|
(757)491-0240 Virginia Beach Juvenile Justice Needs AssessmentI. INTRODUCTION 1 II. JUVENILE OFFENSES IN VIRGINIA BEACH 3 III. RESOURCES AVAILABLE IN VIRGINIA BEACH 5 A. Pre-Dispositional Placements 5 1. In-Home 5 2. Group Home 5 3. Detention 6 B. Post Dispositional Resources 6 1. In-Home 6 2. Group Homes 7 3. Special Placements 7 4. Juvenile Correctional Center Placements 8 IV. ANALYSIS OF USE OF CURRENT RESOURCES 8 A. CHINS Unit 10 V. PRINCIPLES OF EFFECTIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS 11 A. Physiological Evidence 11 B. Sustained Interaction as Adjunct to Punishment 13 1. The Role of Parents 13 2. Programs in Lieu of Parenting 13 3. Local Programs 15 4. Key Factor In Successful Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5. Performance Measurement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 VI. POSSIBLE USES OF JAIBG FUNDS 18 A. Increase Level of Supervision In Lieu of Detention 20 B. Construction of Virginia Beach Detention Home 21 C. Information Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 21 1. Statutory Restrictions 22 a. School Records 22 b. Department of Social Services Records 23 c. Records of The Juvenile Court 24 2. Serious and Habitual Offenders Committees 25 3. The Present State of Information Sharing 26 4. Arson and Animal Cruelty 27 5. Chesapeake Information-Sharing Project 27 6. Juvenile Court's Power to Require Disclosure 27 VII. IMPROVING THE CONTINUUM OF CARE 28 A. Parenting Classes: Training That Prepares People to be Good Parents 29
B. Pre-school Programs:
Early Education That Bolsters Social and Learning Skills of Young Children
Before Kindergarten. C. Mentors: Volunteers Who Serve as Guides and Role Models 32 1. The Screening Bottleneck 34 2. Transportation for Volunteers 34 D. School: For Students Expelled From Schools, Attendance at a Staff-Secure Day Program Should Be Required. 35 E. After-school Programs: Programs for Students During the 2:30 - 7:00 P.M. Period Which Is Known Peak "Crime Time." 35 F. Education, Mental Health and Social Services 36 G. Shelter for Abused and Neglected Youth 37 H. Parental Accountability 37 1. Requiring Parents to do their Duty 37
VIII. CONCLUSION
38 APPENDICES 1. Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant Program Guidance Manual 2. Grant Application and Award 3. Memorandum Re: Amount of Grant Award 4. Contract For Services For Implementation Of Grant 5. Department of Criminal Justice Services List of Grants Awarded 6. List of Members of Virginia Beach Juvenile Crime Enforcement Coalition 7. Virginia Beach Criminal Justice Board Strategic Plan (June 1997) 8. Continuation Grant Application 9. Juvenile Justice System Flow Chart 10. Virginia Beach Pre- and Post-Sentencing Options Available 11. Detention Admissions by Offense 12. Continuum of Services for Juvenile Offenders 13. Services, Group Homes, and Special Placements Available 14. Board of Juvenile Justice Long-Range Juvenile Justice Policy 15. Detention Releases By Offense 16. Summary of Virginia Beach Juveniles in Detention on May 10, 1999 17. Statistical Profiles of Virginia Beach Juvenile Population 18. "Boot Camps Fail to Pass. Muster," Nov. 1997 article 19. "JustChildren Project" of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Legal Aid Society
20. Needs Assessment
for Secure Juvenile Detention Facility in Virginia Beach
In 1997, the United
States Congress appropriated $250 million "to promote greater accountability
in juvenile justice." During the first year under this new Juvenile Accountability
Incentive Block Grant Program (JAIBG), Virginia received $5,095,800.
(1) Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) allocated
$41,782 to the City of Virginia Beach. (2)
JAIBG funds must
be used in connection with serious, violent juvenile offenders. The appropriations
bill specified twelve purpose areas ( e.g., building juvenile detention
facilities; developing sanctions for juvenile offenders; hiring judges,
prosecutors, defenders, or probation officers).
