Suicide Decriminalization and Prison Abolition


Until the 1970s, the Western world criminalized attempted suicide. It was decriminalized because of new theories of mental health, the eugenics and euthanasia movement, a shift in legal focus to individual rights and privacy, and a lack of justification for penalizing self-harm through criminal means. Today suicide is only a crime in the few states that follow criminal common law, however, it is rarely prosecuted.

Although attempted suicide has been decriminalized in the United States, suicides occur twice as often as homicides each year. Suicide is the tenth leading cause of death in the United States for the overall population and the second leading cause of death among people between 10 and 34 years-old. The suicide rate has increased for thirteen years in a row with the highest rate since World War II in 2017.

In this series of posts I will analyze the decriminalization of suicide in light of the prison  abolition framework offered by Allegra McLeod. McLeod is a legal scholar and abolitionist who defined the “prison abolition ethic” in the article Prison Abolition and Grounded Justice. The way attempted suicide changed in terms of criminal law is exemplified by two key concepts of prison abolition: decriminalization and  preventative justice. I want to explore why decriminalization of suicide has been unsuccessful in lowering suicide rates, whether implementing other strategies outlined in the prison abolition framework would improve the situation, and if this offers any lessons in how prison abolition framework could be successfully applied to other crimes.

In this post I will to discuss the idea of prison abolition, the history of criminalization of suicide, and decriminalization of suicide. I will begin by discussing the prison abolitionist ethic, as outlined by Allegra McCleod. Then, I will discuss how different cultures view suicide and the history of suicide criminalization. This post focuses on England because the United States adopted English common law at its inception. Finally, I will discuss how and why suicide was decriminalized and where suicide stands in criminal law today in the United States.

This series of posts will address the criminalization of suicide and attempted suicide only. It will not discuss physician-assisted suicide, suicide pacts, influencing someone else to commit suicide, or accidental killings of another during attempted suicide.

The Prison Abolitionist Ethic

According to Allegra McLeod, prison abolition is the ethical, institutional, and political framework that aims to demolish the current criminal law and police system in exchange for positive social projects and institutions that work to prevent criminalized conduct. Prison abolition is about more than just tearing down prisons, it is about rethinking justice, security, public safety, and criminality.

There are several key concepts that are necessary for prison abolition to be successful. The first, and most significant, is preventative justice, which “designates a range of measures aimed at reducing the incidence of harmful behavior, typically by targeting the risks posed by specific individuals and less often by addressing the potential harm posed by given social situations.” These preventative measures range from alternatives to detention to funding social programs that reduce crime. Other key concepts are decriminalization, justice reinvestment (meaning “reinvesting criminal law administrative resources in other sectors and also reinvesting the concepts of justice and prevention w/ more expansive meaning”), creating safe harbors for vulnerable persons and communities to care for themselves, alternative livelihood programs to prevent conduct that would usually be addressed by criminal law administration, simple design innovations that improve security, and urban redevelopment that engages community members in projects and populating urban areas.

The following sections outline the history of suicide and attempted suicide criminalization and decriminalization. An abolitionist framework would start with decriminalization, but it wouldn’t end there. It would extend to the root causes of suicide and build out programs to prevent it. Decriminalization does little to promote public welfare without the addition of the concepts laid out in the prison abolition ethic.

Suicide in Different Cultures

The different cultural views of suicide begin within the word itself. The term “suicide” connotes an active verb of “killing.” The root “sui” means himself or herself and “-cide” means to kill. The term suicide did not exist until the 1600s. The terms self-homicide, self-destruction, and self-murder were previously used in the English language. Many other languages did not have an equivalent term because they regarded the act as a passive dying, rather than an active killing.

In ancient Rome, suicide was commendable when it was completed by warriors in battle when defeat was inevitable. In ancient Japan, seppuku was commendable in certain circumstances. Suicide was also deemed honorable in war contexts in several cultures. Buddhists in China widely accepted immolation and it is still accepted among some Buddhists today. Some instances of suicide are accepted in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, but it is unconditionally condemned in the Quran.

Suicide Criminalization

Suicide was first criminalized by the Romans. The Roman Council of Arles “denounced suicide as a diabolical inspiration” and criminalized suicide of servants in the fifth century to prevent the significant number of slave suicides. Attempted suicide of a soldier was also criminalized by Roman military law. The punishment, ironically, was death.

