of similar charges within the last five years.10 Charges will not be eligible for expungement if they were dismissed or not prosecuted for one of the following reasons: 1. You pled guilty to something related to the arrest (even if only to a misdemeanor where originally charged with a felony); 9

Practices usually vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

NOTE: Under the new state law, people with a pending case or who have been convicted of a similar crime within the last five years may be eligible for the expungement of a record on their criminal history. The test is whether by “ clear & convincing evidence” the harm otherwise resulting to the privacy of the individual clearly outweighs the public interest in the criminal history being made publicly available.

Page 24 of 35

2. The case was dismissed because the prosecutor was prevented from introducing material evidence (such as a successful motion to suppress evidence and/or statements); 3. The case was dismissed because a material witness refused to testify (unless they had a statutory right not to testify); 4. The defendant was incarcerated on other charges and the prosecutor decided not to proceed with the case for reasons of judicial economy; 5. The defendant completed a pretrial diversion program, but the court order did not indicate the charge(s) could be expunged; 6. The arrest was part of a pattern of criminal activity and the defendant was prosecuted in another court for the same conduct; or 7. At the time of the arrest, the defendant had diplomatic, consular, or other immunity from prosecution. With the new law, however, exceptions 3, 4 and 5 no longer apply and the records of these cases may be eligible for expungement. Acquittals Acquittals were not eligible for expungement under the old law, but they are under the new law. Beginning on July 1, 2013, acquittals will be eligible unless the prosecutor convinces the judge that the charges should not be expunged. NOTE: Beginning on July 1, 2013, in very limited circumstances, a defendant originally charged with a felony but convicted of an unrelated misdemeanor can petition the court to get the record expunged.

Misdemeanor and Felony Charges Under the former law it did not matter whether the charge(s) were misdemeanors or felonies, what matters is how the cases were resolved. Any charge (misdemeanor or felony) is eligible for expungement if the defendant:11 1. 2. 3. 4.

has no pending cases; and is not on probation or parole; and has no similar convictions within the last five years; or the charges were dismissed, not prosecuted, or dead docketed and are not subject to the exceptions.

Under the new law, the only time the severity of the crime (whether it was a misdemeanor or felony) will matter is if the defendant was convict ed of certain misdemeanor offenses before the age of 21 and wants to petition the court for the expungement of that record. Also, only those charged with certain misdemeanors can be sent enced under the Conditional Discharge Statute (O.C.G.A. ยง16-13-2).

Page 25 of 35

Charges Dismissed by the Prosecutor Under the former law if the charges were dismissed by law enforcement, or the prosecutor did not move forward with the case, the arrest and charges could be expunged as long as the defendant: 1. did not have a pending case; 2. was not on probation or parole; and 3. had not been convicted of a similar offense within the last five years. In addition, under the new law, arrests closed by the arresting agency should be automatically expunged. Arrests not referred for prosecution should be automatically expunged after a certain period of time, and arrests referred for prosecution but not formally charged should be automatically expunged. Expungement Application Process For cases adjudicated under the former law, expungement is a multi-step process. The process and fees vary slightly from agency to agency, but generally expungement costs about $50 per arrest and takes from six (6) to twelve (12) months to complete, depending on the jurisdiction. STEP 1: We first submit an application for expungement to the arresting agency. Each arresting agency may require additional documentation or fees (up to $25) in addition to the application. STEP 2: The arresting agency completes its portion of the application, and then forwards the application to the relevant prosecuting attorneyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s office which determines whether the charge(s) is/ are eligible for expungement. STEP 3: After review, the prosecutor returns the application to the arresting agency. If the prosecutor approves the application the arresting agency will destroy the fingerprint cards and certain other documentation pertaining to the arrest and then returns the application to the defense (to us). Note: If the application is approved, defense must send it to GCIC with a $25.00 money order so that the charge is removed from the criminal history. If the application is denied it will be sent back to the defense, who will then have 30 calendar days to file an appeal. New Georgia Law Generally convictions will still not be eligible for expungement under the new law. The only convictions that will be eligible for expungement are certain misdemeanor offenses where the defendant was convicted before the age of 21 and was not arrested for five years after completion of his/ her sentence. 12 12

Also cases where the defendant was sent enced under the Conditional Discharge statute (O.C.G.A. 16-13-3) are eligible. Page 26 of 35