Once a locality decides
on a particular project, it must provide matching funds equal to ten percent
of the total project cost. Based on Virginia Beach's allocation of $41,782,
the total project cost is $46,424 and the local match is $4,642. This city's allocation for the second year has not yet been calculated, but is expected to be more than the initial amount. (3) It is also expected that, in the third year, Congress may expand JAIBG funding purposes to include juvenile crime prevention and may make other changes that would assure the continuation of funds each year. (4)
In addition to the
$41,782 direct allocation, Virginia Beach sought and received a $35,000
"Accountability Based Supplement" to be used for planning. DCJS awarded
Supplements to enable localities to create individualized plans for JAIBG
funds. Virginia Beach assigned its planning supplement to the Youth Opportunities
Office (YOO) which, in turn, used a portion of the money to retain the Law
Offices of Diane Fener, P.C. as an independent consultant.
(5) This use of planning money is similar to the way other Virginia
localities used their Supplements. (6)
The YOO set aside
the balance of the planning funds to pay for a computer database. Negotiations
with the contractor were unsuccessful, however, and the funds remain available
for planning purposes, for a limited time. DCJS requires that planning funds
that have not been spent or encumbered by September 28, 1999 be returned.
This Needs Assessment
Report is based upon: a study of the city's existing juvenile services,
a review of planning documents and reports previously prepared for the City
of Virginia Beach, research into the social science literature concerning
juvenile delinquency, interviews with personnel in City agencies, statistics
compiled by the Court Services Unit, and direct knowledge of the workings
of the Virginia Beach Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.
This Needs Assessment
Report is being presented to the Juvenile Crime Enforcement Coalition, a
subcommittee of the Community Criminal Justice Board,
(7) to be formally adopted, in whole or in part, into the city's
Strategic Plan on crime prevention. (8) The
recommendations herein are not limited to the 12 JAIBG purpose areas. This
report is intended for use as a long-term planning tool and, for that reason,
includes discussion of prevention measures that may have to be funded from
other sources. The City has applied for another Supplement to carry out the recommendations once they are adopted, e.g., prioritizing the list of projects; estimating costs and budgets for each; identifying funding sources; obtaining funds; specifically defining the actions required to create the improvements; and assigning target dates and responsible parties for the completion of each of these actions. (9)
A review of the Juvenile
Court intake data over the last four years discloses that the distribution
of charges is quite stable from year to year. The following chart shows
the breakdown over nine categories over the past four fiscal years.
(10)
Property crimes,
substance abuse, and administrative petitions make up more than half of
all charges filed. As one might expect with juveniles, petit larceny and
shoplifting make up more than half of all property offenses.
Crimes against the
person make up between 12 and 17 percent of the total. Over half of the
crimes against the person are assaults. The following table shows the distribution
of crimes against the person.
Sex offenses also
constitute crimes against the person but are tracked separately. The following
table shows the breakdown:
These figures establish that relatively few Part 1 Violent Crimes and Serious Violent Crimes (as those terms are defined in the JAIBG legislation) are committed in Virginia Beach. (11) Most violence comes in the form of assaults, many of which are between family members. Firearms offenses fluctuate around 200 complaints a year. Property offenses are a far greater problem. And substance abuse offenses are increasing as a percentage of the total.
Once a charge is
brought against a juvenile, the case proceeds through court in certain formal
stages. (12) At each stage of proceedings,
the Virginia Beach Juvenile Court has a range of resources available to
it for meeting the needs of different types of cases.
(13)
The court does not necessarily place restrictions on every individual who is awaiting adjudication. After the intake office has prepared charges against a juvenile, and the respondent is told to appear for adjudication on a certain date, there is no requirement that the court must supervise that individual before trial. However, in cases where the circumstances warrant it, the accused can be kept under court supervision before any disposition of the charges has been reached; and, for these cases, the system has a range of pre-dispositional treatments. These treatments fall into three levels of increasing severity.
The first level
allows the youth to return to his or her family, but imposes conditions.
