ACE Detection and Treatment: A Holistic Approach for Foster Youth

As explained in my previous posts, adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are detrimental to juvenile development and have lasting affects that shape adult behavior. Therefore, the subsection of youth in the foster care system is vulnerable to the detrimental affects of ACEs and should be afforded additional care and services.

But since ACEs seem to be fairly pervasive, how do we determine who has ACEs and how many they have?

Implementation of a Universal Form of ACE Testing:

The 1998 Kaiser-CDC study that introduced ACEs found that 52% of participants reported at least 1 ACE, and 25% of participants had more than 2 ACEs. It is unlikely that the Kaiser-CDC ACE findings have decreased given that the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world, greatly surpassing our neighbors abroad.  In the US, almost 1 in 28 children have a parent who is incarcerated. For that reason, it is important that a standardized ACE test is implemented as a base determination of child trauma and as a mechanism to assess what services may be beneficial to youth who are entering the dependency system.

Continue reading “ACE Detection and Treatment: A Holistic Approach for Foster Youth”
Advertisements

Integrated Dually-Involved Youth Courts are Beneficial for Everyone.

Now that we are familiar with the population of dually involved youth (DIY) and we see how using an integrated systems approach is beneficial for them, I will, in this post, explore why this model is not used more often and propose policy changes to implement it in more jurisdictions across the United States.

As a threshold issue, figuring out exactly which jurisdictions currently use an integrated systems approach for dually-involved youth can be tricky because many jurisdictions that use an integrated model have different variations of it, and I have not found any one resource that lists them all. The reason for the variations is that, although using integrated models is helpful for DIY, using a one-size fits all approach is unlikely to get the best results for any one place. Each jurisdiction should implement an integrated model in a way that is best for their particular community. The most comprehensive list of jurisdictions using an integrated model I have found uses the Crossover Youth Practice Model (CYPM). According to this data, 103 counties in 21 states have implemented or are in the process of implementing the CYPM. To put that in perspective, there are 3,142 counties or county equivalents in the United States, which means only about 3 percent of counties in the United States use this model. This number, of course, does not take into account jurisdictions using another version of the integrated systems model.

DIY courts are not the norm. Why are they not implemented more?

One possible reason DIY courts are not the norm could be due to a lack of publicity. In 2017, over 443,000 children in the United States spent time in foster care. It is estimated that about 25 percent of those children will be involved in the criminal justice system within two years of leaving care.  This figure does not include the children already involved in the juvenile justice system while they are in some sort of foster care. Using these numbers as a guide, if we estimate that every year somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000 children and young adults will be involved in both the foster care and criminal justice systems, that is only .06 percent of the population of the U.S. Given that such a small percentage of people fit into this category, it is easy to see why more people are not aware of the difficulties of treating DIY.

Continue reading “Integrated Dually-Involved Youth Courts are Beneficial for Everyone.”

Inequality for Youth: Why Do Foster Youth & Juvenile Offenders Receive Different Treatment?

I. Introduction: How Does Society Want To Treat Its Children?

            There is a shared belief in society that children should grow up in environments that are conducive to living healthy and productive lives. There are certain things that we believe that all children need and deserve. Those beliefs are even enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which sets out the rights that must be realized for children to develop their full potential: to be free from hunger and want, neglect and abuse. When these things might be lacking, society has in place mechanisms to try and remedy those deficiencies. Judge Leonard P. Edwards, in an article for the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, wrote that “[w]hen the family fails or is unable to rear its child within acceptable norms, society has an interest in intervening to achieve its own goals.” Children are our future and it is the shared goal of a society to raise them as best we can. However, there are times when circumstances compel the state to act in the best interest of the child.

            It is because of that fact that society has procedures and systems to protect and nurture children to the best of our ability. Some youth are removed from their unsafe homes and placed into foster care and some youth commit offenses and are then incarcerated. In my last post, I wrote about how children in the juvenile justice system face similar traumas as children in the foster care system might experience and are often even the very same children, yet the treatment they receive is vastly different. The question is why? What is different about the youth that would necessitate a difference in treatment? These youth are often the same and they have all experienced similar trauma. Yet, because of a few different circumstances surrounding the trauma these youth might be experiencing (being removed from their homes and placed in foster care vs. being removed from their homes and being incarcerated) they receive different support.

