The Real Cost of Prisons Weblog

July 30, 2006

Outside the box
Fixing the juvenile justice system requires prevention strategies and alternatives to housing kids in detention centers.

Even the people who manage the Marion County juvenile justice system agree that it's broken. This spring, nine detention center employees were charged with sexually abusing teen inmates. The center's superintendent, who has since resigned, was charged with failing to report sexual abuse. In June, it was revealed that guards hired to protect children had not undergone pre-employment criminal background checks or drug tests. Unknown to the juvenile system's administrators, 24 out of 88 guards and supervisors had criminal records, including convictions for drug possession, theft and battery.

Yet Marion County is hardly alone when it comes to operating a dysfunctional juvenile system. William Glick, executive director of the Indiana Juvenile Justice Task Force, argues that the time is ripe to overhaul juvenile justice throughout Indiana. Jim Killen, executive director of the Indiana Youth Services Association, contends that detention centers are often incubators for crime rather than deterrents. And Frank Orlando, a former judge who is now working with the Annie E. Casey Foundation to address Marion County's problems, says that most children in detention centers don't need to be there.

Prevention, alternative settings are keys to fixing juvenile system

By Jim Killen

Indiana's juvenile justice system was never designed to deal with the numbers of children who now become involved. It was originally designed for a small number of children whose issues were typically much less serious than the ones judges face today. Stealing Farmer Brown's apples or tipping outhouses was far more common than assault and battery, and slingshots were seen more often than Saturday night specials.

The escalation in the numbers of children brought before juvenile judges has continued steadily over the past century as Indiana has shifted from rural to urban and from agricultural to industrial. Family patterns have shifted from the extended family to a proliferation of single-parent households. The world is no longer our grandfather's Buick. In the midst of all this change, as families have struggled to adapt, too many kids have been set adrift in a world where their roles are ill-defined and their needs overlooked.

One boost in the numbers came in 1994 when the Indiana General Assembly initiated a new direction for dealing with Indiana's crime problem. Many punitive sanctions were imposed, including "Three strikes you're out," a lower age at which juveniles could be tried in adult courts, and mandatory sentencing. State and local criminal justice budgets increased remarkably, but scant attention was paid to programs that could redirect troubled youth at risk for delinquency.

Now, more than 10 years later, it is evident that these measures have not reduced crime and delinquency. Punishment, or the threat of it, does not seem to be an effective deterrent, especially for juvenile offenders. Instead, a stay in "juvie" has become a status symbol in some adolescent circles.

The recent problems with Indiana's juvenile detention facilities have highlighted deficiencies that plague the whole system. There are signs that the General Assembly may undertake a complete revamping of the system in the near future. My hope is that, as part of this revision, sufficient attention will be paid to three important areas: prevention, community alternatives and aftercare.

We know that prevention efforts can pay off. Early identification of pre-delinquents is not difficult. Ask any schoolteacher or principal. We can know, with reasonable assurance, at age 7 if a child is likely to be running headlong into the trouble we call juvenile crime. Every serious citizen and every participant in the public debate should look at three well-founded truths that lie at the base of our experience with delinquency and juvenile crime prevention:

First, there is a well-established list of risk factors that are highly predictive of future trouble.

Second, tougher law enforcement and stricter punishments are unlikely to reduce crime significantly.

Third, there are prevention strategies that work.

A visit to any one of Indiana's 35 youth service bureaus is a practical demonstration of the variety and effectiveness of these programs. Teen Courts and Project Safe Place, operated by many of the state's youth service bureaus, are good examples of prevention programs that work.

Too many children are held for too long for too little reason. Few children in trouble are dangerous to the public or to themselves. For these children, community-based alternatives are much more appropriate than holding them with others in situations where negative attitudes and behaviors are reinforced. If adult prisons are colleges for crime, then detention facilities are high schools for crime. Home detention, community service or day treatment are all much more effective and appropriate.

A long continuum of community-based services is already available. New and creative ones are being crafted continually. What's lacking are the will and the resources to implement them. Home detention with electronic monitoring is an example of one of these alternatives.

If prevention is attention to the front door, and community-based alternatives the interior, then aftercare is attention to the back door and the future beyond. Children who have been detained or received alternative treatment are too often unceremoniously dumped right back into the same circumstances that caused problems in the first place. If it's a family problem, a school problem, a neighborhood problem, or an abusive or neglectful situation, then a return to the same environment is likely to produce a repetition of the original troublesome behavior. Aftercare programs, like those operated by AIM (AfterCare for Indiana through Mentoring), successfully address these problems.