Enrollment in the Challenge Outreach Program (known as "COP") is one
of the most often used conditions. COP is operated by the Tidewater
Regional Group Home Commission ("TRGHC") and assigns a counselor to
monitor the youth before trial. The counselor must make a minimum of
four face-to-face contacts with the youth each week before trial. COP
can also place an electronic monitor on the youth using a wrist or ankle
bracelet, so the counselor knows immediately if the youth leaves home. The second level of pre-dispositional treatment is placement in a group home where the youth must live until trial. The courts usually use either the Crisis Intervention Home, the Salem House (both operated by TRGHC) or Seton House (a non-profit charitable youth shelter). During the school year, classes are held at these facilities to continue the youth's education as required by state law
The third level
of pre-dispositional treatment is detention. The Virginia Beach courts
use a regional facility located in the neighboring city of Chesapeake,
the Tidewater Detention Home (known as "TDH"). Attached is a chart listing
the offenses for which youth were ordered into TDH during fiscal years
1996 through 1998. (14)
At TDH, the youth
is completely confined behind concrete walls. As is done in the group
homes, classes are held at the facility during the school year to continue
the youth's education as required by state law. There are two social
workers on staff to screen for special problems but they do not attempt
to counsel all youths in the facility. Except for state-mandated education, these pre-dispositional programs are not expected to offer treatment. They exist merely to maintain security for the short-term. This is the critical difference between the pre-dispositional and post-dispositional resources. Pre-dispositional resources are not intended to reform a youth or deter misbehavior; while post-dispositional resources are required to diagnose each youth's needs and to provide individualized treatment. For juveniles whose cases have been adjudicated, and who have been found to be involved in one or more offenses, the resources available to the court range along a continuum from least to most restrictive. (15) Generally, they fall into four categories: (1) services to the youth who is permitted to remain in his or her home; (2) group homes; (3) special placements, and (4) commitment to a state facility. (16)
The first category
includes Supervised Probation. Typically, the probation officer will
require the youth to participate in random drug testing, substance abuse
counseling, group therapy, or other programs. The following chart showing
program utilization was compiled from Court Service Unit statistics.
The following
chart shows the use of group homes for post-dispositional placements
for the past three years:
Special placements, the third category, provide the most intensive help and are the most expensive per youth. Many of these placements are for youth whose conditions are so severe they require intensive help, such as psychiatric hospitals or sex offender treatment programs. Under the Comprehensive Services Act, these placements cannot be accomplished just on the recommendation of the Court Services Unit and require approval of two city-wide committees, the Family Assessment and Planning Team ("FAPT") and the Middle Management Review Committee (MMRC). Once approved, the locality pays a share and the state provides matching funds. In fiscal year 1997-1998, a total of $820,218 was spent on 41 individuals The programs were: Adventure Alternatives; Alternative Family Treatment Services; Barry Robinson Center; Colonial Hospital; Columbia Peninsula Hospital; Community Innovations; CMH In-Home Services and Sex Offender Treatment Programs; Cumberland Hospital; In-Home Clinical and Casework Services; Institute for Family-Centered Services; Interpreter Services; Norfolk Psychiatric Hospital; Poplar Springs Hospital; Tidewater Psychotherapy Services; United Methodist Family Services; Virginia Treatment Center for Children; and Woodside Hospital. In fiscal year 1998-1999, a total of $1,150,222 was spent on 55 individuals. The programs were: Adventure Alternatives; Alternative Family Treatment Services; Barry Robinson Center; Colonial Hospital; Columbia Peninsula Hospital; Community Innovations; CMH In-Home Services and Sex Offender Treatment Programs; Cumberland Hospital; In-Home Clinical and Casework Services; Institute for Family-Centered Services; Interpreter Services; Norfolk Psychiatric Hospital; Poplar Springs Hospital; Tidewater Psychotherapy Services; United Methodist Family Services; Virginia Treatment Center for Children; and Woodside Hospital.
A youth should
be committed to state custody, rather than treated in his own community,
only in severe cases. It is the policy of the Department of Juvenile
Justice that: "The state's juvenile justice correctional centers
should be reserved for serious, violent, and chronic offenders."
(17) The following chart, from information supplied by the Department of Criminal Justice Services, (18) shows that the numbers of these offenders committed from Virginia Beach increased dramatically in 1993 and has since fluctuated between 100 and 130 per year.
An analysis of Virginia Beach's utilization of TDH discloses that the effort to compel compliance with the orders and procedures of the Juvenile Court system itself, as distinct from detention pending trial for substantive offenses, is responsible for half of the City's use of the facility. That is, more than half the youth in detention were placed there for failure to comply with court orders, not for committing new offenses. These are cases where a juvenile was permitted to remain in the community only on certain conditions and, although the youth committed no new crime, he or she failed to follow the specific requirements of a probation officer, parole officer, or judge. Of course, it is essential that the Court insist on enforcement of its orders. The principal tool being used today to compel compliance is confinement at the Tidewater Detention Home (TDH). This use of the detention facility is a departure from the mission for which it was designed.
