ILNews

Juvenile reception center begins pilot period

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Marion County Juvenile Detention Facility has hit what some consider its lowest population in at least 12 years, evidence that a risk assessment tool implemented about two months ago is working. A new reception center may lower those numbers even more.

Earlier this week, the Marion Superior Court announced the population was at 98 - below the facility cap of 144 that was often filled prior to the recent changes. The number had increased to about 118 on Wednesday but was much lower than the high 100s past years have yielded.

Juvenile Magistrate Geoffrey Faither, who has been on the juvenile court bench since 1995, wrote that he has never known of a count that low.

This is part of a continuing push for improvements to the facility's battered image arising from controversial findings of a federal Department of Justice investigation last year that deemed the facility wasn't safe for staff or residents. Part of an assessment included a study workgroup that identified a need for a reception center where low-risk children can be taken by law enforcement instead of to the detention center.

A reception center will begin its pilot period Sunday with $150,000 in funding from the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute. With the center, organizers anticipate that fewer low-risk children will intersect with the juvenile justice system and, in turn, will leave more time for courts and attorneys to focus on cases involving serious, violent offenders. More violent offenders will continue to be sent to the juvenile detention facility.

The Reception Center will be at the existing reception center for runaway children, known as Youth Emergency Services, at 4144 N. Keystone Ave. In the nine-month pilot, coordinator Gael Deppert expects about 500 children to be referred to the center for class B and C misdemeanors.
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  2. If the end result is to simply record the spoke word, then perhaps some day digital recording may eventually be the status quo. However, it is a shallow view to believe the professional court reporter's function is to simply report the spoken word and nothing else. There are many aspects to being a professional court reporter, and many aspects involved in producing a professional and accurate transcript. A properly trained professional steno court reporter has achieved a skill set in a field where the average dropout rate in court reporting schools across the nation is 80% due to the difficulty of mastering the necessary skills. To name just a few "extras" that a court reporter with proper training brings into a courtroom or a deposition suite; an understanding of legal procedure, technology specific to the legal profession, and an understanding of what is being said by the attorneys and litigants (which makes a huge difference in the quality of the transcript). As to contracting, or anti-contracting the argument is simple. The court reporter as governed by our ethical standards is to be the independent, unbiased individual in a deposition or courtroom setting. When one has entered into a contract with any party, insurance carrier, etc., then that reporter is no longer unbiased. I have been a court reporter for over 30 years and I echo Mr. Richardson's remarks that I too am here to serve.

  3. A competitive bid process is ethical and appropriate especially when dealing with government agencies and large corporations, but an ethical line is crossed when court reporters in Pittsburgh start charging exorbitant fees on opposing counsel. This fee shifting isn't just financially biased, it undermines the entire justice system, giving advantages to those that can afford litigation the most. It makes no sense.

  4. "a ttention to detail is an asset for all lawyers." Well played, Indiana Lawyer. Well played.

  5. I have a appeals hearing for the renewal of my LPN licenses and I need an attorney, the ones I have spoke to so far want the money up front and I cant afford that. I was wondering if you could help me find one that takes payments or even a pro bono one. I live in Indiana just north of Indianapolis.

ADVERTISEMENT