ILNews

Juvenile reform continues after '09 summit

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

No follow-through. That was a complaint voiced by attendees of last year’s summit to discuss juvenile justice matters in Indiana about many similar conferences they’d attended before: there was no follow-through.

But that wasn’t the case with the “Summit on Racial Disparities in the Juvenile Justice System: A Statewide Dialogue,” which the Indiana State Bar Association hosted in August 2009. The focus was on zero tolerance policies and disproportionate numbers of minorities in the juvenile justice system.

The summit – one of, if not the first of its kind in the nation – was a gathering of national experts and every type of stakeholder in the juvenile justice system in Indiana, including judges, lawyers, social workers, case workers, court appointed special advocates, educators, police officers, legislators, and parents.
 

JaeNue Hanger Hanger

Summit organizers, including Indianapolis civil rights attorney JauNae Hanger and ISBA legislative director Paje Felts, shared the resulting report with Indiana Lawyer that they and other summit participants had finished over the summer. It will be ready for distribution via the ISBA’s website by the end of September or early October.

The report includes 10 recommendations, as well as suggested actions, relevant projects that are already addressing the recommendations, possible partnerships, and resources for the stakeholders to get more information.

Those recommendations are:

• To have educators and stakeholders work together to make sure school policies are in place to help students to remain in school and ultimately graduate from high school.

• To decrease the number of arrests and referrals to the juvenile justice system in matters that the schools can handle internally, which would also keep the students in school and increase their chances of graduating.

• To improve training for law enforcement and school resource officers.

• To devise data-collection methods to measure disproportionality among all service providers that work with juveniles, including Child Protective Services, Department of Education, Division of Mental Health and Addiction, and the Department of Correction.

• To achieve cost savings in the juvenile justice system. In turn, those savings would go to educational and community programming for juveniles.

• To require the development and implementation of diversity trainings and plans for all juvenile justice agencies, providers, and professional associations.

• To develop strategies to address the needs and issues of “dual jurisdiction youth,” who are in the juvenile justice system and the child welfare system at the same time.

• For all juvenile courts to consider ways of reducing the likelihood of disproportionate minority contact through various court reforms.

• To increase access to legal counsel.

• To introduce legislation that would create a standing Commission on Children to maintain state standards for public policy regarding juveniles in Indiana.

To further discuss the report, a CLE – Kids, Books & Bars: A Look at Recommendations to Reduce Racial Disparities in the Juvenile Justice System – will take place Oct. 15 from 1:30 to 3 p.m. as part of the ISBA’s annual meeting. That CLE will include a panel of representatives from the five major youth initiatives currently taking place in Indiana: the Law Enforcement, School Police and Youth Workgroup; Department of Education’s Best Practices in Student Discipline; the board of Coordinating Services for Vulnerable Individuals; the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative of the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute; and the Indiana Mental Health Screening Assessment and Treatment Pilot Project. More information is in the event brochure for the ISBA annual meeting at www.inbar.org.

While the August 2009 summit, the resulting report, and the Oct. 15 CLE have a number of participants, Hanger said it was so that everyone would have a place at the table. The purpose was never to point fingers at any one agency or organization that works with juveniles but to give everyone a chance to address the issues, including what does or doesn’t work for them.


MaryBeth Bonaventura Bonaventura

Lake Superior Judge Mary Beth Bonaventura in that court’s juvenile division has been actively involved with juvenile justice matters around the state. As the report’s editing phase came to a close, she said the interactions of so many different stakeholders was what she was most proud of regarding the report and summit.

Leslie Dunn, director of the Indiana Office of Guardian Ad Litem/Court Appointed Special Advocate, agreed that the strength of the report lies in the number and variety of stakeholders and that everyone has a part to play to improve services to juveniles.

“The report is a call to action to say, at every point in the process, in every agency, we have a role in addressing these issues,” she said, adding there needs to be fewer instances of “passing the buck” when it comes to who handles which specific issue a juvenile may have, even if there’s overlap, which she said is often the case.