The following
table shows the breakdown. (19)
The administrative
category includes violation of probation, parole, or other court
order plus CHINS. In the last three years, this category has gone
from under one third to nearly one half of the days used by Virginia
Beach. Because respondents accused of violating a court order are
almost invariably held at TDH pending disposition of the charge
of the accusation, the distinction between pre-trial detention and
punitive incarceration has little practical importance. The following table shows the cost of these commitments.
This May, the City Council was asked to approve a supplemental appropriation of $835,000 to cover the cost of detention at TDH and other facilities. In response to a request by the Council for more information, the Court Services Unit prepared a summary of the cases in secure detention on a single day (May 10, 1999). The breakdown is consistent with the yearly figures. Of the 79 individuals in custody at TDH on that day, 44 were there for administrative offenses. Of these, 24 were accused of violating their conditions of probation or parole and 7 more were charged with violating other court orders. Another 10 had been convicted of violating court orders and were serving their sentences at TDH. There were also 3 CHINS cases. (20) The increase in the use of TDH to enforce court orders reflects the challenge that judges face in compelling compliance from juvenile respondents. No data are available from which the efficacy of confinement at TDH in securing future compliance can be assessed. The rate at which resort to this sanction is increasing, however, suggests that it may be ineffective in many cases.
In 1999,
with funding provided under the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime
Control Act, the Court Services Unit added six probation officers
and two support staff devoted to working with youth who have not
committed a delinquent act but are in need of supervision or services.
In some of these cases, petitions may be filed for a formal judicial
determination that these youth are "children in need of services/supervision"
under Sections 16.1-278.4 and 16.1-278.5 of the Virginia Code. More
often, these families work with the probation officer informally.
This program may help to reduce the number of CHINS cases in which
the child is detained at TDH. The approach described above - using TDH sentences to enforce court orders -assumes that a respondent will learn to alter his or her behavior in response to punishment, or the threat of punishment. There is, however, substantial evidence that the population filling the beds at TDH does not perform well at this kind of learning. To the extent that a sentence is designed merely to incapacitate an individual, this fact is irrelevant. Similarly, to the extent that a sentence is intended to serve as a cautionary example to others, vindicate the rule of law, or make a statement of condemnation, the ineffectiveness of punishment in inducing behavior changes is unimportant. These purposes are served regardless of whether the inmate learns anything from the experience. In the case of juvenile offenders, however, incarceration is generally intended to induce the respondent to change his or her behavior. A juvenile respondent may have 60 to 70 years of life remaining and diverting that child from devoting those years to criminal pursuits will produce a large benefit to the society at large. Moreover, the redemption of a young life is a worthy goal in itself. There is substantial evidence that punishment alone is not effective at achieving this goal. There is an extensive body of research into whether those who commit crimes differ physiologically from those who do not. In particular, there are a large number of studies that have examined differences with respect to heart rate, skin conductance, and brain activity. These particular measures of the body's functioning have psychological significance because they are unconsciously affected by the individual's mental state. (21) Resting heart rate has been studied extensively. The evidence is very good that adolescents involved in petty criminality consistently have a lower resting heart rate than their non-criminal peers. (22) Researchers have argued that a lower resting heart rate is evidence of under-arousal. Skin conductance is one of the measures used in polygraph examinations. An imperceptible current is passed through two points on the skin and variations in the resistance to that current are plotted on a graph. The degree of resistance is affected by the person's rate of perspiration, a bodily function that is not under conscious control. There is a well-accepted relationship between the degree of skin conductivity and the degree to which the person's attention and emotions are aroused. (23) While the evidence is not conclusive, measurements of skin conductivity also suggest lower levels of arousal in criminals and delinquents . (24) Resting EEG is a measure of the brain's electrical activity. The evidence is again good that the EEG profile of violent criminals, particularly repeat offenders is abnormal. While the abnormalities observed are present in the general population (5% to 20%) they are much more common among violent, repeat offenders (25% to 50%). The EEG abnormalities observed also suggest that under-arousal is a factor in violent criminal behavior. (25) Conditioning refers to learning in which a stimulus is followed by a reward or a penalty. The person learns to associate the stimulus with the reward or penalty. The same process occurs with respect to an individual's own behavior and the degree to which a person adjusts their behavior in response to ensuing rewards or penalties is evidence of their ability to perform this kind of learning. The available evidence suggests that criminals and delinquents are different from the general population with respect to this kind of learning. Their tendency to under-arousal appears to produce a weaker reaction to the negative stimulus and, consequently, reduced responsiveness to penalty conditioning. One study, for example, used a card game to test the hypothesis that under-socialized, aggressive, conduct-disordered children differed from controls in their response to rewards and punishments. The game was structured so that a player could either win or lose money with each hand. The game was rigged so that the rate at which a player could win would decline from 90% at the beginning to 10% at the end. The control group caught on and quit playing early in the game. The conduct-disorder group were less deterred by their losses and still hoping for a reward long after the control group decided it was best to quit while they were ahead. (26)
Given these
findings, something more than punishment alone will be needed if
accountability-based sanctions are to succeed in changing behavior.
