Juvenile Justice NCCU Publications
North Carolina Central University 1801 Fayetteville Road Durham, NC 27707 919-530-6100 4/29/2015
Volume I This is a special edition on alternatives to juvenile detention centers. Many of the youth in the United States that are in jail/prison need to be in rehabilitation programs instead. By throwing them in a detention center, we are creating more problems for ourselves as a society. Research shows that juveniles can become productive members of society with the right tools. Please enjoy this special report; and, we hope that you will encourage these programs in your own community.
Congratulations to the Class of 2015! Best of luck and well wishes for your bright futures!
1
Meet the Authors!
My name is Ashli Stanton. I am a senior at NCCU, majoring in criminal justice. After graduation I will be attending law school at NCCU. My interest is family law. I’m currently a full-time single mother, and a part-time courier for a family law firm.
My name is Kizzy Watlington. I’m a senior at NCCU. My major is criminal justice with a minor in corrections. After graduation, I hope to get a job in my field. I want to be a probation officer or work with juveniles. Either way, as long as I get a great job something with security and that I can retire from.
My name is Ta'Quasha Felix. I'm 22 years old and I'm from Garysburg, North Carolina. I'm a graduating senior at NCCU and my major is criminal justice with a concentration in corrections. I'm not sure what I want to do after graduation but I do want to be successful.
2
My name is Adrian Mitchell. I'm a senior at North Carolina Central University majoring in Criminal Justice with a concentration in Corrections. Upon graduation I have plans to begin my career in the Correctional system while obtaining my Masters in psychology. I plan to pursue and attain the occupational title of Correctional Counselor where I will implement much of what I am currently learning through my studies.
My name is Rhonda Wright and I am 22 years old. I am from Winston- Salem, N.C. I will graduate from NCCU in May 2015 and plan to attend law school in the fall. My future goals are to practice Civil Law.
3
Table of Contents Book Report
Page 5
Opinion Editorial
Page 7
Interview
Page 9
Emerging Technology
Page 16
Policy Analysis
Page 18
Literature Review
Page 27
Literature Review
Page 32
Infographic
Page 36
All photo creds: Google.com
4
Book Review By: Ashli Stanton Youth in Prison is a documentary novel about the juveniles in our prison system today, beginning with the transformation of juvenile prisons in the United States. In 1812, Elizabeth Fry worked as a reformist for the juvenile system. Children were placed with adults in prison. Until the 20 th century, children were viewed as “little adults.� And it wasn’t until the 19th century that people began to realize children had special needs (Smith, 2007). Prior to the 19th century, there were three ways to punish children in the legal system: (1) authorities bound them to middle and upper class skilled artisans as apprentices; (2) children were bound to any responsible adult to be used as the adult needed; and, (3) churches administered discipline forms such as whippings, beatings, or brandings, which were the same punishments adults received. Work for a reformation of the juvenile system began in the late 1800s with Jane Addams, Lucy Flower, and Julia Lathrop. These women worked to convince legislatures that juveniles needed a separate system. On July 3, 1899 the first juvenile court was founded in the US on the west side of Chicago, Illinois. Furthermore, in 1929 all but two states had juvenile courts (Smith, 2007). According to research done by authors Smith and McIntosh, there are numerous factors influencing juvenile delinquency including, but not limited to: a troubled family life, age, gender, race, class, self-image, identity, and socialization. In a study done by Borther and Williams, it was found that of 385 youths arrested, 138 were arrested for violent crimes (~36%), while the rest were property and drug crimes (Smith, 2007). That means that we are housing a large percent of nonviolent juveniles in detention centers when they would be better suited to
5
rehabilitation forms of punishment such as community service or supervised probation. These forms would be more effective in promoting a healthier lifestyle for the juvenile. Smith and McIntosh also discuss the effects of juvenile detention centers on today’s youth. Juveniles coming out of prisons are less able or less likely to show emotions, they lack good role models, and they have a difficult time making decisions since detention life is structured and follows a strict routine. Juveniles also learn to survive in detention centers, thus another reason they may have a difficult time adjusting to the real world. They have the potential to learn different and new ways of committing crimes and are also violence prone. They tend to be angry and use violence as a way of expression. Often times, juveniles return to the same environment and people, making it less likely that they will stay out of trouble (Smith, 2007). All in all, the shared opinion of the authors is that juvenile detention centers aren’t appropriate for all juveniles. There are other forms of action that the criminal justice system can take that would promote a better lifestyle for the juvenile. Detention centers have the tendency to have more of a negative impact on the juvenile rather than a turning-point in the juvenile’s life for the better. Juvenile programs geared toward delinquency and family involvement could potentially have a significant positive impact on the juvenile justice system. With the right changes in the system, the US would be doing justice to the juveniles and their families to make these troubled juveniles more productive members of society.
Smith, R., McIntosh, M. (2007). Youth in Prison. Philadelphia: Mason Crest Publishers.