PARDONS & CLEMENCY Post-Conviction Relief Definitions A PARDON is the forgiveness of a crime AND the cancellation of the relevant penalty; it is usually granted by a head of state (such as a president) or by acts of a parliament or religious authority. CLEMENCY is the forgiveness of a crime OR the cancellation (in whole or in part) of the penalty associated with it. It is a general concept that encompasses several related procedures: pardoning, commutation, remission and reprieves. Commutation or Remission Commutation or Remission is the lessening of a penalty without forgiveness for the crime; the beneficiary is still considered guilty of the offense. A Reprieve is the temporary postponement of punishment, often with a view to a pardon or other review of the sentence (such as when the reprieving authority has no power to grant an immediate pardon). Criteria for Pardon Today, pardons are granted in many jurisdictions when individuals have demonstrated that they have fulfilled their debt to society, and/ or are otherwise considered to be deserving. Pardons are sometimes offered to persons who are wrongfully convicted or claim they have been wrongfully convicted. a Pardon DOES NOT set aside the original conviction, however, and in some cases the offer is therefore refused. US Office of the Pardon Attorney In the United States, the pardon power for federal crimes is granted to the President under Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution, which states that the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.â&#x20AC;&#x153; The US Supreme Court has interpreted this language to include the power to grant pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional commutations of sentence, remissions of fines and forfeitures, respites and amnesties.

Page 27 of 35

Waiting Period The US Department of Justice requires that anyone requesting a federal pardon wait five years after conviction or release prior to receiving one. A Presidential Pardon may be granted at any time, however, and as when President Ford pardoned President Nixon, the pardoned person need not yet have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime. Note: While a Presidential Pardon will restore various rights lost as a result of the pardoned offense and should lessen to some extent the stigma arising from a conviction, it will not erase or expunge (restrict access to) the record of that conviction. Eligibility In the overwhelming majority of cases, the Office of the Pardon Attorney will consider only petitions from persons who have: 1. Completed their sentences; and 2. Have demonstrated their ability to lead responsible and productive lives for a significant period after conviction or release from confinement. Restoration of Rights While a presidential pardon will restore various rights lost as a result of the pardoned offense, and should lessen to some extent the stigma arising from a conviction, it will not erase or expunge the record of that conviction. Therefore, even if a person is granted a pardon, they must still disclose their conviction on any form where such information is required, although they may also disclose the fact that they received a pardon. S tate Pardon & Parole Board The governors of most of the 50 states have the power to grant pardons or reprieves for offenses under state criminal law. In some states, however, that power is committed to an appointed agency or board, or to a board and the governor in some hybrid arrangement (in some states the agency is merged with that of the parole board). Currently, there are nine states in the US, including Georgia, with Boards of Pardons and Paroles that exclusively grant all state pardons: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Alabama (Board of Pardons and Paroles); Connecticut (Board of Pardons and Paroles); Georgia (Board of Pardons and Paroles); Idaho (Commission of Pardons and Paroles); M innesota (Board of Pardons); Nebraska (Board of Pardons); Page 28 of 35

7. Nevada (Board of Pardon Commissioners); 8. South Carolina (Board of Probation, Parole and Pardon); and 9. Utah (Board of Pardons and Parole).

Page 29 of 35

O.C.G.A. 37-3-37 Records Restriction According to the Prosecuting Attorneyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Council of Georgia summary, HB 1176 [2012] puts in place a totally new procedure which requires that most criminal history records be automatically restricted so they cannot be accessed by the public (especially employers) unless the arrest resulted in a conviction. Whether a criminal history is held by a clerk of court or an arresting law enforcement agency, an individual may be eligible to have his/her record restricted, so that the information is only available to criminal justice agencies. Basically, for certain drug offenses, if an individual pleads or is found guilty and completes his/her probation without error, his/her record can be restricted. Also, if an individual is found not-guilty of all charges by a trial court, his/her record can be restricted.13 In between these two outcomes, however, lie a multitude of limitations for which records are still not automatically or immediately restricted without the application process. Here are the main limitations for the immediate eligibility of record restrictions: 1. If an individual is convicted of DUI, Reckless Driving, or any other serious traffic offense as defined by Article 15 of Chapter 6 of Georgia Title 40; 2. If an individual is convicted of any crime listed in HB 1176 starting on line 1464 (i.e. Child M olestation, Enticing a Child for Indescent Purposes, Sexual Assault by persons with supervisory or disciplinary authority, Prostitution, Pimping, Pandering, Sexual Battery, Theft (except misdemeanor shoplifting), Serious Traffic offenses, certain categories of M assage, Lewdness, Offenses Related to M inors, etc.); or 3. If a plea agreement is reached which resulted in the conviction of an individual for an offense arising out an underlying transaction or occurrence which was dismissed (i.e. a reduced plea of reckless driving resulting from a DUI arrest); or 4. If in the course of the legal proceedings, the prosecutor was barred from introducing evidence through a motion to suppress or motion in limine (pre-trial motion); or 5. If charges were tried and some but not all of the charges resulted in an acquittal. Despite these limitations, individuals may file a request with the arresting law enforcement agency that their records be restricted. The right to file a request is also given to individuals arrested before July 1, 2013. 13

