Recovery Money for Byrne JAG Won’t Stimulate Greater Public Safety

Posted on October 29, 2010 by Sharon

The Justice Policy Institute (JPI), a research and policy organization in Washington, D.C. that studies law enforcement issues, recently reviewed two documents related to the $2 billion in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds spent on the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program: a new U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released October 15, 2010 and a National Criminal Justice Association release on self-reported spending on the program by states in 2009. JPI found that both reports reinforce the need for lawmakers to re-examine funding for the Byrne JAG program.

Today, JPI released JPI Fact Sheet on JAG spending analyzing how these funds are being spent and how outcomes are being measured and included recommendations for more effective use of taxpayer dollars..

Posted in Reports & Publications | Comments Off

Juvenile Detention Reform in Ohio Press Release

Posted on October 29, 2010 by Sharon

 PRESS RELEASE on Juvenile Detention Reform in Ohio:  November 1, 2010

 

JUVENILE DETENTION REFORM IN OHIO

Columbus, OH, November 1, 2010 – With support from the Annie E. Casey Foundation and the Cincinnati Bar Foundation, the Children’s Defense Fund of Ohio, the Children’s Law Center, Inc., the Juvenile Justice Coalition – Ohio and Voices for Ohio’s Children are collaborating to increase awareness and support among key stakeholders and the general public for juvenile pretrial detention reform in Ohio with the release of two documents:  Rethinking Juvenile Detention in Ohio Issue Brief outlining the current research and impact of juvenile pre-trial detention and Juvenile Detention Reform in Ohio Fact Sheet.  Both documents support the adoption of alternatives that will keep youth out of pretrial detention whenever possible, while maintaining community safety.   Amy Swanson, Executive Director of Voices for Ohio’s Children states, “Voices for Ohio’s Children is excited to work in partnership with the Children’s Defense Fund of Ohio, Children’s Law Center and the Juvenile Justice Coalition in supporting smart investments in community based programs that benefit children and families.”

Kim Brooks Tandy, Executive Director of the Children’s Law Center, points out that, “This initiative is important to existing reforms in Ohio which can safely reduce the rate of incarceration of children, and achieve better outcomes for them.  The front end of the system can be significantly impacted by eliminating the unnecessary use of detention.”

Research shows that:

  • Pretrial detention is an expensive option that does little to help juveniles or keep the community safe.
  • Detention reform saves scarce public dollars and redirects resources toward more cost-effective, community-based alternatives to confinement.
  • Jurisdictions employing detention alternatives have found reductions in the following: juvenile crime, the number of youth in long-term incarceration, costs associated with the juvenile justice system, and disproportionate minority contact.

 

Ronald Browder, Executive Director of the Children’s Defense Fund – Ohio, emphasizes that, “It is time to move beyond the research findings and begin to implement the alternatives that have been proven to make a positive impact on both the youth and community.”

Five Ohio counties are participating in the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI), a nationally recognized model created by the Annie E. Casey Foundation to promote detention reform.  The model is being implemented in Ohio under the leadership of the juvenile courts in Cuyahoga, Franklin, Lucas, Montgomery, and Summit counties and the Ohio Department of Youth Services.  This initiative is an opportunity to improve the front-end of the juvenile justice system based on research and evidence-informed practices, as part of larger juvenile justice reforms in Ohio.   Sharon Weitzenhof, the Director of the Juvenile Justice Coalition, explains that, “The Juvenile Justice Coalition believes that by implementing the JDAI in Ohio, we will make great progress in improving our juvenile justice system, since the initiative starts at the entry point.”

Angela Chang, Staff Attorney, JDAI Defender Project, Children’s Law Center, Inc. also states that, “Implementing counties will have a chance to take leadership in Ohio by developing innovative and collaborative methods to reach the JDAI goals with the support of the expertise from the Annie E. Casey Foundation. JDAI is a unique process that will also bring together parties that may have been historically adversarial to the table to work together collaboratively to reach these common goals in their communities.”

The policy brief and accompanying fact sheet highlight JDAI’s goals of reducing over-reliance on juvenile pretrial detention without jeopardizing public safety, obtaining better outcomes for youth through better assessment and alternatives, promoting effective legal representation at the detention hearing stage, and reducing overrepresentation of youth from communities of color in the system.

To access the documents, please go to: www.childrensdefense.org/ohio; www.childrenslawky.org; www.juvenilecoalition.org; and http://www.vfc-oh.org.

