Juvienation

Well, I guess it’s less likely to shatter than glass, but still…

From the AP via Houston Chronicle:

AUSTIN — A federal judge has approved a settlement between the Texas Youth Commission and the Justice Department over inmate safety at the state’s juvenile prison in Edinburg.

U.S. District Judge Ricardo Hinojosa signed the settlement Monday and it was announced by the TYC on Wednesday. Hinojosa had previously rejected a settlement on grounds it lacked a specific timeline for suggested reforms at the Evins Regional Juvenile Center, which federal prosecutors began probing in 2006 after numerous reports of abuse.

A Justice Department review released in 2007 described a “chaotic and dangerous” environment at Evins that violated inmates’ constitutional rights with its high levels of violence and too few guards to control the facility.

The settlement establishes parameters for safe living conditions to protect inmates from violence and staffing levels, restricts use of youth restraints and guards against retaliation for reporting abuse and misconduct. The Justice Department will also review the lockup every six months.

“If we are to have any success in rehabilitating youth,” said TYC Conservator Richard Nedelkoff, “we must first provide them a safe and responsive environment so they can concentrate o their treatment programs, instead of worrying about being in danger.”

Revelations of inmate abuse and possible cover-ups shook Texas’ juvenile corrections system last year and prompted state leaders to order a massive overhaul of the agency. Several top administrators were either fired or resigned.

Remember the Jena Six? Almost a year and a half after the school fight that set this national scandal in motion, and more than half a year after an estimated 20,000 civil rights protesters descended on the small Louisiana town to demand justice for the black defendants, only one of them has faced trial. In a certain sense, given the brand of Jim Crow justice that has prevailed in Jena, that’s a good thing. District Attorney Reed Walters, working in open coordination with his tag-team partner Judge J.P. Mauffray Jr., undermined generally accepted rules of procedure in order to throw the biggest book at Mychal Bell as quickly as possible. Last June Bell, a juvenile at the time of the fight, was convicted as an adult by an all-white jury of aggravated second-degree battery and conspiracy (the original charge was attempted murder). But the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeals vacated his conviction in September, just before the rally, and ruled that he should have been tried as a juvenile. He pleaded guilty in a new hearing in December and is serving out his sentence in juvenile detention. The other defendants, facing similar charges–one is being charged as a juvenile, the rest as adults–remain in legal limbo.

Yesterday that limbo was extended further. According to this update, motions for three of the Jena Six defendants will continue pending an appeal filed by their attorneys. “Those representing Carwin Jones, Bryant Purvis and Theo Shaw said that…Mauffray had previously denied motions before him to recuse himself as the trial judge in their cases without a hearing,” the AP reports. “The attorneys feel Mauffray has an unfair bias in the case, according to motions filed. His denial to their recusal request has been appealed to the 3rd Circuit, so Mauffray said he won’t hear other motions until that appeal is decided.”

Justice delayed, as they say…

“Should young people who are accused of a crime receive the full force of laws intended for adults, given accumulating evidence that their brains are not fully matured?” This is the question that an interesting article in the health section of today’s Washington Post attempts to address. “Pitting attorney against attorney, scientist against scientist, even attorneys against scientists, that question has the potential to redraw courtroom battle lines nationwide,” staff writer Laura Sessions Stepp explains.

Representing one side of the debate in this article is Jay Giedd, a neuroscientist who runs a children’s brain-imaging project at the National Institute of Mental Health. “Brain development only tells us it is very possible that children are immature until a certain age,” he says. “We can’t conclude how mature an individual is at a given age, or how responsible for his actions. There’s some evidence, but it’s hardly overwhelming.”

Another agnostic on considering brain development as a key determinant to behavior in juvenile cases is Baruch Fischhoff, a professor of social and decision sciences at Carnegie Mellon University. “It’s a very incomplete picture, one of simple tasks created in highly artificial settings,” he says. “It evokes all the prejudices people have about adolescents.”

On the other side is Laurence Steinberg, a psychology professor at Temple University and an expert in adolescent development. Steinberg acknowledges that much of the science on adolescent brain development is “reasonable speculation,” but his research has led him to conclude that “there is a whole set of abilities that are still maturing after age 16. It has changed my mind about where the boundary should be drawn between adolescence and adulthood. Even at 21 or 22, kids are still developing competencies.”