The problem with this, however, is that Background Search firms typically purchase arrest and conviction data directly from arresting agenci es (i.e. Sheriffâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s offices ) periodically. So by the time a record is restricted, it may have already been harvest ed by a search fi rm, which is generally under no obligation to purge or restrict the record from its private or propriet ary system, thereby making it available to prospective employers, et al, for purchas e. This practice is currently being litigated and reviewed in Georgia. Page 30 of 35

Within 30 days of receiving the request, the arresting law enforcement agency, after completing its portion of the application, is required to provide a copy to the prosecuting attorney. Within 90 days the prosecuting attorney is required to inform the arresting agency as to his or her decision. If a prosecuting attorney denies an individual's request to restrict their records, an individual may then file a civil action in the Superior Court of the county in which he or she was arrested. Appeal Standard: If it is determined by clear and convincing evidence that the harm otherwise resulting to the privacy of the individual clearly outweighs the public interest in the criminal history being publicly available, the decision of the prosecuting attorney to deny an individual's request to restrict his or her records will not be upheld.

The YOUTH COURT INITIATIVE; a. Problem-Solving Courts; b. Real Jurisdiction The ACCOUNTABILITY COURT INITIATIVE c. Fulton Co. Superior Ct Narrative (see J. LaGrua) d. The Second Chance Act of 2007/ 2013; The SECOND CHANCE COURT INITIATIVE e. CC Juv Ct Narrative (see Dean Hicks) f. Legislative Authority The TRUANCY COURT INITIATIVE g. School System Referrals (see S. Howard) h. Deprivation i. Defiance j. M ental Health Disorders k. Truancy Reduction Architecture M odel (designed by JCJ for J. Teske) GENERAL COUNSEL l.

Nonprofit Law & Procedure;

ANNUAL BUDGET; m. Lead Attorney n. Associates o. Paralegals p. Admin Asst q. Transformative Justice Projects Coordinator r. Youth Court Administrator Page 31 of 35

s. Accountability Court Administrator t. Other Staff u. Non-Personnel Costs PowerPoints S ection 1. 2. 3. 4.

Transformative Justice; Expungements & Pardons; Youth Court; Nonprofit Law & Procedure.

Page 32 of 35

Notes ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

Page 33 of 35

Page 34 of 35

Page 35 of 35

Advocacy Foundation Publishers The e-Advocate Quarterly Issue

Title

Quarterly

Vol. I

2015 The ComeUnity ReEngineering Proje ct Initiative The Adolescent Law Group Landmark Cases in US Juvenile Jus tice (PA) The First Amendment Project

The Fundamenta ls

2016 The Fourth Amendme nt Proje ct Landmark Cases in US Juvenile Jus tice (NJ) Youth Court The Economic Consequences of Legal Decision-Making

Strategic Development Q-1 2016

2017 The Sixth Amendment Project The Theological Foundations of US Law & Government The Eighth Amendment Project The EB-5 Investor Immigration Project*

Sustaina bility Q-1 2017

2018 Strategic Pla nning The Juvenile Justice Legislative Reform Initiative The Advocacy Foundation Coalition for Drug-Free Communities Landmark Cases in US Juvenile Jus tice (GA)