6
Opinion Editorial By: Ashli Stanton Juvenile Delinquents—Punish or Rehabilitate? The development of the brain does not end until a person’s mid-20s. Therefore, it is plausible that juveniles do what they do due to lack of brain development. It is even likely that in some cases juveniles cannot look further ahead to determine the consequences of their actions. In essence, many of their actions are impulsive. The debate as to what causes a juvenile to make these choices has been ongoing for many decades. However, environmental factors play a big role. Thus, the goal of juvenile justice in the United States should be to rehabilitate juveniles, rather than punish them. What it really boils down to is education. The key to being a productive citizen is through education. Communities could better utilize programs for juveniles and help them get back on the right track. Educational programs, such as free tutoring, would help to stress the importance of education while taking away frustrating misunderstandings at a reasonable cost to the juvenile. Education is not just important to the juvenile, but also to the juvenile’s family. Parenting classes can be offered through the community to help parents deal with juvenile delinquency and the impact it has on the family as a whole. And, classes that inform families about other programs designed to help them financially and/or psychologically. Often times, families do not know how to deal with or overcome these situations and a lack of resources may lead to further criminal behavior for the juvenile. Also, vocational programs, such as the Big Brother/Big Sister program, offer juveniles alternatives to drugs and crime. These programs give juveniles a place to go to build friendships with other people their age and also trusting relationships with responsible adults.
7
These types of friendships and relationships can also provide an outlet to the juvenile, which will aid in maintaining a healthy, productive lifestyle. Programs should be unique to the community they are servicing. For instance, some communities may need 24/7 programs to give juveniles a place to go at 4am, rather than wondering the streets, looking for trouble. While other communities may only require a program to be open from 8am to 11pm on weekdays with extended hours on the weekend. It would be helpful to have programs that teach juveniles work ethic and interview tips. These programs could help the juvenile to obtain employment depending on the juvenile’s age. At this point the program could offer money management techniques so juveniles can go through proper channels to obtain what they need or want. Of course there are exceptions and there are juveniles who do need to be punished for more serious offenses. However, the overall opinion is that juveniles should be given an opportunity to rehabilitate and turn their life around. They are still young enough to get back on track and learn to be a productive part of society. With a little help and care from the community for both juveniles and their families, lives will be changes and communities will be safer.
8
Interview By: Adrian Mitchell In an interview conducted in March 2015, Ms. Amy Peters, a software manager for juvenile statistics in North Carolina, shares her thoughts on juvenile justice. Is it a fair process for juveniles? Or, is it only hurting our future generations? The interview starts with an overview of who Ms. Peters is and how her job relates to juvenile justice and concludes with her thoughts on our juvenile justice system based on her education and professional experiences. 1. What is your educational background? North Carolina Central University Graduate, 1992 Major: Business Administration, Concentration in Management 2. Do you have a passion for your occupation in Juvenile Justice? Any hands on experience with troubled youth or juveniles who have been processed into the system? Yes, I’ve always wanted to work with kids. I started with Division of Juvenile Justice as a court counselor and my responsibilities included working directly with youth and their families, providing counseling and intervention services. 3. What benefits do you gain from your career? (intrinsic, extrinsic) It’s rewarding to know that at the end of the day, I’ve made a positive impact on a child’s life and benefited our communities by allowing its youth to growth into upstanding citizens. The
9
nation’s children need guidance especially those who lack proper role models and live in disadvantaged neighborhoods where they are surrounded by misfortune and criminal acts. 4. Do you feel as though Juvenile deterrents currently in place are as effective as can be? There’s always room for improvement, but with additional legislative funding and resources we could implement better programs and services to provide to the youth of our state. Many of the programs offered are directly contingent to the fiscal budget in monetary incentives available to implement that programming. 5. In retrospect is the Juvenile Justice system more effective today or say 10 years ago? As stated in our latest Annual Report, the Division of Juvenile Justice continues to achieve better public safety outcomes as evidenced by reductions in the juvenile crime rate across the state. Crime rates are but one indicator of success. The division has set forth a range of new evidencesupported programming in community-based services, a revamped focus on the best practices and peer-driven accountability in court services (Juvenile teen courts) , and has continued to build around center-based services relative to safety, security, clinical, educational and other aspects of center programming. Over the last ten years, the statistical data reflects a decline in detention and youth development admissions. (See Table 1.1). 6. Juvenile detention means what to you? What are the goals of the state by imposing this stature?
Juvenile detention is the use of institution based settings to provide the services rendered necessary by the courts to facilitate behavior oriented services to the juvenile offender. The goals of the state are to re-affirm values and to guide the juvenile to a non-delinquent way of life thus; preventing a life of crime.
7. How effective do you think juvenile detention is? What is your opinion of juvenile detention?
10
Juvenile detention is very effective, but only if used to increase public safety, and not as punishment for minor delinquent behaviors. My opinion of Juvenile detention is dependent upon the severity of the offense. 8. What lead you to an occupation in Juvenile Justice? My middle and high school friends were troubled youth. It’s only by God’s grace that I didn’t fall into the behaviors that they did. I always wanted to provide help to those who were similar to what I closely observed growing up. 9. Are minority juveniles impacted more by current juvenile policy than Caucasian counterparts? Yes, they are. This is either due to the reported instances based on neighborhood demographics; school mechanisms for handling delinquency many have implored zero tolerance policy, and police presence in the community and their attitudes or views in handling the situation. Discretion through authoritative powers is often the indicator of who receives the method of consequence. 10. How do you feel about DARE programming, and juvenile shock programming for delinquent youth? Statistically speaking, they are not effective programs across the board. However, I do feel that they could be beneficial to certain youth in certain circumstances. Shock Programming I do not agree with, we’ve all seen the shows (Beyond Scared Straight) most youth actually become worse after that type exposure which promotes a direct attack on their selfesteem. 11.