Hard copies may also be obtained by contacting Barbara Turpin at 614-221-2244 or bturpin@cdfohio.org.

Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off

Juvenile Detention Reform in Ohio

Posted on October 29, 2010 by Sharon

Rethinking Juvenile Detention in Ohio Issue Brief With support from the Annie E. Casey Foundation and the Cincinnati Bar Foundation, the Children’s Defense Fund of Ohio, the Children’s Law Center, Inc., the Juvenile Justice Coalition – Ohio and Voices for Ohio’s Children are collaborating to increase awareness and support among key stakeholders and the general public for juvenile pretrial detention reform in Ohio with the release of two documents: Rethinking Juvenile Detention in Ohio Issue Brief outlining the current research and impact of juvenile pre-trial detention and Juvenile Detention Reform in Ohio Fact Sheet. Both documents support the adoption of alternatives that will keep youth out of pretrial detention whenever possible, while maintaining community safety.

Posted in Reports & Publications | Tagged , | Comments Off

JJDPA Reauthorization

Posted on October 8, 2010 by Gabriella

JJDPA is up for reauthorization — please contact your senator for support!

Posted in Public Policy Advocacy, Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments Off

2010 Ohio Candidate Juvenile Justice Questions

Posted on October 5, 2010 by Sharon

JJC has developed questions for Ohio’s citizens who are interested in juvenile justice reform to ask state candidates. The following questions & background information are offered as guidance.

Continue reading →

Posted in Activities & Events, Public Policy Advocacy | Tagged | Comments Off

New videos released about children in Ohio’s Juvenile Justice System

Posted on October 4, 2010 by Gabriella

The Children’s Law Center released two videos concerning the treatment of youth in Ohio’s juvenile justice system — check them out.

Putting a Face on Every Child: Ohio’s Juvenile Justice Reform

Litigation & Advocacy: Keys to Creating An Effective Post-Disposition System in Ohio

Posted in Activities & Events, In the Media | Tagged , | Comments Off

Ohioans concerned about mistreatment of children in ODYS institutions

Posted on October 12, 2004 by admin

On October 12, 2004, the Juvenile Justice Coalition, in partnership with the League of Women Voters of Ohio, organized a meeting of representatives from Ohio organizations concerned about children and juvenile justice issues. The catalyst for the meeting was the allegations of abuse in Ohio’s juvenile correctional facilities, brought to light by newspaper investigations and a report prepared by Fred Cohen for the Ohio Department of Youth Services (ODYS).

Summary of problems:

  • Scioto Correctional Facility issues identified in the Cohen report – “Our site visits convinced each team member that there has been and remains a culture of violence among the uniformed staff, that verbal and physical abuse are common, that sexual misconduct by staff occurs, only crisis-type mental health care is available, and structured programming consistent with clearly stated and shared objectives is virtually non-existent.”
  • A Federal lawsuit filed in July 2004 by the Children’s Law Center claims that ODYS routinely denies juveniles access to legal help. According to the lawsuit, the Department of Youth Services did not adequately respond to the allegations of abuse, then failed to provide legal assistance despite repeated requests for help.
  • Circleville Juvenile Correctional Facility (for sexual offenders) – a Columbus Dispatch investigation identified a significant amount of sexual activity among residents and a lack of appropriate treatment/ supervision of residents.

We are very concerned about the problems addressed in the Cohen report related to the safety and appropriate treatment of residents at Scioto Correctional Facility. Furthermore, we have serious concerns about the safety of residents and inadequate programming and treatment at all ODYS facilities. No one is charged with oversight of ODYS facilities. Within the current environment, we question the ability of ODYS to provide adequate care for youngsters in their care. There should be zero tolerance for abuse of residents or the denial of their civil and legal rights.

We hold the Ohio Executive and Legislative branches responsible for the care, protection, and mental and physical development of children in ODYS facilities (Ohio Revised Code Section 2152.01). We would like to meet with you to discuss these issues.

Posted in Press Releases, Public Policy Advocacy | Tagged | Comments Off

H.R. 2215: Congressional Reauthorization of The JJDP Act of 1974 (finally) and the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant (JAIBG)

Posted on October 3, 2002 by Eric

On October 3, 2002, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 was reauthorized by Congress, ending a six year long battle over the legislation. HR 2215 also reauthorized JAIBG. It is expected to be signed by the President.

