Assessing Interventions with Juvenile Offenders

In a recently published report titled “Social Policy Report:  Evidenced-Based Interventions for Juvenile Offenders and Juvenile Justice Policies that Support Them,” Scott Henggeler and Sonja Schoenwald discuss the various intervention methods that have been successful and others that have been unsuccessful.  The authors begin the report with startling numbers:  “more than 1,000,000 American adolescents are processed by juvenile courts annually and approximately 160,000 are sent to residential placements” (Henggeler & Schoenwald, 2011).  More statistics from Henggeler and Schoenwald:

Law enforcement agencies arrested 2,111,200 juveniles in 2008 (Puzzanchera, 2009). About 25% of the arrests pertained to violent (i.e., robbery, rape, aggravated assault, murder, and manslaughter) or property (i.e.,burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson) index offenses. Females comprised 30% of the arrested population, and black youth were overrepresented in juvenile arrests (Hispanic ethnicity was included in the white racial category). Of the youth eligible for processing in the juvenile justice system due to their arrest, 66% were referred to juvenile court and 10% were referred directly to criminal (adult) court.

Ineffective interventions:

·        Processing in the juvenile justice system:  juvenile court processing increases criminal behavior instead of lessening it

·        Juvenile transfer laws:  transferring a juvenile to adult court raises recidivism rates for youth offenders

·        Probation:  Evidence is mixed with regards to the effects of probation on youth offenders but there is a lack of strong empirical support

·        Shock interventions:  programs such as Scared Straight actually increasing criminal behavior of juvenile offenders

·        Residential Placement

Henggeler and Schoenwald note that the most effective treatment programs for juvenile offenders “address key risk factors (e.g. improving family functioning, decreasing association with deviant peers), are rehabilitative in nature, use behavioral interventions within the youth’s natural environment, are well specified, and include intensive support for intervention fidelity” (Henggeler & Schoenwald, 2011). 

Effective interventions:

·        Functional Family Therapy (FFT):  family and community-based treatment that has proven to be effective in decreasing antisocial behavior in youths.  In this therapy, the presenting problem for the delinquent youth is a result of a dysfunctional family system, so interventions work to establish a healthy family.  Henggeler and Schoenwald add that FFT “has become one of the most widely transported evidence-based family therapies, with 270 programs worldwide, treating more than 17,500 youth and their families” (2011). 

·        Multisystemic Therapy (MST):  another family and community-based treatment that views multiple systems as interrelated influences on youth behavior.  Interventions take place on many different levels, including school, family, individual, and community levels. 

·        Multidimensional Treatment for Foster Care (MTFC):  community-based foster care alternative to state detention and group care facilities. Many interventions incorporate cognitive behavioral therapy and encourages parental involvement

It is not surprising that there are so many ineffective interventions being used right now in the juvenile justice system because of the amount of youth that continue to engage in delinquent behavior.  Although it is not unanticipated, it is extremely frustrating and saddening that there are only a few effective interventions out there.  One of the commonalities among effective interventions that seemed to be missing in ineffective interventions was the role of the community.  Community-based interventions play a large role in juvenile justice as many youth are affected by the multiple systems surrounding them.  Additionally, the effective interventions incorporate various behavioral therapies; why are ineffective interventions not seeing the importance of this in intervening with delinquent behavior??

This was a great article to read about the current interventions being used.  It is apparent that there are major challenges when implementing evidence-based interventions in the juvenile justice system, but there are also glimmers of hope found in interventions such like MTFC, MST, and FFT.    

Henggeler, S. W. and Schoenwald, S. K. (2011).  Social policy report:  Evidence-based interventions for juvenile offenders and juvenile justice policies that support them.  Sharing Child and Youth Development Knowledge 25(1). 

The Fate of TYC Still Hangs in the Balance...

As Senate Bill 653 and House Bill 1915 work their way through the proper channels, the Executive Director of Texas Youth Commission (TYC), Cherie Townsend, has sent out a message to the TYC staff. With a month and a half left in the legislative session, Ms. Townsend points out, there is still much to be decided about the fate of TYC and the juvenile justice system in Texas. The current House and Senate versions of the budget would mean approximately $117 million worth of reductions in the next two years (Townsend, 2011). The message goes on to explain that the expectation is that the Senate version of the bill that will move forward and be considered in a Conference Committee, but that before this happens there are still differences between the bills that must be resolved. Ms. Townsend outlines some major elements of the Sunset legislation, including:

§ The establishing of a team to assist the agencies involved in the merger in coordinating their operations – the team will disband at a certain date

§ Provision for all employees of both TYC and TJPC to become employees of the new Texas Juvenile Justice Department, however some positions may be eliminated during or after the merger

§ Assembling of a new Board to provide oversight to the agency – the size of which is not yet determined. The members of the board will include local officials, juvenile probation chiefs, juvenile justice professionals, mental health professionals and members of the general public

§ An advisory council will also be set up to provide input and feedback – the members of the Council will be the executive director of the new agency, the Health and Human Services Commission executive director, local officials and juvenile probation chiefs

§ An emphasis is placed on the continuity of care within the Reentry Program – a variety of services such as counseling, mentoring, and halfway house step-down programs

§ Maintenance of the requirements for reform that were previously enacted

§ Any TYC facility that is close in a county with a population of less than 100,000 may be transferred to the county for a public interest benefit

§ A provision that the new agency will undergo a Sunset Review in 2017

Ms. Townsend also expresses concerns and issues still under consideration. Mainly, the questions center around how to merge the two agencies in the most smooth and effective manner possible. For example, “Can the two existing hotlines from each agency be consolidated?” (Townsend, 2011). The message ends by thanking the staff for the work they have done and continue to do to support TYC and the youth they serve. Ms. Townsend manages to convey a lot of information that must be troubling both for her to report and also for the staff to receive, while maintaining a calm, graceful tone throughout. As the 82^nd legislative session winds down, it will be interesting to see what the final result of SB 653 and HB 1915 will be.

