Children go to jail, for lack of options

ROBIN DAHLBERG AND AMY REICHBACH
Children go to jail, for lack of options
By Robin Dahlberg and Amy Reichbach May 12, 2008

TWO YEARS ago, a 15-year-old named Maria was arrested for bringing a small fingernail file to school.

For eight weeks, she was held in a secure juvenile detention center awaiting trial. She was strip-searched upon entering the facility. She was housed with children who were drug-addicted, mentally ill, and charged with far more serious crimes than she was. The doors and windows of the facility were locked. And her ability to move around inside the facility was limited.

Maria was not jailed because she was a flight risk, or because she was a danger to her community. She was jailed because, having been raped by a family member before her arrest, a Massachusetts Juvenile Court judge felt she could not live at home safely. And the Commonwealth had no other place to put her. There were no readily available placements in either the Commonwealth's child welfare or mental health systems.

Maria's case is extreme, but she is hardly the only Massachusetts child to be jailed inappropriately while awaiting trial for a minor offense. Our organization, the American Civil Liberties Union, recently examined documents from the Department of Youth Services and interviewed dozens of professionals in the juvenile justice system. From the interviews, we found that hundreds of children who should be in the Commonwealth's child welfare and mental health systems are being jailed because Massachusetts has failed to provide these systems with sufficient resources.

Although these children have been charged with minor, nonviolent criminal acts, they are neither flight risks nor dangers to their community. Last year, for example, almost half of the 5,400 children who were locked up had been charged with misdemeanors. Most were eventually released back into their communities after their cases were resolved. Yet each child spent an average of 25 days in lock-up before an alternative placement was located or the child was permitted to return home.

Adding insult to injury, the Commonwealth's failure to adequately fund its child welfare and mental health systems falls heavily on the shoulders of youth of color. Although children of color comprise slightly more than 20 percent of Massachusetts's population between ages 7 and 17, they account for 60 percent of all children detained before a trial.

We are failing our children if we are locking them up for weeks at a time because we have nothing else to offer them. We are also threatening public safety. National research demonstrates that secure detention is one of the most accurate predictors of future criminal behavior. It further demonstrates the detention environment exacerbates behavioral problems, mental health issues and educational difficulties, and that detained youth are more depressed, angry, and dysfunctional when they are released than when they entered.

Massachusetts has already taken some important steps to limit the use of pre-trial juvenile lock-ups. The Commonwealth's Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee has publicly announced that one of its priorities reducing the number of youth of color in detention facilities. The Department of Youth Services is spearheading an effort supported by the Annie E. Casey Foundation to develop alternatives to detention.

But we must do much more. We must invest in creating alternatives to jail for youth like Maria. Massachusetts should increase the availability and accessibility of placements for adolescents in both the Commonwealth's child welfare and mental health systems. In addition, it should develop community-based programs to supervise children who need such supervision in order to return to their families. And the Massachusetts Juvenile Court should use these resources, limiting secure pretrial detention to those children who are flight risks or dangers to their communities.

The current approach is not working. By creating effective alternatives to pre-trial lock-up and reserving secure detention for the relatively small number of children who truly need it, Massachusetts can invest our scarce tax dollars more wisely. We can keep our kids in school rather than in lock-up and, in so doing, make our communities safer in the long run.

Robin Dahlberg is a senior staff attorney with the national ACLU Racial Justice Project. Amy Reichbach is the racial justice advocate for the ACLU of Massachusetts.

Bypassing detention centers

Bypassing detention centers
Program aims to keep youths at home, out of trouble
By Maria Cramer, Globe Staff


Isaiah is a soft-spoken sixth-grader with poor grades, virtually no relationship with his father, and a police record that includes attempted breaking and entering and assault and battery - the latter on his mother and sister when he was 11 years old.

He also has something else: a new lease on a young life, courtesy of a juvenile judge.

When Isaiah was arrested last November for trying to break into a friend's house in Dorchester, Judge Leslie Harris could have ordered him to be locked up in a detention center that resembles an adult prison.

Instead, Harris decided on a less punitive option. He referred Isaiah to an innovative program, through which the boy - and about 30 other Boston children charged with serious crimes - lives at home and stays in school. Three to four times a week, the children, who range in age from 11 to 17, go to a community center in Roxbury, where they meet with advocates who make sure they stick to court-ordered curfews and attend school. They receive counseling and take tours of nearby colleges on field trips their advocates hope will expand their world view beyond the street corners that seem to cause them so much trouble.

The fledgling program, known as the Detention Diversion Advocacy Project, was born in 2005 from a concern that too many minority children and teenagers are held at the state's juvenile detention centers. Incarceration at that age, statistics suggest, is even more likely to lead to a life of crime than being in a gang.