What are the most or
a few contributive factors that could
11
lead a youth to a path of delinquency? Unfortunately, this list is a long one. Contributive factors include family criminality, physical, sexual or emotional abuse or neglect of the juvenile, substance abuse, mental health and/or exceptional designation (disability), lack of parental supervision, discord/conflicts in the home, lack of basic physical needs and hygiene, peer relationships (social skills, peer pressures, gangs), whether the juvenile is a parent or not, school performance and behaviors 12. Is Juvenile detention the answer to re-direct our youth? No, minor offenders should not be placed in juvenile detention especially with most serious offenders. Those juveniles will only foster relationships with the most serious offenders and learn more delinquent behaviors that could follow him back out into the community. 13. What is the primary offense or offenses that juveniles are detained for in this state? Communicating threats, Disorderly conduct at school, Simple Assaults, Breaking and Entering, Larceny, Trespassing, Ungovernable offenses such as truancy. 14. What alternatives to Juvenile detention do you suggest would be more beneficial, or could be used in conjunction to achieve greater results in juvenile lifestyle turn around? Intensive in-home counseling, Family counseling, family involvement, team of support to ensure that juvenile and family have the services that would give them the right tools and give direction. 15. What do you feel is the state’s attitude towards employing alternative sanctions that shift away from Juvenile Detention? The state has already employed such alternatives by providing diversion plans (diverting from court system) and community program services. So I would have to say that the state is very cooperative and pro-active with the implementation of alternative sanctions. However budget restrictions typically influence the abundance of programming in different areas throughout the state.
12
16. What offenses by juveniles do you think detention is necessary if any? Murder, Assault with the intent to kill (weapon), Felony Arson, and basically any offense that involves a great deal of harm which indicates the juvenile has a blatant disregard for the lives of others through emulation of havoc upon their community. 17. Is, Juvenile detention a sedge way for Adult incarceration? To many and attributable to many debates yes, in my opinion I would have to say yes also. Detention is comparable to the Adult incarceration setting for offenses. As stated before, detention is an institution based setting where juveniles, in a sense, have a sentence to serve. Resources are available but I feel as though some juveniles are there for offenses that can be corrected in the community. Detention incorporates criminal related stigma which translates into further acts of delinquency upon release. 18. At what rates do juvenile re-offend after being detained? The rate at which juveniles re-offend is dependent upon the type of environment and groups they affiliate themselves with while detained. Many refuse treatment programs or either doesn’t fully retain what is being presented to change their behavior.
13
19. Do Juveniles typically re-offend by commission of the same offense or do they venture to other acts after detention has been imposed? This too is dependent upon the types of programming they received while being detained. Almost half of all juveniles detained in this state will commit an offense through an act of delinquency once released. Juveniles form associations with other delinquent youth through the institution of which they are being detained thus; providing a possible situation of propelled planned future deviance.
20. Do you have children? How would you feel if they were placed in a juvenile detention program of some sort? Yes, I do have children three boys aged 16, 12, and 8. If the offense they committed rendered them extremely dangerous I would have to agree to them being detained. However most offenses can be fixed through community interventions, and I am actively involved in my children’s lives academically as well as personal which I feel plays an imperative role in the prediction of deviance.
14
21. What are the goals of the state by imposing Juvenile Detention? The goal of Juvenile detention is to rehabilitate the juvenile through a detention based setting where services are offered that attempt to change delinquent behavior. Detention centers are conceptually formed to provide structure to the lives of offending youth. Rehabilitation program participation is often mandated by the state and the physical state of being “detained� prevents them from creating further harm to others, the community, or themselves. 22. What is the typical response from authority figures (police) when dealing with a situation of troubled youth? Many officers have a perceived compassion for juveniles. Officer’s attitudes toward delinquent youth often coincide with the offense they usually want to help rather than detain. I personally have known many who refer them to community programming and take a keen interest in the positive turnaround of delinquent youth.
Table 1.1 Juvenile Detention and Youth Development Admissions Statistics 2004 2014 40,500 29,288 Total Delinquent Complaints 5,541 2,277 Total Undisciplined Complaints 46,041 31,565 Total Complaints 42,106 27,236 Community Program Assignments 5,158 2,244 Detention Admission 473 202 Youth Development Center Admissions
15
Emerging Technology By: Rhonda Wright The juvenile justice system is very different from the adult criminal justice system. Juveniles, at times, may not be fully responsible for their behaviors like adults are. Juveniles are “taken into custody”, rather than “arrested.” A juvenile hearing takes place in front of a judge instead of a jury. A juvenile in North Carolina is anyone who is not yet 16 years old. Home confinement and electronic monitoring are offered during the pre- adjudication process (awaiting first appearance) as an alternative to detention and postadjudication. To ensure community safety, youths are ordered by the court to be supervised. According to Alternatives to the Secure Detention, “In 2010, the General Assembly created a house arrest sentence for juveniles who otherwise would be sent to detention.” (Austin 2005) Juveniles’ activities are closely monitored to ensure court orders are being obeyed. Home confinement is designed to restrict the freedom of juveniles by using electronic monitoring. This allows juveniles the ability to still attend school and treatment programs while remaining in their residences with their loved ones. Depending on the supervising officer and the offense, it is possible for the juvenile to travel outside of their jurisdiction. Curfews are set, requiring the juvenile to return home during specified timeframes. Setting up times can help the juvenile with their time management skills. Electronic monitoring is used in conjunction with home detention by monitoring juvenile’s whereabouts. Electronic monitors range from a wide selection of wrist bracelets, ankle bracelets, and voice verification systems. When wearing one of the monitoring bracelets, a signal is sent to the juvenile’s home monitoring device once specified times are not met. The monitoring bracelet will then light up to indicate the juvenile of their curfew. Failing to comply
16
with the schedule set by the court could lead to a more serious punishment. Overall, electronic monitoring is viewed as a sanction that is more punitive than traditional probation but less restrictive than detention sanction (Gable and Gable 2005). The advantages of home confinement with electronic monitoring are financial savings and decreasing rates in recidivism. Financial savings are saving taxpayers, detention facili ties, and adjudicated juveniles’ parents money. Electronic Monitoring programs can range anywhere from $5.50 to $10.00 a day, whereas detention centers can range from $100.00 to $160.00 per day. (Austin 2005) The juvenile bond may even be reduced if the youth agrees to the conditions of home confinement with electronic monitoring. Generally, home confinement with electronic monitoring gives juveniles a second chance to get on the right path. The emerging technology of electronic monitoring is used as an alternative to an out-ofhome placement. Adjudicated juveniles can receive a lesser punishment but more effective outcome with electronic monitoring. By scheduling curfews through electronic monitoring, adolescent behavior problems are more adequately addressed as opposed to a detention center. Juvenile delinquent behaviors can range from sex offenses, truancy, alcohol and drug abuse, to gang involvement. Electronic monitoring is in the best interest of the juvenile by minimizing recidivism and cost effective.