Townsend, C. (2011). Message from TYC Executive Director Cherie Townsend. Texas Youth Commission. http://www.tyc.state.tx.us/news/ctownsend_04-15-2011.html

Sam's Story and Senate Bill 718

After I received my bachelor’s degree, I decided to volunteer for a year and work as an AmeriCorps member.  I was accepted to be a mentor for Communities in Schools of Central Texas, a dropout prevention program that provides social services to youth in public schools.  As a CIS AmeriCorps member, I mentor and tutor a caseload of twenty students at a middle school in North Austin that was 97% Hispanic and disadvantaged.  There were frequently not enough textbooks for the classroom and not enough teachers to accommodate the needs of the at-risk students.  As a mentor and tutor, my job was to provide supportive guidance to students in both academic and personal endeavors and to provide supplemental instruction for students with poor and unsatisfactory grades. 

One of my students—I’ll call her Sam—was a particularly challenging student for me during my first semester at the middle school.  She had a decorated disciplinary record at the middle school for various behavioral problems and was frequently suspended or sent to In-School Suspension (ISS).  After bringing marijuana to school in December '09, Sam was sent to the Alternative Learning Center (ALC) for ten days.  After Christmas break, however, Sam returned to the home campus, began staying after school with me to complete make-up work, and we developed a close mentoring relationship.  She raised her grades from F's to B’s and seldom received a disciplinary referral.  Teachers even visited CIS to let me know that Sam had drastically improved and was making a great deal of progress.  In April '10, however, everything changed.  One day during Sam’s math class, her substitute teacher began yelling at her for using her IPod.  Because the normal math teacher had no problem with students using their IPods, Sam continued listening to the music.  When Sam ignored the substitute’s request, he threw a pencil at her to get her attention.  Angrily, Sam cursed at her substitute and walked out of class.  She received a Class C misdemeanor, was sent back to the Alternative Learning Center, and has not returned to an AISD public school.  It has been a year.  After being sent to ALC for something in her (and my) eyes ridiculous, Sam decided to stop caring about school and is now involved in substance abuse and gang involvement.  Although this is an extreme example, it appears that her loss of interest in school could have been prevented had she not received a Class C misdemeanor for a curse word.  Thanks to the passing of Senate Bill 718, this hopefully won’t be an issue for future students.

Taken from Whitmire's Mar. 10 Statesman Opinion Article

On March 10, State Senator John Whitmire wrote an opinion article in the Austin American Statesman regarding Senate Bill 718 and other bills related to Class C misdemeanors.  Whitmire reported that Class C tickets, issued primarily for disruption of class, fighting where no serious injury is involved, curfew violations, and truancy, send “thousands of Texas students—some under the age of 10—to adult criminal court each school year to face fines of up to $500, community service, and court costs.”  The amount of Class C tickets issued in Texas is absolutely absurd; Whitmire said that “over a 5-year period, Class C tickets were issued to 1,200 elementary school students in Dallas ISD. Houston ISD's police department wrote 5,763 Class C misdemeanor tickets to students in 2008-09 alone.”  Although Austin numbers were not given, I would assume that they had very similar reports.

These numbers are extremely alarming, and Sam is just one of thousands.  Although Sam has not yet dropped out of school, she is definitely headed that way.  If more productive interventions were in place, Sam could still be in school being the successful student she was working hard to be during her spring semester.  Instead, she received a ticket that criminalized her behavior and made her believe that she was destined for failure. Whitmire made a great reference to Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace Jefforson’s point:

"‘More than 80 percent of adult prison inmates are school dropouts. Charging kids with criminal offenses for low-level behavioral issues exacerbates the problem.’ This is a warning worth heeding.”

I agree wholeheartedly.  Criminalizing students’ behavior is not the answer.  More efficient interventions need to be in place to help students change negative and disruptive behaviors instead of punishing them and segregating them from the rest of their peers.  Maybe a positive behavior reinforcement program? Maybe a psychoeducational class for students with problem behaviors? Something needs to be done. 

On April 26, Senate passed SB 718, relating to disciplinary action taken against public school students on the basis of serious misbehavior.  SB 718 will help, but more has to be done.  If not, Sam won’t be the only one dropping out.

To read Whitmire's March 10 opinion article, click here

How Could Anyone Think This is a Good Idea?