Christianity also played a part in suicide criminalization in Rome. St. Augustine condemned suicide as violating the Sixth Commandment (“Thou shalt not kill”) unequivocally but excused it for the rare virgin suicides that resulted in sainthood, such as with Samson or Pelagia. The Council of Braga in the sixth century denied funeral rites to those who committed suicide. Dishonoring the corpses of persons who completed suicide became customary and then codified into law. Then forfeiture of a victim of suicide’s property to the lord later became codified. The exception was if the suicide was committed as a result of madness or illness. In the thirteenth century, Saint Thomas Aquinas further condemned suicide in his Summa Theologiae. The Catholic perspective of suicide condemnation became the dominant view across Europe.

Suicide Criminalization in England

The Catholic Church’s perspective most likely led to criminalization of suicide and attempted suicide in England. In the thirteenth century, Henry de Bracton considered suicide a felony and wrote that committing suicide resulted in a forfeiture of goods. By the fourteenth century, suicide was called felo de se and treated as a felony. In order to be considered a suicide, the self-killing had to have the legal element of “malicious intent.” Courts would hold post-mortem jury trials to determine intent. The criminal stigma and forfeiture of property could be avoided by a finding of insanity. Either way, there was a customary practice of driving a stake through the corpse’s heart and dumping the body in a pit near a crossroads. This was to prevent the spirit from returning, and ensure that, if the spirit did return, it would be confused as to which direction it should go.

William Blackstone believed that suicide was: “[a] double offence; one spiritual, in invading the prerogative of the Almighty, and rushing into his immediate presence uncalled for; the other temporal, against the king, who hath an interest in the preservation of all his subjects; the law has therefore ranked this among the highest crimes, making it a peculiar species of felony committed on one’s self.”

Suicide Criminalization in America

Suicide criminalization practices varied in the early colonies. Although the colonies adopted English common law, they did not adopt all aspects of it. Suicide was rampant among indigenous peoples and enslaved Africans. Along with the mass deaths of indigenous peoples due to diseases carried over from Europe and conflicts with colonizers, there were also numerous acts of suicide. Enslaved Africans often committed suicide on ships but this was soon prevented by force-feeding and nets which prevented jumping overboard. In the colonies, legislation provided state compensation to slave-owners for the suicide of slaves who were accused of felonies.

Early on in colonial America, Massachusetts adopted the impaling and burial by a highway law from England. However, none of the states considered suicide a crime by the nineteenth century. The colonies decriminalized suicide to set them apart from England during the Revolution and after, with no penalties remaining in the thirteen colonies by 1798. However, attempted suicide was considered a crime at common law. It was treated as a misdemeanor since it was considered an attempted felony. Some states have enacted legislation that expressly rejects common law crimes. If these states did not codify attempted suicide into their criminal statutes then attempted suicide would not be a crime in those jurisdictions. Some states did codify a criminal statute. Most of them mandated that attempted suicide is punishable by up to 2 years in jail, a $1000 fine, or both.

Suicide Decriminalization in England

Ideas about the criminalization and condemnation of suicide began to shift in the seventeenth century as a result of progressive intellectual, scientific, and cultural thought of the age of the Enlightenment. Non compos mentis, or insanity, jury verdicts rose in postmortem suicide trials, which protected families from being forced to forfeit their property. Before the seventeenth century, 2% of suicides had non compos mentis, or insanity verdicts. 42% of verdicts were non compos mentis in 1700 and they rose to 80% in 1750 and 97% in 1800.

In the eighteenth century, society became more secularized and the medical profession emerged. Public perception of suicide became more tolerant. Two suicides in the early nineteenth exemplified the shifting attitudes. The British Foreign Secretary committed suicide in 1822 which put his post-mortem jury in a tough position. They had to decide whether an esteemed member of government was a felon or insane. They returned with a verdict of temporary insanity, meaning that his property was not forfeited to the king and he did not have to have a crude burial by impalement at a crossroads. The next year, in 1823, a law student committed suicide and was subjected to a crossroads burial. There was public outcry and the practice was outlawed the same year by the Burial of Suicide Act.