Collaboration Q-1 2018

I II III IV Vol. II V VI VII VIII Vol. III IX X XI XII Vol. IV XIII XIV XV XVI

Q-1 2015 Q-2 2015 Q-3 2015 Q-4 2015

Q-2 2016 Q-3 2016 Q-4 2016

Q-2 2017 Q-3 2017 Q-4 2017

Q-2 2018 Q-3 2018 Q-4 2018

Page 2 of 11

Issue

Title

Quarterly

Vol. V

2019

Organizationa l Development

XVII XVIII XIX XX

The Board of Directors The Inner Circle Staff & Management Succession Planning

Q-1 2019 Q-2 2019 Q-3 2019 Q-4 2019

XXI XXII

The Budget* Data-Driven Resource Allocation*

Bonus #1 Bonus #2

Vol. VI

2020

Missions

XXIII

Q-1 2020

XXV XXVI

Critical Thinking The Advocacy Foundation Endowments Initiative Project International Labor Relations Immigration

Vol. VII

2021

Community Engagement

XXIV

XXVII XXVIII XXIX XXX XXXI Vol. VIII

The 21st Century Charte r Schools Initiative The All-Sports Minis try @ ... Lobbying for Nonprofits Advocacy Foundation Missions Domestic Advocacy Foundation Missions International 2022

Q-2 2020 Q-3 2020 Q-4 2020

Q-1 2021 Q-2 2021 Q-3 2021 Q-4 2021 Bonus ComeUnity ReEngineering

XXXV

The Creative & Fine Arts Ministry @ The Foundation The Advisory Council & Committees The Theological Origins of Contemporary Judicial Process The Second Chance Ministry @ ...

Vol. IX

2023

Legal Reformation

XXXVI XXXVII

The Fifth Amendment Project The Judicial Re-Enginee ring Initiative The Inner-Cities Strategic Revitalization Initiative Habeas Corpus

Q-1 2023 Q-2 2023

XXXII XXXIII XXXIV

XXXVIII XXXVIX

Q-1 2022 Q-2 2022 Q-3 2022 Q-4 2022

Q-3 2023 Q-4 2023

Page 3 of 11

Vol. X

2024

ComeUnity Development

XXXVXI XXXVXII XXXVXIII

The Inner-City Strategic Revitalization Plan The Mentoring Initiative The Violence Prevention Framework The Fatherhood Initiative

Vol. XI

2025

Public Interest

XXXVXIV XXXVXV ...

Public Interes t Law Spiritual Resource Development ...

Q-1 2025 Q-2 2025 ...

XXXVX

Q-1 2024 Q-2 2024 Q-3 2024 Q-4 2024

The e-Advocate Journal of Theological Jurisprudence Vol. I - 2017 The Theological Origins of Contemporary Judicial Process Scriptural Application to The Model Criminal Code Scriptural Application for Tort Reform Scriptural Application to Juvenile Justice Reformation Vol. II - 2018 Scriptural Application for The Canons of Ethics Scriptural Application to Contracts Reform & The Uniform Commercial Code Scriptural Application to The Law of Property Scriptural Application to The Law of Evidence

Page 4 of 11

Legal Missions International Issue Vol. I I II III IV

Title

Quarterly

2015 Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Will and The 21st Century Democratic Process The Community Engagement Strategy Foreign Policy Public Interes t Law in The New Mille nnium

Vol. II

2016

V VI VII VIII

Ethiopia Zimbabwe Jamaica Brazil

Vol. III

2017

IX X XI XII

India Suriname The Caribbean Unite d States/ Estados Unidos

Vol. IV

2018

XIII XIV XV XVI

Cuba Guinea Indonesia Sri Lanka

Vol. V

2019

XVII XVIII XIV XV

Russia Australia South Korea Puerto Rico

Q-1 2015 Q-2 2015 Q-3 2015 Q-4 2015

Q-1 2016 Q-2 2016 Q-3 2016 Q-4 2016

Q-1 2017 Q-2 2017 Q-3 2017 Q-4 2017

Q-1 2018 Q-2 2018 Q-3 2018 Q-4 2018

Q-1 2019 Q-2 2019 Q-3 2019 Q-4 2019

Page 5 of 11

Issue

Title

Vol. VI

2020

XVI XVII XVIII XIX XX

Trinida d & Tobago Egypt Sierra Leone South Africa Israel

Vol. VII

2021

XXI XXII XXIII XXIV XXV

Haiti Peru Costa Rica China Japan

Vol VIII

2022

XXVI

Chile

Quarterly

Q-1 2020 Q-2 2020 Q-3 2020 Q-4 2020 Bonus

Q-1 2021 Q-2 2021 Q-3 2021 Q-4 2021 Bonus

Q-1 2022

The e-Advocate Juvenile Justice Report Vol. I – Juvenile Delinquency in The US Vol. II. – the Prison Industrial Complex Vol. III – Restorative/ Transformative Justice Vol. IV – The Sixth Amendment Right to The Effective Assistance of Counsel Vol. V – The Theological Foundations of Juvenile Justice Vol. VI – Collaborating to Eradicate Juvenile Delinquency