In an article that ran on Wednesday March 30, Mike Ward called attention to an issue that has both Republicans and Democrats all fired up – and not in a good way! Legislative leaders were enraged when they found out that teenagers in Texas Youth Commission (TYC) facilities are paid for work they do while in lockups. Even though youth are only paid between fifty cents and two dollars an hour, which is hardly minimum wage, legislators were determined that the program should be cut from the budget and shut down. House Corrections Committee Chairman Jerry Madden went as far as to say: “It’s gone – one way or the other. How can anyone justify using taxpayer money to pay offenders for anything, whether we’ve got a tight budget or not?”. Senate Criminal Justice Committee Chairman John Whitmire echoed the sentiment, saying, “How could anyone think this is a good idea?” (Ward, 2011).

Cherie Townsend, the Youth Commission Executive Director, emailed lawmakers on Wednesday, explaining that the programs is a key component of rehabilitation services for youth – the food service work is linked to a vocational certification program that can help youth find employment once they are discharged from TYC. According to Townsend, youth use the money they earn for anything from items from the canteen to victim restitution monies or to pay child support (Ward, 2011).

One legislator, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Steve Ogden, voiced a somewhat differing opinion from his constituents. Ogden said that he would like more information before making a decision about the program, noting that “these kids are sitting there, waiting to get back into society, and putting them to work is good” (Ward, 2011). Ward goes on to mention that, unfortunately, this is not the first budget-related issue that has come up with respect to TYC. The organization has come under fire in recent years for irresponsible spending of different sorts. If this program does get cut, it may have more to do with general feelings toward TYC and their history – along with anxiousness about the budget and how taxpayers may react to their money being used to pay juveniles.

Ward, M. (2011). Texas youth inmates paid for work. http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/texas-youth-inmates-paid-for-work-1362477.html

A Day at the Capitol

            On April 26, 2011, I ventured to the Capitol to attend two Senate committee meetings:  one on health and human services and the other on criminal justice.  While the health and human services meeting did not have much relevance to our juvenile justice discussion, I enjoyed hearing the various senators discuss their respective bills.  The bills discussed in the meeting were SB 1289, SB 1084, SB 1424, SB 1360, SB 1454, SB 1448, SB 1790, SB 1745, and SB 856.  One of the most interesting bills discussed at the meeting was SB 1448, a bill authored by Senator Zaffirini relating to the consent for treatment for chemical dependency in a treatment facility and required training for the facility’s intake personnel.  The bill would not put additional financial costs on the treatment facilities and would require that each person employed complete eight hours of inservice training before being able to conduct an intake or assessment for a treatment facility.  If passed, the bill would take effect on September 1, 2011. Everyone seemed to be in support of the bill, but it was tabled until further public testimony could be heard.

After the meeting had ended, I walked around to soak in the experience. It was a nice change of scenery from the School of Social Work and Akins High School, the two places where I spend the majority of my time.  Although a person must have a great deal of patience in waiting for briefings and committee meetings, it was interesting to just observe the various senators and representatives (and other important people in business suits!) walk around looking official and doing important things.  It was also invigorating (and scary!) to know that Senate and House bills were being passed while I was in the building.

After exploring the Capitol, Margaret and I attended the Senate Criminal Justice Committee.  This meeting was quite different from the meeting I had attended in the morning; the location was quite smaller (moving from the Senate chamber to a small meeting room), the way in which bills were heard and discussed was different, and there were fewer people in attendance.  After being called to order and completing a roll call, the committee discussed the following bills:

• SB 533 (Author—Davis) Relating to the minimum standards for the certifications of sexual assault training programs and sexual assault nurse examiners and for certification renewal by those entities
• SB 972 (Author—Hinojosa) Relating to the taking of a defendant’s bail bond by county jailers
• SB 1529 (Author—Hinojosa) Relating to the date by which law enforcement agencies must report arrests to the Department of Public Safety
• SB 1636 (Author—Davis)  Relating to the collection, analysis, and preservation of sexual assault or DNA evidence
• SB 1658 (Author—Hinojosa)  Relating to the membership and duties of, and the investigations conducted by, the  Texas Forensic Science Commission, the administrative attachment of the Texas Forensic Science Commission to the Department of Public Safety, and the accreditation of criminal laboratories by the Department of Public Safety.

Although no juvenile justice bills were officially discussed, we did find out that Senate Bill 718 relating to disciplinary action taken against public school students on the basis of serious misbehavior was passed today.  This bill will affect juvenile justice because school district police officers will be prohibited from issuing citations, specifically Class C misdemeanors, for disrupting a classroom.  This is great news!

The day at the Capitol was a success!

Save Money and Save Youth - What a Concept!

For all the debates about budget cuts and the amount of money Texas spends per child involved in the juvenile justice system, one important piece of the equation seems to have been left out of many of the things we have been reading and writing about. “While the state’s juvenile justice system continues to enact and need further reforms, Texas also needs programs and practices designed to keep children from entering the system in the first place” (Miller, Saxton, & Smith, 2011, p.58). In terms of cost-effectiveness, and overall well-being of the state and its residents, preventative measures are a much more feasible option. This report makes the argument that we should be putting more focus on programs like Services to At-Risk Youth (STAR), Community Youth Development (CYD), and Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS).

Another major question raised by the report is whether or not disciplinary action is leveled in equal amounts on different groups of children; i.e. those of different racial or ethnic backgrounds, males versus females, children of different socioeconomic backgrounds, those with special needs, or whether the age of a child is factored in as it should be.