The research suggests that punishment coupled with intensive interaction
with the respondent is more effective than punishment alone. In his book, Greater Expectations, William Damon, director of the Brown University Center for the Study of Human Development summarizes the research on socializing children this way: Socialization means nothing more than communicating skills, information and, more centrally, goals. Recent studies tell us something about how this is accomplished as well as how it is not accomplished. * * * Lecturing is practically useless; and one cannot simply send stern directives to young people outlining what one expects of them. rather, the process entails an intricate process of direction, support, collaboration, and negotiation. (27) The long and the short of it is that someone has to get in there and deal with the child. Someone has to do the work of talking to the child, stating the rules, explaining the reasons for them, discussing how they apply to specific situations, teaching the skills necessary for compliance, being a role model, and generally pressuring the child to toe the line. Someone has to offer praise and encouragement when the child is on the right track or criticism and restraint when the child is on the wrong track. This job belongs in first instance to the child's parents. They may, however, be absent, or incapable of performing this function. It is a common characteristic of court-involved youth that they were not raised in a two-parent family, or that their parents suffer from some limitation. The court attempts to require parents meet their obligations where the parent can be ordered to do so. An alcoholic parent may be ordered to undergo substance abuse screening, or a negligent parent may be required to attend parenting class. However, the court's focus is on the conduct of the youth who was brought before the court, not the conduct of an absent or dissolute parent who may be in the background. In those cases where the parents are incapable of fulfilling their responsibility, or the youth's problems are so severe that the parents cannot cope with them, the court needs to know that some other arrangement needs to be made to provide a substitute for parental attention. In its Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders, the U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ("OJJDP") identified characteristics that successful programs shared. The programs with the best results: (1) were intensive (long-term involving frequent contacts), (2) dealt with the respondent's family circumstances, (3) had energetic and committed (though not necessarily highly trained staff), (4) provided frequent positive and negative feedback, and (5) paid attention to the respondent's education or vocational training. (28) The common characteristics of the unsuccessful programs were: (1) short duration, (2) no attention to family functioning, (3) no attention to school problems, and (4) no attention to work opportunities. (29) The characteristics associated with success and failure are consistent with the general proposition that the quality and quantity of adult attention paid to the respondent are the critical factors in redirecting delinquent behavior. The consensus among experts today is that the once politically popular boot camp programs have been unsuccessful. (30) One example, the Choice program in Baltimore, illustrates the point. The staff are recent college graduates who serve for only one year. Participants typically stay in the program from four to six months. At the beginning, the caseworker speaks with the respondent three to five times daily. The worker assesses the full range of problems that the respondent faces at home, at school, or with physical health. The intensive interaction between the caseworker and the respondent provides an opportunity for the worker to become a role model. (31) The Michigan State Diversion Project, another program reviewed in the Justice Department's Guide, found that: active, hands-on intervention of several kinds worked better than normal processing of offenders through the juvenile system, but only if they were thoroughly separated from the system. Even a nonspecific strategy that provided youth with steady attention from a stable caseworker...had a positive impact, but results were better, in terms of recidivism, in the three more active strategies implemented outside the juvenile justice system. (32) The OJJDP Guide reviewed another program for serious offenders, the Florida Environmental Institute, also known as The Last Chance Ranch, operated by the Associated Marine Institutes. The elements of this program include: (1) a low staff-to-student ratio (3 to 1 for the initial phase and 6 to 1 for the aftercare phase), (2) focus on education, (3) hard work as therapy and a way to increase vocational skills, (4) a system of rewards and penalties to promote positive behavior, (5) emphasis on bonding between students and staff, (6) a strong aftercare component. A three-year follow-up study found a one third recidivism rate for participants versus one half for comparison groups. One significant problem in Virginia Beach is the need to require compliance with court orders. Currently, the system relies heavily on TDH as the principal tool to achieve this. The juvenile justice system can expect to achieve more success by coupling sustained adult interaction together with the use of punishment. The Associated Marine Institutes operates two programs in Norfolk. One is a day program and the other is residential. The residential program is on a retired