            Society also collectively believes that children under a certain age lack a “level of maturity, thought process, decision-making, and experience” compared to individuals above the age of majority. We therefore generally distinguish between children and adults with regard to criminal culpability “We punish [criminal acts] because we believe such harm is morally deserved by a particular individual for a particular act.”  However, is that what we want for our children? We recognize that children should be treated differently than adults and that rehabilitative measures would be better for them and society, yet the reality is considerably different. In Miller v. Alabama (2012), a 14-year-old committed murder and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court held that mandatory life imprisonment without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, writing “that children are constitutionally different from adults for purposes of sentencing. Because juveniles have diminished culpability and greater prospects for reform…they are less deserving of the most severe punishments.”

There is certainly a different societal view on the two populations, foster youth and juvenile justice youth, but they are all still children and youth that are deserving of all that we believe children deserve. Both systems can be traumatizing, but we tend to think one set of youth deserve what they are getting because they have committed some criminal/delinquent act. This is especially true for children and youth that commit particularly heinous or violent crimes because instinctively, we believe they should be punished.  This idea is given credence in Chief Justice Roberts’s Miller  dissent, where he wrote “society may determine that [protecting the innocent from violence] requires removing those guilty of the most heinous murders from its midst, both as protection for its other members and as a concrete expression of its standards of decency.” Yet the fact that these children and youth still are treated differently despite experiencing similar trauma is unjust. These children all deserve similar support when they experience difficult circumstances.

            In this post I will go through a brief overview of the criminal justice system and juvenile justice system as well as the theories underlying them. Then I will discuss issues with the juvenile justice system and its implementation and some of the realities of juvenile justice. I will also discuss some reforms to the issues addressed. Finally, I will discuss possible policy suggestions and further plans of action.

Continue reading “Inequality for Youth: Why Do Foster Youth & Juvenile Offenders Receive Different Treatment?”

Progressive District Attorneys Can Affect the Foster Care System by Changing the Tough on Crime Culture

I. Introduction: Since the tough on crime culture played a large role in mass incarceration, we must elect Progressive District Attorneys that prioritize diversion and rehabilitation before incarceration whenever it is possible.

As mentioned in my previous blog post, District Attorneys’ offices have a wide degree of discretion throughout the stages of the criminal justice process. The decisions prosecutors make can impact whether a parent gets incarcerated, and ultimately whether a parent loses their parental rights in that process. The Vera Institute compiled an overview of seven critical decision points for prosecutors throughout the criminal justice process and how these decisions can affect an individual’s fate. Notably, the overview highlights how, even at the charging stage, if the prosecutor selects a charge that carries a mandatory minimum sentence, he has essentially already chosen the potential sentence at the time of charging, rather than the judge or jury doing so at the time of sentencing. If the prosecutor had chosen a lesser charge, this decision could increase the likelihood that a person is, for example, eligible for diversion programs or released pre-trial. Diversion programs, or pre-trial release, could likely help contribute to maintaining an otherwise healthy family unit and keep additional children from being placed in the foster care system.

By prioritizing programs that avoid incarceration and promoting, for example, rehabilitation, prosecutors can dramatically decrease the number of children who end up in foster care. District Attorneys’ offices, and the individual decisions prosecutors make, are highly influenced by their culture. A Chief District Attorney can change the entire culture of an office by, for example, promoting decisions and programs which would actually assist parents in overcoming their involvement in the justice system and allowing them to continue to be involved in their child’s life. Electing a more progressive District Attorney, who prioritizes programs that avoid incarceration, would benefit parents as a whole. Historically, District Attorneys’ offices have followed a tough on crime approach which rewarded a high rate of convictions, at all costs. This culture, in effect, has resulted in the high rates of incarceration we see in our nation today.

Continue reading “Progressive District Attorneys Can Affect the Foster Care System by Changing the Tough on Crime Culture”

A Consolidated Court System gives Dually Involved Youth a Better Chance for Positive Outcomes

Dually-involved youth (DIY) in jurisdictions without a consolidated system in place, could have two separate cases, before two separate judges, each with different goals. If this wasn’t confusing enough, the two court systems might not have coordination, cooperation, or communication. The child could be represented by two different lawyers and would be assigned a probation officer and a social worker, which could have very different case plans that include contradictory orders and services that interfere with one another. Each of these stakeholders plays an important role in making decisions that can affect DIY for the rest of their lives.