So, if a child does make a poor choice, what is to be done? “… the best approaches prevent future delinquent behavior, promote youth success, and keep the community safe. Research indicates that providing youth with interventions in the community… is the most effective way to prevent delinquent behaviors from continuing (Miller, Saxton, & Smith, 2011, p.64). Furthermore, these types of programs are much less expensive – and have been found to be much more effective in bringing about long-term changes in the youth’s behavior. Programs that keep youth in the community – and not isolated in some remote facility – are also much more likely to prepare youth to be successful, contributing members of society when they are able to return to it (Miller, Saxton & Smith, 2011, p.68).

To these ends, “Juvenile Justice” suggests a number of things Texas can do to improve the outlook for our juvenile justice system and our state’s youth:

§ Increase funding for programs proven to promote resiliency and prevent delinquency

§ Invest in quality early childhood education for Texas children

§ Require TEA to collect data on school ticketing and arrests and to make school disciplinary data publicly available

§ Require school districts that disproportionally refer students of color or special education students to DAEP’s to implement a remediation plan

§ Remove discretion in categories of behavior that can result in expulsion and referral to juvenile court

§ Require schools to train school police officers, teachers, and staff on how to discipline students in a positive way

§ Use multidisciplinary teams as standard practice for assessment and service delivery

§ Require probation-based diversion strategies in all counties

§ Increase use of mental health and drug courts, and move all juvenile courts towards treatment-based models

§ Identify youth needs early by conducting comprehensive assessments and creating individualized treatment plans that plan for the youth’s release

§ Facilitate community and family involvement by serving youth in small, regionalized facilities, partnering with community-based organizations, and bringing families into decision-making roles

§ Provide grants to community-based organizations that assist youth in enrolling in school or training; securing employment and safe, stable housing; accessing mental health services; and resolving substance abuse problems to decrease the likelihood of reoffending

The “Juvenile Justice” report offers many reasonable, concrete suggestions for things Texas can do to help keep youth out of the juvenile justice system as well as offering some cost-effective ways to rework the system as it stands today. We can only hope that someone at the Legislature gets their hands on this report and others with similar messages and likes what he or she sees…

Miller, C., Saxton, J., and Smith, J. (2011). Juvenile Justice. A Report on the Bottom Line: Conditions for Children and the Texas of Tomorrow. pp.58-70.

Killin' Time with Carl

           While waiting for the Senate Criminal Justice Committee meeting to begin, Margaret and I engaged in a conversation with an older gentleman who said he was there to advocate for the inclusion of mental health considerations in the upcoming House and Senate bills. We explained our reasons for being there and then had a fascinating hour-long conversation with him about the recent criminal justice and juvenile justice bills in the 82^nd legislative session.  When asked if we could include the conversation in our blog, he told us that he would prefer that we not use his name because he did not want his “personal opinion to be confused with anything else.”  For the purposes of the blog, then, we will call him Carl. 

            Carl is a man in his sixties who has done extensive professional and volunteer work in the criminal justice and mental health fields in Texas.  Originally from Dallas, he moved to Austin more than ten years ago and is a dedicated advocate for mental health and criminal justice programs in the area.  Because of our interest in HB 1915 and his obvious expertise in criminal justice, I asked for his opinion on the bill.  Surprisingly, Carl told us that he was actually a long-time “substance abuse volunteer” at the TYC institution in Giddings, TX.  He shared many anecdotes about his volunteer time there and said then told us that he was in favor of the merger between TYC and TJPC.  Carl said, “There is no way that anyone is going to be able to argue that spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on TYC institutions that aren’t even effective is worth it.”  He said that there are facilities in Texas that are doing a good job of rehabilitating their committed population, but there are also facilities that are using corporal punishment and doing more harm than rehabilitation.  He described the institutions he had visited; and with the exception of Giddings, every institution sounded depressing and sad.  “Once you walk through those gates, everything turns gloomy,” he added.  Carl said it would be beneficial for each TYC facility to complete a needs assessment and calculate the individual costs for each facility to run efficiently.  “I doubt this will happen, though, so HB 1915 is the next best thing,” Carl said with a sigh.

            Ideally, the closure of some inefficient TYC institutions would allow for more funds to be spent on rehabilitation and psycho-educational programs for the youth that stay in the institutions.  Instead of focusing on punishment, the institutions could provide psychoeducational classes, counseling, chemical dependency treatment, and other methods proven to be effective in working with delinquent youth.  Because of Carl’s positive substance abuse volunteer experience at Giddings, he added that Giddings would be an ideal facility to pilot a new TYC institution that holds rehabilitation and treatment just as highly as punishment.

            Carl definitely swayed me.  After hearing some of his personal stories about the mistreatment of youth in TYC institutions, I am both alarmed and concerned for the future of juvenile justice in Texas.  I thoroughly enjoyed our conversation with Carl and hope to have many more interesting conversations about the future of juvenile justice in Texas.

McLennan County State Juvenile Correctional Facility, Unit 1, Mart, TX

Giddings State School, Giddings, TX

The State of Juvenile Justice

In February of 2011, the Center for Public Policy Priorities (CPPP) put out a report called “The State of Texas Children: Texas KIDS COUNT Annual Data Book”. The report takes a critical look at how children in Texas are faring and how budget cuts are going to affect programming for children. One of the main points made is that “because the federal budget currently priorities non-child expenses, the responsibility to invest in children falls to state and local communities” (Center for Public Policy Priorities, p.9). Unfortunately for children in Texas, then, is the fact that our state is known for its tight-belt spending. When compared to states that spend more, especially on public education, these states have lower dropout rates, higher test scores and lower teen birth rates. And these indicators of educational success correlate highly with things like rates of delinquency and other crimes (Center for Public Policy Priorities, p.9).