The purposes of the JJDP Act are:

  • to support state and local programs that prevent juvenile involvement in delinquent behavior;
  • to assist state and local governments in promoting public safety by encouraging accountability for acts of juvenile delinquency; and
  • to assist state and local governments in addressing juvenile crime through the provision of technical assistance, research, training, evaluation and the dissemination of information on effective programs for combating juvenile delinquency.

MANDATES

The JJDP reauthorization essentially maintains the core mandates of the Act. They are:

  • Deinstitutionalization of status offenders. Retains current prohibition on detaining status offenders in secure facilities;
  • Separation of adults and juveniles in institutions;
  • Removal of juveniles from jails, lockups, and other adult facilities; and
  • DMC. Requires states to address prevention and systemic efforts to reduce the disproportionate representation of minorities that come into contact with the juvenile justice system.

However, there are some provisions that provide exceptions to the core requirements. For example, runaways can be held longer in secure confinement to provide for family reunification purposes as specified in the Interstate Compact on Juveniles; and juveniles in rural areas can be held 48 hours (instead of the present 24 hours) in a adult facility.

The compliance requirements have been changed to provide that a state that fails to comply with a core requirement will be penalized by 20% of the state’s formula grant allotment and must use 50% of the remaining funds to come back into compliance. Current law ties 100% of a state’s formula grant to compliance and if the state fails to comply with any requirement 25% of the allocation is forfeited and the remaining funds must be used to reach compliance with the core requirements.

TITLE II

In addition, the legislation provides for the continuation of formula grant funds (Title II) to the states; provides that child welfare records must be shared with the Court; and juveniles brought into the system for the violation of a valid court order must be interviewed and assessed by a public child serving agency within 48 hours of intake. Several new focus areas for funding are included:

  • Programs to provide mental health services to juveniles;
  • Programs that provide post placement services to juveniles;
  • Programs that provide mentoring, counseling and training opportunities for juveniles; and
  • Programs to expand the use of probation to allow nonviolent offenders to remain in the community.

It maintains previous focus areas, including hate crime prevention programs, programs to provide counsel to juveniles and programs to provide services to females in the juvenile justice system.

TITLE V

The legislation retains Title V, incentive grants (matching funds) for local delinquency prevention programs.

The administrator may make grants to the state to local units of government for delinquency prevention programs and activities for juveniles who have had contact with the juvenile justice system, including the provision of services to children and their families of:

  • alcohol and substance prevention services
  • tutoring and remedial education
  • child and adolescent health and mental health services
  • leadership and youth development activities
  • the teaching that people are and should be held accountable for their actions
  • assistance in the development of job training skills

.
DELINQUENCY PREVENTION BLOCK GRANT

The legislation consolidates five program authorities to create a Delinquency Prevention Block grant that funds activities designed to prevent and reduce juvenile crime in communities which have a comprehensive juvenile crime prevention plan, including projects that provide treatment to juvenile offenders and juveniles who are at risk of becoming juvenile offenders. Activities may include (partial list):

  • Mentoring Family strengthening programs
  • Drug & alcohol abuse treatment programs Gang prevention programs
  • Job Training and Employment Recreation programs
  • Youth development programs Probation programs

Eligible recipients include community-based organizations, law enforcement agencies, local education authorities, local governments, social service providers and other entities with a demonstrated history of involvement in juvenile delinquency prevention.

FUNDING AUTHORIZATION for JJDP

The authorization is “such sums” for fiscal years 2003 through 2007.

In addition to the JJDP reauthorization, Congress also reauthorized the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant (JAIBG). The program was initially created in the FY98 Commerce Justice State Appropriations bill to provide states and units of local government with funds to develop programs to promote greater accountability in the juvenile justice system. Program purpose areas are expanded significantly to provide additional services and treatment for troubled youth, including:

  • implementing graduated sanctions programs that include counseling, restitution, community service, and supervised probation
  • establishing or expanding substance abuse programs
  • promoting mental health screening and treatment.
  • building, expanding, renovating or operating temporary or permanent juvenile detention, correction, or community corrections facilities;
  • hiring judges, probation officers and court appointed defenders and special advocates
  • establishing gun courts
  • establishing drug courts
  • establishing and maintaining programs to enable juvenile courts and juvenile probation officers to be more effective and efficient in holding juvenile offenders accountable and reducing recidivism.

(There are 16 activities provided in the reauthorization. The above are just a sample.)

FUNDING AUTHORIZATION for JAIBG

$350 million for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2005

Please check the web-site regularly. Additional information on the reauthorization will be provided in the next month.

