ILNews

Detaining questions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Juvenile Justice

What happens in the courtroom is only one piece of the juvenile justice puzzle. Youth detention and alternative detention programs represent costly components of the juvenile justice system that are currently experiencing some of the most dramatic reforms at the state level. Amid court challenges and legislative changes, detention funding questions are arising at a time when Indiana ranks fourth in the nation for how many children it locks up and as counties push alternative programs designed to limit the number of juveniles being sent to state and secure detention facilities.

A report released in early April by a national child advocate group, the Every Child Matters Education Fund based in Washington, D.C., shows that Indiana's per capita juvenile incarceration rate for children ages 10 through 17 is 415.4 per 100,000 juveniles. Only Florida, South Dakota, and Wyoming have worse records. And Indiana is 473 percent higher than the Vermont, the state that locks up the fewest juveniles. The report states that juveniles in the worst 10 states are more than twice as likely to be incarcerated as those in the best-ranked states.

Marion County Juvenile

Indiana Department of Correction figures show that about 1,014 juveniles were incarcerated as of Jan. 1, 2008, at the state's seven facilities, a steady increase from previous reports. More than 80 percent are males.

"Detention isn't good for kids," Marion Juvenile Judge Marilyn Moores said."When you put (juvenile) shoplifters with kids charged with armed robbery, that shoplifter is going to rise to that higher level  not the opposite."

Detention decisions

At the local level, Hoosier counties can look at their own jurisdictions and see a reflection of the report's findings, though many are working to limit the number of juveniles locked up in favor of placement alternatives. There are about two dozen secure detention facilities in Indiana, with local juvenile courts or county officials administering most of them and traditionally using county funds to pay detention costs.

Late last year, St. Joseph Juvenile Judge Peter Nemeth stopped sending female offenders to a state-run juvenile center in Indianapolis because he felt it lacked sufficient staffing and adequate services; in an open letter to Gov. Mitch Daniels, he cited claims of girls being "warehoused" and accusations of sexual contact.

The Marion County Juvenile Detention Center has undergone a transformation since a 2006 investigation and audits found unsafe conditions for staff and detainees -- concerns echoed at facilities nationwide and spelled out in lawsuits against facilities in at least 11 states in recent years. In the state's largest county, the U.S. Department of Justice has scrutinized the county-run juvenile detention center for nearly two years because of concerns about issues such as violence and education, but earlier in April the federal department filed a settlement agreement to continue monitoring for another three years to make sure improvements are being made.

Judge Moores is proud of the alternative detention options the county has utilized, as well as a new risk-assessment tool being used to determine whether kids should be detained. Since she took the bench in 2005 and the detention center's jurisdiction shifted from the Juvenile Court to the Superior Court Executive Committee, the 144-bed facility has gone from average daily populations of about 200 -- with kids staying on cots and floors  to a current average daily population in the mid- to high 90s, according to her court's figures.

While some counties can be seen as examples of why detention shouldn't be the first or most common option chosen when deciding how to handle juvenile offenders, the reform efforts can be commendable, advocates say. But so much of it comes to funding, and they admit that's part of the problem now facing the juvenile justice system.

Funding

fundingDetention alternatives work the best, as juveniles and those in the trenches point out, but it can be difficult to utilize in areas of Indiana where funding and resources are scarce.

"We have too many kids we throw away," said Janet Peterson, a Lake County supervisor for the Indiana Juvenile Justice Task Force. "We have programs that work and can stop them from becoming a permanent problem in the adult system."

In Marion County alone, about 300 youths were securely detained in 2007 who would have been released had additional appropriate alternatives to secure detention been available, according to Gael Deppert, who leads the Marion County Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative. The total price tag came to almost $1.14 million last year for those juveniles, breaking down to about $253 per day to detain a juvenile and an average of about $3,795 per child for an average 15-day stay.

That's not even looking at overall child-welfare costs, estimated to be about $100 million a year in the county. The statewide costs are in the ballpark of $440 million annually to provide services to abused and neglected children and families, and youth in the juvenile justice system.

In Wayne County, public defender Kaarin Lueck said that too often the only option is secure detention because alternatives aren't available in more rural counties.

"You have to turn to the DOC, and that's not the intent of the delinquency system," she said.