References Austin, James F. 2005. Alternatives to the Secure Detention and Confinement of Juvenile Offenders. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
Gable, Ralph K., and Robert S. Gable. 2005. “Electronic Monitoring: Positive Intervention Strategies.� Federal Probation 69(1).
17
Policy Analysis By: Ashli Stanton and Kizzy Watlington Part I— Multisystemic Therapy was developed in the 1970s by a psychology professor at Memphis State University as an intervention program for dealing with juvenile delinquents. Research was gathered by students under close faculty supervision and it was found that MST significantly reduced juvenile behavior problems, increased family relationships, and decreased association with deviant peers (Henngeler, 2011). Research studies over the last several decades consistently show that juvenile delinquency and substance abuse are directly related to the juvenile’s family, friends, school, and neighborhood systems. Thus, in order to create a working model, therapy must include a wide range of risk factors while also promoting positive influences on the juvenile. Long-range post treatment studies show that family is the most important factor in contributing to a turn-around of negative juvenile behavior. Therapists work with the families on appropriate parenting skills to implement in the home that promote positive social behaviors in juveniles. The home-based model of MST has several key components that make the treatment of juveniles easy and convenient for the family. First, the treatment can take place at home rather than in a group home or detention center. The appointments with therapists are scheduled to fit within the family’s lifestyles, including night and weekend hours. Therapists are also available 24/7 primarily for emergency situations. MST ensures that the therapists have small caseloads to be able to devote appropriate time and resources to each family to ensure successful completion of the program. Through the development of MST, researchers have been
18
able to implement resources into the program that allow for individual needs to be met, as each juvenile is different and each family requires different resources in treatment (Henngeler, 2011). Multisystemic Therapy was designed for juveniles with serious behavior issues that have ultimately led them to substance abuse, violent tendencies, and sex-abuse related crimes. Throughout the 1990s, randomized studies have shown high completion rates of the program, anywhere from 75% - 95%. The development of MST has proven to be one of the most effective treatment programs for juveniles. There is always room for improvement, of course. And, researchers conduct studies constantly to be able to implement changes that will enhance the program. As society changes, new resources are developed. For the purpose of this intense treatment, it is beneficial to evaluate and possibly implement these new resources into the treatment. MST is a constantly growing and developing treatment option for juveniles that has been proven over many decades to work and successfully rehabilitate juveniles (Cunningham, 1999).
References Cuningham, P. B., & Henggeler, S. W. (1999). Engaging multiproblem families in treatment: Lessons learned throughout the development of multisystemic therapy. Family Process, 38(3), 265-81.
Henggeler, S, (2011). Efficacy Studies to Large-Scale Transport: The Development and Validation of Multisystemic Therapy Programs. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 7 351-381.
Part II— According to the Criminal Justice Policy, the current state of the policy dealing with juveniles in the criminal justice system is as follows: Most states allow for judicial waiver, where a judge can decide which youth should be sent to the adult system. In some states judges must follow presumptive judicial waiver laws, where a judge has little ability to deviate from the presumption that a case will be waves based on specific criteria. In other state, judges must wave certain cases if certain criteria are met. But, other cases are directly filed in the adult court by a prosecutor, and yet others automatically excluded from the juvenile court. In most states, the age of the offender and the type of crime determine which of these many waiver mechanism can and
19
will be applied to a particular case (Mallicoat and Gardner, p193). Under no circumstances should a juvenile be place in adult court. Yes they do malicious and heinous crimes, but at the end of the day these are kids. For example in the case of Jordan Brown, who killed his father pregnant fiancé in 2009 in Pennsylvania, he was 11 years old. His case was initially heard in adult court but eventually he was sent down to juvenile court where in April of 2012 he adjudicated delinquent (in other words convicted for the murder of his father’s fiancé and her
unborn baby) (Mallicoat and Gardner, p194). Even though he committed this heinous crime would it be fair to take away the rest of an 11 year old boy’s life knowingly that he’s not have an adult mind point of view and clearly not able to make wise mature decisions. Who doesn’t understand consequences of his actions or think about the future or even empathize with others (Mallicoat and Gardner. P194).