The property implication of suicide, escheating to the king, was outlawed in the Forfeiture Act of 1870. Although there was no way to penalize completed suicide anymore, attempted suicide began to be considered a misdemeanor. Attempted suicide was officially decriminalized by statute by the Suicide Act of 1961.

Suicide Decriminalization in the United States

The nineteenth century brought the emergence of psychoanalytic theory, social science theory, social Darwinism, and the industrial revolution. Privatization of family life and urbanization created a new disaffected isolation which resulted in a rise of suicide.

The eugenics movement, which evolved from the ideas of social Darwinism, in combination with the creation of morphine, led to the rise of the euthanasia movement,  which was a social movement that lobbied for the legalization of euthanasia. Euthanasia, or mercy killing, is “painlessly putting to death persons suffering from painful and incurable disease or incapacitating physical disorder or allowing them to die by withholding treatment or withdrawing artificial life-support measures.”

Suicide rates spiked during the Great Depression, sparking public awareness and conversations about death and suicide. The Euthanasia Society of America was founded in 1938 by a majority of eugenicists. Euthanasia had significant lobbying efforts and began to grow public support.

Then World War II stopped the euthanasia movement in its tracks. The Nazis murdered nearly twenty million people and committed mass atrocities. People were outraged and disgusted by the crimes of eugenicists written about in the newspapers. They began to equivocate the euthanasia movement with Nazis. After the war, law began to change in the United States, with a focus on individual rights and privacy exemplified by the Warren Supreme Court, which issued a series of landmark rulings in the 1960s.

By the 1970s most states with statutes criminalizing attempted suicide had repealed them. Today, only states that follow criminal common law have the ability to criminalize suicide. This is only a handful of states and attempted suicide is rarely prosecuted.

Suicide and Prison Abolition

The history of suicide criminalization and decriminalization demonstrates that ideas about crime have more to do with politics, religion, and the voices of those in power than it does about rational assessments of the public good. The logical response to preventing suicide or any other behavior looked down upon by society is to investigate why the act was committed and address the root cause. The historical response, however, was to criminalize suicide and punish it after the fact. This did not act as a deterrent but it did have the effect of punishing the family of the victim and enriching the government. This could be said for most crimes that are still criminalized. The root cause of criminal acts is not being addressed and crime continues to occur. The only difference is that suicide is no longer considered a crime. This is largely because of changing attitudes towards suicide that began to consider it a private issue rather than a public one and the fact that the government could no longer profit from suicide in the form of escheatment.

However, suicide rates have only risen since it has been decriminalized. In the last 50 years since decriminalization began, no one has called to criminalize it again to prevent suicide. Since we know that criminalization does not impact the rate of suicide then it probably does little to prevent other acts that are considered crimes. So why do we still punish crimes when this method is ineffective? Suicide is a good example to test out the prison abolition ethic because it was decriminalized even though its prevalence has not changed. Decriminalizing suicide illustrates the importance of the positive project of abolition. Without the society-building features, decriminalization does very little to promote the public welfare.

The next post will discuss how decriminalization has not been successful in lowering suicide rates, if implementation of any of the other key concepts of prison abolition would be effective, and whether suicide decriminalization offers any lessons for how the prison abolition ethic could be applied to other crimes.

Access to Health Care and Criminal Justice Reform – Part 2

“America’s health care system is neither healthy, caring, nor a system.” – Walter Cronkite

A Universal Wraparound Program Available to all Minors Would Break the Cycle of Poor Health, Poverty, and Incarceration.

Too many people fall victim to cycles of poor health, poverty, and incarceration. In this post, I will demonstrate the ways in which the provision of universal wraparound health care services for minors is the best way to break this cycle.

Wraparound services are comprehensive, integrated, community-centered health care services, and meet all four components of sufficient health care access –– coverage, services, timeliness, and workforce. Thus, they address all of the factors contributing to poor health. The National Wraparound Initiative (NWI) service model, combined with the National Wraparound Implementation Center’s (NWIC) implementation strategy, is the ideal model from which a comprehensive, universal health care system for all children should be built.

I am proposing universal wraparound health care services for all individuals in the U.S. from birth until they reach 18 years of age. This will entail providing a health care team to every minor in the U.S. This team will address, at minimum, the wellness needs of every child in the U.S., including physical, emotional, intellectual, social, occupational, and spiritual needs, where appropriate and desired. Wellness needs, however, will act as the floor, not the ceiling, as my program will be modeled on the NWI’s program.

