Transforming Juvenile Justice
The juvenile justice system in New York serves two main functions: rehabilitating and caring for young people and keeping the public safe. In order to meet these responsibilities, the system has always relied on a model that is based on correction and punishment. However, this model has not been dead much effective in meeting the responsibilities of the New York Juvenile Justice System. This paper, therefore, seeks to develop an analysis of the reforms and policies that would transform the New York Juvenile Justice System. From the report, it is clear that the New York Juvenile Justice System is not different from that of other states. Most of them have failed to focus on the issues that matter but rather focus on approaches that seem not to be working for the juvenile justice system.
Every year, a large number of young people are put in placement facilities for the same reasons caring for them, protecting them, and protecting the public from crime. However, research indicates that youths who are placed under such custody still pose a high risk to public safety once released. Some of them end up being rearrested, others convicted, while others reincarcerated. This generally implies that the approach used in rehabilitating the youths is failing to meet its goals. The amount of money that is spent on every child for the sake of rehabilitating and caring for them so as to make them upstanding citizen is extremely large to go to waste.
Some of the problems noted to be contributing to this lack of effectiveness of the system include: failure to expose the youths to support networks of their communities and families, under resourcing prestigious institutions that they need for rehabilitation, and subjecting the youths to abuse and violence within the placement facilities. This seems to make them worse than when they entered the placement facilities. So, instead of becoming upright citizens that abide to the law, they end up becoming more violent, angry, and fearful. The juvenile system spends public funds intended to achieve its purpose without yielding tangible results.
It is also noted, that due to the lack of institutions that community based, judges are in most cases forced to put the young people in the placement facilities for their correction. At the same time, the system seems to be unfair with regards to race. Despite the fact the African Americans and Latinos constitute a minority in the youth population in New York, their presence in the placement facilities is overwhelmingly large. They make up 80 percent of the youths in the placement facilities. The disparity is evident although despite this fact, there has not been any significant research done to explain it.
The report gives recommendations to correcting the situation in New York and probably other states that might be undergoing through the same problems. These recommendations can generally be used for references. The first recommendation focuses mainly on the fundamental of reforms. Looking at cases where the need to downsize institutional placement has worked, the report recommends for investment in community based rehabilitation programs. Ohio and Illinois are examples of states that have reduced institutional placement for the young people. As a result these states have relatively high statistics for public safety compared to New York. Juvenile crimes are relatively low in the two states. A lot of investments there need to be placed on community based alternatives to yield better results for families and youths in New York.
At the same time, reducing the number of youth placements in these facilities does not mean failing to improve the conditions within the facilities. With reduced number in the facilities, the conditions within also need to be improved. It can be noted, that one of the problems attributing to failure of the system is violent activities that the youths are exposed within the facilities. Some of the youths receive abusive treatment within the facilities. However, the report recommends for improving service delivery and the states of the facilities. For instance, in Missouri State, the facilities are located close to the community and their families.
In addition, these facilities provide services such as family and group therapy, education, and further opportunities aimed at individual development. The staff members within the facilities do not employ force when dealing with a situation of conflict. They basically try as much as possible to support the youth placed within the facilities and help them transition back in to their communities and families. Relevant statistic produced from the state of Missouri indicates low rates of juvenile crime compared to New York.
The juvenile system is structured in a way that it begins with a juvenile arrest. After which there are three options available, the juvenile can be taken to court, home, or detained. The court can make referrals place the juveniles in the OCFS custody, place them under probation, place them in the custody of local social service, or even withdraw their cases. From the OCFS custody, the juveniles are placed in private facilities, stat operated facilities, or the day placement.
According to report, a task force was put in place to come up with recommendations for improving the situation in New York. Noting all the problems associated with the old system, the task force is meant to examine all the available options for creating alternative placements, improving the internal conditions within the facilities, improving successful transition of the youths into the community, and reducing disparities of race and color. From the effort of the task force, it is apparently making quality investment on the juvenile justice system will improve public safety within the state. If the young people are not taught to be loyal citizens, most likely they will continue with negative behaviors in their later lives and thus putting public safety in jeopardy.
There are certain critical issues that needed to be focused on when coming up with recommendations. They include: the age of criminal responsibilities, policies that govern how the juveniles are treated, the disparities in racial representation, policies on detention and arrest, and the need to have one body that will be held responsible and accountable for the implementation of juvenile justice policies in the entire system. Chatting up a new course required that the task force works with other agencies to help in the research. Within the research, the task force needed to review materials and reports that touch on the above identified areas. There was also need to figure out relevant data that would help understand the youths who are placed into the facilities. In addition, the task force also needed to weigh the benefit and cost involved in the placing the youths in the alternative community based initiatives.
Initially, there were two main goals that the juvenile justice system in New York sought to achieve. But the task force proposed three main goals. They include: ensuring public safety, producing positive results for each individual youth, their communities, and their families, and making the youths accountable for their actions. The task force came up with three main fundamentals of the reform which two have been discussed earlier in this paper. The third recommendation upon which the reforms are based is the need to ensure that the state’s juvenile system is cohesive and unified so that all the youths within the facilities are cared for. If the reforms are based on the three recommendations, then the juvenile system will reduce the number of youths placed within the facilities, and at the same time lessen the disparities of the youths being placed under the facilities.
The strategic focus is keeping the juveniles at home by shifting from the institutional placement to community based services. According to research, the youths served within their communities apply what they learnt in the lives after the service compared to those who are placed in the institutions. The institution placement however is not to be done away with. It can be used for the juveniles who are established to pose a serious risk to public safety. This therefore means that social service needs should not be a justification for placing the youths in the facilities.
References
Eisen, L.-B., & James, J. (2012, January 3). Rellocating Justice Resources: a review of state 2011 sentencing trends. Retrieved from Vera Institute of Justice: http://www.vera.org/pubs/reallocating-justice-resources-review-state-2011-sentencing-trends
Grajeda, W. (2011, April 29). Life in the Hall: Pelican Bay State Prison/SHU /My First Fifteen Days. Retrieved from The crime report: http://www.thecrimereport.org/news/articles/2011-04-life-in-the-hall
Peterson, D. (2009). Charting a New Course: A Blueprint for Transforming Juvenile Justice in New York State. New York: Task Force on transforming Juvenile Justice.
