I have also set up links (in the Check It Out section) to pieces mentioned by President Travis in our discussion. The first is a piece by Jennifer Gonnerman that ran in January in New York Magazine, "The Lost Boys of Tryon." The second is Mayor Bloomberg's State of the City address. These pieces, both good reads, provide a range of responses to these questions, from despair over how things are to hope about how things could be. Feel free to respond to these pieces, as well, in your comment.
Friday, April 9, 2010
A Third Hour: Thinking about Juvenile Justice
Many thanks to President Travis for joining us in seminar and sharing with us his task force's fascinating, thoughtful report on juvenile justice in New York. We commented on how eye-opening the report was, but hearing about the process of creating the report took the topic to a new level. Many of our seminar discussions have focused not only on a justice-related issue, but on how systems/structures/institutions function both to solve and exaggerate problems. From the inspiring stories in Half the Sky to the heart-wrenching story of Willy, this semester we've considered the relationship between individuals fighting for social change as well as individuals getting trapped by the very institutions designed to solve the problems. The story of the task force's investigation, as well as the production and reception of the report, touch on many of the ideas we've been thinking about this semester. So this week, you are invited to continue our seminar discussion. If we had a third hour, what would you have liked to ask President Travis? What aspects of the report and our discussion would you want to explore further? Has any aspect of the report or the seminar stuck with you as you continued with your busy week?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
At the end of the seminar I was not satisfied. I felt that we barely touched base on what is the heart of the issue for me, which I am aware is beyond the scope of the task force.
As I read the report and sat through the seminar, I kept asking myself, “well would it really work?”
I understand the strategy; close down and downsize institutions by not sending youth away. The money saved can then be redirected to the communities, where services for youth can be provided. But how can you send the youth back to the community that “created them criminal” in the first place? It is because of his or her family and associations that he or she strayed into a criminal path to begin with. What type of services can be provided that would diminish the effect of those negative associations and offer the youth the care and positive motivation he or she needs? What difference would it make if you offer a group of young kids a basketball team or a play if their parents would not even attend because they’re drugged or too busy working? I don’t think they should be “locked up” in juvenile institutions, but I am not convinced this would work. I hope it does, because that could potentially change a whole community, which in turn could change the whole country. The task force is truly a stepping stone to changing low income communities and the subcultures that condemn them.
Marling raises a good question here, one that President Travis encouraged us to ponder at the end of seminar as well. I'm hoping some student voices join us soon, but here's another bit of reading. This is an article by Marian Wright Edelman, whom President Travis brought in to rally the task force. She has this piece on the Huffington Post, summarizing why the Missouri model has been so effective.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marian-wright-edelman/juvenile-justice-reform-m_b_498976.html
This doesn't "answer" Marling's good questions, so much as broadens the context for our discussion. Hope to see you (on the blog) soon!
Hearing President Travis talk about his experience being asked to lead the Task Force was, for me, one of the most interesting parts of our meeting. I found it an excellent place to start our conversation as we all begin our careers and aspire to become leaders. As I read his paper, I wondered how the best person is determined to take the lead on such a massive job as an investigation of NY’s juvenile justice system. I also wondered how the leader wraps their head around the amount of information you need to know to keep up with the mandate, and how a project is kept important to all until the end. I never got to ask these questions, but as I mentioned earlier, President Travis opened our discussion with the answers. “To move your agenda outside, you have to get inside support” – this was the method Gladys Carrion followed, by getting the support of the Governor, the union and child services before getting President Travis to move the mandate. “Great issue – not now” kept the mandate in check. For my third question: “We threw a party! Then we all sat down to discuss the objectives.” Has anyone ever heard of the term myopia? The party initiated strong group morale before beginning what was sure to be a long, perhaps uncomfortable and startling research project. The strong morale made the group myopic in that the project that was ahead of them became a salient, important part of their work and, surely, their lives until the day it was complete.
“Great issue – not now” is taped to my computer while I write my research paper for seminar.
Thank you President Travis, you're easy to learn from, entertaining and inspiring. I've always loved John Jay, appreciated what it stands for and its unique specialty as a criminal justice college, but your work makes me especially proud to be a student here.
Thank you, President Travis for joining us last Thursday! I was very impressed with how the task force moved along its agenda by coming up with great issues to tackle but was able to identify it as a "great issue, but not now". Listening to President Travis describe how the task force meets for two hours to go over these issues was very inspiring. I left the seminar very surprised at what I have learned about the task force. When we were asked about who would be opposed to the idea of downsizing the facilities, I would have never thought that the union would be there. As unions are very powerful, I wonder how the task force would react to their opposition? The unions will have very strong oppositions because jobs will be lost and unemployment rates will raise. Would it be better if the task force proposes an idea to help create jobs elsewhere for those that would lose their jobs due to the downsizing?
