Juvenile Justice Reform – A Blueprint, YTFG, 2012
Download original document:
Document text
Document text
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM A BLUEPRINT Improving Outcomes for Youth We invite you to join us in embracing a commitment to juvenile justice reform An overwhelming enthusiasm for previous editions of this Blueprint has led us to print a third edition. Our tenets for improving outcomes for youth have been updated and expanded, as has the resource section with a growing list of foundations and nonprofit organizations. We hope the framework assists you in finding opportunities to enhance your work to improve outcomes for justice-involved youth. An Invitation |2 A Problem |1 AN INVITATION Youth in the justice system are not so different from youth that many government agencies, nonprofit organizations, businesses and philanthropists already serve. If your organization supports youth development, education and “ For these are all after-school programs, foster care, workforce development, you to become aware of these justice-involved youth and our children. We will all profit by, or pay for, whatever they become. ” or public health, you will recognize many of the same youth who are entangled in the juvenile justice system. We invite see where your organization’s priorities overlap with their needs. There is tremendous potential for positive investments towards their future success. The time is ripe. Juvenile justice systems are changing. Federal statistics from 2011 indicate that the number of youth held under lock and key dropped 25 percent over the past decade, and by more than half in some states. James Baldwin, Author Jurisdictions are using evidence-based interventions in community settings for many youth, and those youth who are confined are being better prepared to pursue educational and vocational opportunities upon their release. The Juvenile Justice Work Group of the Youth Transition Funders Group is comprised of regional and national grantmakers working across the fields of justice, education, foster care, human services, workforce development, and public health. We support policies, programs and advocacy at the federal, state and local levels that promote fair, effective and age-appropriate treatment of youth. We help governments and nonprofits preserve public safety while improving young people’s chances to become successful and productive adults. An Invitation |3 A Problem Gender and Sexual Orientation Girls represent a growing segment of the juvenile justice population. They are disproportionately incarcerated, Nationwide, police make about 2.2 million juvenile arrests each year, and 1.7 million youth are referred to juvenile courts. An additional 200,000 youth are tried in adult court. An estimated 400,000 youth cycle through juvenile detention centers. Each night in 2007 over 60,500 youth were confined in a correctional facility. 1 Each year approximately 200,000 youth under age 24 leave secure juvenile correctional facilities or state and federal prisons. 2 together with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) youth, for status offenses such as running away, and they are held in custody longer than boys for similar behavior. 6 Gender-specific programming for justiceinvolved girls aims to address the realities of their lives, including frequent histories of sexual and physical abuse and teen pregnancy. LGBT youth who are incarcerated experience significantly higher rates of bullying and physical and psychological abuse. 7 For LGBT youth in the justice system, states as diverse as New York, Utah and Hawaii are adopting non-discrimination policies, practices, Who is Incarcerated? Poverty is the largest common denominator for incarcerated youth, exacerbated by race. Few confined and training for courts and juvenile justice administrators. teens have committed serious felony offenses, such Overlap between Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice Youth as robbery or burglary. About 80 percent of youth Both justice-involved youth and youth in foster care taken into custody are locked up for drug offenses, are often raised in families that are characterized by misdemeanors and property crimes. Many confined youth dysfunction, abuse and neglect. Studies have found are guilty only of status offenses, such as running away that child abuse and neglect increase the risk of being or truancy (only crimes for juveniles) and probation arrested by 55 percent and increase the risk of being violations (such as missing curfew). 3 Considerable arrested for violent crime by 96 percent. 8 Youth need discretion built into the juvenile justice system means interventions that interrupt cycles of violence and that youth from resource-rich neighborhoods and victimization. Rather than harsh punishments, they families are more often dealt with informally, while need interventions that promote pro-social engagement. disadvantaged youth—disproportionately youth of color—penetrate more deeply into the justice system. 4 Racial and Ethnic Inequity in the Juvenile Justice System School to Prison Pipeline From 1995 to 2004, the national juvenile arrest rate for serious property and violent crimes declined 45 percent, and homicide rates plummeted 70 percent. 9 Yet in this Inequitable treatment of youth of color occurs through- same period, the numbers of youth adjudicated delinquent, out the juvenile justice system. Youth of color are over- placed in secure confinement and sentenced to proba- represented at many points in the system, and there is tion all grew. 10 Twice as many youth were adjudicated for also disparate and harsher treatment of youth of color disorderly conduct in 2004 as in 1995. 11 compared to white youth who are charged with similar offenses. Approximately two-thirds of incarcerated 5 youth nationwide are youth of color. w The proliferation of zero tolerance policies in our nation’s schools has helped propel this dramatic increase in minor court cases. First enacted into law by state legislatures and eventually by Congress in 1994, disciplinary policies A Problem |4 A Problem |5 mandating severe punishments— suspensions, expulsions Over their lifetimes, children who have been incarcerated and referral to law enforcement— have been expanded achieve less educationally, work less and for lower wages, in many districts to cover a broad canvas of student fail more frequently to form enduring families, experience behaviors. They include not only possession of weapons, more chronic health problems, including addiction, and drugs and alcohol, but also prescription and over-the- suffer more imprisonment than those who have not been counter medications and common objects like nail confined. 19 Recidivism studies show consistently that 50 clippers. Zero tolerance policies also cover such behaviors to 70 percent of youth released from juvenile correctional as making threats, truancy, tardiness, and vague, catch-all facilities are rearrested within two to three years. 20 categories like “insubordination” and “disrespect.” This is particularly disturbing for two reasons. First, most Zero tolerance and other harsh disciplinary policies young people age out of crime on their own, regardless prematurely push struggling students out of schools and of the intervention. 21 Research shows that incarcerating into the juvenile justice system, dramatically increasing its juveniles actually interrupts and delays the normal racial disparities. 