20
Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST) is a family based mental health treatment model developed by Scott W. Henggeler, Ph.D., at the family research at the Medical University of South Carolina. MST has been validated as an effective treatment model for reducing antisocial behavior among juveniles (Youthvillage.org). This model help troubled juveniles while keeping them with their families in communities, which is way beneficial instead of locking them up in facilities among a population that they know absolutely nothing about. Because placing these juvenile in adult facilities is detrimental to their rehabilitation. MST could be a way to combat the problems for juveniles. This therapy provides a treatment targeting multiple factors linked to antisocial juvenile behavior. According to Coalition for Evidence-based Policy, Multi-Systemic Therapy provides empirical based treatments that show sizeable decrease in the amount and severity of criminal behavior by juvenile offender (MTJO). Multi-Systemic treat children with serious behavior and psychiatric problems such as thought disorder, bipolar affective disorder, depression, anxiety and destructive impulsive behavior (MSTP). Multi-Systemic Therapy provides cognitive behavior therapy, behavioral parent training, and functional family therapy in order to address the different aspects of the juvenile’s life. Therapist provide 24 hour 7 day a week care and the average treatment last four months. However, in order for MST to be successful it needs low caseloads, which isn’t always guaranteed in trouble low income areas, high level of trained supervised and clinical consultation. Which is hard to find due to funding needs? A closer look at the family’s strength and weakness needs and barriers are put into consideration. So no parents feel like they don’t need the help, the children need the help. Quality assurance protocols and individual and individual treatment plans are needed, it’s important to remember no two people are exactly the same so each juvenile has to be treated differently (MTJO).
References MST Multi-Systemic Therapy: Breaking the Cycle of Criminal Behavior. http://mstservices.com/target-populations/psychiatric
Social Programs that Work: Multi-systemic Therapy for Juvenile Offenders http://evidencebasedprograms.org/1366-2/multisystemic-therapy-for-juvenile-offenders
21
Mallicoat, S. L. & Gardner, C. L. (Eds.). (2014). Criminal justice policy. Washington, DC: Sage Publications.
Multi-systemic Therapy: Proven Help for Children and Their Families. http://www.youthvillages.org/what-we-do/intensive-in-hometreatment/mst.aspx#sthash.xW902hd9.dpbs
Part III— One alternative to this policy is to do nothing and maintain the policy. As with everything, there are pros and cons. For this policy the pros are the high success rates, the 24/7 availability of therapists, and the dedication that the therapists are able to commit to each family. The factor that this is a home-based intervention program that allows convenience for the family in all areas makes MST likely to be successful. The program offers resources to families that fit each individual family and juvenile’s needs. Each case is treated with individuality and discovering what is best for the juvenile and what will work for each family. The cons of this program could be the family’s unwillingness to participate for various reasons. The caretakers may have substance abuse problems or mental health issues that prevent them from accepting that an intervention treatment within the family is necessary. Families may be reluctant to receive treatment based on social and environmental factors as well, such as poor relationships with the juvenile and other family members and the lack of ability to make appropriate and positive decisions for the juvenile. The attitude of the therapists is also key in the success of the juvenile’s therapy. A negative attitude with anger, frustration, or lack of motivation can also be a con to MST. The interactions between therapists and families or caretakers can also be a pro or a con depending on how those bonds are formed and how the therapist goes about developing relationships with the families. These cons can be overcome though; and, judging by the success rates, the pros far outweigh the cons.
22
Another alternative to this policy would be to provide juveniles places to go where they feel safe and get help without judgement or ridicule. Places such as youth centers that are open 24 hours a day for juveniles that need help. For example, Boys and Girls Clubs provide youth education and career programs, character and leadership programs, health and life skills, arts programs, sports, fitness, recreation, and specialized programs (family plus, delinquency and gang prevention, Latino outreach, youth for unity, and club tech). However, a con to this alternative is that these facilities usually aren’t open 24 hours. More of these centers like the Boys and Girls Clubs are needed, especially in areas of high juvenile crime rates. Many of these juveniles just need a way out, someone to talk to, and a little help. Furthermore along with these facilities comes the issue of cost. With money being tight in today’s economy and budgets being low, it would require some sort of political movement to make this happen. It would be nearly impossible to operate these facilities effectively without the proper funding or donations. However, if you cut the budgets used to operate juvenile jails and detention centers and other juvenile programs that have already been proven ineffective, then the costs may be balanced out. With a balanced budget, juvenile rehabilitation programs can run smoothly and effectively. A third alternative is juvenile detention centers. With the research that has been noted previously, we can see that this is not the best option for juveniles. They do not thrive in detention centers; and, they can, in fact, be more harmful than helpful to the juveniles. As mentioned in Smith’s Youth in Prison and Ms. Peters interview, juveniles tend to form healthy positive relationships with others when they are in a treatment program versus a detention center. Juvenile detention centers allow youth to develop potentially detrimental relationships with other
23
juvenile offenders. This can lead to a rise in crime rates, as they will have new “co-defendants,” so to speak, outside of the jail cells and prison walls. The only pro to this alternative is that some US citizens and the public believe that punishment is the only way to reform a juvenile’s or anyone’s bad behavior. They are right in that a detention center is punishment, but wrong in the fact that it helps eliminate negative behavior. Detention centers are rather costly and without having read the research on juvenile delinquents, one wouldn’t necessarily see that the cons far outweigh the pros with juvenile detention centers.