naval vessel tied up behind Nauticus. The day program is run from classrooms at the Norfolk Marine Institute (NMI) facility with the maintenance and use of another NMI vessel as an activity to promote interest in the goals of the program. The residential program has a staff ratio of 3 to 1 and a cost of $139 per day per resident. Residents stay from 90 to 180 days. The day program ratio is 7 to 1 and the cost is $50 per day. Participants in the residential program are within six months of their scheduled release from a juvenile correction facility. Their time on the boat is highly structured and the supervision is intense. Residents must ask permission even to move from room to room. Two staff members are on duty outside the bunk area throughout the night. Small privileges, such as telephone calls, are tightly controlled and are extended or withdrawn based on behavior. The residents maintain the vessel and perform cleaning duties for Nauticus. Volunteers tutor them in math and other subjects. The level of attention the residents receive in these tutoring sessions is probably the highest they have ever experienced. Occasional cruises on the boat are an additional reward for good behavior. The degree of order and discipline on board the vessel is impressive. The day program is less intense because the participants are not in state custody and the staff cannot impose the kind of minute control that exists on the boat. Program staff pick participants up at their homes each day and bring them to the program facility in an NMI van. The staff are highly motivated. As in the residential program, the primary emphasis is on education. Maintenance on another NMI vessel provides an opportunity for the participants and staff to work together and for the staff to serve as role models. Excursions on the vessel reward appropriate behavior. The salient characteristic of all of these programs is intensive interaction with the juvenile respondent. Compliance is compelled through immediate action made possible by low staff ratios. Appropriate behavior is encouraged through small rewards and sanctions for inappropriate conduct. The success rates for the two programs are quite similar. Both have a 70% completion rate. NMI follows those who complete their programs for a period of 3 years and reports that 68% of those who finish have no subsequent convictions within the 3-year monitoring period. Regarding both prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency, one theme pervades the social science research -- the importance of adult attention to children. The more that children receive caring adult attention, the better they do. Positive adult attention is the common element in the protective factors identified by researchers studying programs that succeeded in reducing delinquency. Conversely, those receiving little adult attention or who are exposed to cruelty, criminality, substance abuse and other examples of deviant adult behavior suffer for it. The social forces of the post-industrial era have dissolved many of the connections that formerly existed between people. The extended family was reduced to the nuclear family and the nuclear family to the single-parent household. The time demands that employment makes on parents further reduce the quantity of adult attention available to children. The wealthy make up for it with nannies and au pairs but for the majority of the population, third-party care is a financial burden to be shed as early as possible. The atomizing effect of these social trends has left many children without adequate adult attention. So many of the ties that formerly held young people in their community's embrace have faded that a conscious commitment to replacing the attention they once received is needed. Increasing the quantity, and improving the quality of the adult attention that Virginia Beach children receive is the organizing principle that binds the conclusions we have reached regarding both prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency. Experts note that the quest for effective programming in the juvenile corrections field is "still pretty much a hit or miss affair . . . far too driven by fad and prejudice and not near enough by results. Given the $35,000 cost of a year's commitment to a typical residential facility, and the $20 - $70 per day cost of community treatment, it should not be much of a burden to have programs start collecting systematic information at 6 or 12 month intervals." (33) Performance-based standards were envisioned 20 years ago as a way to improve effectiveness and measure success. Given the many reforms underway - some positive, others negative - and proposed for the juvenile justice system, standards are needed now more than ever to understand the impact of the reforms on the rehabilitative mission of juvenile justice. (34) Performance standards can be the new tool leading to an accountable, respected juvenile justice system fulfilling its mission of protecting the public and caring for youthful offenders. Developing a set of standards in order to measure the effects of programs and services on youth confined in these institutions is a necessary first step toward restoring the accountability of juvenile corrections in fulfilling its dual mission of public safety and rehabilitation. (35) No corporation would operate without measuring the effectiveness of its techniques -- our government should be just as disciplined. All programs should be required to implement performance-based measures to track their program outcomes. Agencies should have to measure their results