Teen court seeks help

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Reach for Youth, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that oversees teen court programs in Marion and Johnson counties and over 250 teen court volunteers, must raise $15,000 by March 1 to keep afloat.

Indianapolis attorney and board member Jimmie McMillian, who has been involved for nine years and has volunteered as a judge in teen court, is asking people to give at least $10, which he said can make a difference for the "pee wee league for the legal profession."

Teen court is a diversion program for juveniles accused of non-violent crimes. Their peers - volunteers age 10-17 - serve as attorneys and jurors. Participants in teen court are mentored by lawyers and law school students. Juvenile offenders often become involved with teen court as volunteers, while offender and non-offender volunteers may ultimately decide to become attorneys.

"For kids in our community who have an interest in the law, this helps them in a very real way," he said. "If that doesn't inspire attorneys, I don't know what will."

(Indiana Lawyer published a story about teen court programs around Indiana in the Dec. 13 - 26, 2006, issue, "A jury of their peers.")

Reach for Youth is also waiting for responses about grants they've applied for. Because it remains unknown when they will receive grant money or how much they will receive, every bit helps, he said.

"Our staff took a 10 percent pay cut," he added. "We have already been reducing staff, cutting back cutting back cutting back, and now we're at bare bones."

In response to his initial e-mail sent in early February, McMillian has received a few donations and at least nine calls from parents asking how their children can get involved.

Anyone interested in learning more about Reach for Youth or getting involved may contact Christopher Nunn, Reach for Youth Inc., 3505 N. Washington Blvd., Indianapolis, IN 46208. Checks may be made payable to "Reach for Youth, Inc."

The organization can also accept donations by credit card. Call Nunn at (317) 920-5900. The Web site for Reach for Youth, Inc. is

When asked what would happen if the organization doesn't raise $15,000, McMillian said, "The board hasn't made a decision yet. I'm looking at this like I'm going to get this money. I'm not entertaining failure. ... I can't believe we can't get $15,000 out of the Indianapolis legal community."


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?