Part IV— Based on the research we’ve all done, it has been concluded that the best alternative to juvenile justice is multisystemic therapy, or MST. MST has been shown to significantly reduce juvenile behavior problems, increase family relationships, and decrease association with deviant peers. First, the authors agree that detention centers are not the best solution to address juvenile delinquency. We feel there are multiple other alternatives to achieve the goal of rehabilitating juveniles rather than punishing them. Scientifically, it has been shown that an adolescent’s brain does not fully develop until their mid-20s, making it illogical to assume that juveniles have the
24
capability to think about the consequences of their actions before the action is taken. Also, juveniles tend to act impulsively, which is another characteristic of the under-developed frontal lobe of the brain. Coupled with the MST research, we feel that MST is the best alternative to juvenile justice because it includes all necessary elements to rehabilitate juveniles and considers the scientific development of the brain. During a 2011 study, the results of MST versus IT (Individual Therapy) were compared in a 21.86 year follow-up. The study involved 176 juveniles that were referred to the Missouri Delinquency Project by the juvenile courts between the time period of July 1983 and October 1986. The requirements were that the juvenile have at least two arrests for serious or violent crimes, live with at least one parent figure, and have no evidence of psychosis or dementia. The juveniles were randomly assigned to either MST (n=92) or IT (n=84). There were 36 dropouts during the study, 15 from MST and 21 from IT; however, the dropouts do not have a statistically significant impact on the results. The mean age of arrest was 11.7 years and the mean age at the beginning of treatment was 14.5 years. One hundred percent of the participants were incarcerated for at least four weeks prior to treatment (Sawyer, 2011). The results of the study show that MST is more effective than IT. During the almost 22 year period, 54.8% of participants in IT were arrested for a felony, while only 34.8% in MST. Furthermore, 65.5% of participants in IT were arrested for a misdemeanor, and 60.9% in MST. Civil suits that the participants were involved in during the 22 year period involve family and financial suits. Of the participants in IT, 47.6% were involved in family civil suits, while 31% were involved in financial suits. Of the MST participants, 30.4% were involved in family civil suits, while 30.4% were involved in
25
financial suits (Sawyer, 2011). This solution is an attainable solution in the US. However, it is obviously not the only solution, nor is it recommended that it be the only solution to juvenile delinquency. However, it should be highly considered in juvenile cases, as the results have a high success rate of rehabilitation, in that, re-arrest rates and civil suit rates were low for MST participants. Although this is a great alternative to juvenile justice and is highly recommended, in our opinion based on facts, it is not going to solve the problem of juvenile incarceration. As with any problem, there is not one solution that will magically solve the problem. However, based on research, we do feel it is a solution that will significantly help juveniles and the juvenile delinquency problems in the US.
Sawyer, A. M., & Borduin, C. M. (2011). Effects of multisystemic therapy through midlife: a 21.9-year follow-up to a randomized clinical trial with serious and violent juvenile offenders. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 79(5), 643.
26
Literature Review By: Ta’quasha Felix Introduction A "juvenile" is a person who has not attained his eighteenth birthday and "juvenile delinquency" is the violation of a law of the United States committed by a person prior to his eighteenth birthday which would have been a crime if committed by an adult. So now ask yourself why is it fair that “juveniles” in North Carolina get charged as an adult even before they’ve reached the age of eighteen? This means that all sixteen and seventeen-year olds are processed as adults in the criminal justice system (Kaplan, 2012). Research and data make it clear that our juvenile justice system is the right place to serve juveniles, reserving adult courts for the most serious, chronic and violent offenders. The juvenile system provides age-appropriate adjudication, services, treatment and punishment while giving youth time to grow up and mature. It is time for North Carolina to join 48 other states and re-evaluate state law in light of scientific research and data and to ensure 16- and 17-year-olds receive developmentally appropriate services and treatment in the juvenile system. Problem Statement “There is substantial research and evidence that tells us adolescents have not yet developed mentally in the way they think through things with regards to risks and consequences,” said Robin Jenkins, deputy director of the N.C. Division of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. An emphasis has been placed on increasing the age until which a minor can be sentenced in juvenile court for various reasons, advocates are concerned for the future of minors who are charged with crimes and the long-lasting effects. According to Birckhead (2008), "One of the strongest arguments for raising the age of juvenile court jurisdiction concerns the impact of a criminal conviction on a youth's ability to obtain work." Often potential employees can be denied employment because of past criminal activities, even if they did not receive a
27
conviction. Another concern of advocates is the opportunity for higher education can be denied or limited by a criminal record. As stated by Tamar Birckhead, "Access to high education lowers recidivism rates by opening the doors to economic and social advancement, excluding people from college on this basis will inevitably have a deleterious effect on the safety of the community at large." By raising the age, it is anticipated that recidivism will be reduced and the quality of life will be increased for those who would have become re-offenders (Levshin, 2011). The NC task force believes that this legislation could benefit young adults when tried as juveniles rather than adults because it would allow those who have committed nonviolent crimes an opportunity to live a successful life as an adult. Raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction in the state of North Carolina has been an ongoing issue in the North Carolina General Assembly. There are currently two pieces of legislation focusing on this issue, Senate Bill 506 and House Bill 632, which seek to raise the age of jurisdiction from 16 to 18. Four members of the North Carolina House of Representatives serve as the primary sponsors and there are twenty-six co-sponsors. Most of U.S. States define an adult at 18 years old; however, North Carolina and New York define a juvenile who has committed a criminal offense as no older than 16, which places 16- and 17-year-olds in a position where they are tried as adults for any offense (Birckhead, 2012). Thirty-seven states cap juvenile court jurisdiction at age eighteen, while ten do so at seventeen. In addition, as reflected by international treaties and instruments, many nations of the world consider eighteen to be the most appropriate age for delineating between juvenile and adult court jurisdiction (Birckhead, 2008). Also according to Birckhead (2008), not surprisingly, the consequences of North Carolina's scheme for prosecuting minors can be particularly severe. The approximately 26,000 sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds who are convicted each year in North Carolina's criminal court system encounter significant barriers when attempting to secure employment or access higher education.