12 A landmark study of school discipline pattern of “aging out” because it interrupts a child’s in Texas showed that six in ten students were suspended natural engagement with families, school and work. 22 or expelled at least once from seventh grade on, and Second, most youth in the juvenile justice system can that after their first suspension, youth were nearly three be adequately supervised in community-based programs times as likely to be involved in the juvenile justice system or with individualized services without compromising the next year. 13 Moreover, African American students public safety. The vast majority of studies find that and students with education disabilities were dispropor- incarceration is no more effective than probation or tionately likely to be removed from the classroom. 14 community-based sanctions in reducing criminality. 23 Overwhelming evidence shows that such policies are counterproductive. After a comprehensive review, the Unsafe Conditions of Confinement American Psychological Association concluded that zero America’s youth corrections institutions suffer from widespread physical abuse and excessive use of tolerance policies are associated with more, not less, misbehavior and lower, not higher, academic achievement. 15 force by staff; 24 an epidemic of sexual abuse; rampant overreliance on isolation and restraint; unchecked youth- Incarceration: Less Effective, More Expensive on-youth violence; and frequent violence against staff. No experience is more predictive of future adult difficulty to and worsening mental health problems during periods than confinement in a secure juvenile facility. 16 Confinement of incarceration. One study found that for one-third of in a secure facility all but precludes healthy psychological incarcerated youth diagnosed with depression, the onset and social development. Without enough freedom to of the depression occurred after they were confined. 25 exercise autonomy, the gradual process of maturation— While states will continue to incarcerate youth who pose learning self-direction, social perspective and responsibility serious risks to public safety, confinement of young —is effectively cut off. 17 Research shows longer stays in The environment breeds chaos and violence, contributing people in locked facilities must be an option of last resort. juvenile institutions do not reduce recidivism. In fact, youth with the lowest offending levels report committing more crimes after being incarcerated. 18 A Problem |6 A Problem |7 An Opportunity Throughout the country, there is movement away from punitive policies and practices, and a desire to reduce the number of incarcerated youth and preserve public funding without jeopardizing public safety. Many factors, explored “…developments below, contribute to this shifting perspective, leading us to conclude that the time is ripe to fundamentally change the juvenile justice landscape. This Blueprint presents a in psychology and brain science continue to show fundamental differences between juvenile and adult minds. Justice Kennedy, US Supreme Court, Graham v. Florida, 2010 ” framework to guide these changes. New Adolescent Brain Research New developments in brain science highlight stark contrasts between adolescents and adults. We now know that the portions of the brain that govern impulse control, planning and thinking ahead are still developing well beyond age 18. 26 Adolescents are far less able than adults to gauge risks and consequences, handle stress, and resist peer pressure. Citing this new brain research, in 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court held the juvenile death penalty unconstitutional. Again in 2010, the Supreme Court cited brain research in holding that states may not sentence youth under 18 to life without parole in non-homicide cases. State legislatures have relied on adolescent brain development research to raise the age of juvenile court jurisdiction. Increasingly, policymakers and the public understand that because adolescent’s brains have not fully developed, youth are less culpable than adults for their actions. Scientific Evidence on What Works There is powerful evidence on what works in responding to delinquency. Blueprints for Violence Prevention, a project of the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence at the University of Colorado, has identified three scientifically proven model programs widely used for youth in the juvenile justice system: Multisystemic Therapy (MST), Functional Family Therapy (FFT), and Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC). An Opportunity |9 All focus on the family. None involve incarceration. All are cost-effective, and all deliver results. 27 These models The MacArthur Foundation’s Models for Change, inspired by its groundbreaking research documenting the develop- are spreading and now serve more than 400,000 youth a mental differences between adolescents and adults, year. The studies provide a strong scientific base to show aims to advance replicable models of effective, fair, and what works. They give policymakers an opportunity to developmentally sound juvenile justice policies and make better choices about the efficient and effective use practices. With focused efforts in four states -- Illinois, of increasingly scarce juvenile justice resources. Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Washington -- as well as engagement with 12 additional partner states, Models Well-Documented Models of Systemic Reform for Change is working on issues of aftercare, community- Understanding how to change broad public systems has indigent defense, mental health, disproportionate increased dramatically. Under the long-time leadership minority contact, and right-sizing jurisdictions. based alternatives, evidence-based practices, juvenile of Mark Steward, Missouri created a model system of small home-like rehabilitation centers for confined youth At least 204 facilities in 27 states are implementing that is being replicated in Washington, D.C. as well as Performance-based Standards (PbS), a management in localities around the country. The model has several tool developed by the Council of Juvenile Correctional key elements. Youth are placed close to home. They are Administrators with support from the federal government actively involved in their treatment. Treatment is group- that uses data to improve conditions of confinement. based. Facilities do not look anything like youth prisons. PbS tracks key indicators such as the use of restraints The staff are highly trained. Physical restraints are used and isolation to provide a clear representation of what as a last resort. Planning for reentry begins as soon as is really happening to youth and staff in locked facilities youth enter the facility. and provides administrators with tools and encourage- Foundations have also launched large-scale systemreform efforts to reduce incarceration and provide better treatment for youth. The Annie E. Casey Foundation’s 18year old Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) is a model for effective reduction of reliance on detention that does not jeopardize public safety. Operating in 110 sites in 27 states and the District of Columbia, JDAI sites employ eight core strategies: stakeholder collaboration; data-driven decision making; objective tools to aid in detention admission decisions; development of communitybased alternatives to detention; case processing reforms; strategies for reducing detention because of writs, warrants, and probation violations; reduction of racial and ethnic disparities; and compliance with standards to ensure safe and humane conditions in juvenile facilities. ment to improve conditions and programming. Financial Incentives and Fiscal Realignment Reforms that keep youth in their communities cost less and produce more value than secure confinement. Public expenditure on corrections is second only to Medicaid as the largest growing budget area of state governments. Correctional confinement costs on average $200 to $300 per youth per day, far more than even the most intensive home- and community-based treatment models, which are also better at holding youth accountable and reducing recidivism. 