The program, which is funded with a grant from the federal Department of Justice and administered by the state, is part of a growing trend in recent years to steer children and teenagers away from detention. In 2006, more than 5,400 youths across Massachusetts were ordered held on charges ranging from trespassing and larceny to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Only about 1,000 of them were eventually found guilty of their charges.

In Suffolk County, about 91 percent of the 1,019 youths detained were minorities. Most of them were black and Hispanic.

"I very seldom have a day where I'm not sending kids to DYS," said Harris, who works out of Dorchester District Court, which refers children to the program. "I also know that locking up kids isn't always the answer. I believe I see kids who are stressed and depressed, and having a program like DDAP can give them individualized attention before they become part of the system."

The state does not measure recidivism among teenagers and children who have been detained, but studies in other states show that youths who are locked up while they wait for their court dates are more likely to drop out of school, become depressed, and meet gang members who will try to recruit them. In Wisconsin, 70 percent of the youths detained were arrested again or returned to a detention center within a year after their release, according to a 2006 study of detention programs by the Justice Policy Institute.

Department of Youth Services Commissioner Jane Tewksbury said the state is in the preliminary stages of developing alternative programs that would focus on keeping children charged with less serious crimes, such as shoplifting, from being held while they wait for their court dates.

"I was aware of the dangers of detention," Tewksbury said. "For us, detention reform really is getting the kids with the less serious offenses out of the system."

Isaiah, who always wears a knit cap and favors baggy Dickies pants, describes his arrests with bravado. He laughed as he recalled one incident two years ago, when he said a zealous officer charged into his grandparents' house and pointed a gun at him and his grandmother. The officer showed up after Isaiah had run away from home following a fight with his mother and sister, who called the police to report the assault.

"Some white guy came in and said 'Freeze,' " Isaiah said, chuckling at the memory. "My grandmother said, 'Is this really necessary? He's only 11 years old.' " When he was referred to the Dorchester-based program, rather than being grateful to be kept out of detention, he was annoyed that his schedule was disrupted and suspicious of his advocate, Deborah Duncan, who remembered an angry boy who just wanted to go home.

" 'Why I gotta do this?' " she recalled him grumbling. "I thought it was going to be a hard one to crack, but he came around."

Isaiah eventually embraced life at the center, showing up almost every day and participating in activities organized by groups like Mission Safe, a nonprofit organization that runs after-school programs for teenagers and middle-school students. Isaiah's family asked that his full name be withheld because he is a juvenile.

Most days after school, Isaiah shoots pool in the basement of the community center or visits Simmons College, where he talks with students about their majors or conducts science experiments.

One Wednesday afternoon, he made ice cream with Boston University students in the community center, though the results were less appetizing than he expected.

"It was watery," he said with a grimace.
He now says he wants to be a police officer, but emphasized that his policing style will be "way different" from some of the officers he has met. He wants to do better in school, though mostly because his mother has promised him a new bike if his grades improve.

"He's very articulate, he has a lot of potential, and I don't want him to give up on himself," Duncan said.

If he is not arrested and shows up for every court date until his case is decided, he will be considered a success story for the program.

The number of detained children in the state has dwindled in recent years, from 6,408 in 2003 to 5,438 in 2006.

But as alternative programs like DDAP struggle to find funding, advocates worry that without them, judges will have no choice but to continue incarcerating children, who can quickly adapt to life behind bars.

"People who are at DYS think they can now handle prison, so they're not afraid of going to prison and they should be," said Harris, the juvenile court judge. "We've developed, in my mind, a bunch of kids who think they've earned their red badge of courage, because they went into the system."

Isaiah, who already has been detained at the Department of Youth Services, shrugged when he was asked if he feared being locked up.

"Not really," he said. "I'll get out sooner or later."

The Somerville 5 Need Your Support

Somerville 5 need you to attend Cambridge Juvenile Court tomorrow @ 9:00 am!!

Retired, Unemployed, Bored or Motivated by the pursuit of Justice? Come to court tomorrow!!!
( And for however long the trial lasts! )
DEFEND OUR YOUTH!
DROP THE RACIST FRAME-UP CHARGES AGAINST THE SOMERVILLE 5!

STOP POLICE BRUTALITY AND RACIAL PROFILING!

The trial for the juvenile defendants in the case will start
TOMORROW--THURSDAY 9:00 AM
Your immediate help is needed:

COME PACK THE COURT:
Thursday, 2/28/08 9:00 AM

Middlesex Juvenile Court, 121 Third St. - Cambridge (brick building, corner of Thorndike + Third Streets, Lechmere Stop on Green Line)

Call, Fax or Write the Judge.
Demand Case be dismissed and all charges dropped!
Chief Justice of Juvenile Court Honorable Martha P. Grace, 3 Center Plaza, #520, Boston, MA 02108; TELEPHONE: 617-788-6550; FAX: 617-788-8965

The Somerville 5 are Black youth who were racially profiled by white Medford police then attacked, beaten, maced and arrested on April 20, 2005. They were charged with numerous crimes and suspended from Somerville High School. They became a symbol across Boston of youth standing up and fighting back against racism and police brutality.