This program will not be means-tested but will require a significant new tax. This tax should be levied progressively against higher-income individuals and families. Within the program itself, efficacy will be measured by the NWI and NWIC’s evaluation protocols. The external success of this program, however, will be measured by the reduction in use of emergency health care services, decrease in preventable disease and associated comorbidities, lower rates of intergenerational poverty, and reduction in future levels of incarceration.

Developing a modified model of wraparound services that is available to all minors would be effective because early intervention is a proven generator of long-term socioeconomic benefits. These benefits will accrue to individuals and society. Individuals will experience better health, economic, and carceral outcomes. Society will benefit through long-term savings on various public programs and institutions. While a universal wraparound program would require enormous front-end investments, the benefits on the back-end could be transformative for individuals and save taxpayers trillions of dollars.

Reimagining Police III: The Need to Look Beyond Policing

Theodore Roosevelt – “The more you know about the past, the better prepared you are for the future.

In 1994, as a response to several high-profile instances of violent crime, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. Among other things, the act established the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services [C.O.P.S.] under the Department of Justice. It was set up to fund and help thousands of police agencies around the country improve the way their police officers interacted with their constituents. At the time, it was believed that this change in approach would help address the root causes of crime and prevent crime before it happened.

The act and the change in approach, however, have been nothing short of a massive failure. The act only further contributed to mass incarcerations and prison overcrowding. Instances of custody deaths and high profile shootings remain commonplace. The Government Accountability Office even found that though there was a 26 percent decline in overall crime from 1993 to 2000, only 1.3 percent of the decline could be attributed to the work of C.O.P.S. The shift to a community-oriented policing strategy failed to prevent crime or improve community relations.

In the first part of this series, I discussed how a shift to modern policing structures gave up on the flexibility that the watch system provided. Then, in the second part, I argued that the inflexibility of the policing structures means that they cannot be responsive to the needs and concerns of the minority communities. Even today, to effectively engage with communities and their issues, the aforementioned community-oriented approach to policing is often cited as the solution despite its previous failures. In this final post in the series, I argue that community-oriented policing is the wrong solution and that our answer to prevention of crime might be to return to the origins of policing. In doing so, I pose a fundamental question: why do police officers continue to remain central to all crime prevention policies?

Continue Reading

Reimagining Police II: Why Modern Policing Fails to Address Minority Concerns

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1963) — We can never be satisfied, as long as [Black Americans] continue to be the victims of unspeakable horrors of police brutality.

On Jan. 26, 1956, Dr. King was driving a group of civil rights protesters when he was arrested. The arresting officer screamed “get out King, you’re under arrest for speeding thirty miles in a twenty-five mile zone”. The officer, obviously, had used the speeding charge as a pretext to lock him up.

In the sixty years that have passed since, constitutional protections for minorities have been strengthened, meaning no law can discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity. Yet law enforcement experiences similar to Dr. King’s remain commonplace. Black and Hispanic drivers are over-stopped, over-questioned, and over-searched, even though there is nothing to suggest that they are worse drivers. In 2015, nearly a third of the police shootings began with a traffic stop. In fact, minorities believe law enforcement represents a legacy of reinforced inequality in the justice system.

In my previous post, I argued that the complexity and centralization of law enforcement had led to a situation where the police could no longer alter their role to serve the needs of the people they serve. In this post, I will argue that this inflexibility translates to a system where policing cannot address minority issues and only furthers the divide between law enforcement and minority communities.

Continue Reading

Reimagining Police I: The Effects of Complexity and a Return to the Origins

Sir Robert Peel, two-time former British Prime Minister and the founder of modern policing, “The police are the public and the public are the police.”

Law enforcement in the United States has undergone drastic changes from its origins. There are presently about 18,000 U.S. police agencies in the United States, which include City Police Departments, County Sheriff’s Offices, State Police/Highway Patrol and Federal Law Enforcement Agencies. This increasing complexity, however, is a relatively modern phenomenon. In this post, I will explain how the complexity and growth of the police force has made it less responsive to the community members it serves. In future posts, I will explore how this results in minority disenfranchisement, and argue that we revert to origins of policing.