28 A study by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy found that every dollar spent on detention achieved only $1.98 worth of benefits (reduced crime and cost of crime). By sharp contrast, for every dollar spent, diversion and mentoring programs produced $3.36 worth of benefits. Aggression Replacement Training produced $10 worth of benefits while Multi-Systemic Therapy produced $13 worth of benefits. 29 An Opportunity | 10 An Opportunity | 11 With states facing serious budgetary constraints, it is an opportune time for policymakers to consider ways to reduce juvenile justice spending that does not compromise public safety. Resource-realignment from locked facilities to community-based alternatives can reap better results for communities, taxpayers and children. States such as Wisconsin, Ohio, and Illinois have created innovative financial incentives to support the growth of communitybased alternatives-to-placement. By redirecting the cost to incarcerate youth from states to counties, initiatives such as Reclaim Ohio and Redeploy Illinois have reduced the number of youth in state custody, improved recidivism rates, and resulted in substantial cost savings. 30 The Role of Philanthropy in Juvenile Justice Reform Philanthropists, government officials, business leaders, and nonprofit organizations are working together to ensure that opportunities for justice-involved youth are improved. Philanthropy can: • facilitate convenings that enable public officials to learn, plan and make connections • promote interagency collaboration • fund pilot projects that determine the effectiveness of an approach • encourage systems reform and innovation that make public services more effective and fair Youth are often locked in the state system simply because there is nowhere for them to go locally—and no easy way to pay for those services. • invest in research projects to learn more about issues of shared concern • generate and vet promising policy solutions • urge public engagement processes that increase youth, family and community participation in identifying and addressing problems • support advocacy and communication to educate the public, key stakeholders and the media about pressing issues • participate in networks and coalitions exploring solutions Through the Juvenile Justice Work Group, grantmakers align efforts, share strategies and knowledge, coordinate and maximize investments, capitalize on each other’s expertise, and build upon each other’s work. We are finding our investments rewarded with growing success. An Opportunity | 12 A Problem | 13 A Blueprint 1. Divert Youth from the Justice System 10 TENETS TO IMPROVE OUTCOMES FOR YOUTH Youth are often better served if involvement in the justice system can be avoided. Most youth age out of delinquent behavior without any formal justice-system intervention. 31 Unnecessarily exposing young people to the juvenile justice 1. Divert Youth from the Justice System 2. Reduce Institutionalization system can actually encourage future criminal activity rather than deter it. 32 For many youth entering the justice system, the consequences of a single lapse in judgment can haunt them for a lifetime. Eliminate Racial 3. and Ethnic Disparity One diversion strategy provides law enforcement with 4. Ensure Access to Quality Counsel pre-arrest diversion for those in a mental illness crisis. 5. Create a Range of Effective Community-Based Programs give youth who are stopped by police for minor offenses Recognize and Serve Youth 6. With Specialized Needs 7. Build Small Rehabilitative Facilities alternatives to arrest, such as Crisis Intervention Teams, an innovative police-based first responder program of Civil citation programs, supported by the Eckerd Family Foundation and adopted in counties throughout Florida, the option of performing community service and receiving counseling instead of being charged with a crime. Prearrest diversions have been proven to be cost effective as well as beneficial for youth. In Florida, civil citation programs have saved the state more than $50 million in five years. 33 Another strategy is to develop post-arrest alternatives that divert youth from court involvement. In New York City, 8. Improve Aftercare and Reentry with consent of the victim, the Department of Probation Engage Youth, Family 9. and Community The Annie E. Casey Foundation supported the creation of 10. Keep Youth Out of Adult juvenile justice system, and a nonprofit organization Courts, Jails and Prisons has statutory authority to divert young people who have been arrested before their cases are sent for prosecution. the Juvenile Reception Center in Portland, Oregon, where, in lieu of formal court intervention, the police, the county collaborate to provide social service referrals for about 2,000 youth a year who are picked up by the police for non-violent acts such as shoplifting. A Blueprint | 14 A Blueprint | 15 2. Reduce Institutionalization 3. Eliminate Racial and Ethnic Disparity Institutionalizing young people must be the choice of last In nearly every state, in every juvenile offense category— resort, reserved only for those who pose such a serious person, property, drug, and public order—youth of color threat that no other solution would protect public safety. receive harsher sentences 38 and fewer services than Incarcerating youth disrupts their positive social develop- white youth who have committed the same category of ment and exposes them to negative behaviors. Youth should offenses. 39 Confidential youth surveys show that during never be placed in a facility solely because of their family adolescence, youth of all races and ethnicities become situation or social service needs. involved in violence, property crimes and other delinquent The overwhelming majority of justice-involved youth can be served, and the public kept safe, by community-based services that align with best practices in the field. 34 Jurisdictions can distinguish between youth who pose risks to public safety and those who can be placed in less-restrictive settings by using validated risk and needs assessments that measure risk to public safety and guide placement decisions; expedited case processing; and sentencing guidelines. Texas, North Carolina and Virginia have adopted legislation to keep youth convicted of misdemeanors out of state custody and have reduced commitment rates substantially: 36 percent in Texas from ‘07 to ‘10; 61 percent in North Carolina from ‘98 to ‘08, and 50 percent in Virginia from ‘99 to ‘09. 35 Starting in 2000, Wayne County (Detroit), Michigan launched a groundbreaking juvenile care behaviors with only modest differences in the frequency and severity of their lawbreaking. 40 Yet African-American youth are arrested at dramatically higher rates than white youth for all types of crime. Once arrested, they are more likely to be detained, formally charged in juvenile court, placed in a locked correctional facility, waived to adult court, and incarcerated in an adult facility. 