Almost three years later, the Medford cops and Middlesex DA are continuing with their attempts to railroad the remaining 2 defendants, Cassius Belfon and Earl Guerra. Jury selection will start on Wednesday, February 27 and the trial is expected to begin on Thursday, February 28th.

These young men should be allowed to get on with their lives. Both Cassius and Earl will be graduating from high school this year and are looking forward to attending college. Both are active in organized sports and church activities.

The pursuit of this racist vendatta by the Medford Police and DA is an outrage, particularly in light of the fact that the first trial of Calvin Belfon and Isaiah Anderson was rife with conflicting police testimony and lies. One witness for the prosecution turned against them and testified in defense of the Somerville 5, saying she had been coerced and duped. Other witnesses were taken to the police station and threatened. The judge stated in a memo that it was clear that the police initiated the attack on the youths, resulting in the youths being forced to defend themselves.

For one and a half years, the Committee to Defend the Somerville 5, friends, family and supporters picketed, rallied, held press conferences, conducted a national phone/fax campaign, held fundraisers and then packed the courtroom. The judge, the jury, the police and the DA all took note of this. As a result, the DA's plan to lock the youth in prison for 2 years was stopped! But they were found guilty of some charges and given 2 years probation.

Enough is enough! We need to defend our youth! Demand all charges be dropped against Cassius Belfon and Earl Guerra!

Thank you,

Committee to Defend the Somerville 5

c/o The Action Center

284 Amory St.

Jamaica Plain, MA 02130

617-522-6626

CORI: Juveniles Must Be Included in the Executive Order

It is critical that Governor Patrick doesn't leave out the thousands of juveniles that are negatively harmed by current CORI practices. Please Call Governor Patrick and tell him it is CRITICAL that the following language be included in the Executive Order:

"Only summer camps shall receive juvenile court activity record information records; when juvenile court activity record information is disseminated, employers shall receive court activity records of juveniles limited to cases which contain adjudications of delinquency; all other adjudicatory dispositions of juveniles shall not be disclosed."

Call the Governor at 617.725.4005 or email him at the following link:
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=gov3utilities&sid=Agov3&U=Agov3_contact_us.

Lisa Thurau-Gray states:

Juvenile records are released to housing authorities, private enterprises—from banks to fast food restaurants, hospitals (sometimes 12 years later), day care centers, and to the summer youth employment programs. Youth with records are denied entry to a panoply of training programs—just by dint of having a record.

Even juvenile records which disclose a youth's case has been dismissed or the youth has been acquitted are used to justify not hiring youth. The release of this information to employers represents the trumping of the arrest information over the disposition of the juvenile judge—an employer sees the charge and assumes there is danger. This dissemination of data vitiates the whole point of the court proceeding by making the fact of the arrest the most salient piece of information.

****************************
''Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.


--
Union of Minority Neighborhoods

83 Highland St
Roxbury, Ma 02119
617-521-4111

2 Harris Ave
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
617-522-3349

www.unionofminorityneighborhoods.org

Juvenile justice and the pardon

Juvenile justice and the pardon
January 3, 2008

LEAVING ASIDE for a moment the self-serving presidential campaign rhetoric that has brought to the front page Mitt Romney's refusal to pardon a decorated war veteran, we should ask how it is possible for a juvenile at the age of 13 to have a public criminal record that would require pardoning as if the individual were an adult at the time ("Mass. pardon case at center of GOP storm," Jan. 2).

Juvenile court is supposed to be a confidential legal setting. The whole purpose of juvenile justice is to recognize adolescence and the need to treat juveniles as if they are less responsible for their actions than adults. A juvenile's record of delinquency is not a permanent record of criminality but a temporary one that is to be wiped clean when the juvenile turns into an adult.

The juvenile court's mission remains important in providing youths with the second chance that they need to become productive, law-abiding adults.

The fact that Anthony Circosta as an adult had to petition to be pardoned for an offense that he committed at 13 is a sad indictment not only of a former governor who consistently refused to grant any petition, but of a state that prides itself on its ability to provide justice.
SIMON I. SINGER, Boston

The writer is a professor of criminal justice at Northeastern University.

WOULDN'T IT be rich for Governor Patrick to show up his predecessor by issuing a long-overdue pardon to Anthony Circosta? Nothing would send a stronger message regarding justice and sensitivity.
PHIL HALL, Fairfield, Conn.

Jailing Juveniles

Children should not be held in adult jails.

Friday, August 10, 2007 - Washington Post

MORE CHILDREN are going to jail -- too often even before they have been convicted.

