It is no surprise to me that this is the avenue that the State has taken. Over the last five years Connecticut has retreated from advancing its practices and policies in the treatment of children through the judicial system. From my perspective this is an issue of money. From the public view, as presented by the judicial bodies charged with protecting the public from errant children, not paying for good legal defenses, not paying for preventative programs, not paying for mental health services, not paying for assistance to families before judicial intervention saves the State money. They fail to discuss the ridiculous cost of the facility, the cost of staffing, the poor outcomes of incarceration, the damage and cost to families (and ultimately, the taxpayer)
when they tout how "they are protecting the public" with these facilities. They don't discuss the gross inequities that they have set up in providing legal services to these kids (no resources provided, pay rates that are the bordering on the lowest in the nation, the retribution against attorneys who reject the "churn and burn" system of defense that the State requires for a defense attorney to survive in their contract system and the "win at all costs" attitude of the child protection system; the lack of probation programs for families... the list goes on an on. It is easy to vilify the kids, some of them do scary things; it requires forethought and a willingness to review the State's role in poverty, educational inequality, resource deprivation and a system that gives the prosecution the power over resources provided to defense, with a reward for reducing costs through any means to those who control the resources. It is
interesting, and very sad, that the reduction of funds only goes towards those programs that help children, and never towards those who promote such an inequitable system. When Connecticut views all citizens as valuable, not just those who live along the gold coast, with a governing body that is centered on the welfare of all citizens, not their own personal gain, perhaps the tsunami against children will be reversed.
Robert Skelley
Law Office of Robert L. Skelley
P.O. Box 605
Canterbury, CT
Tel: 860-933-7156
Fax: (866)-240-3628
Confidentiality Note: This transmission is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521 and contains information which is confidential and/or legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the addressee (or authorized agent of the addressee). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. Thank you.
Opinion: Maximum security is no place for traumatized girls
By Patricia Puritz and Robert Schwartz
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Across the country, states are closing or
downsizing juvenile justice facilities. This has been happening during an unprecedented reduction in youth crime. Juvenile courts and state juvenile justice agencies are finding that they can protect the public and improve the lives of youth by using community resources more and relying less on institutions.
Inexplicably, Connecticut is about to become a national outlier. The state is planning to open a second maximum security facility for girls in its juvenile justice system. It is important that Connecticut residents understand exactly who will be incarcerated there and why that incarceration will be harmful and unnecessary.
Girls’ offenses are nearly always non-violent. Their life stories are invariably heartbreaking. More than 70 percent of girls in the juvenile justice system have suffered from physical or sexual trauma. Their rates of physical and mental illness are higher than their male counterparts. Family
dysfunction is commonplace. According to the Connecticut Department of Children and Families, many of the girls who will be confined in the new facility are victims of sex trafficking.
The juvenile justice system re-traumatizes girls. The practices of a maximum security facility -– locked rooms and searches, for example -- are especially likely to do this.
Sometimes public safety concerns dictate a secure placement, but that is not the case here. One Department of Children and Families official told The Mirror that neighbors should not object to the new facility because “these gals are not dangerous. These are kids.”
To its credit, Connecticut state law requires the juvenile justice system to provide gender-specific programming. In the case of girls, that should include programming that is responsive to their trauma histories. One of the rationales for the new facility is that some girls run away from less secure
placements.
We have worked in the juvenile justice system for decades. We know that this rationale is more about system failure than about helping girls or improving public safety. Connecticut’s response to this problem should be a hard look at the existing programs that have failed to engage girls.
Placing young people in the safest, least restrictive environment possible increases their success and decreases recidivism. It is more cost-effective than locking them away in maximum security institutions. Research shows that even for youth who can benefit from a secure placement, stays should be short. Three to six months is optimal -– but only for youth who are a risk to others or themselves. One study found that stays of more than nine months increased recidivism, thereby reducing public safety. In the state’s existing secure facility for girls, Journey House, stays are longer than any expert in the field would recommend.
Moving girls out of Journey House more quickly would serve them better and free up space -– eliminating the need for this expensive, duplicate facility—for the few girls who must be separated from their communities
Overly long stays in a secure facility are often a sign that there are inadequate re-entry programs to support a child’s return to the community. The state should look at its continuum of care. Investing in less restrictive options would better serve girls -– not to mention taxpayers, who would be spared the cost of renovating and staffing an unnecessary facility.
DCF Commissioner Joette Katz has described the new facility to The Mirror in idyllic terms. It “has a nice view. It’s going to be a great place for them to do music and for dance and art therapy,” she said. Unfortunately, girls will be looking at that view through unbreakable glass and a fence. This is a maximum security facility that will disrupt
girls’ normal development without commensurate public benefit.
We would be challenged to find other states that are opening new secure facilities for girls. Available research suggests that easily accessible, program-rich, community-based settings are far more beneficial for individual and community outcomes. Gender responsiveness requires attention to the needs of girls so that programs and policies can address girls’ development and help them to establish and sustain consistent, supportive relationships. This new facility will not accomplish these important goals. It is disheartening to see Connecticut, a state often seen as a leader in juvenile justice policy, taking such a step backward.
Patricia Puritz is executive director of the National Juvenile Defender Center. Robert Schwartz is executive director of the Juvenile Law Center.
Bonnie Berk
Director of Communications
Center for Children's Advocacy
65
Elizabeth Street
Hartford, CT 06105
www.kidscounsel.org
860-570-5327