according to objective, statistically reliable methodologies. The Juvenile Crime Enforcement Coalition (36) met on May 12 and again June 16, 1999, to consider the possible uses of JAIBG funds and to make a long-range plan for the local juvenile justice system. The JAIBG guidelines require that at least 35% of the funds must be spent for program areas 1, 2, and 10. At least 45% must be spent for program purpose areas 3 through 9. This apportionment requirement can be avoided if the state or locality certifies that: the interests of public safety and juvenile crime control would be better served by expending its funds in a proportion other than the 45 and 35 percent minimums. Such certification shall provide information concerning the availability of existing structures or initiatives within the intended areas of expenditure (or the availability of alternative funding sources for those areas) and the reasons for the State or unit of local government's alternative use. (37)
The first,
second, and tenth purpose areas are described as follows:
Purpose Area
1:
Building,
expanding, renovating, or operating temporary or permanent juvenile
correction or detention facilities, including training of correctional
personnel....
Purpose Area
2:
developing
and administering accountability-based sanctions for juvenile offenders;
Purpose Area
10:
establishing
and maintaining interagency information-sharing programs that enable
the juvenile and criminal justice system, schools, and social services
agencies to make more informed decisions regarding the early identification,
control, supervision, and treatment of juveniles who repeatedly
commit serious delinquent or criminal acts...
The Coalition
has determined that only one of the purpose areas 3-9 is appropriate
for Virginia Beach. Purpose Areas 3 through 6 (funding for additional
judges, prosecutors, plus support services and equipment to assist
prosecutors) are all state responsibilities that it is not feasible
for Virginia Beach to undertake. The coalition ruled out the eighth
and ninth listed purposes, gun courts and drug courts, because the
city has already decided it has no interest in establishing special
courts. The remaining Purpose Area 7 is defined as:
providing
funding to enable juvenile courts and juvenile probation offices
to be more effective and efficient in holding juvenile offenders
accountable and reducing recidivism....
The required
allocation thus breaks down as follows:
Purpose Area
7, however, is so broadly defined that almost any activity that
could qualify under Areas 2 and 10 could also come within it. Even
activities under Purpose Area 1 could qualify if they are related
to the enforcement of the terms of probation. For example, a highly
structured program at the planned Virginia Beach Detention Home
for juveniles who violate the terms of the pretrial release or probation
would qualify.
Members expressed
interest in studying the juvenile justice systems in Boston, Massachusetts
and Jacksonville, Florida, which are now considered models because
they recently were successful in reducing juvenile crime rates in
those cities. This use would arguably fall within Purpose Area 2
because it could be said to be for "developing accountability-based
sanctions for juvenile offenders." Police Lt. Steve Smith has urged the funds be used to establish an information-sharing system among the city agencies dealing with youth. This clearly falls within Purpose Area 10. Court Services Director Bruce Bright suggested using the funds for drug screening at the Tidewater Detention Home. The twelfth listed purpose among the authorized uses of JAIBG funds is: "Implementing a policy of controlled substance testing for appropriate categories of juveniles within the juvenile justice system." This use, however, would have to fall within the discretionary portion. Possible uses of JAIBG funds will be addressed separately below. In Lieu of Detention The Tidewater Detention Home is not equipped for the kind of intensive one-on-one interaction that the model programs do. Much of the time spent at TDH is devoted to watching television. Placements where there is a low staff ratio and programmed activity can be expected to be a more effective remedy for disobedience to court orders than idling at public expense. The present cost of enforcing court orders through detention at TDH is 1.1 million per year. Some portion of those funds could be reallocated to pay for (1) more intensive supervision by probation officers with very small caseloads, (2) moving violators into a day program like NMI operates, and (3) a limited number of residential placements in an intensive setting like NMI's shipboard program. The following chart shows one possible reallocation of the funds currently spent to detain juvenile respondents who have violated court orders:
The City
of Virginia Beach has traditionally take the position that the cost
of probation and parole services is a State responsibility and would
likely oppose the use of City funds to pay for additional probation/parole
personnel. In addition, there is suggestive, but not definitive,
evidence that staff drawn from outside of the justice system produce
better results than personnel employed within it. The reallocation
of some these existing City expenditures from simple incarceration
to intensive supervision by outside monitors would not result in
any additional costs to the City and would not involve assuming