It won't be enough to look at improvements in juvenile detention. It is imperative that we also look for improvements in prevention, community-based alternatives and aftercare.

Killen is executive director of the Indiana Youth Services Association.

Opportunity is at hand to finally overhaul system in Indiana

By William N. Glick

Since the start of my career, I have posted words of wisdom from an ancient sage on my office door. The final phrase reminds us to seize the opportunity to work to repair the world and correct injustice: "If Not Now, When?" It is a question that is particularly relevant to the situation faced today by juvenile justice system practitioners and advocates, not only in Marion County, but throughout Indiana.

The situation in Marion County may be rife with scandal, but we applaud Marion County officials for the steps they are taking to correct the situation. It gives us an opportunity to present real data on the negative impact of detention, as compared to the effectiveness of evidence-based community alternatives. Instead of re-filling the Marion County facility, or other detention facilities throughout the state, with troubled youth, we should be storming the Bastille using the latest data as our battering ram. This is not some soft on crime, coddling kids strategy; it is a systematic call to identify and provide real alternatives while protecting public safety and holding youth accountable for their actions.

According to a new report from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, detention actually increases the odds that youth will return to the justice system. Readers may approach this conclusion with skepticism, so let's examine the real effects of detention. First, detention potentially recruits more youth to more severe delinquent acts, especially if low-level offenders spend time with a delinquent peer group. Detention impacts youth with mental health problems; it is commonly said among juvenile justice professionals that detention and correctional facilities have become our nation's largest de facto psychiatric "hospitals." Even short stays in detention impact school success; and what could make less sense than sending a youth to detention for not going to school, without a systematic process to prevent truancy?

Detention is not only ineffective in reducing juvenile crime, it is also not cost-effective. That's right, taxpayers; you may be spending thousands of dollars a year to promote delinquency, rather than prevent it.

Let's look at Bernalillo County/Albuquerque, N.M. It costs them $183 per day, or an astounding $66,795 per year, to keep a youth in detention. Why not send a full-time teacher or therapist to each youth's home all day, every day, instead? Or, they could send those kids to Harvard and still have enough money left over to buy them a nice car.

In contrast, their Community Custody Program costs, on average, $25.75 per day, or $9,400. Per year. Have they experienced a surge of youth crime and young gangs roaming the streets since they implemented their community-based strategy? On the contrary, their average daily population in detention has decreased from 113 in 1999 to 63 this year. And has juvenile crime increased because they are detaining so many fewer youth? No again; their juvenile arrest rate declined 23 percent from 1999 to 2005.

We have an opportunity now to take a hard look at some bold steps that will necessitate new thinking and political will. The question must be asked: Is our county-run system of detaining youth really benefiting youth and families and protecting public safety, or are we hanging onto a system that assuages public opinion, in spite of the fact that all of the data points in a different direction?

We should also take this time to create opportunities to look closely at our juvenile correctional system, and its relationship to other state agencies. We commend the Department of Correction for the steps it has taken thus far to comply with the U.S. Department of Justice requirements in the Settlement Agreement concerning the civil rights of incarcerated youth.

The Indiana Juvenile Justice Task Force Inc. and the Department of Correction are close to completing a unique agreement that would, for the first time, make an outside, not-for-profit organization a true accountability partner in evaluating procedures and implementing best practices.

However, the DOC also can find itself hamstrung by the policies of other state departments. In a recent investigation of an alleged incident by an incarcerated youth, the Task Force and the DOC have found an improbable example of an incongruity in state policies. When a report was forwarded to the Department of Child Services that two 17-year-old boys incarcerated in a state facility were alleged to have been involved in sexual activities that were reported as having been consensual, the response was that DCS does not investigate such activity between youth of that age, even though they were in state custody. If not now, when will we address such issues, and look at juvenile justice as an interlocking system with many elements that often are at odds with one another?

This leads us to critical questions: Can a correctional system designed for adults make the changes necessary to really turn around the lives of the youth, and families, in its charge? Why is Indiana retaining a system where adults and juveniles live under one bureaucratic roof, while other states have recognized the special needs of juveniles?