41 Jurisdictions can significantly reduce racial and ethnic disparities in their juvenile justice systems. They can use data to detect disparate treatment. They can eliminate subjectivity from decision-making with objective screening instruments. Jurisdictions can develop culturally competent programming, create a system of non-secure graduated sanctions for youth , and employ mechanisms to divert youth of color from secure confinement. 42 management network. Management of adjudicated The W. Haywood Burns Institute and the Center for youth was shifted to the county from the state and funds Children’s Law and Policy are working with state and saved from reductions in incarceration were invested in local jurisdictions to eliminate racial and ethnic disparity local programs. As a result, Wayne County’s use of short- in the juvenile justice system. With support from many term detention has been cut in half; the average daily foundations, including Annie E. Casey, MacArthur, Ford population of youth in training schools declined from 731 and Open Society, these organizations use data-driven, in ‘98 to two in ‘10; and the recidivism rate two years consensus-based approaches to assist a broad range following court termination was only 18 percent. System of stakeholders, including judges, prosecutors, public costs dropped from $113 million in ‘99 to $88 million by ‘10. 37 defenders, and police, reduce racial imbalance and ensure that juvenile justice systems are fair and equitable. Santa Cruz County, CA cut the average number of Latino youth in detention in half. Baltimore County, MD, Rock County, WI, and Union County, NC all reduced the percentage of youth of color in secure detention from between 32 and 50 percent. A Blueprint | 16 A Blueprint | 17 5. Create A Range of Effective 4. Ensure Access to Quality Counsel Community-Based Program Effective assistance of counsel is essential to reducing Community-based programs positively change the unnecessary detention, transfer to adult court, and trajectories of young people’s lives. Jurisdictions are incarceration of young people. 43 Youth in delinquency cases building continuums of alternative-to-placement have a constitutional right to counsel, as the U.S. Supreme programs with graduated levels of supervision and Court made clear in the 1967 landmark case, In re Gault. services to ensure that youth are placed in programs Yet across the country, youth too often face court hearings that help them desist from delinquency and progress without the assistance of competent counsel, sometimes personally. Having a variety of community programming appointed as little as five minutes before a case is called, available for youth provides options for decision-makers and many waive their right to counsel altogether. Like all and therefore options for youth. people, youth need access to qualified, well-resourced defense counsel throughout the entire juvenile or criminal court process. Community-based alternative-to-placement programs range from probation to wraparound services with intensive supervision. They can include home confinement, Beneficial reforms include early assignment of counsel; alternative education, family preservation, mentoring, policies that ensure that all youth are represented; specialized victim-offender mediation, restitution, community service, training for attorneys on topics such as adolescent develop- respite care, and day and evening reporting centers with ment, mental health and special education; and cross-system educational, recreational and counseling opportunities. representation when adolescents are involved in multiple Programs can stand alone or be housed in existing systems such as special education and child welfare. organizations serving a broad range of youth. Evidence- 44 An informed defense attorney can also ensure that youth based programs such as Multi-Systemic Therapy, Functional are not subject to unwarranted collateral consequences of Family Therapy, and Multi-Dimensional Treatment Foster juvenile justice-involvement that can affect education, Care (MST, FFT and MTFC) serve those with the highest employment and residence. risk of offending. The Juvenile Indigent Defense Action Network (JIDAN), Foundations can encourage jurisdictions to adopt coordinated by the National Juvenile Defender Center, is evidence-based and evidence-informed programming a MacArthur Foundation Models for Change-supported as well as broaden the evidence-based field by support- effort launched in 2008 to implement targeted strategies ing evaluations of new, innovative programs. The Edna to improve juvenile indigent defense policy and practice McConnell Clark Foundation has invested more than $21 nationwide. A JIDAN member, Massachusetts created million in Youth Villages, a nonprofit organization that a Juvenile Advocacy Department (JAD) in its statewide runs evidence-based programs for justice-involved youth, indigent defender agency, with nine juvenile defender including MST, in several states. Expanding on this idea, officers and enhanced capacity to provide leadership, the Annie E. Casey and Robin Hood foundations sup- training, support, and oversight to nearly 600 private ported the design and implementation of the “Blue Sky attorneys in best practices in juvenile defense. Since JAD Project” in New York City to integrate MST, FFT and MTFC opened, attorneys representing youth in Massachusetts into a single continuum of care for young people who have seen a significant increase in training opportunities would otherwise be sentenced to placement. In Blue Sky’s and requirements and a dramatic increase in oversight. second year of operation, 62 percent of participants were Motions practice on behalf of youth in court has also arrest-free within one year from the start of services, significantly increased. representing a reduction in all categories of arrests, and significant declines in felonies and violent felonies in some boroughs. A Blueprint | 18 A Blueprint | 19 6. Recognize and Serve Youth with Specialized Needs 7. Build Small Rehabilitative Facilities The juvenile justice system is too often used as a dumping Juvenile correctional institutions do not live up to their ground for youth with mental health needs. Research shows name. Placing youth in large, group confinement facilities that 70 percent of youth involved with the juvenile justice is not justified from the perspective of treatment effective- system meet the criteria for at least one mental health ness or the prevention of future recidivism. 48 For youth or substance abuse disorder. who pose serious risks to public safety, several jurisdictions 45 Juvenile justice systems regularly act as weigh stations where youth are confined are phasing out large, prison-like institutions and building solely due to a lack of community mental health treatment. 46 small, home-like secure facilities in their place. Small These juvenile justice facilities are often overcrowded and rehabilitation centers give young people the care and understaffed and youth are exposed to stress, trauma and interaction they need. serious harms. Youth who have behavioral and mental health needs are particularly vulnerable to these harms, which result in serious injuries, self-mutilation, suicides and death. 