In the report, a pie graph shows what percentages of spending on children go to different areas such as education, health, juvenile justice, etc. Only 11% of the combined state and federal funds spend on children ($80.5 billion) go towards juvenile justice, special needs, protective services and income support all together. And only 1% of the funds spent are spent on juvenile justice, which is the only category in which spending didn’t increase from 2008-2009 to 2010-2011 (Center for Public Policy Priorities, p.10). In fact, funds for juvenile justice have actually decreased from 2008-2009 to 2010-2011 – by 10%. And, if it weren’t for federal investments from the Recovery Act, juvenile justice funds would have decreased by 15% or more.

The information in the CPPP’s report shows pretty clearly that juvenile justice is not a high-spending priority in Texas’s mind when it comes to funds for children. With the current deficit and the proposed budget cuts to programs across the board, the amount of money Texas spends on children in general and on juvenile justice specifically will only be decreased further.

Center for Public Policy Priorities. (2011). The state of Texas children. Texas KIDS COUNT Annual Data Book: The Importance of Investing in Children. Austin, TX: Deviney, F., Phillips, P., Dickerson, C., and Tibbitt, L.

More on HB 1915 and SB 653: TYC Times, They Are a-Changin’

Mike Ward recently published an article discussing the details of HB 1915 and SB 653.  In his March 8 article, he notes that “as much as $150 million might be saved the next two years by merging the Texas Youth Commission, which runs Texas' prison system for teenagers, and the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission, which supervises county-run probation programs for youthful offenders.”  Remote TYC institutions would be replaced and more effort would be placed in enhancing the mental health and rehabilitation programs for youth.  Along with bettering mental health and rehab programs, a greater effort would be placed in providing probation services over incarceration.  As Ward notes in his article, both Whitmire and Madden made sure to say that “no youthful offenders would be ‘let go’ as a result of the merger” to ensure that the justice system would be just as strict for the most violent offenders.

Whitmire, one of the bill authors, said that the current juvenile justice “‘model is from the 1950s…we are an urban state.  We need to change with the times.’”  With the proposed plan, TYC closures will become work force agencies, treatment centers for adult offenders, or will be used for economic development purposes. 

The proposed bill suggests that TYC and TJPC merge in September 2012 and complete the merge within a year.  A 13-member governing board would be established to manage the new agency, Texas Juvenile Justice Department, and a “special transition team of political appointees and probation and advocacy officials would assist in the merge.” If this merge happens, though, and various TYC institutions close, where will the offenders go?

Click here to read the article

East Austin VOTA Campaign: Where’s the Juvenile Justice Discussion?

On April 20, 2011, Margaret and I attended the East Austin VOTA Campaign’s 2011 City Council Candidates’ Forum at Southwest Key Center. (Southwest Key Programs is a nonprofit agency that works to create innovative youth justice programs and schools, safe shelters for immigrant children, and workforce services-- here's a link to their site). The East Austin VOTA Campaign is a campaign that attempts to increase political efficacy in the three lowest performing precincts in Austin through voter registration, education, and get-out-the-vote efforts.  It is part of Southwest Key’s Community Empowerment Initiative and collaborates with various organizations including PODER, LULAC, Austin NAACP, Austin Immigrants Rights Coalition, and Austin Center for Peace and Justice.  Additionally, Southwest Key hosts candidate forums for local elections each year and serves as Precinct 123's official voting station.

Wednesday’s candidate’s forum took place in a crowded meeting room with around fifty people in attendance.  Candidates from Place 1, Place 4, and Place 3 responded to questions asked by audience members.  Most questions were pre-formulated by the VOTA Campaign and included questions about a waste plant across from Zavala Elementary School, beautifying parks, and supporting the request for funds for Southwest Key.  Candidates in attendance from Place 1 included incumbent Chris Riley, Josiah Ingalls, and Norman Jacobson.  It was interesting to watch the candidates speak on the various issues, although Candidate Norman Jacobson did not offer much to the discussion other than his problems with excessive fluoride and Mylanta. 

Although Margaret and I were able to write down a question to be asked in the event that there was time for additional audience questions, the forum ran late so our question was not publicly asked.  Because none of the previously answered questions discussed the topic of juvenile justice, we wanted to ask for the candidates’ opinions in reducing crime among youth in Austin and their thoughts about HB 1915 and the proposed juvenile justice budget cuts.  We did hear Mr. Ingalls speak after the forum, however, and learned that his intention for reducing crime in East Austin was to fund after-school programs so that students would have productive and safe afterschool activities instead of giving them the opportunity to engage in delinquent acts after school.

Candidates from Place 4 and Place 3 were asked the same questions as Place 1 candidates were asked (Zavala waste, community beautification, etc.) and responded in a similar manner.  Place 4 candidates in attendance were incumbent Laura Morrison and Eric Rangel while incumbent Randi Shade and candidates Kris Bailey, Max Nofziger, and Kathie Tovo represented Place 3.  I was quite disappointed in the forum and expected to hear much more from the candidates than I did.  Although HB 1915 and juvenile justice may not be extremely important to the candidates right now, I would have enjoyed hearing each candidate’s thoughts about youth crime in Austin, especially in a community where most youth crime is committed.    

