Advocates seek reform to keep juveniles out of the system

Audio By Carbonatix

(The Center Square) - Juvenile justice experts gathered at the Capitol on Tuesday for a joint hearing of the House Children and Youth and Judiciary committees.

Following the hearing, reform advocates held a press conference in support of three pieces of legislation that aim to support children who have entered into the criminal system.

One of the bills, House Bill 144 from Rep. Rick Krajewski, D-Philadelphia, would expand the use of diversion practices for youth who have been convicted of minor offenses. Specifically for first and second time offenses of most misdemeanors and first time non-violent felony offenses, diversion would be required rather than placement in a facility. It would also create a fund for counties to invest toward diversion.

Bob Tomassini, executive director of the state’s Juvenile Court Judges’ Commission, says that reforms made over the past 15 years have shown huge improvements in Pennsylvania’s juvenile justice system, including a preference for diversion whenever possible. He pointed to drastic reductions in recidivism rates and placements in detention facilities.

“We talk in our own circles about, ‘Wouldn’t it be great if we could work ourselves out of business?” said Tomassini. “We do not want low-risk, low-need youth entering our system, so we do support engaging other agencies and identifying other strategies and services to meet those youth.”

At the same time, he expressed concerns about broad measures that don’t take into account the individual risk factors and needs for each child. He emphasized that a lack of resources along with flat funding for probation officer salaries have limited the judicial system’s ability to make an impact.

“That’s the real missing piece to many of these conversations,” said Tomassini. “We just do not have the service array that we used to 15 years ago.”

Hanae Victoria Mason of the Youth Art and Self-empowerment Program in Philadelphia recently wrote a report about the organization’s Healing Futures Program, which uses a restorative justice model to help youths move forward after an offense.

“The restorative justice diversion process gives participants a variety of possible positive outcomes, including support for young people's personal growth and development — that might look like job placement, housing support, educational opportunities,” said Mason. “It provides people who are victimized, they're more likely to receive restitution. They are given the ability to get answers for vital questions like why something happened to them, and they're also able to reclaim agency and be included in the restorative plan of the young person.”

Her study of the program found that 100% of participants surveyed were positive about the program. Just one of 30 youth who had been through the program at the time of publishing her report had fallen into recidivism.

Dr. Brian Lovins of Justice System Partners pointed to other states which have been successful with legislative initiatives supporting diversion programs. He provided a meta-analysis of data from the three states, which found that young people at low, high, and moderate levels of risk all benefitted from diversion programs.

“As we think about recidivism rates, if we’re able to drop recidivism rates for young people 50% through diversion and deflection sets of programs, we clearly have sort of downstream effects of reduced number of victims, accountability for young people and still producing public safety,” said Lovins.

He also noted major savings identified in cost-benefit analysis in Ohio. The study found that for every dollar spent on diversion, cost was reduced between $13.60 for low-risk youth up to $57.51 for high-risk youth.

When diversion isn’t an option, juvenile offenders are sent to secure private or state facilities. In Philadelphia, there simply aren’t enough providers contracted to house youth who have been placed there. As a result, many spend months or even years locked up and waiting, missing out on the treatment and programming intended to help them.

House Bill 1936 from Rep. Anthony Bellmon, D-Philadelphia, would require courts to consider time spent waiting in while determining the duration of a child’s detention time. If seven days pass without a placement, courts would be obliged to have a hearing every ten days to consider what’s best for the child.

Christina Zogar spoke about waiting two years before being placed in detention after being involved in a robbery at 16. During that time, she was in a cell where programming was limited due to understaffing. It wasn’t until she was placed in a state facility where she would stay till she turned 21 that she was able to do work toward self-improvement, like attending mental health groups and even acting as a peer-support facilitator.

A third bill from Rep. Emily Kinkead, D-Bellevue, would limit fees imposed on juveniles in the court system, acknowledging that they create an excessive financial burden on families that may already be struggling.

Public defender Allison Ware, associate director of clinical programs and assistant professor at Duquesne University, pointed out that children as young as ten can be held responsible for criminal offenses in the Pennsylvania legal system.

She recounted a case in which her client, a disabled boy, accidentally damaged a neighbor’s garage by riding his bike into it. The child’s mother arrived at court with an envelope full of small bills put together by saving whatever the family could, including foregoing other financial demands.

“Simply put, families should not have to choose between paying their utility bills and their child’s court costs,” said Ware.

“It is a justice system,” said Kinkead. “Not a retribution system. Not a punishment system. It is a justice system, and we do not serve justice, we do not serve community safety, we do not serve children by strapping them with debt that they can never pay off.”