47 The best facilities are run by youth specialists who are highly motivated and well trained, most with a college degree. The culture and the physical environment are conducive to positive youth development 49 and Juvenile justice involvement is only appropriate when a rehabilitation. These facilities are located close to the youth’s delinquency—not his or her needs or disabilities— communities where young people live, allowing families is the primary reason for confinement. Vulnerable youth to repair and renew relationships and practice skills for can be identified through comprehensive screening and addressing challenges youth face upon release. Staff assessments in order to provide appropriate treatment, members provide developmentally appropriate individual supports and services. Mechanisms to divert youth such and group programming with the goal of enabling youth as juvenile mental health courts, wraparound services and to reintegrate into their communities. Lengths of stay referrals to community-based programs are all gaining are determined by achievement of treatment goals and recognition as strategies for getting justice-involved youth youth are released when treatment goals are met. into mental health services, which are less expensive and more effective settings for meeting their needs. Missouri created the first such model, which has proven extremely successful. Its rehabilitative approach has been Launched in 2005, The California Endowment’s $6.5 million shown to better protect public safety and produce more Healthy Returns Initiative (HRI) worked with five county impressive outcomes than large institutions or other probation departments to improve access to health and punitive alternatives. Not only do youth released from mental health services for youth in detention facilities. The the Missouri system have lower rates of further juvenile Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJ) is helping policy- and criminal justice involvement (70 percent of Missouri makers assist teenagers caught in a cycle of drugs, alcohol youth avoided recommitment to any correctional setting and crime through a five-year, $21 million Reclaiming Futures three years after discharge, as compared to a 45 to 75 initiative encompassing ten pilot sites across the nation. percent re-arrest rate nationally), they also show improved Recent evaluations of both of these initiatives demonstrated educational outcomes and family functioning. 50 With success in inspiring important changes in juvenile justice support from the Annie E. Casey and Open Society systems: counties were able to more systematically identify foundations, and Atlantic Philanthropies, the Missouri youth with health and mental health needs and connect them Youth Services Institute is working with jurisdictions to appropriate care and resources in the community. In across the country to implement the “Missouri model.” addition, HRI counties reported reductions of self-harm behaviors inside juvenile hall and fewer days in custody for participating youth, which resulted in probation cost savings. A Blueprint | 20 A Blueprint | 21 8. Improve Aftercare and Reentry 9. Engage Youth, Family and Community The best reentry programs begin while a youth is still An overwhelming body of research shows that parents confined. Nearly 100,000 youth are released from juvenile and families are crucial to successful youth development. justice institutions each year. Most are returned to families Unfortunately, most juvenile justice systems are more struggling with poverty in blighted neighborhoods with inclined to ignore, alienate or blame family members than high crime rates, few programs, and poorly performing engage them as partners. 52 schools. Key to success is connecting youth to people, programs and services that reinforce their rehabilitation and help them become successful and productive adults. Involved adults are necessary to keep young people active in their own rehabilitation. Using techniques such as family conferencing, jurisdictions are learning to work Successful aftercare and reentry programs require with parents—not against them—for the benefit of youth. coordination between multiple government agencies and Counties are soliciting consumer feedback from youth nonprofit providers, not only to develop new services, but in their care, thereby improving the quality of their to help youth better access existing services. Upon release, programs and also building competencies in young teenagers must enroll immediately in school or have a job people. Participatory justice initiatives aim to engage waiting. Otherwise, they are more likely to return to their old a broad swath of community members in a youth’s friends and delinquent behaviors. Workforce development— rehabilitation. Young people and their parents around helping teens attain job skills and earn money—is a key the country are successfully advocating for reform. motivator for adolescents, increasing their commitment to and enthusiasm for learning. Youth must have quick access to mental health and substance abuse services as needed. And they must receive strong support from family and other caring adults. 51 The Family Justice Program of the Vera Institute of Justice provides training and technical assistance to help community-based organizations and justice agencies adapt case management styles that are strength-based and family-focused. The Campaign for Youth Justice National With support from the MacArthur and Stoneleigh foundations, Parent Caucus is a group of families with justice-involved the Pennsylvania Academic and Career/Technical Training youth that are advocating in communities, states and at Alliance (PACTT) improves the academic, career and technical the national level to demand a more just and effective training that youth in placement receive to help them transi- justice system. Common Justice, a demonstration project tion successfully back to their home communities. PACTT of the Vera Institute, funded by the Langeloth, Blue Ridge, works with residential facilities to align academic programs and Stoneleigh foundations, offers an alternative to the with Department of Education standards and offers entry- adversarial court system that uses voluntary participatory level industry-recognized certifications portable after dialogues among harmed (victim) and responsible discharge. PACTT has stimulated rapid expansion of career (offender) parties and their families, friends and neighbors. training programs and currently has more than 60 offerings, This model promotes healing and accountability while including culinary arts, maintenance, auto body, welding, facilitating the recovery of individuals and communities. and office support. Today, close to a quarter of youth Participatory justice (often called restorative justice) has discharge with either a high school diploma or GED and been shown to reduce recidivism, 53 significantly reduce about half of the youth leave placement with an employabil- post-traumatic stress in victims, 54 and leave both harmed ity portfolio and soft skills competencies. and responsible parties more satisfied with outcomes. 55 A Blueprint | 22 A Blueprint | 23 10. Keep Youth Out of Adult Courts, Jails and Prisons Currently an estimated 200,000 youth are tried, sentenced or incarcerated as adults every year across the United States. 56 During the 1990s—the era when many of our most punitive criminal justice policies were developed—49 states altered their laws to increase the number of minors being tried as adults. On any given day, 10,000 youth are detained or incarcerated in adult jails and prisons. Studies show that youth held in adult facilities are 36 times more likely to commit suicide and are at the greatest risk of sexual victimization. 