28
Juvenile court proceedings are conducted in private, whereas adult proceedings are public. Also, whereas adult criminal courts focus on the offense committed and appropriate punishment, juvenile courts focus on the child and seek to meet the child's needs through rehabilitation, supervision, and treatment. Adult courts may deprive adults of their liberty only for the violation of criminal laws. Juvenile courts, by contrast, are empowered to control and confine juveniles based on a broad range of behavior and circumstances (Juvenile Law, 2008). “Many North Carolina jails put children into danger,” said Wendy Green from the Incarcerated Youth Advocacy Project at Prison Legal Services, a statewide program. “Right now, 16- and 17-year-olds are at risk of being sexually assaulted in jails because they’re not separated from adults” (Hoban, 2013). “Our children who are in jails are far outnumbered by adults, which contributes to the imbalance of power and the vulnerability of children,” Green (2013). Also noted by Green (2013), the Obama administration has told states that they’ll be held to increased scrutiny by the Prison Rape Elimination Act, a bill signed into law by President George Bush in 2003. States not meeting PREA compliance have been told they’ll lose federal prison support grants. A different bill, HB 217, would make it possible for young people who commit serious felonies to be remanded to the adult court system at the request of a county district attorney. Currently, that transfer to the adult system is done at the discretion of the judge hearing the case (Hoban, 2013). According to Durham Chief District Court Judge Marcia Morey, judges around the state have expressed their opposition to the bill, which, she said, takes away judicial discretion. “In the juvenile code, in the most serious cases in which you’re deciding if a juvenile should go to the adult system, we have to go through eight factors,” (Hoban, 2013). She explained that the last factor takes into consideration the seriousness of the crime and whether the juvenile presents a danger to society. She said if those factors are in place, the juvenile court judge must order a transfer to the adult system. According to N.C. Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission (2008), the adult system is typically thought of as punishment-oriented. However, because of the minor crimes they commit, 86 percent of 16- and 17-year-olds in the adult system receive probation, which means inconsistent treatment or rehabilitative services, minimal community restitution and little contact with probation officers. The only real punishment received by most youth – a lifelong adult criminal record – does not deter impulsive adolescents whose brains do not yet have the
29
connections necessary to think long-term. At its worst, the adult system is a revolving door to more crime.
The juvenile system places more requirements on youth and their families. The
deterrents in the juvenile system which are required schooling, parental involvement, community and victim restitution, counseling, mentoring, and training are tailored to the impulsive adolescent brain, creating the structure and accountability that can help youth become responsible adults. With adequate funding and technical assistance, N.C.’s juvenile justice system would be equipped to provide an enhanced array of evidence-based, developmentally appropriate, culturally competent programming for at-risk and court involved youth ages 10-17, finally putting North Carolina’s juvenile justice policies in line with that of other states (N.C. Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, 2008).
Summary There have been a series of proposals to change the age of juvenile jurisdiction over the last century. Opposition to changing the juvenile-status age has varied by group across time, but the lack of resources such as funding, facilities, facility capacity and capabilities, personnel and related workforce, or any combination of these has routinely formed the basis for excluding sixteen and seventeen year olds from the juvenile justice system (Kaplan, 2012). The older teens are “not really that different from 15-year-olds”, last, but not least, handling 16- and 17-year-olds in the adult criminal justice system places a cost on their future ability to succeed academically, professionally, and financially, since a criminal record will restrict their ability to obtain
30
financial aid for college, find jobs, vote, and apply for public benefits. Research also suggests that youth who have been confined in adult facilities are more likely to reoffend than those who have spent time in juvenile institutions (Reaves, 2013).