How Would You "Fair"?

On April 7, 2011, a small group of students at St. Edward’s University hosted a “Well-Fair” in the hopes of educating other members of their community around the availability and accessibility (or not) of different types of welfare services to different populations. I (Margaret) attended the event in hopes of learning more about what services, if any, are available to felons.

The welfare programs that were represented at the Well-Fair were things like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Public Housing/Section 8 Housing, Medicare and Medicaid, and Women, Infants and Children (WIC). As I walked around to each booth and told them of my felon status, I found that I was unfortunately not going to be able to receive services from many of these assistance programs. First, I visited the TANF table and was told that, no, if I have felon status I am not eligible to receive assistance. The food stamps representatives told me the same thing. At the Public Housing booth, the outlook was bleak even if I wasn’t a felon! The Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) waitlist is so full they currently aren’t even accepting applications, and the waitlist isn’t expected to open for a couple of years – ouch!

On to the Medicare and Medicaid tables… Since I am definitely not 65 yet I wouldn’t be eligible for Medicare. And Medicaid turned me away too – they also don’t offer assistance to felons. Lastly, I visited the WIC table. Not being pregnant and not having any children, this was pretty much a shot in the dark. However, I did find out that if I was pregnant, I wouldn’t be able receive assistance. The representative did reassure me that once my child was 1 year old he or she would be eligible to receive services, but during my pregnancy and the first year of the child’s life, we would be on our own.

All-in-all, it was a pretty depressing and frustrating experience. I can’t even imagine if I was being turned down for all these services I was actually in need of, instead of just getting the information as a curious participant! The only ray of hope came from the National Alliance on Mental Illness representatives, who kindly assured me that if I had a mental illness they would be happy to advocate on my behalf even if I was a felon.

Texas, We've Still Got a Long Way to Go!

According to the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s 2011-2012 “Legislator’s Guide to the Issues”, juvenile crime in Texas has been declining for the past several years. At the same time, more than $200 million has been saved by downsizing Texas Youth Commission (TYC) state lockups and using some of the savings to increase juvenile probation instead of sending those misdemeanants to TYC. However, the report goes on to say, juvenile delinquency is still a significant problem. “Approximately 2,100 youths are incarcerated at TYC institutions with another 150 at TYC halfway houses” (Levin, 2011, p.1).

The guide makes several important recommendations for further juvenile justice reform (Levin, 2011, p.2):

• Strengthen performance measures: should be revised to emphasize results and outcomes rather than process and volume – measures should include parole recidivism rates, high school degrees, GEDs or vocational certificates obtained, volunteer hours worked, etc.
• Expand participation in the Commitment Reduction Program (CRP): the state would achieve net savings from participation in CRP while the newly participating departments would be able to expand community-based programs.
• Streamline TYC facilities: those institutions that are not being fully utilized should be consolidated to save money – some capacity should be relocated to smaller community-based group homes in urban areas (this is where most youths originate).
• Emphasize vocational training at TYC facilities: the average youth committed to TYC functions at a 5^th to 6^th grade level – despite being 16 years old.
• Increase flexibility in state funding: research shows that – except for the highest-risk, most deviant youth – non-residential programs such as therapy, victim-offender mediation, mentoring, and enrichment programs are the most cost-effective way to reduce recidivism. Therefore, counties should be given flexibility to use funds for these types of programs
• Redirect education funding for youths in detention centers from school districts to juvenile probation departments: would increase accountability for results and allow the juvenile probation departments to explore options such as forming their own charters (has been successful in Dallas) or select the district of their choice to provide educational services.

Interestingly, the first recommendation for reform, referring to strengthening performance measures and assessing quality over quantity, echoes what Daniel Mears (2000) called for (see “Juvenile Justice Reforms: Effective or Not?”) more than 10 years ago. This 2011-2012 report speaks to the fact that we still have a long way to go with juvenile justice reform in Texas.

Legislator’s Guide to the Issues: Juvenile Justice by Marc Levin, Texas Public Policy Foundation (2011). http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2011-JuvenileJustice-CEJ-ml.pdf

HB 1915 and SB 653: Are they worth it?

State Representative Jerry Madden

On February 28, 2011, House Bill 1915 was filed.  This bill, authored by Madden, suggests “abolishing the Texas Youth Commission and the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission and transferring powers and duties of those agencies to the newly created Juvenile Justice Department and to the functions of the independent ombudsman that serves the department” (Texas Legislature Online).  Representative Jerry Madden (R-Plano) and Senator John Whitmire (D-Houston) recommended this bill and stated that the merging of the two agencies would both save the state money and have a positive impact on juvenile justice in Texas. 
On March 2, 2011, Senate Bill 653 was filed.  This bill suggests the same abolishment as HB 1915 and was authored by Senator John Whitmire.

State Senator John Whitmire

If passed, what will this mean?