Continue Reading

Access to Health Care and Entry into the Criminal Justice System

“Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhuman[e].” –– Martin Luther King, Jr. (1966)

Access to Health Care for all Ages Remains Elusive, Especially for Those in Poverty, and These Conditions Increase the Likelihood of Entry into the Criminal Justice System.

There is a strong, biconditional link between minors’ inadequate health care access and poverty and between poverty and entry into the criminal justice system. That is, poverty worsens health and poor health engenders poverty. Poverty leads to criminal justice involvement and criminal justice involvement leads to poverty.

This post focuses on the link between minors’ inadequate health care access and entry into the criminal justice system. Poverty is the link between inadequate health care access and entry into the criminal justice system. If we can break the link between poverty and poor health — particularly in minors — we can reduce our prison populations.

Insufficient health care access and the cycle of poverty are bidirectionally linked.

Put simply, poverty negatively impacts health and poor health perpetuates poverty. Poverty is an essential element to consider in this relationship because data that directly examines minor populations’ access to health care and future entry into the criminal justice system is scarce. Recently, while some studies have analyzed the relationship between health care access and incarceration, those studies focused on adult populations. While these studies will be illustrative when analyzing minors, currently, it is vital to use poverty as a link.

I will use the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) as the metric for poverty. Unlike the U.S. Census Bureau formulation, the SPM accounts for, inter alia, the receipt of tax credits and government assistance. The SPM has measurement consistency, which is generally a measure of data reliability. In other words, measurement consistency gauges how well the data collection methods are performing at measuring what researchers are intending to measure. Additionally, the SPM is based on “inflows” and “outflows.” Outflows reflect income spent only for basic needs. Inflows include cash income from any source and noncash benefits that contribute towards a family’s spending. Inflows do not include necessary expenses and taxes owed. Ultimately, “[a] family is designated as poor if its annual money inflow, net of necessary expenses, falls below its threshold level of money outflow.”

The majority of individuals and families who experience poverty do not stay in poverty for the remainder of their lives. More often, individuals and families will cycle in and out of poverty. While most adults who experience poverty do so cyclically, the data for adults and children are different. Indeed, children who grow up in poverty are significantly more likely, relative to adults, to stay in poverty their entire lives.

Poverty cripples both physical and mental health. Individuals and families who live in impoverished communities are at greater risk for chronic disease, have a higher mortality rate, and experience lower life expectancy. Even looking only at adult populations, the effects of poverty are punishing and unjust. The effects of poverty, however, take a uniquely cruel and depressing toll on children.

The effects of poverty on children begin in the womb. Women in disadvantaged communities experience higher maternal mortality rates and give birth to children with lower birth weights. Should mom and baby survive childbirth, however, living in poverty increases food insecurity and decreases nutrition access. Continuing as they age, children who live in low-income homes experience higher rates of asthma, developmental and learning disabilities, exposure to tobacco and lead, obesity, poor growth, and learning and behavioral problems. Additionally, children who grow up in impoverished homes are more likely to engage in tobacco use and substance misuse. The disadvantages that accrue with poverty eventually become too burdensome to shoulder, which leads to increased mental health problems and greater rates of suicide.

Suicide: A Violent Crime or a Public Health Issue?

Prison abolitionists such as Allegra McLeod argue that we need to address the root causes of violent crime, focus on healing rather than punishment, and take care of victims while ensuring that we are stopping the problem at the source. Ironically, there is one violent crime that we treat this way, and it happens to be the most deadly violent crime there is: suicide. Suicide is the most prevalent violent crime in the United States, with more than twice as many incidents each year as homicide. This series of posts will examine what, if anything, our treatment of suicide can teach us about the promise—and limits—of treating other violent crimes as public health problems.

Suicide was criminalized by statute in the U.S. until most of those statutes were abolished by the 1970s, following the trend of most other Western countries. Suicide decriminalization stemmed from studies that suicide was a mental health issue which bolstered the idea that it should not be treated as a criminal matter. Today suicide is still a crime in about a dozen states that follow criminal common law but it is rarely prosecuted. Suicide is still one of the leading causes of death in the United States, with the highest rate since World War II in 2017 despite the rise and availability of suicide prevention resources. Does this mean that an abolitionist framework is ineffective, does it mean that we need to be more careful about implementation, or is suicide different qualitatively from other violent crimes?