References Birckhead, T. (2008). North carolina, juvenile court jurisdiction, and the resistance to reform. Retrieved from http://works.bepress.com/tamar_birckhead/2/ Henrichson, C. (2011, January 10). Cost-benefit analysis of raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction in north carolina . Retrieved from http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/CBA-of-Raising-Age-JuvenileJurisdiction-NC-final.pdf Hoban, R. (2013, January 1). Bills Affect Young Offenders in Different Ways. Retrieved April 17, 2015, from http://www.northcarolinahealthnews.org/2013/04/19/two-bills-affectyoung-offenders-in-different-ways/ Juvenile Law. (n.d.) West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. (2008). Retrieved November 24 2013 from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Juvenile+Law Kaplan, D. (2012, May 03). Confronting the status quo: Raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction in north carolina. Retrieved from http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/handle/10161/5380 Levshin, V. (2012, February 09). Assessing the costs and benefits of raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction. Retrieved from http://www.reclaimingfutures.org/blog/assessing-costs-andbenefits-raising-age-juvenile-jurisdiction N.C. Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission. (2008).Action for children. Retrieved from http://www.ncchild.org/sites/default/files/RTA - Adult vs. Juvenile Systems_1.pdf Reaves, T. (2013, October 21). Judges call for raising age for juvenile offenders. Retrieved April 17, 2015, from http://www.independenttribune.com/news/judges-call-forraising-age-for-juvenile-offenders/article_467643b8-3a4b-11e3-81e4-001a4bcf6878.html
31
Literature Review By: Adrian Mitchell Introductory Premise The Juvenile Justice system is a multi-systematic function to maintain order of delinquent youth within the communities of our country. The idea of juvenile detention incorporates many of the same ideals that adult incarceration encompasses. Juvenile detention is a reflection of the states (all of which have a favored usage of detention) methodology of ridding the community of problematic youth rather than getting to the underlying issues and addressing them properly. Age disparity through conflictions of legalization has often led many juvenile delinquent offenders directly to the adult incarceration system thus; providing authoritative powers the ability to send underage youth directly to prison. The compelling fact that youth of 16 years of age can be put into adult incarceration systems and tried in a criminal court as an adult has created vast debate nationwide for years (Mendel 2011). The mere fact that they are termed “juvenile offenders� implicates that they should not be trialed as adults and that alternative mechanisms should be standard and more sought after in the ramification of delinquent behavior exhibited. The United States is a nation who surpasses all others in the world in terms of incarceration rates for adults however; that trend has also trickled down into the juvenile justice system through Juvenile Detention. State juvenile corrections systems in the United States confine youth in many types of facilities, including group homes, residential treatment centers, boot camps, wilderness programming, or county-run facilities which all emulate an adult incarceration system typed regiment (Mendel 2011). With exposure to systems detainment youth are more likely to return more aggressive and hostile towards authority and members of the community and quite often commit new offenses of which they were not associated with before entering a detention facility (Bilchik, Shay, 2010). This has led to the ultimate formulation that detention facilities for lower leveled offense commission by juveniles is unnecessary and serves as a
32
counterproductive method of little efficiency to the public for which it is thought to be serving in “justcause� (Mendel 2011). In comparison to adult prison populations minority groups share most of Juvenile Detention population composition (Mendel 2011). Problem Statement Youth in our country have been placed in Juvenile detention facilities or detention type programming for decades as a predominant measure for assessing delinquent implicated behavior (Mendel, 2011). Although there is research that proves the effectiveness of alternative programming for most offenses (through the community, family intervention models, etc) it was reported that roughly 60,500 youth were in some type of Juvenile detention based programming nationwide in 2007 (Mendel, 2011). Only a small percentage of youth pose a significant threat to society (those that have committed murder and other more severe offenses) thus; showing the need for alternative sanctions to be imposed amongst a vast majority of the rest who are placed in some form of custodial arrangement mandated by the courts. Schools play a major role in the influx of juveniles that are often referred to Detention facilities and eventually to prison. Zero tolerance policy is a very dominant strategy utilized by most public educational facilities that is conceptualized to prevent deviance but actually perpetuates the prevalence of undesired behaviors. Youth who are turned away and essentially put out of schools through justified clauses of Zero tolerance are more likely to participate in deviant behavior due to a lack of structure which they would normally attain from the school setting (Heitzeg, 2009). Zero tolerance policy is mandated for implementation in public schooling due to state allocated budgets in which fund them thus; making it more likely to be the cause for expelled youth who are being effected tremendously in the long term prediction of it all (Heitzeg, 2009). Juveniles are more likely to engage in heightened levels of deviance without the structure that schools provide and 10 times more likely than other youth to end up in detention facilities than other youth (Mendel, 2011).
33
Detention facilities pose imminent threats to juveniles who are adjudicated there by the courts including physical harms, sexual abuse, staff overreliance on isolation and restraint, and youth on youth violence (Mendel, 2011). Youth who are exposed to aforementioned instances of violence and personal dehumanization tactics are likely to become worse than they ever were before. Detention policy follows many of the rhetoric’s set forth by adult incarceration systems and recidivism rates (often high) are also undoubtedly very similar thus; implying the ineffectiveness in usage of detention to prevent future youth delinquent endeavors (Mendel, 2011). The whole “get tough� and formal crime control model through incarceration strategies has long since plagued the system in reference to juveniles and detention to no avail. 70 to 80 percent of youth are re-arrested within three years of release from detention facilities thus; showing compelling urgency to implement alternative measures for the welfare of Americas youth (Mendel, 2011). Conclusion Accountability for the youth is to be taken as a mass objective of the Juvenile Justice system and alternative means of prevention are to be implemented more often than the usage of detention centers. The courts play a critical role in the grounding clauses of methods used in relevance to behavior deviation of juveniles. Rehabilitative efforts within a community based setting have been proven to be more effective than detention efforts thus; proving the relevance for rehabilitation as opposed to mere detention.
34
References Bilchik, & Shay, C. (2010). Addressing the Needs of Youth known to both the Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice System, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency, 1-6 Heitzeg, N. (2009). Education or Incarceration: Zero Tolerance Policies and the School to Prison Pipeline. Public Policy, 1-15. Mendel, R. (2011). No place for Kids. The Case for Reducing Juvenile Incarceration, 2-12.
35
Infographic By: Ta’quasha Felix
36
A special thank you to our contributors, the staff at NCCU, and most importantly to our readers. Without the readers, our hard work would have been for nothing. We sincerely hope that you all are as dedicated to reforming juvenile justice as we are. Thank you!
Š
April 29, 2015 NCCU Productions. Class of 2015. Ashli Stanton, Kizzy Watlington, Ta’quasha Felix, Adrian Mitchell, and Rhonda Wright.
37