57 Youth of color are over-represented in the ranks of juveniles being referred to adult court. In 2008, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that transferring youth to the adult criminal justice system does not protect the community and substantially increases the likelihood that youth will re-offend. 58 Multi-faceted campaigns have proven successful in changing these laws and policies within states. Campaign organizers establish goals that are specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and targeted. Youth and parents are involved. Dedicated resources are important. Campaigns include organizing and base-building; coalition building; direct action; external communication and outreach; policy research; strategy; and evaluation and documentation. Celebrating small successes maintains dedication to the effort. The Campaign for Youth Justice is dedicated to ending the practice of prosecuting, sentencing and incarcerating youth “ Working together, with righteousness and hope, we can create a country that is about reverence and reconciliation, not a world of shackles and concrete cells. Lateefah Simon, Advocate ” under the age of 18 in the adult criminal justice system. Since 2005, with support from the Open Society, Public Welfare, MacArthur, Annie E. Casey, Ford, Eckerd Family and Tow foundations, the Chasdrew Fund, and Atlantic Philanthropies, the Campaign and its allies have affected policy changes in more than a dozen states. With assistance from the Campaign, in 2007 the Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance secured the passage of a law that raised the age of juvenile court jurisdiction from 16 to 18. A Blueprint | 24 A Solution Philanthropists working across fields of justice, education, foster care, human services, workforce development, public health, racial justice, and human rights are making strategic investments through small, moderate and large grants. Philanthropy is supporting research and advocacy, funding innovative programs, convening government, business and community stakeholders and supporting education and training JUVENILE JUSTICE FUNDERS The Annie E. Casey Foundation Bart Lubow 701 St Paul Street Baltimore, MD 21202 t 410.547.6600 blubow@aecf.org www.aecf.org Atlantic Philanthropies Kavitha Mediratta 75 Varick Street, 17th floor New York, NY 10013 t 212-916-7300 k.mediratta@atlanticphilanthropies.org www.atlanticphilanthropies.org Blue Ridge Foundation public education campaigns in particular over the past Meryl Schwartz 150 Court Street, 2nd Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 t 718-923-1400 mschwartz@brfny.org www.brfny.org decade has led to dramatic improvements in the lives Butler Family Fund for government and nonprofit leaders. Philanthropic support for federal and state-based advocacy and of justice-involved youth. But there is much more to do. Through the YTFG Juvenile Justice Work Group (JJWG), grantmakers in all fields affecting disconnected youth can support policies, programs, and advocacy at the federal, state and local levels that promote fair, effective and age-appropriate treatment of youth. Philanthropy can help governments and nonprofits preserve public safety while improving young people’s chances to become successful and productive adults. We hope to entice philanthropists, policymakers, advocates and service providers, particularly those already serving disadvantaged youth, to seize this opportunity to advance juvenile justice reform. After all, these are all of our children; let us profit from what they become. If you are interested in finding out more about the Youth Transition Funders Group Juvenile Justice Work Group, becoming a member, or sharing resources, please reach out to us through the JJWG Coordinator, Julie Peterson at: jempeterson@verizon.net, or the YTFG Director, Lisa McGill at: lmcgill@ytfg.org Martha Toll 1634 I Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20006 t 202.463.8288 mtoll@butlerfamilyfund.org www.butlerfamilyfund.org The California Endowment Barbara Raymond 1000 N. Alameda Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 t 800.449.4149 braymond@calendow.org www.calendow.org Carter and Melissa Cafritz Charitable Trust Mary Hallisay 1660 L Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20036 t 202-331-3800 mthallisy@aol.com Chasdrew Fund 923 Cameron Street Alexandria, VA 22314 www.chasdrew.org Criminal Justice Funder and Activist Network Bruce Reilly, Interim Coordinator t 646-926-0504 CriminalJusticeFN@gmail.com www.CJFANetwork.com Eckerd Family Foundation Joseph Clark 3000 Bayport Drive, Suite 560 Tampa, FL 33607 t 813-514-0858 jclark@eckerdfamilyfoundation.org www.EckerdFamilyFoundation.org Edna McConnell Clark Foundation Danielle Scaturro 415 Madison Avenue, Floor 10 New York, NY 10017 t 212.551.9100 dscaturro@emcf.org www.emcf.org The Elias Foundation Jackie Mann 17 Marble Avenue Pleasantville, NY 10570 t 914-449-6782 jmann@eliasfoundation.org Ford Foundation Kirsten Levingston 320 East 43rd Street New York, NY 10017 t 212.573.5000 k.levingston@fordfound.org www.fordfound.org Bernard F. and Alva B. Gimbel Foundation Leslie Gimbel 271 Madison Avenue, Suite 605 New York, NY 10016 t 212-684-9110 lg@gimbelfoundation.org www.gimbelfoundation.org The George Gund Foundation Marcia Egbert 1845 Guildhall Building 45 Prospect Avenue, West Cleveland, OH 44115 t 216-241-3114 megbert@gundfnd.org www.gundfnd.org Hartford Foundation for Public Giving Judy McBride 10 Columbus Blvd., 8th Floor Hartford, CT 06106 t 860-548-1888 jmcbride@hfpg.org www.hfpg.org The Heckscher Foundation for Children Heather Sutton 123 East 70th Street New York, NY 10021 t 212-744-0190 hsutton@heckscherfoundation.org www.heckscherfoundation.org The Jacob and Valeria Langeloth Foundation Scott Moyer 275 Madison Avenue, 33rd Floor New York, NY 10016 t 212-687-1133 smoyer@langeloth.org www.langeloth.org Stephen and May Cavin Leeman Foundation Cavin Leeman 215 W. 92nd Street, #13A New York, NY 10025 t 212-873-5555 cpl@cpleeman.net The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Laurie Garduque 140 South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603-5285 t 312.726.8000 lgarduqu@macfound.org www.macfound.org Funders | 27 New York Foundation Public Interest Projects The Tow Foundation Maria Mottola 10 E. 34th Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 10016 t 212-594-8009 mmottola@nyf.org www.nyf.org Don Cipriani 45 West 36th Street, 6th Floor New York, NY 10018 T 212-378-2800 dcipriani@publicinterestprojects.org www.publicinterestprojects.org Diane Sierpina 50 Locust Ave. New Canaan, CT 06840 t 203.594.4123 diane@towfoundation.org www.towfoundation.org The Nicholson Foundation Public Welfare Foundation U.S. Human Rights Fund Michael Green 744 Broad Street, 26th Floor Newark, New Jersey 07102 T 973-202-1508 mbgchef@gmail.org www.thenicholsonfoundation-newjersey.org Katayoon Majd 1200 U Street NW Washington, DC 20009 t 202.965.1800 kmajd@publicwelfare.org www.publicwelfare.org Sue Simon 45 West 36th Street, 6th Floor New York, NY 10018 t 212-378-2800 ssimon@publicinterestprojects.org www.ushumanrightsfund.org New York Community Trust Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Youth Justice Funding Collaborative Kristin Schubert College Road East and Route 1 P.O. Box 2316 Princeton, NJ 08543 t 877-843-7953 kschubert.rwjf.org www.rwjf.org