Page 6 of 11

The e-Advocate Newsletter 2012 - Juvenile Delinquency in the US Genesis of the Problem Family Structure Societal Influences Evidence-Based Programming Strengthening Assets v. Eliminating Deficits 2013 - Restorative Justice in the US Introducti on/Ideology/Key Values Philosophy/Applica tion & Pra cti ce Expungement & Pa rdons Pa rdons & Clemency Examples/Bes t Pra cti ces 2014 - The Prison Industrial Complex 25% of the World's Inma tes Are In the US The Economi cs of Prison Enterprise The Federal Bureau of Prisons The After-Effects of Inca rcera tion/Indi vidual/Societal 2015 - US Constitutional Issues In The New Millennium The Fourth Amendment Project The Sixth Amendment Project The Eighth Amendment Project The Adoles cent Law Group 2016 - The Theological Law Firm Academy The The The The

Theologi cal Founda tions of US Law & Government Economi c Consequences of Legal Decision-Ma king Juvenile Jus ti ce Legislati ve Reform Ini tiati ve EB-5 Interna tional Investors Initia ti ve

2017 - Organizational Development The Board of Directors The Inner Circle Staff & Management Succession Planning Page 7 of 11

Bonus #1 The Budget Bonus #2 Data-Driven Resource Allocation 2018 - Sustainability The Data-Driven Resource Allocation Process The Quality Assurance Initiative The Advocacy Foundation Endowments Initiative The Community Engagement Strategy 2019 - Collaboration Critical Thinking for Transformative Justice International Labor Relations Immigration God's Will & The 21st Century Democratic Process 2020 - Community Engagement The Community Engagement Strategy The 21st Century Charter Schools Initiative Extras The NonProfit Advisors Group Newsletters The 501(c)(3) Acquisition Process The Board of Directors The Gladiator M entality Strategic Planning Fundraising 501(c)(3) Reinstatements The Collaborative US / International Newsletters How You Think Is Everything The Reciprocal Nature of Business Relationships Accelerate Your Professional Development The Competitive Nature of Grant Writing Assessing The Risks

Page 8 of 11

Page 9 of 11

About The Author † John C (Jack) Johnson III Founder & CEO ______

John C. (Jack) Johnson III was educated at Temple University, in Philadelphia, P ennsylvania and Rutgers Law School, Camden, New Jersey. In 1998, he moved to Atlanta, Georgia in order to pursue greater opportunities to provide advocacy and preventive programmatic services for at-risk young persons and their families caught-up in the Juvenile Justice process. There, along with a small group of community and faith-based professionals, “ The Advocacy Foundation, Inc." was conceived and implemented over a ten year period, originally chartered as a Juvenile Delinquency P revention and Educational Support Services organization consisting of Mentoring, Tutoring, Counseling, Character Development and a host of related components. The Foundation’ s Overarching Mission is “ To help Individuals, Organizations, & Communities Achieve Their Full P otential”, by implementing a wide array of evidence-based proactive multi-disciplinary "Restorative Justice" programs & projects throughout the northeast, southeast, and eastern international-waters regions, providing prevention and support services to at-risk youth, young adults, and their fa milies, as well as to Social Service, Juvenile Justice and Mental Health professionals” everywhere. The Foundation has since relocated its headquarters to Philadelphia, P ennsylvania, and been expanded to include a three-tier mission. In addition to his work with the Foundation, Jack also served as an Adjunct P rofessor of Law & Business at National-Louis University of Atlanta (where he taught Political Science, Business Ethics, and Labor & Employment Relations to undergraduate and graduate level students. He has also served as Board P resident for a host of up & coming nonprofit organizations throughout the region, including “ Visions Unlimited Community Development Systems, Inc.”, a multi-million dollar, award-winning, Violence P revention and Gang Intervention Social Service organization in Atlanta, as well as Vice-Chair of the Georgia/ Metropolitan Atlanta Violence P revention P artnership, a state-wide 300 me mber violence prevention organization.

www.The AdvocacyFoundation.org

Page 10 of 11

Page 11 of 11