“Under good conditions, kids can be very good decision makers,” Steinberg says. Under less-than-good conditions, however, their judgment is easily impaired–more easily, he argues, than adults. In one experiment, for example,

Steinberg asked teenagers, college students and adults to play a video driving game, either alone or with two friends watching.

The subjects were given the choice of driving through an intersection’s yellow light, potentially winning lots of points but running the risk of crashing and losing everything, or not running the light, thereby avoiding a crash but winning fewer points.

When playing alone, the teens tended to act like the grown-ups and stop at the light. When friends were observing, however, the young drivers were more likely to sail through the intersection, which suggests to Steinberg that still-developing prefrontal cortexes hadn’t fully exercised their braking power.

“Under ideal conditions, kids and adults don’t look that different,” Steinberg says. “But when you introduce distractions including other people, the distractions have more harmful effects on kids.”

I don’t pretend any scientific expertise on this subject, but I strongly believe the law should treat juveniles separately from adults, so naturally I’m sympathetic to scientific research that bolsters such arguments in court. I side with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority decision in Roper v. Simmons, the landmark 2005 case that abolished the death penalty for juvenile offenders. “From a moral standpoint, it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minor’s character deficiencies will be reformed,” Kennedy wrote. Citing scientific and sociological research, he also found reason to rule that “juveniles are more vulnerable or susceptible [than adults] to negative influences and outside pressures, including peer pressure… This is explained in part by the prevailing circumstance that juveniles have less control, or less experience with control, over their own environment.” Continuing to allow capital punishment for young offenders after such research had become available, Kennedy concluded, would constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

This is, clearly, one of the essential debates among juvenile justice professionals right now, and as you can tell from the Post article, it’s far from settled. There is no shortage of resources for those who want to plunge in. For starters, check out the two-part (one, two) Coalition for Juvenile Justice report, published in 2006, which includes a great overview and resources for further investigation.

Other suggestions? Thoughts? Add them to the comments section below.

From the Miami Herald:

For the last several years, proponents of anti-bullying legislation have fought for a state law that would prohibit harassment of students. Every year, the bills failed.

But on Wednesday, supporters were cheering after the Jeffrey Johnston Stand Up for All Students Act unanimously passed the Florida Senate; it previously got unanimous support in the House of Representatives. Next stop: Gov. Charlie Crist, who told reporters he would probably sign it into law.

”I’m against bullying, too,” he said.

Named after a Cape Coral teen who committed suicide in 2005 after being bullied, the measure would require school districts to adopt policies prohibiting bullying and harassment.

DEAD TEEN’S MOTHER

Debbie Johnston, Jeffrey’s mother, wiped tears from her eyes as she sat in the Senate gallery and watched the vote. This was her third session working to get the bill passed. ”We’re going to keep working to make sure that no child has to stay home because they’re afraid of what’s going to happen at school or at the bus stop,” she said. “And no teacher will have to sit there and watch a child bullied to death without being able to do anything about it. Now we can do something and we will.”

The law, which also prohibits cyber-bullying — harassing or threatening another using the Internet — would require districts to have a process for reporting and investigating bullying claims. It also mandates counseling for bullies and victims.

If Crist signs the bill, Florida would become the 36th state in the nation with a law prohibiting bullying and harassment [EMPHASIS ADDED], according to anti-bullying organization Bully Police USA. The group rates states on its website, www.bullypolice.org, and has given Florida an F because it didn’t have a law in place.

Brenda High, the organization’s founder and mother of a teen who committed suicide in 1998 after being bullied, said the new law has potential to rate A++.

”All over the country, I get e-mails from parents who complain their kids have been assaulted and bullied and harassed,” she said. The law “tells the schools that they can’t just allow this type of garbage to go on.”

”This is a win for kids,” said David Barkey, southern area counsel for the Anti-Defamation League. “Unfortunately, bullying is epidemic in our schools. Cyber-bullying is growing exponentially. This is a real major step in trying to counter bullying in our schools, but of course, a law is only as good as it’s enforced.”

CATEGORIES

Although the bill does not specify categories of students, legislators clarified that the law would prohibit harassment targeted at specific characteristics, such as disability, ethnicity, gender identity and sexual orientation. ”The intent of this legislation is to protect all children from all types of bullying,” said Sen. Carey Baker, a Eustis Republican and the bill’s Senate sponsor.

Said Stratton Pollitzer, deputy director of gay-rights group Equality Florida: “We believe that the sponsors have put districts on notice that they have to include protections for gay and transgendered students or they’re breaking the law.”