an expense now borne by the State. The City of Virginia Beach has submitted a planning study to the State for a 90-bed detention facility. A separate study has examined the need for such a facility so the particular merits of the proposal are not addressed here. The estimated cost of the project is $11.9 million. The current plan is for construction to begin in August 2000 with the goal of completing construction by March of 2002. The proposed funding formula is an equal match of State and City monies. The State's own funding formula for this type of construction, however, may not result in a commitment for the full 50%. This project falls within the first purpose area of the JAIBG and it would be appropriate to apply for JAIBG funding to bridge the gap between the available State funding and the full project cost. One of the purpose areas for which JAIBG funds may be used is: establishing and maintaining interagency information- sharing programs that enable the juvenile and criminal justice system, schools, and social services agencies to make more informed decisions regarding the early identification, control, supervision, and treatment of juveniles who repeatedly commit serious delinquent or criminal acts.... The Virginia Beach Police Department, Court Services, City Public Schools, Department of Social Services, and Community Services Boards may all deal with a child or the child's family yet have only limited knowledge of each other's activities and may be completely unaware of information residing in each other's files. Sharing information among these agencies could make their efforts more effective. Legal barriers to the release of information preclude a free and open exchange of knowledge about particular individuals. (38) These barriers originate in federal law and cannot be eliminated by local action. Failure to correctly negotiate these barriers could jeopardize federal funding and expose the City to civil liability. Given the state of the law, judges are the officials with the broadest authority to require disclosure of information held by the agencies. The courts are also in a position to coordinate the action of different departments both by order where there is clear authority for it and by request when there is not. Unless the laws regarding the confidentiality of information are changed the prudent course is to rely upon the courts to supervise the exchange of information. A number of state and federal laws restrict the release of information collected by the various agencies. The schools, the police department, the court services department, social services, and comprehensive mental health are each covered by legislation restricting the release of information held in their files. Federal law regulates the release of school records. The Family Educational and Privacy Rights Act (FERPA) (39) requires schools receiving federal funds to keep educational records confidential. Section 22.1-287 of the Virginia Code is intended to meet the requirements of the federal law. The Board of the Virginia Beach City Public Schools has, in turn, adopted policies intended to that conform to the requirements of the State and Federal laws. The basic rule under this scheme of regulation is that records may only be released with the consent of the student's parents. A list of exceptions to the requirement includes officials designated by state law. The Virginia Code Section 22.1-287 allows access by: (5) State or local law-enforcement or correctional personnel, including a law-enforcement officer, probation officer, parole officer or administrator, or a member of a parole board, seeking information in the course of his duties. * * *
(7) An officer
or employee of a county or city agency responsible for protective
services to children, as to a pupil referred to that agency as a
minor requiring investigation or supervision by that agency.
(40) A similar, though less restrictive, scheme governs the release of social services records. Title 42, Section 5106a of the United States Code requires that states receiving federal funds for child abuse and neglect programs must provide for methods to preserve the confidentiality of all such records, while making them available to all agencies that need the information to protect children from abuse and neglect. (41) The implementing regulations require that the state must make child abuse and neglect records confidential and their unauthorized disclosure must be made a criminal offense. (42) They also list eleven categories of persons who may have access to the records. The list of officials with access is limited to those directly investigating cases of abuse or neglect or providing services to the victims and their families. The applicable Virginia Code section is 63.1-209. It provides that child abuse and neglect records are confidential. It expressly permits disclosure "upon the proper order of any court." The local department of social services has discretion to disclose information collected during a child protective services investigation to:
"a person
having a legitimate interest when in the judgment of the local department
of social services such disclosure is in the best interest of the
child who is the subject of the records. Persons having a legitimate
interest in child protective services records of local departments
of social services include, but are not limited to, (i) any person
who is responsible for investigating a report of known or suspected
abuse or neglect or for providing services to a child or family
which is the subject of a report, including multi-disciplinary teams
and family assessment and planning teams referenced in subsection
F of Sec. 63.1-248.6, law-e |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