In the District, the average daily count of juveniles being held in adult jail before trial has nearly tripled in the past year, according to a recent report from the Campaign for Youth Justice. It's unclear whether this rise is attributable to an increase in serious crimes by juveniles, a surge in police patrols or tougher decisions by prosecutors who choose when to try teenagers as adults. Whatever the cause, the increase in children held in adult jails should be reversed as a matter of public safety and decency.

Studies have shown that children incarcerated in adult jails are more likely to be arrested again and to commit graver new offenses. In the D.C. Jail, which holds inmates awaiting trial or serving short sentences, juveniles are kept apart from adults, but they benefit from little of the rehabilitative programming and structure required at juvenile detention centers. Currently, only those needing special education, for example, can go to class. Devon Brown, director of the D.C. Department of Corrections, said the agency has negotiated with the D.C. public school system to begin providing classes for all juveniles at the D.C Jail starting on Oct. 1. These efforts are laudable, but, as Mr. Brown agrees, an adult jail does not have the resources, staffing or training to treat these youths.

Children are developmentally different from adults. Neurological research, including a study presented before the 2005 Supreme Court decision striking down capital punishment for juveniles, has shown that the parts of the brain that manage moral reasoning and impulse control do not fully develop until a person reaches his or her early to mid 20s. Experts agree that teenagers who've gotten themselves into trouble need structure, counseling and directed programming. Troubled youths should not be allowed -- as they currently are at the D.C. Jail -- to spend most of their days sleeping.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons knows this. In the District, juveniles who are tried as adults and convicted and sentenced to prison time of more than six months are turned over to the Bureau of Prisons for incarceration. But even though they were held in adult jails before trial, the agency is legally barred from keeping them in adult prisons after conviction, according to bureau spokeswoman Traci Billingsley. Instead, they must be transferred to juvenile facilities, where they remain until age 18.

Surely this law exists because exposing troubled children to less structured and more dangerous adult jails can only harden them and lead to more crime, more arrests and more expensive imprisonment. Jailing juveniles in adult facilities is a bad investment of public funds and an investment in worse fortroubled American youths.

Juvenile Justice

July 12, 2007
EDITORIAL

Juvenile Justice

One of Congress's most crucial tasks will be to strengthen and update the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. Passed in 1974, the law required the states to move away from the practice of locking up truants and runaways — and to refrain from placing children in adult jails — in exchange for federal grant dollars.

Congress's goal then was to move the states away from failed policies that often turned young delinquents into hardened criminals and toward a framework based more on mentoring and rehabilitation. But the states have increasingly classified ever larger numbers of young offenders as adults, trying them in adult courts and holding them in adult prisons.

The damage wrought by these policies is vividly outlined in a federally backed study issued this spring. It reports that children handled in adult courts and confined in adult jails committed more violent crime than children processed through the traditional juvenile justice system. Other studies show that as many as half of the juvenile offenders sent to adult courts were not convicted there — or were sent back to the juvenile system, but often after spending time in adult lockups. Equally disturbing is the fact that youths of color are more likely to be sent to adult prisons than their white counterparts.

Reauthorization hearings begin today and members need to listen closely to what the experts are saying. Trying children as adults — except in isolated cases involving extreme violence — is both inhumane and counterproductive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/12/opinion/12thu3.html?

NY Times: Juvenile Injustice

May 11, 2007
Editorial

Juvenile Injustice

The United States made a disastrous miscalculation when it started automatically trying youthful offenders as adults instead of handling them through the juvenile courts. Prosecutors argued that the policy would get violent predators off the streets and deter further crime. But a new federally backed study shows that juveniles who do time as adults later commit more violent crime than those who are handled through the juvenile court.

The study, published last month in The American Journal of Preventive Medicine, was produced by the Task Force on Community Preventive Services, an independent research group with close ties to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. After an exhaustive survey of the literature, the group determined that the practice of transferring children into adult courts was counterproductive, actually creating more crime than it cured.

A related and even more disturbing study by Campaign for Youth Justice in Washington finds that the majority of the more than 200,000 children a year who are treated as adults under the law come before the courts for nonviolent offenses that could be easily and more effectively dealt with at the juvenile court level.

Examples include a 17-year-old first-time offender charged with robbery after stealing another student's gym clothes, and another 17-year-old who violated his probation by stealing a neighbor's bicycle. Many of these young nonviolent offenders are held in adult prisons for months or even years.

The laws also are not equally applied. Youths of color, who typically go to court with inadequate legal counsel, account for three out of every four young people admitted to adult prison.

With 40 states allowing or requiring youthful offenders to spend at least some time in adult jails, state legislators all across the country are just waking up to the problems this practice creates. Some states now have pending bills that would stop juveniles from being automatically transferred to adult courts or that would allow them to get back into the juvenile system once the adult court was found to be inappropriate for them.

Given the damage being done to young lives all over the country, the bills can't pass soon enough.