     Several rural facilities will be closed and most offenders will be sent to urban areas that are close to other resources.  By relying less on rural and ineffective facilities and giving more attention to more local, community-based institutions, youth outcomes can be improved.  The concentration of most offenders in institutions close to their homes might also be beneficial to the offenders’ emotional well-being and would reduce costs.  Approximately $150 million would be saved but not all of the funds would be transferred back to the state. Hopefully, some funds would be given to the TJJD for probation funding so that juveniles can be followed throughout the probation process.  As mentioned previously in a blog about TYC, the daily cost for one inmate in 2010 was $359.  Conversely, probation costs were only $23 per day. Although HB 1915 and SB 653 would cut juvenile justice costs down, would they really have a positive impact on juvenile justice?

More to follow!

Texas Legislature(2011). Texas Legislature Online: 82nd Legislature Regular Session.  Retrieved March 28, 2011 from http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=HB01915

Texas Youth Commission (2011). Texas Youth Commission. Retrieved April 11, 2011 from http://www.tyc.state.tx.us/index.html

Juvenile Justice Reforms: Effective or Not?

Daniel Mears’ (2000) article, “Assessing the Effectiveness of Juvenile Justice Reforms: A Closer Look at the Criteria and the Impacts on Diverse Stakeholders”, calls for increased attention to and assessment of the effectiveness of the juvenile justice system in Texas. Mears’ (2000) article refers to the “get tough” juvenile justice reform of the 1990s, but many of the points made in the article are relevant in today’s climate of reform and budget cuts as well. Mears (2000) stresses the importance of empirically assessing the effectiveness of the system in a broader sense than has been done before, looking at both intended and unintended effects, goals, and especially diverse stakeholders in the juvenile justice system in Texas. In the article, Mears (2000) points out that “relatively little attention has been given to conceptualizing or operationalizing broadly the effectiveness… ‘in ways that go beyond recidivism rates’” (p.175).

In the 1990s, Texas was one of many states to enact “get tough” juvenile justice reforms. However, Texas differed from many other states in its focus on providing a continuum of sanctioning to connect its juvenile and adult justice systems. The way in which this has been accomplished is through modifying and expanding the determinate sentence statute that was first enacted by the Texas legislature in 1987 (Mears, 2000, p.182). The determinate statute allows for the possibility of a longer sentence for juveniles who are eligible – but not appropriate for – waivers, as well as for tougher sanctions for juveniles ineligible for waivers. These allowances reflect the more retributive – rather than rehabilitative – side of the Texas juvenile justice system (Mears, 2000, p.182).

In the study Mears (2000) conducted, he looked at the potential consequences of these “get tough” Texas reforms for juveniles. Mears (2000) found that “thirty-four percent of survey respondents viewed determinate sentencing as sometimes resulting in a longer or more severe sanction, and 55 percent viewed it as often or usually resulting in a longer or more severe sanction” (p.185). Furthermore, the study found that “plea bargaining in juvenile court clearly can occur to the advantage of practitioners and not necessarily to that of juveniles” (p.187). Both of these results are troubling for the well-being of those involved in the juvenile justice system in Texas and should be taken into account during the budget cut decision-making processes of the 82^nd legislature. As Mears (2000) concludes, “the existence of these types of unintended effects [plea bargaining leverage, disparity and inconsistency within the system]… suggests that a balanced assessment of this sentencing policy… ultimately will require more systematic attention” (p.195).

Mears, D.P. (2000). Assessing the effectiveness of juvenile justice reforms: a closer look at the criteria and the impacts on diverse stakeholders. Law & Policy, 22 (2), 175-202.

Texas Youth Commission 101

Because Margaret and I are going to be talking about House Bill 1915 and Senate Bill 103, we thought it would first be important to give you some background information about the Texas Youth Commission.  Before proceeding with TYC history and operating information, here are some important concepts:

• A “juvenile” is a child who is at least ten years old but not yet seventeen years old at the time he or she commits an act of “delinquent conduct” or “conduct in need of supervision”
• “Delinquent conduct” is conduct that could result in imprisonment if committed by an adult
• Dawson (2004) added to the definition of delinquent conduct by stating that it includes “conduct that constitutes driving, boating, or flying while intoxicated, intoxication assault or intoxication manslaughter…” or other conduct “that violates a penal law of this state”
• “Conduct in need of supervision” is conduct that could result in a fine (i.e. truancy, running away from home, violating a school district’s previously communicated written standards of student conduct, etc.) It is frequently referred to as a CINS violation
• “Blended sentencing” occurs when a criminal sentence is blended with a juvenile court disposition, allowing youth to serve the first part of their sentence in a TYC institution and then transfer to an adult facility to complete the sentence.

History of TYC

The Texas Youth Commission (TYC) is an agency in Texas that operates all juvenile correctional facilities in the state.  TYC was created in 1957 (then called the Texas Youth Council).  The name changed to Texas Youth Commission in 1983.   According to the Shaw and Penn (2004) in their discussion of the purpose and scope of the Texas juvenile justice system, there was a 69% increase in juvenile probation referrals and a 161% increase in referrals for violent offenses from 1988 to 1993.  There was also a 285% increase in youth committed to TYC for violent offenses.  Because of the extreme increase in youth crime, Texas adopted blended sentencing. 