She added that volunteers for the GAL/CASA programs she works with around the state will already consider all of the issues and services a child may need, and that very often more than one service is needed at a time.

“Every child has the same issues – education, supervision, love, all sorts of things – and we need to come together and say doesn’t matter if it’s DOE or law enforcement, what’s the best way to meet the needs of these kids. I don’t care if they come through the delinquency door, but if this kid is a CHINS because his parents are alcoholics and can’t afford food and he robbed a Village Pantry for food,” the CHINS issue also needs to be acknowledged, she said.

Both Judge Bonaventura and Dunn added the report would shed light on this issue.

“We should call all children who come through juvenile court ‘children in need of services’ because that’s what they all are,” Judge Bonaventura said.

She said a pilot program is in the works in at least two counties that would further examine the issue of how much crossover there is between CHINS and juvenile delinquency cases.

Among the issues that can be addressed immediately, Judge Bonaventura said schools could implement some of the suggested actions, such as a consideration of how the school handles discipline.

“Why is it when kids misbehave, the school gives them out-of-school suspension? For schools it’s better to handle discipline issues by keeping the students in school. … Not every truant is a criminal, but every criminal has been a truant,” she said. “So where do we begin to fix that? School is a perfect place; how a person does in school is a good indicator of whether a person will be successful in life or not.”

She also suggested the stakeholder organizations that need diversity training to consider local universities or agencies that hold these types of trainings for a low cost to the staff.

Rep. William A. Crawford, D-Indi-anapolis, who wrote the report’s introductory message with Indiana Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard, thanked the ISBA for taking on the matter and hosting the summit last year.

“All too often … we give up on children too early and jeopardize our future. … We need to give children a second chance. We need to be proactive to take the time to work with youth, instead of putting them on the track of leaving school to enter the prison pipeline. … We need educated, productive contributors to society as they become the future leaders,” he said.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13) Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety. The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America. The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx? ID=247350 The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483 Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates. The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483 These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30) The full report is available online at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) (page 38) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 1.8% The full report is available online at. http://www.google.com/url?sa= t&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.cdcr.ca.gov%2FAdult_ Research_Branch%2FResearch_ documents%2FOutcome_ evaluation_Report_2013.pdf&ei= C9dSVePNF8HfoATX-IBo&usg=AFQjCNE9I6ueHz-o2mZUnuxLPTyiRdjDsQ Bureau of Justice Statistics 5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE WASHINGTON, D.C. Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013 Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy. A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7% Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009. The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05% Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so. Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do. From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M. For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf. Attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth. Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country. I think the media or other organizations need to do a in depth investigation into the false assumptions and false data that has been used to further these laws and to research all the collateral damages being caused by these laws and the unconstitutional injustices that are occurring across the country. They should include these injustices in their report so the public can be better informed on what is truly happening in this country on this subject. Thank you for your time.

  2. Freedom as granted in the Constitution cannot be summarily disallowed without Due Process. Unable to to to the gym, church, bowling alley? What is this 1984 level nonsense? Congrats to Brian for having the courage to say that this was enough! and Congrats to the ACLU on the win!

  3. America's hyper-phobia about convicted sex offenders must end! Politicians must stop pandering to knee-jerk public hysteria. And the public needs to learn the facts. Research by the California Sex Offender Management Board as shown a recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders of less than 1%. Less than 1%! Furthermore, research shows that by year 17 after their conviction, a convicted sex offender is no more likely to commit a new sex offense than any other member of the public. Put away your torches and pitchforks. Get the facts. Stop hysteria.

  4. He was convicted 23 years ago. How old was he then? He probably was a juvenile. People do stupid things, especially before their brain is fully developed. Why are we continuing to punish him in 2016? If he hasn't re-offended by now, it's very, very unlikely he ever will. He paid for his mistake sufficiently. Let him live his life in peace.

  5. This year, Notre Dame actually enrolled an equal amount of male and female students.

ADVERTISEMENT