Under the law, each of the state’s 67 districts must adopt a policy that complies with the new requirements by Dec. 1. If they don’t comply, districts could lose a portion of the state’s nearly $77 million for ‘’safe schools” programs.

Broward and Miami-Dade get about $18.5 million combined from that pot.

Officials with both districts have said they expect to be in compliance by then. Board members in Miami-Dade approved a new anti-bullying policy two years ago. A beefed-up policy in Broward that was created around the proposed law will go to board members for discussion this month.

From the Campaign for Youth Justice April newsletter:

The Campaign for Youth Justice now has a presence on YouTube! We have created a channel called “jjreform” which can be accessed at www.youtube.com/jjreform. Currently, there are several videos that represent the juvenile justice issue of transfer and youth in adult prisons and jails, including a success story that aired in Vermont which includes an interview with Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the US Senate Judiciary Committee. In addition, the “Favorites” section includes the following: a Caron Butler biography, Anne-Marie Ambrose testifying on Capital Hill, the NAACP State of Emergency video, an interview with former Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Administrator Shay Bilchik, and a Connecticut TV story about Congressman Chris Murphy’s (D-CT) juvenile justice legislation. We will continue to update this new channel with relevant videos from news stories, formerly incarcerated youth, experts, and more. If you have or know of an informative video on the prosecution of youth as adults that you would like us to add, please contact Eric Solomon at esolomon@cfyj.org or 202.558.3580 ext. 20.

Editor’s note: I’ve added a link to the YouTube channel on JJ Reform to the blogroll on the right. Be sure to check it periodically for updates.

Col. Peter Brownback, the US military judge presiding over the trial (if you can call it that) of Canadian-born Omar Khadr, has rejected a bid by Khadr’s attorneys to dismiss the case on the grounds that it contravenes international law. Khadr, who has been held at Guantánamo Bay since 2002, was 15 years old when he was pulled off the battlefield in Afghanistan. (He allegedly threw a hand grenade that killed a US operative.) U.S. Lieut. Cmdr. William Kuebler, Khadr’s attorney, argued earlier this year that trying Khadr in this context violates international laws, including the Child Soldier Protocol, of which the United States is a signatory. In today’s ruling, Brownback upheld the Pentagon’s argument that a person of any age can be brought before the US war crimes commissions at Guantánamo. Dark times, indeed.

From Pennsylvania to Washington, where, the Olympian reports, legal aid for indigent juvenile offenders is similarly absent. Citing the 2007 “Status Report on Public Defense in Washington State,” the paper notes that “seventeen counties never or only sometimes make public defense attorneys available to children and teenagers during their first appearance in juvenile court. These small- to medium-size counties…handle about 30 percent of the 22,000 cases a year involving juveniles making their initial appearance in court on allegations that they committed a crime.”

(Hat tip to Skelly at Arbitrary and Capricious for the link.)

The Juvenile Law Center has sent a petition to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court requesting immediate relief for the approximately 200 youth in Luzerne County who, records show, have appeared in the county’s juvenile court without representation since 2005. According to the JLC press release, “The state data show that from 2005 - 2006, more than 500 families in the county were affected and approximately 200 children were removed from their homes, leaving both children and parents feeling bewildered, violated and traumatized.” In other words, 50 percent of the teens who appeared in court during that time were not represented by counsel–that’s ten times the state average, not to mention a clear violation of the due process rights guaranteed to these young defendants by the landmark Supreme Court decision In Re Gault.

“Luzerne County’s Juvenile Court proceedings represent the most egregious violation of children’s constitutional rights in Pennsylvania,” says JLC legal director Marsha Levick. “When more than half of all youth appear in court without legal representation and are routinely taken from their homes and placed in residential treatment for minor offenses, something is seriously wrong and it must be stopped.”

The Wilkes-Barre-area daily Times Leader reports that the county’s juvenile judge, Mark Ciavarella,

acknowledged Tuesday that a high percentage of youths who come before him are not represented by attorneys. He could not explain why the numbers were so much higher than other counties.

The judge said in many cases he believes parents opt not to obtain attorneys because they know their child is guilty.

He insisted parents are advised at every step of the process that their child is entitled to an attorney, and that one will be appointed if they cannot afford one.

“It’s not like they’re walking into this blind. They are advised on three different occasions they have a right to have a lawyer present,” Ciavarella said. “If they want waive their right to an attorney, that’s their business.”