That funding issue is now one that's playing out on two fronts -- the Indiana Court of Appeals and the General Assembly. The COA is considering Marion County and St. Joseph County v. State of Indiana, 73A01-0705-CV-238, which has statewide implications regarding who must pay to operate juvenile detention facilities  the state or individual counties. The counties sued in 2005 after Indiana tried to recover about $75 million it spent operating juvenile detention facilities in those two areas, and a Shelby County judge last spring ruled in favor of the state.

During arguments April 17, the counties argued that a 1953 law violated the Indiana Constitution when it allowed the state to charge counties for housing juveniles in the Indiana boys' and girls' schools, now the Indianapolis Juvenile Correctional Facility.

Hurt That case comes just as the state's juvenile justice system is prepping for a new law to begin next year, effectively shifting juvenile detention costs from the counties to the state.

Buried within hundreds of pages of sweeping property tax reform passed by the General Assembly this year and signed into law by the governor in March are several provisions that mean juvenile courts could lose some say on children in the state's care.

Juvenile judges, attorneys, and advocates worry what the new law will mean for children in the system, while proponents emphasize how this will expand Indiana's ability to collect federal reimbursements and make the process more efficiently centralized through the Indiana Department of Child Services.

Key parts of the law impacting the juvenile justice system include:

• DCS must sign off on plans ordered by judges for abused and neglected children and their families, and juvenile courts must submit recommendations for services, programs, or placements of a delinquent child to DCS for preapproval.

• Provides the DCS is not responsible for the costs of child services if the juvenile court has not entered the required findings and the DCS has determined the child otherwise meets the Title IV-E eligibility requirements.

• In all cases, if the juvenile court orders services, programs, or placements that are not eligible under Title IV-B or Title IV-E and are not recommended or approved by the DCS, the DCS is not responsible to pay the costs of those services, programs or placements.

• If either party doesn't agree with the other's findings, the court or DCS can appeal to the Indiana Court of Appeals and go through an expedited appellate review process that's currently being established.

Small countiesIndiana Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard doesn't see danger, although he admits it will take time to sort through the enormous changes and opposition is likely because of the traditional local control.

"It's far from certain where all of this will shake out, but it's all about doing what's favorable to the interests of children," he said. "Kids won't get shuffled back and forth depending on who's paying the bill."

Lake Juvenile Judge Mary Beth Bonaventura said she has confidence that the DCS wants to do right by kids and that obstacles in this law can be overcome, including the concerns about a tighter timeline in making some of these juvenile justice decisions.

"This certainly is going to put a new spin on what we do, but the courts will ultimately decide what's in the best interest of the children," she said.

The DCS and director James Payne, former juvenile judge in Marion County, did not return phone calls or e-mails from Indiana Lawyer seeking an interview for this story.

In Marion County, Judge Moores predicts the changes will create funding challenges for the juvenile court system. While the state is picking up the tab for state-detained juveniles, it isn't taking responsibility for all the services and programs currently being paid through the county funds. That means alternative detention programs and mental health diversion programs in place statewide could be in danger, unless counties find a way to raise money for those options, she said.

Small counties 2"Small counties have struggled without centralization and that's what everyone's wanted, but this is a case of 'Be careful what you ask for.' The entire funding system is being centralized, and this is akin to the executive branch trying to direct the judicial. I certainly understand the need for a homogenous approach across the state, but this may have unintended consequences that do more harm than good."

 Amy Karozos, an attorney with the Youth Law T.E.A.M. of Indiana and chair of the Indiana State Bar Association's Civil Rights of Children Committee, worries that more secure detentions or DOC placements could result from this new law.

"That's a possibility because there won't be as many options or services as there were to kids in the delinquency system," she said. "But right now, no one is sure what effects it may have."

Advocates working on the front lines remain optimistic, despite the obstacles.

Alternative detention efforts will continue trying to cut the number of incarcerated youth, even as juvenile justice officials work to sort out funding and procedural questions, they say.

"We're the early warning system for the entire criminal justice system, and we need to get at the root of the problem," Judge Moores said. "Detention and alternatives should be nurturing and educational for kids ... . We're not there yet, and it's disappointing, but Rome wasn't built in a day."

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT