|
JUVENILE DETENTION ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES
Promoting Child Welfare Using Evidence-Based Practices
|
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Detention Alternatives within the juvenile justice context is not a new concept, but in fact was the basis for creating the juvenile court in Chicago. Historically, a group of citizens of Cook County in 1899 were concerned about the treatment of youth in the adult criminal justice system. Using the philosophy, which is now a medical fact that youth are not fully developed emotionally and pyschologically, that adolescents can still be rehabilitated and therefore should be treated differently than adults, these citizens called for the creation of a juvenile court. Ironically, this group found an ally in prosecutors who were having difficulty in securing convictions of youth by juries in adult court, especially as these judges and juries saw these kids standing next to adults and feeling concern for the situation of these youth. With the increase of juvenile violent crime publicized in the late eighties and during the nineties coupled with the murderous assault by two students at Columbine High, many States modified their juvenile justice system to create tougher laws for youth who commit violent crimes. A number of States created what has become known as automatic transfer laws where youth who commit a capital offense who serious violent crime are treated as adult defendants. These States and most others already possessed laws allowing for transfer of these type cases when petitioned by the prosecutor and after a pre-trial hearing the Juvenile Court found sufficient grounds to transfer the case to adult court. Needless to say, the automatic transfer laws inferred that society, by and through state legislatures, no longer had faith in the juvenile courts to make these decisions and much less to treat such violent cases. Georgia was no exception with the passage of the Seven Deadly Sins and Designated Felony statutes in 1994. But these laws were implemented, as many laws are, in a knee jerk reaction, without much forethought, and grounded mostly in anecdotal evidence and not empirical. With passing time, it is becoming more evident that these so called "tougher laws" are tough on the child, but not so tough in reducing recidivism or in securing community safety. For example, a Rand Corp. study conducted of the Pennsylvania automatic transfer laws reveals more youth waiting for longer periods in jail before going to trial and sentencing, which in the juvenile system the youth would have been adjudicated and receiving treatment within a fraction of time it takes to go through the adult system. Also, the adult system itself is fraught with problems that include overburdened court dockets and a system that allows for negotiated pleas to move a case along without real consideration what is in the best interest of the youth and the community. Thus, cases were dismissed or dead docketed due to overwhelming dockets; cases that would most likely result in treatment for the youth if handled in juvenile court. Other cases were probated as part of a negotiated plea to move the case along, and into a system of probation designed for adults that seek more their punishment than treatment for purposes of rehabilitation. This is not to say that the juvenile justice systems across this nation are not without their respective problems, but the tough question is why totally abandon a juvenile justice system to treat youth who have committed violent acts for a system that is less equipped for such treatment and certainly riddled with its own problems that result in the release of violent offenders back into the community without consideration of meaningful treatment. This is evidenced in part by attorneys representing youth in Georgia subject to incarceration for up to five (5) years requesting the case be transferred to adult court knowing they can get the case negotiated to adult probation and released back to the community, and avoid restrictive custody for purposes of intensive treatment. Although Georgia law does not allow for the defense to request such a transfer, a number of attorneys out of ignorance still request it, and thus revealing the true state of affairs.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
DETENTION ALTERNATIVES AS AN EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE
This site was created by Judge Steven C. Teske (pictured above left), Juvenile Court of Clayton County, Georgia, to promote effective detention alternative practices in both the delinquency and dependency context. Beginning in 2000, Judge Teske, with the support of his judicial colleagues and administration of the court, began implementing various strategies to reconfigure the systems of the juvenile court in Clayton County using a collaborative systems model that would promote a detention alternative system. This model is discussed in detail within this site, but suffice it to say that the practices implemented have reduced detention of youth by 44%, including a reduction in minority confinement by 30%, and a reduction in recidivism among probationers by 50%. These practices, taken collectively, is the Juvenile Detention Alternative Program (JDAI or known also as FAST-START for Finding Alternatives for Safety & Treatment-Stabilization Through Assessment, Rehabilitation & Treatment).
Alternatives to detention are also applicable to cases involving dependency, or those children at risk for abuse and neglect and subject to removal by police or court order. Detention is often considered synonomous with delinquent proceedings, but children removed from their families are by law considered detained by their placement in a shelter care or foster home. To many of these children, the removal from their homes are just as traumatic as being placed in a detention facility. In Clayton County, the Collaborative Systems Model was also employed to reconfigured the institutional and agency systems and operations in the handling of certain abuse and neglect cases to promote the placement of removed children with safe relatives, and to reduce the arrest of parents in those cases in which services provided to the family outweigh the benefits, if any, of criminal prosecution. These practices, and others, have been of great interest to others in the field of juvenile justice and child welfare, which gave rise to the creation of this site at the request of many juvenile justice and child welfare practitioners, including citizens and volunteers, interested in detention reform and other evidence-based practices.
.
|
|
BALANCE AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
Finally, the implementation of these practices were made within the context of the "Balanced and Restorative Justice" principles. The concept of placing public safety first by placing emphasis on the restoration of the victim while simultaneously increasing the competence of the offender so he or she will not re-offend and victimize again is the goal of every community. The Juvenile Court of Clayton County, for example, is a participant in "Peace-making Circles" which is a tool employed by Native Americans to resolve conflict, and has proven to be very effective in the mediation of certain delinquent cases and especially offenses occuring on school property. This tool and others are under study to determine how effective these strategies are in addressing delinquency and dependency issues.
We hope this site proves informative and if further information is needed, or you would like to inquire about receiving technical assistance on matters of detention reform or other practices described in this site, please contact us by going to the "Contact Us" page using the menu toolbar above.
|
 |
 |
Powered by CityMax.com
|
|
|