With the recent passage of legislation in neighboring Illinois, Indiana remains one of only 10 states that have not realized the special needs of young people and their families. If not now, when will we consider creating a separate Department of Juvenile Justice to address the special needs of youth and their families, rather than miss another opportunity to bring Indiana up to the state-of-the-art in juvenile justice, providing real chances for rehabilitation while protecting public safety?

If not now, when will we look at states like Missouri, where the recidivism rate has been reduced to 11 percent by abandoning huge juvenile institutions and replacing them with small, therapeutic correctional facilities close to the youth's homes?

If not now, when will we produce a long-range plan for reducing juvenile crime and restoring youth and families to their potential, a plan that will be able to move forward in spite of who is in state office?

If not now -- when?

Glick is executive director of the Indiana Juvenile Justice Task Force Inc.

Detaining children does not lead to reduction in youth crime

By Frank A. Orlando

The author of the landmark federal juvenile justice act made the following comment in 1989:

"Most of us place the well being of children at the top of our personal priority list . . . nowhere is the disparity between our professed concern for children and the insensitive public policy that confronts them more evident than in the juvenile justice system" -- Sen. Birch Bayh, Indiana, "Justice for Juveniles.''

Unfortunately the senator's words still ring true today. Simply stated, children in the juvenile correctional systems are other people's children. This is a nationwide fact not limited to any one jurisdiction.

Juvenile detention is the front door to the system where on any day upwards of 24,000 children can be found in overcrowded and mismanaged facilities. About 400,000 children a year cycle through these buildings -- many come out worse as far as public safety than when they went in. Many are unjustly deprived of liberty and subject to serious abuse.

If there were a legitimate connection to youth crime and being detained one could attempt to justify the numbers. However, there is no connection. Evidence clearly indicates that juvenile crime continues to decline but admissions to detention continue to climb.

Why is this? Unlike adults, children do not have a right to bail. They are presumed innocent, same as adults, but the law allows a subjective decision to lock up a child for mischievous behavior, or in some cases, running away from an abusive environment -- both unconnected to any community risk.

The stated (often ignored) purpose of secure detention is to hold children pre-trial who pose a high risk of re-offending or a risk of failing to appear in court. In 1975, detention was defined by Judge Patricia Wald as "the hidden closet for the skeletons of the rest of the system." If we examine this "closet" as to whom we detain throughout the U.S., the evidence shows that contrary to public perception, between 50 to 70 percent of children in detention are "status offenders" -- runaways, truant, misbehaving -- and a growing number of children are referred by public schools under the misguided and misinterpreted "zero tolerance" policies of the last 10 years. In other words, children who have angered an adult but pose no risk to the safety of the community.

Make no mistake -- there are children who commit serious crimes and pose a threat to the community. That one-third needs to be securely detained during case processing. So what about the other two-thirds?

That is the issue that recently confronted public officials in Indianapolis. Serious problems have existed in the local detention center over many years. Unlike many jurisdictions, Indianapolis, led by Chief Judge Cale Bradford, has chosen to open the "hidden closet" and let the public light shine in and address the issues head on. This is why the Annie E. Casey Foundation chose Indianapolis to become part of the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative.

In a nutshell, the JDAI changes detention from a "building" warehousing children to a detention system. A continuum of supervision levels with the "building" reserved for those high risk children and a series of community supervision programs as "alternatives to secure detention" where a child is placed in the continuum, based on an objective risk screening. The continuum is not open to children who are charged with behavior problems or low risk misdemeanors. The "system" is for children who pose a real risk to the community.

The JDAI program now exists at various implementation stages in more than 50 jurisdictions. JDAI has four "model programs" that local leaders will visit and personally see reductions in secure detention populations, new programs to help children with mental health issues outside secure detention with no increase in crime, and a reduction in public costs for expensive secure detention operations.

Judge Cale Bradford, Chief Probation Officer Robert Bingham and Juvenile Court Judge Marilyn Moores are leading a committed group of local leaders on this difficult task that cannot be accomplished overnight. JDAI contains a blueprint for action. The Casey Foundation will provide assistance and resources, but again, I refer to former Sen. Bayh, "It is a blueprint that is built on a solid foundation of research as well as experiences in states across the country." He knew in 1989 what was needed. In 2006, the JDAI blueprint includes Indianapolis.

All children represent the future of our country. The few that come into the juvenile court deserve to be part of this future. It is all that most of them really want.

Orlando works with the Annie E. Casey Foundation as team leader of the Indianapolis Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative Project.

Copyright 2006 IndyStar.com. All rights reserved