Christina Santora is a third-year law student at Santa Clara University School of Law. She decided to attend law school to be a more effective advocate for human rights and social justice. Christina is currently a clinical law student at the Northern California Innocence Project where she advocates for the exoneration of innocent prisoners in wrongful conviction cases. She formerly participated in the International Human Rights Clinic at SCU, where she wrote reports on issues of immigrant detention, co-authored an amicus curiae brief in support of the human rights of environmental defenders, researched criminal justice reform, and advocated for an international treaty addressing violence against women.

Throughout her law school career, Christina has volunteered at the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project in Arizona, the New York Immigration Coalition, and Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto. She co-founded the Santa Clara University chapters of the National Lawyers Guild and If/When/How: Lawyering for Reproductive Justice, and is currently a board member of the American Civil Liberties Union SCU chapter. Christina hopes to dedicate her career to advancing sustainable peace, justice, and human dignity.

Reimagining Police: A Case for Self-Policing Programs in at-risk Neighborhoods.

Note: This post has been edited to reflect changes in the project. While the goal earlier was to formulate concrete proposals and suggestions on how crime prevention can be done without police officers, any such formulation would require first-hand research and years of planning to take into account all variables. Instead, the project now attempts to create or present police abolition as a legitimate tool for crime prevention that public safety policies must take into account.

My name is Yashvardhan Mittal, and I am an international exchange student from India’s National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR) University of Law, Hyderabad. I hold a keen interest in the field of public policy and governance. I have previously interned with the Centre for Constitutional Law Policy and Governance (CLPG), New Delhi, India, where my research focus was on the inadequacy of witness protection programs. I believe that the legal framework of a society, is inescapably interlinked to larger public policy questions and the two must be harmonized to achieve any desired social outcome. Despite this, we often find that there is a mismatch between the legal framework we adopt and the desired social result. Over a series of blog posts, I will attempt to understand a similar mismatch between our goal to prevent crime in at-risk neighborhoods, and our solution (i.e. increased policing).

Continue reading “Reimagining Police: A Case for Self-Policing Programs in at-risk Neighborhoods.”

Access to Health Care Services and Entry into the Criminal Justice System

My name is Dustin Weber and I am a third-year law student at Santa Clara University School of Law. I completed my undergraduate degree in Political Science, with a Pre-Law emphasis, at California State University, East Bay. Prior to coming to law school, I had a career in the coffee industry.

I have a personal stake in the issue of health care access and delivery. I am a Type-1 diabetic (T1D). Management of this disease is interminable, exhausting, and painful. Improper management of the disease leads to a litany of comorbidities, including potentially dangerous physical and mental complications. This disease is cruel and unforgiving. The United States (U.S.) health care system has made management of the disease significantly more difficult. Before passage of the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”), going directly to law school was a greater challenge for someone with a chronic disease about to age off his parents’ health insurance plan. So, given the importance of health care to an individual’s wellbeing, I will be focusing my writing on health care access and its relationship to entry into the criminal justice system.

Specifically, I will demonstrate how expanding the use of wraparound services to all minors, based on the Wraparound Initiative model, would stem the flow of already disadvantaged populations into the criminal justice system. Generally, wraparound services are those not focused only on treating specific health issues, but services that are more comprehensive and aimed at providing individuals with holistic treatment. I will be unpacking this issue in three parts. In the first part, I will establish the link between insufficient health care access as a child and the increased likelihood of entering the criminal justice system. In the second part, I will discuss how our current system has failed and why the Wraparound Initiative model is ideally suited for slowing entry of individuals into the criminal justice system. In the third part, I will propose how to modify and expand the Wraparound Initiative model so that it can be implemented in communities across the country. 

What Youth Need

Now that we have discussed how the basic needs of children include love, protection, a sense of nurturing and belonging, stability, and support, how do we ensure that youth within the foster care system are provided with these staples so they need not seek them from outside influences such as gangs? In this post, I will talk about how community-based services can help minimize and hopefully prevent gang involvement for youth within the foster care system, as well as ways in which we, as members of the community, may be able to provide these children with some sense of stability and consistency while they are in the chaos that is currently the foster care system.

Continue reading “What Youth Need”