I have to admit, at first I was a little intimidated by John Kelly’s article in the April issue of Youth Today (subscription only). For starters, it’s about Medicaid, a knotty subject I’ve never been able to untangle. Kelly is a clear writer, though, and I know from chatting with him that he’s got a sharp eye on important juvenile justice issues, so I waded in.

The article highlights the Bernalillo County Juvenile Detention Center in New Mexico, which has tapped state and matching federal Medicaid funds to help establish and support a mental health clinic on campus. The clinic’s comprehensive services, according to juvenile justice reform expert Bart Lubow, are second to none. But wait a second: I thought juvenile offenders aren’t eligible for Medicaid.

That’s the widespread misperception–shared, Kelly reports, by officials in charge of juvenile justice or Medicaid administration in thirty-four states–that the article effectively dispels. Why do so many people share this misperception? I called Kelly on the phone yesterday afternoon to ask him for myself, and also to talk about the issues his smart piece raises. “The initial reading of the clause in the Medicaid rules would lead to that conclusion,” he told me. “It would be safe to assume that those kids would not be eligible. It’s funny: in some states people were surprised that they were eligible, but other people, like people I talked to in Pennsylvania, they’ve been doing this for twenty years. The reality is, you can pull it off.”

What it comes down to, Kelly explained, is the difference between an offender who is in detention after he has been adjudicated (serving a sentence or awaiting placement elsewhere) and a youth being detained before adjudication. The kids who are being treated in the Bernanillo clinic haven’t yet had their court hearing, so they don’t qualify as “inmates.” Bernalillo director Tom Swisstack, Kelly reported, “made the case to the state Medicaid office that the federal definition of inmates excludes anyone ‘in a public institution for a temporary period pending other arrangements appropriate to his needs.’” The Medical Assistance Division of New Mexico’s Human Services Department eventually agreed, stipulating that the youths in Swisstack’s care would be eligible for Medicaid for 60 days. (This is a state-by-state determination; in Pennsylvania, for example, the threshold is closer to one month.)

With the funding Swisstack secured, the majority of which came from tapping the “Medicaid pipeline,” he was able to construct two buildings on site, hire behavioral health therapists and get some of his staff trained to address specialized mental health needs. The result, as of 2001, is a fully functioning, fully funded mental health program that is helping to lower recidivism rates among Bernalillo’s offenders–the rate dropped from 88 percent to 33 percent–and reducing residential care costs. And it’s helping to streamline the adjudication process, too: by the time an offender from Bernalillo arrives in court, he or she is on a treatment regimen and the judge is presented with a set of recommendations developed by a caseworker and mental health professionals who understand the teen’s particular needs.

The trick to getting a program like this up and running, Kelly said, is to demonstrate cost savings not only to the state but also to the healthcare providers. “It seemed like a big deal for Bernalillo to get Medicaid funders on their side, to say, ‘We promise you this will save you money. We will bill you less.’ That’s a good idea, it seems to me. To say to Aetna or whoever, You guys are overspending.”

How does it save money, precisely? What was Bernalillo’s pitch? Basically, Kelly said, it goes like this: “You’ve got this kid who gets into detention, and he’s got a behavioral disorder. He’s destined for a residential treatment center, where they’re going to diagnose him, provide treatment, and he’ll stay for thirty days, maybe longer. Then he’ll get sent out with prescriptions he may or may not be able to pay for. And if he stops taking his meds, he may very well wind up back at the beginning. So you’re paying for a strategy that [Bernalillo is] showing has not had success. This is a system that quickly provides a treatment option that more often than not will be outpatient. And [Bernalillo can] do it in a way that will allow the kid to afford medication, and be more likely to stay out of jail.”

Kelly concedes that the program further blurs an already blurry line between the role of the juvenile justice system and that of mental health providers. Ideally, he argues, “you want these systems separate, but the reality is they’re intertwined right now.” At Bernalillo, “There is a concerted effort to say, ‘Let’s get the kid as far out of the juvenile justice system as possible when he’s in treatment…. They have drawn a clear line between line staff and clinic staff, and there is a liaison between them, so it’s as austere as possible.”

The upshot, complications and challenges notwithstanding, is a more inclusive approach to dealing with troubled teens. “If you start from the premise that juvenile justice tends to be underfunded, and that this is a stream of money that is to some extent is available everywhere, then it’s at least worth looking into. That’s all we were trying to say.”

That, alone, is a lot.