Because DIY present more complex issues than single-jurisdiction youth, they tend to drain already scarce resources from child welfare agencies, probation departments, and the courts. This can happen when agencies duplicate case management efforts. Additionally, because there are multiple parties involved, usually with differing goals and means of achieving them, costs can add up and their plans can be less effective than if there was a consolidated effort to provide a unified plan administered by cooperating agencies. I will not be addressing financial costs in this post; in the next post I will discuss financial costs and how having a unified system of courts and service programming will benefit all of us as a society. In this post I will focus instead on some of the challenges raised by having DIY report to multiple agencies and/or courts and show the advantages for DIY in jurisdictions using an integrated systems approach.

Continue reading “A Consolidated Court System gives Dually Involved Youth a Better Chance for Positive Outcomes”

The Impact of Receiving Disparate Public Services: A Comparison of Youth in Foster Care and Youth in the Juvenile Justice System

I. Introduction

            This blog post will focus on the different public services, mostly education, available to children in the foster care system and children in the juvenile justice system. Children and youth are a segment of the population that most individuals would view as needing protection, support, and guidance. This is even more true for children and youth that are in either the foster care system or the juvenile justice system. Both systems aim not to punish, but to rehabilitate and/or help children. However, foster youth generally receive more public services compared to youth in the criminal justice system even though they both experience similar social circumstances and traumas. In providing these services, governments seek to protect and provide for the most vulnerable members of our society and improve the quality of life after traumas. Additionally, there are children that exist in both systems referred to as dually involved youth. Dually-involved youth…[are] youth who are concurrently known to both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems at some level. However, children who are involved in both systems will not be the focus of this post. My research will focus on the disparity between the services provided to foster youth and youth in the criminal justice system. In terms of public services available to deal with trauma, displacement, and instability, foster youths generally receive more services. This is a problem because even though justice-involved youth are experiencing similar trauma (housing insecurity, poverty, etc.) they are not getting the services that might be able to help them.

Continue reading “The Impact of Receiving Disparate Public Services: A Comparison of Youth in Foster Care and Youth in the Juvenile Justice System”

Changing the System From Within: How Electing a New District Attorney Can Improve the Foster Care System

I. Introduction: Since most District Attorneys are elected, we must elect District Attorneys who embrace criminal justice reform.

Criminal justice reformers have a new strategy: electing new District Attorneys in order to change the system from within. District Attorneys (“DA’s”) are commonly referred to as prosecutors, and prosecutors represent “the People” of the state in which they work. This means that in everything prosecutors do, with the power they wield, they must keep in mind what is best for the victims, defendants, and people of their state. While the decisions of an individual deputy district attorney, in deciding what is best for “the People,” can influence the foster care system on a micro-level, the election of a Chief District Attorney can influence the foster care system on a macro-level. This is why criminal justice reform advocates have recently begun to utilize a new strategy to advance their cause: voting out the old DA in favor of a new DA who embraces commonsense criminal justice reform.

When a child is placed in the foster care system, that child’s life and the life of that child’s parents are changed forever. The same thing goes for when a child, or a child’s parents, gets incarcerated. These traumatic events have immeasurable lifelong consequences. At every waystation in the criminal justice system, the lives of all those who are touched by the system become irreparably impacted. Given that prosecutors have outsized influence and power in the criminal justice process, it is evident that examining the role of prosecutors is critical to understanding how the foster care system can be improved. While admittedly a crass and inexact analogy, if one were interested in reforming the beef industry, an examination of the roles of cattle farmers would be important to analyze. Concomitantly, an analysis of those who wield power in the criminal justice system, and who serve as de facto feeders into that system, is important to understanding how reform of the system can be most effectively undertaken.

Children with incarcerated parents and children in foster care often overlap. In fact, 40% of children in foster care have been exposed to parental incarceration at some point in their lives. Children with parents who become entangled in the criminal justice system are far more likely to enter the foster care system. In fact, each year, 14,000 children whose parents are incarcerated are placed in the foster care system. The criminal justice system exacts an often-heavy toll on the accused, however, that toll does not just fall on the accused him- or herself. The children of the accused suffer collateral consequences as a result of a parent’s experience with the criminal justice system. Since, in the criminal justice system, prosecutors have arguably the most power and influence, analyzing prosecutors’ roles in the system is thus imperative to understanding how to improve the foster care system. One solution is electing more District Attorneys who embrace systemic reform.

Over the course of my posts, I will discuss the influence the Chief District Attorney has on his or her deputy district attorneys and how that is relevant to the foster care and juvenile justice systems as a whole.

Continue reading “Changing the System From Within: How Electing a New District Attorney Can Improve the Foster Care System”