Lindsay Shea 42 Broadway, Floor 18 New York, NY 10004 t 212.269.0304 www.youthjusticefund.org David Rockefeller Fund Elenore Garton 160 Allens Creek Road Rochester, NY 14618 t 585-461-4696 nelli_garton@hotmail.com Roderick Jenkins 909 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10022 t 212-686-0010 rvj@nyct-cfi.org wwww.nycommunitytrust.org Open Society Institute Leonard Noisette 400 West 59th Street New York, NY 10019 t 212.548.0600 lnoisette@sorosny.org www.soros.org Open Society Institute-Baltimore Monique Dixon 201 North Charles Street, Suite 1300 Baltimore, MD 21201 t 410.234.1091 mdixon@sorosny.org www.soros.org Overbrook Foundation Rini Banerjee 122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2500 New York, NY 10168 t 212-661-8710 rbanerjee@overbrook.org www.overbrook.org Philanthropy New York Ronna Brown 79 Fifth Avenue, 4th Floor New York, NY 10003 t 212-714-0699 rbrown@philanthropynewyork.org www.philanthropynewyork.org Pinkerton Foundation Christopher Bell 610 Fifth Avenue, Suite 316 New York, NY 10020 t 212-332-3385 chrisbell@pinkertonfdn.org www.pinkertonfdn.org Prospect Hill Foundation Penny Fujiko Willgerodt 99 Park Avenue, Suite 2220 New York, NY 10016 t 212-370-1165 pwillgerodt@prospect-hill.org www.prospect-hill.org Funders | 28 Marianna Schaffer 420 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10018 t 212-869-8500 mschaffer@rockco.com Gardiner Howland Shaw Foundation Thomas Coury 355 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 t 617-247-3500 admin@shawfoundation.org www.shawfoundation.org Sherwood Foundation Marie C. and Joseph C. Wilson Foundation Zellerbach Family Foundation Amy Price 575 Market Street, Suite 2950 San Francisco, CA 94105 t 415.421.2629 amy.price@zellerbchfamilyfoundation.org www.zellerbchfamilyfoundation.org RESOURCES Kristin Williams 3555 Farnam Street Omaha, NE 68131 t 402-341-1717 kristinw@sherwoodfoundation.org www,sherwoodfoundation.org The following is a partial list of nonprofit organizations to which YTFG members turn regularly for information, advice and assistance. Skillman Foundation The Advancement Project Ed Egnatios 100 Talon Center Drive, Suite 100 Detroit, MI 48207 t 313-393-1185 eegnatios@skillman.org www.skillman.org Stoneleigh Foundation Cathy Weiss 123 S. Broad Street, Suite 1130 Philadelphia, PA 19109 t 215-735-7080 cweiss@stoneleighcenter.org www.stoneleighcenter.org Tiger Foundation Charles Buice 101 Park Avenue, 21st Floor New York, NY 10178 t 212-984-2565 charles_buice@tigerfoundation.org www.tigerfoundation.org Non-Profit Organizations Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth Jody Kent 1090 Vermont Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 t 202-289-4672 jkent@fairsentencingofyouth.org www.fairsentencingofyouth.org Campaign for Youth Justice Liz Ryan 1012 14th Street, N.W., Suite 610 Washington, D.C. 20005 t 202-558-3580 lryan@cfyj.org www.campaignforyouthjustice.org Center for Children’s Law and Policy Mark Soler 1701 K Street NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 2006 t 202.637.0377 msoler@cclp.org www.cclp.org Center for Smart justice Florida Tax Watch P.O. Box 10209 Tallahassee, FL 32302 t 850-222-5052 www.floridataxwatch.org Center for Young Women’s Development Marlene Sanchez 1550 Bryant Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94103 t 415.703.8800 marlene@cywd.org www.cywd.org Children’s Defense Fund Maria Wright Edelman 25 E. Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 t 800-233-1200 www.childrensdefense.org Coalition for Juvenile Justice Judith Browne-Dianis 1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 850 Washington, D.C. 20005 t 202-728-9558 jbrowne-dianis@advancementproject.org www.advancementproject.org Nancy Gannon Hornberger 1710 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W., 10th floor Washington, D.C. 20036 t 202-467-0864 gannon@juvjustice.org www.juvjustice.org Ella Baker Center Commonweal Jakada Imani 1230 Market Street PMB 409 San Francisco, CA 94102 t 415.951.4844 assist@ellabakercenter.org www.ellabakercenter.org W. Haywood Burns Institute for Juvenile Justice James Bell 180 Howard Street, Suite 320 San Francisco, CA 94105 t 415.321.4100 jbell@burnsinstitute.org www.burnsinstitute.org David Steinhart PO Box 316 Bolinas, CA 94924 t 415.388-6666 steinhartd@aol.com www.commonweal.org Correctional Association of New York Gabrielle Prisco 2090 Adam Clayton Powell Blvd., Suite 200 New York, NY 10027 t 212-254-5700 gprisco@correctionalassociation.org www.correctionalassociation.org Resources | 29 Endnotes Council for State Governments Justice Center National Council on Crime and Delinquency Michael Thompson 100 Wall Street, 20th Floor New York, NY 10005 t 212-482-2320 mthompson@csg.org www.csg.org Alex Busansky 1970 Broadway, Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94612 t 510.208.0500 abusansky@sf.nccd-crc.org www.nccd-crc.org 1 Mendel, Richard, No Place for Kids: The Case for Reducing Juvenile Incarceration, The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2011 Equity Project National Juvenile Defender Center 3 Patricia Puritz 1350 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 304 Washington, DC 20036 t 202.452.0010 ppuritz@njdc.org www.njdc.org Shannan Wilber c/o Legal Services for Children 870 Market Street, 3rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 t 415-863-3762 shannan@lsc-sf.org www.equityproject.org Fight Crime: Invest in Kids Miriam Rollin 1212 New York Avenue NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20005 t 202.776.0027 Miriam@fightcrime.org www.fightcrime.org Georgetown University Center for Juvenile Justice National Juvenile Justice Network Sarah Bryer 1319 F Street, NW, Suite 402 Washington, DC 20004 t 202.467.0864 bryer@juvjustice.org www.njjn.org Shay Bilchick Box 571444 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W., Suite 5000 Washington, D.C. 20057 t 202-687-7657 shaybilchick@gmail.com cjjr.georgetown.edu Policy Research Associates Justice Policy Institute Marc Mauer 1705 DeSales Street, N.W., 5th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036 t 202-628-0871 mauer@sentencingproject.org www.sentencingproject.org Tracy Velazquez 1003 K Street NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20001 t 202.363.7847 tracy@justicepolicy.org www.justicepolicy.org Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana Dana Kaplan 1600 Oretha Castle Haley Blvd New Orleans, LA 70113 t 504.522.5437 dkaplan@jjpl.org www.jjpl.org Juvenile Law Center Robert Schwartz 1315 Walnut Street, Floor 4 Philadelphia, PA 19107 t 215.625.0551 rschwartz@jlc.org www.jlc.org Missouri Youth Services Institute Mark Steward 1906 Hayselton Drive Jefferson City, MO 85109 t 573.636.5037 mysi@earthlink.net www.mysiconsulting.org National Center for Youth Law Patricia Soung 405 14th Street, 15th Floor Oakland, CA 64612 t 510-835-8098 psoung@youthlaw.org www.youthlaw.org Resources | 30 Joe Cocozza 345 Delaware Avenue Delmar, NY 12054 t 518-439-7415 jcocozza@prainc.com www.prainc.com The Sentencing Project Southern Poverty Law Center Richard Cohen 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 t 334-956-8200 Richard.cohen@splc.org www.splcenter.org Vera Institute of Justice Michael Jacobson 322 Broadway, Floor 12 New York, NY 10279 t 212.334.1300 mjacobson@vera.org www.vera.org YouthBuild USA 2 A Road Map for Juvenile Justice Reform, Annie E. Casey Foundation, June 2008. Mears, D. and Travis, J., The Dimensions, Pathways and Consequences of Youth Reentry, Urban Institute, 2004. Ibid, Road Map 4 Annie E. Casey Foundation Investment Strategy - 2005 Budget Year, Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative 5 KidsCount, Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2004 6 Soler, M. et. al., Lessons for a New Era, Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy, 2010. 