The above information was provided in an e-mail from Marc Schindler, Youth Law Center and from the Congressional Conference Report.

Submitted by Donna Hamparian, President, Juvenile Justice Coalition

Posted in Public Policy Advocacy | Tagged , , | Comments Off

Summary of H.B. 400 – Juvenile Delinquent Confinement

Posted on February 1, 2002 by Eric

This bill sponsored by Representative Keith Faber does two things: 1. It specifically permits the confinement of adjudicated delinquent children in juvenile detention facility and 2. Permits the confinement of a person under disposition imposed for a delinquent child or juvenile traffic offender disposition, after the person attains 18 years of age, in a facility other than one for juveniles. The bill was introduced on October 11, 2001 and assigned to the Criminal Justice Committee.

If a child is adjudicated delinquent or a juvenile traffic offender, at any time after the person attains 18 years of age, the places at which the person may be held under that disposition are not limited to places authorized under this chapter solely for the confinement of children and the person may be confined under that disposition in places other than those authorized under this chapter solely for the confinement of children, including but not limited to, a county, multicounty, or municipal jail or workhouse, or other place where an adult convicted of crime, under arrest or charged with crime is held. The child shall be confined in a manner that keeps the child beyond the range of touch of all adult detainees. The child shall be supervised at all times during the detention.

It also allows the commitment of a child to the legal custody of a detention facility or district detention facility for up to 90 days.

Summarized by Donna Hamparian, President, Juvenile Justice Coalition, February 2002

Posted in Public Policy Advocacy | Tagged | Comments Off

Summary of Am. Sub. H.B. 393 – Juvenile Law Revised

Posted on February 1, 2002 by Eric

The above bill sponsored by Representative Robert Latta and 15 other Representatives passed the House on January 9, 2002, and is awaiting action in the Senate. One of the main purposes of the legislature seems to be to “clean up” H.B. 179, the juvenile sentencing bill, which passed last session.

Some of the primary provisions include:

The bill specifies that parents, guardians or other custodians of the child may inspect any court records maintained on the child and the child’s case. However, it does not require the release or authorize the inspection of arrest or incident reports, law enforcement investigatory reports or records or witness statements.

It makes specific that community control sanctions include community service as a disposition for an unruly child and community service shall not exceed one hundred seventy five hours.

This bill seems to restore some of the release from institutional care (ODYS) and discharge from supervision to the Court.

It provides that the child can waive the right to an indictment as a serious youthful offender, instead charging the child in a bill of information.

Added to the procedures for the Director of ODYS to request the prosecuting attorney to file a motion with the juvenile court to invoke the adult portion of the dispositional sentence is:

The motion shall state that there is reasonable cause to believe that either of the following occurred and shall state that at least one incident of misconduct of that nature occurred after the person reached fourteen years of age.

Another provision was added: the court may modify the adult sentence the court invokes to consist of any lesser prison term that could be imposed for the offense and in addition to the prison term or in lieu of the prison term if the prison term was not mandatory, any community control sanction that the offender was eligible to receive at sentencing.

In the following provision, if the child is adjudicated a delinquent child for committing an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult, the juvenile court may commit the child to the legal custody of ODYS for secure confinement, the following was added: a commitment under this section is subject to a supervised release or to a discharge of the child from the custody of the department for medical reasons…., but during the minimum period specified by the court, the department shall obtain court approval of a supervised release or discharge.

In addition, in each case in which a court makes a disposition (under the commitment procedure) the court shall retain control over the commitment for the entire period of the commitment.

Also added, the court that commits the delinquent child may grant judicial release of the child to court supervision…, during the first half of the prescribed minimum term for which the child was committed to the department, or if the child was committed …until the child attains 21 years of age, during the first half of the prescribed period of commitment that begins on the first day of commitment and ends on the child’s 21st birthday. And, the court may grant judicial release of the child during the second half of the prescribed minimum term for which the child was committed—or if the child was committed until 21 years of age, during the second half of the prescribed period of commitment that begins on the first day of commitment and ends on the child’s 21st birthday.

The bill clarifies that a delinquent child adjudicated a delinquent for committing a sexually oriented offense includes a child who receives a serious youthful offender dispositional sentence for committing a sexually oriented offense.

Summarized by Donna Hamparian, President, Juvenile Justice Coalition, February 2002.

Posted in Public Policy Advocacy | Tagged | Comments Off