Texas Youth Commission and Juvenile Justice

According to the agency’s website, the TYC’s mission statement is to “promote public safety by operating juvenile correctional facilities and by partnering with youth, families, and communities to provide a safe and secure environment where youth in the agency’s care and custody receive individualized education, treatment, life skills and employment training and positive role models to facilitate successful community reintegration” (TYC website).  In order to be sentenced to a TYC institution, a youth offender must be in between the ages of 10 and 17 and has committed an act of delinquent conduct or a CINS violation.  At juvenile court, the judge can decide to do a multitude of things; the county can request that the juvenile be tried as an adult and thus removed from the juvenile justice system.  If the judge decides to try the offender in the juvenile system and is adjudicated for delinquent conduct, he or she will have 3 possible outcomes:  probation, TYC determinate sentence, and TYC indeterminate sentence.  Most offenders who are sentenced to stays in a TYC institution because of felony offenses receive indeterminate sentences, meaning there is no set end date to the sentences.  A juvenile who is sent to TYC with a determinate sentence may be transferred to an adult prison depending on the progress in the TYC program. 

TYC Demographics in 2010

·       93% were boys.

·       7% were girls.

·       44% were Hispanic.

·       34% were African-American.

·       21% were Anglo.

·       44% admitted at intake that they are gang members.

·       Median age at commitment was 16.

·       Median reading achievement level was 6th grade (four years behind their peers).

·       Median math achievement level was 5th grade (five years behind their peers).

·       32% were identified as eligible for special education services.

·       5% of the TYC new arrivals were English language learners.

·       83% had IQs below the mean score of 100.

·       72% had high or moderate need for alcohol or other drug treatment.

·       42% had high or moderate need for mental health treatment.

·       79% had parents who never married or who divorced or separated.

·       36% had a documented history of being abused or neglected.

·       56% came from low-income homes.

·       72% came from chaotic environments.

·       44% had families with histories of criminal behavior.

·       11% had family members with mental impairments.

·       38% had more than one felony adjudication.

(Taken from http://www.tyc.state.tx.us/research/youth_stats.html)

The Numbers

     In 2010, the average cost per day for a youth in TYC was $359.58.  This is a significant increase from the 2003 average of $154.94.  In 2010, TYC committed 1,056 juveniles for an average stay of 17.1 days.  At the end of 2010, 1,798 juveniles were in a TYC institution.

For more information on the numbers, go to:  http://www.tyc.state.tx.us/research/index.html   

State Partners

     Currently, TYC partners with the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission (TJPC) in juvenile justice matters.  TJPC’s role in the juvenile justice system is to work with county juvenile probation departments to aid and enhance juvenile probation services.  TJPC provides “funding, technical assistance, and training; establishing and enforcing standards; collecting, analyzing and disseminating information; and facilitating communications between state and local entities” (TYC website). 

 

Dawson, (2004). Texas Juvenile Law (6th Ed). Austin, Texas: Texas Juvenile Probation

Commission

Shaw, R. and Penn, E. B. (2008).  Chapter 5. Purpose and Scope of the Texas Juvenile Justice System [Review of Juvenile Justice: A Guide to Theory, Policy, and Practice(6th Ed.)]. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.

Texas Youth Commission (2011). Texas Youth Commission. Retrieved April 11, 2011 from http://www.tyc.state.tx.us/index.html

The History of Juvenile Justice in Texas

Juvenile Justice in this country can be traced back to Cook County, Illinois and the year 1899. Texas was one of the final states to establish a juvenile justice system as we think of it today. Before 1918, when it was raised to 17, the age for criminal responsibility was 13 years old. And not until 1943 did the Texas Legislature initiate special civil procedures for youth offenders (Shaw & Penn, 2008).

Texas juvenile law comes mainly from Title III of the Texas Family Code, “Juvenile Justice Code”, the main goals of which are to “provide for the safety and protection of the public, promote the concept of punishment and accountability, and provide treatment and rehabilitation of the juvenile offender in the community” (Shaw & Penn, 2008, p.2).

Morales v. Turman (1971), established the first national standards in terms of treatment of incarcerated juveniles, and it prompted many changes in Texas as well. Youth were afforded due process rights for the first time, corporal and other forms of inhumane punishment were prohibited, a youth grievance and mistreatment investigation system was established, and dependent and neglected youth were moved out of institutions and into foster care (Shaw & Penn, 2008).

According to Shaw and Penn (2008), there are three classifications of juveniles who may enter into the juvenile justice system in Texas: non-offenders (come into the system because of the actions of a third-party; usually a parent or guardian), “status” offenders (have committed a non-criminal misbehavior such as disobedience), and juvenile delinquent offenders (actions committed which would result in criminal prosecution if committed by an adult offender).

In 1995, the 74^th Texas Legislature responded to a crime spike of the late 80s and early 90s by passing expansive “get tough” juvenile reform. Some of the highlights of this reform include: the certification age was lowered from 15 to 14 for capitol and first-degree felonies, the range of maximum sentences increased to 40 years for first degree felonies, and Texas Youth Commission (TYC) was authorized to request to transfer sentenced youth after age 16 to adult prison to complete the sentence (Shaw & Penn, 2008).

Shaw, R., and Penn, E.B. (2008). Chapter 5. Purpose and Scope of the Texas Juvenile Justice System. [Review of Juvenile Justice: A Guide to Theory, Policy and Practice (6^th Ed.)]. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.

The Story Behind "Don't Ice Me, Tex"

Welcome to our blog!  You might be wondering what our title is all about. Read this article! and you'll know.