7 Beck, et. al., Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth 2008-2009, BJS, 2010. 8 Back on Track: Supporting Youth Reentry from Out-of-Home Placement to the Community, Youth Reentry Task Force of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Coalition, 2009. 9 Ibid, Road Map 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 Zero Tolerance Policy Report, American Bar Association, 2001; Richart, et. al., Unintended Consequences: The Impact of Zero Tolerance and Other Exclusionary Polices on Kentucky Students, Building Blocks for Youth, 2003. 13 T. Fabelo, et. al., Breaking School’s Rules: A Statewide Study of How School Discipline Relates to Student’s Success and Juvenile Justice Involvement, Council for State Governments, 2011. 14 Ibid, Breaking School’s Rules 15 Ibid, Road Map 16 M. Wald and T. Martinez, Connected by 25: Improving the Life Chances of the Country’s Most Vulnerable 14-24 Year Olds, 2003. 17 L. Steinberg, et. al., Reentry of Adolescents from the Juvenile Justice System: A Developmental Perspective, Urban Institute Reentry Roundtable, 2003. 18 Mulvey, E, Highlights From Pathways to Desistance: A Longitudinal Study of Serious Adolescent Offenders, OJJDP Juvenile Justice Fact Sheet, March 2011. 19 Ibid, Road Map 20 Ibid, Pathways to Desistance 22 Holman, Barry and Ziedenberg, Jason, The Dangers of Detention: The Impact of Incarcerating Youth in Detention and Other Secure Facilities, Justice Policy Institute, 2010. 23 Ibid, No Place for Kids 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid, The Dangers of Detention 26 Ibid, Road Map 27 Evaluations of MST for serious juvenile offenders demonstrate reductions of 25 to 70 percent in long-term rates of re-arrest, reductions of 47 to 64 percent in out-of-home placements, improvements in family functioning, and decreased mental health problems. Henggeler, S. et. al., Blueprints for Violence Prevention Series, Book Six: Multisystemic Therapy. Dorothy Stoneman 58 Day Street Somerville, MA 02144 t 617-623-9900 dstoneman@youthbuild.org www.youthbuild.org Youth Law Center 29 Carol Shauffer Sue Burrell 417 Montgomery Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94104-1121 t 415.543.3379 cshauffer@ylc.org www.ylc.org Ibid, Lessons for a New Era 21 28 Ibid, Road Map Ibid, The Dangers of Detention 30 Charting a New Course. The Real Cost and Benefits of Change: Finding Opportunities for Reform During Difficult Fiscal Times, National Juvenile Justice Network, 2010. 31 Ziedenberg, J., Juvenile Justice Reform: Most Minor Delinquents Diverts from the Juvenile Justice System Avoid Reoffending, Reclaiming Futures, 2009. Endnotes | 31 32 Bernburg, J., et. al., Official Labeling, Criminal Embeddedness, and Subsequent Delinquency: A Longitudinal Test of Labeling Theory, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43, 67-88, 2006; Gatti, U., et. al., Latrogenic Effects of Juvenile Justice. The Journal of Child Psychology, 50(8), 991-998, 2009. 33 Florida Tax Watch Center for Smart Justice, www.floridataxwatch.org 34 Charting A New Course: A Blueprint for Transforming Juvenile Justice in New York State, A Report of Governor David Paterson’s Task Force on Transforming Juvenile Justice, 2009. 35 Florida Tax Watch Center for Smart Justice, www.floridataxwatch.org 36 Wayne County, MI Children and Family Services Factsheet, 2010. 37 Butts, J & Evans, D (2011). Resolution, Reinvestment, and Realignment: Three Strategies for Changing Juvenile Justice, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 2011. 38 39 Poe-Yamagata, E. and Jones, M., National Council on Crime and Delinquency, And Justice for Some: Differential Treatment of Minority Youth in the Juvenile Justice System,” National Council on Crime and Delinquency, Building Blocks for Youth, 2000. Research suggests that the overrepresentation of youth of color cannot be explained by a higher level of offending. Krisberg, B., Juvenile Justice, Redeeming Our Children, 2005, p. 87. Also, the practice of institutionalizing youth to give them access to services disproportionately impacts youth of color, who often come from under-resourced, urban and marginalized communities. Ibid, Charting A New Course. 40 Ibid, Road Map 41 Ibid, Road Map 42 Hoytt, E,H,, et. al., Pathways to Juvenile Detention Reform 8: Reducing Racial Disparities in Juvenile Detention, Annie E. Casey Foundation. 43 Jones. J., Access to Counsel, OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin, 2004 44 45 Puritz, et. al., A Call for Justice: An Assessment of Access to Counsel and Quality of Representation in Delinquency Proceedings, American Bar Association, 1995. American Psychological Association, Statement on Reforming the Juvenile Justice System to Improve Children’s Lives and Public Safety (2010) U.S. House Committee on Education and Labor in Support of JJDPA, 2010 46 Ibid, APA 47 Ibid, APA 48 Promising Practices for the Healthy Returns Initiative: Building Connections to Health, Mental health and family Support Services in Juvenile Justice, California Endowment, 2010; Buck Wilson, et. al., Reforming Juvenile Justice Systems: Beyond Treatment, A Reclaiming Futures National Evaluation Report, 2010. 49 Ibid, Resolution, Reinvestment and Realignment For more information, contact: YTFG JUVENILE JUSTICE WORK GROUP Nelli Garton, Co-Chair nelligarton@gmail.com Diane Sierpina, Co-Chair diane@towfoundation.org Julie Peterson, Coordinator jempeterson@verizon.net 50 Positive Youth Development is a comprehensive framework that emphasizes the importance of building on positive attributes that young people have to promote their success. 51 Ibid, Charting A New Course 52 Ibid, Back on Track 53 Ibid. Road Map 54 YOUTH TRANSITION FUNDERS GROUP Lisa McGill, Director lmcgill@ytfg.org Blueprint available at www.ytfg.org Umbreit, M. et al, The Impact of Victim-Offender Mediation: Two Decades of Research, Federal Probation 65, No. 3, 2001 2012 55 Angel, C., Crime Victims Meet Their Offenders: Testing the Impact of Restorative Justice Conferences on Victims’ Post-Traumatic Stress Symptoms, A Dissertation in Nursing and Criminology at the University of Pennsylvania, 2005. 56 Ibid, Victim Offender Mediation 57 Key Facts: Youth in the Justice System, Campaign for Youth Justice, June 2010. 58 Written by Julie Peterson Designed by Sonia Biancalani-Levethan, Fog Design Ibid, Key Facts 59 Ibid, Road Map; Ibid, Key Facts; Ibid, Lessons for a New Era Endnotes | 32 A Problem | 33 Today in America, three million young adults, ages 14 to 24, are neither in school nor employed. The Youth Transition Funders Group is a network of grantmakers whose mission is to help all youth make a successful transition to adulthood by age 25. Most young people make a safe passage from adolescence to adulthood with the support of their families, caring adults, communities, and schools. However, youth with few supports – such as teens aging out of the foster care system, youth who do not finish high school, or youth in the juvenile justice system – need help to find the right path to success. YTFG is dedicated to improving the lives of the three million young people, between the ages of 14 and 24, in need of extra support. WWW.YTFG. ORG An Invitation | 34