The path which the discussion with President Travis took unfortunately led me away from what I intended to ask. When I reached the section in the Task Force Report about providing services, including education, to young people in institutional placement, I immediately thought of the Bard Prison Initiative (BPI). BPI is a great program run by Bard College in New York State which provides a college education to inmates in a number of New York State prisons. The program has been a huge success and takes us back to a time before “tough on crime” political posturing became the norm. Before 1995, the year funding for prison education programs was virtually eliminated, recidivism rates had diminished to a mere 15% from 60% twenty years before. To me, the wide reinstitution of such programs would be the epitome of an “evidence based practice”. I wanted to ask President Travis if there was anything similar to the Bard Prison Initiative in the works for youth offenders. I think a young mind that’s more malleable could benefit from such a program to an even greater extent. Maybe making some sort of certificate or credit requirement a part of youth placement could give a sense of progress, or “graduation”, to young individuals as they leave their facilities.
I also understand where Marling is coming from questioning whether sending youth offenders back into their communities is the best idea. I know it seems counterintuitive, but I contend that it’s simply the best alternative this far. Placement into youth facilities exposes low-risk youth offenders to high-risk, more violent youth offenders, not to mention to the constant abuses that take place in such facilities. By keeping low-risk youth offenders in their communities and working with their families using Multi-Systemic Therapy and other holistic approaches, social workers and programs such as Esperanza have saved the state millions of dollars, lowered the recidivism rate significantly, and helped to guide these kids on a personal basis in a far more caring environment than a cell. Also, their progress in school is not interrupted and parents become more involved in their children’s lives as a result of their inclusion throughout the program. Vincent Schiraldi, the newly appointed Commissioner of Probation, lauded this approach at a panel held at John Jay a couple of months ago.
Thank you for such an interesting discussion President Travis! I am incredibly proud as a John Jay student and as a Vera Fellow that both of these institutions that I feel such a part of are working so hard to create this much needed change in our approach to juvenile justice and justice in general.
President Travis visit to class must have been an incredible experience for all of you. His credentials are quite interesting and remarkable http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/extra/travis_cv.pdf (link is to his resume thought it would be interesting). Marling’s post kind of caught my attention because I understand her concern and curiosity as to whether or not closing and downsizing institutions where youth are sent and putting the money into the community for preventative services can really work? I personally like the idea of down-sizing institutions and redirecting the money into the community. Maybe I feel this way because it upsets me that we as communities have limited resources to try to work towards preventing children from turning into delinquents and these young delinquents from turning into full fledged criminals. I also believe in the rehabilitation of Juvenile Delinquents even though I am well aware it doesn’t work ever time. I know that sending the youth back into the community that may have very well fed into his criminal interest is a risky thing but as many programs it may work in some cases and in others it may not. I too as Marling would like to know what types of programs and services would be offered for these juveniles that may make this program a success? If successful this program can and may indeed create incredible opportunities forever changing many low-income violence ravaged communities.
I learned so much from President Travis description of the Task Force.It is amazing the amount of work, discipline, and collaboration that is needed to put together this type of research.I admire President Travis ability to organize, motivate, and ability to say "great issue-- not now."It's great to be able to acknowledge great ideas, and still keep focus on the main subject at hand because people have deadlines and time is precious.
As I was reading about Juvenile justice, I was shocked to learn about all the abuses that take place in these institutions. The lack of information about what really goes on in these places is astonishing.I don't understand why we allowed such abuses to happen under our noses, and why haven't we demanded more transparency from this institutions. It really bothered me to learn how people can easily overlook or ignore everyday injustices. What else are we neglecting to see in our society?
I understand Marling’s point on the question of sending a youth back to the community that created them as criminal in the first place. President Travis did say that its not right for a system to be paternalistic and say well for your own good you should be placed here instead, but in a way isn’t the system controlling us on the choices we have? The juveniles that usually commit crimes do so because of lack of resources in their neighborhood, so wouldn’t sending them back create a cycle recidivism? The suggestions are ideal, but in agreeing with Marling, would it all work? I believe that the Task Force should be the foundation for an even greater research, helping lessen the amount of juveniles in the first place. We need to work on researching the controversial subjects of policing and improving communities on whole. Do you think that we should completely stray from the issue of stop and frisks because of the controversy? Do you really think that politicians will not endorse that campaign because of the reduction of crime rate from stop and frisks? Overall I believed the research the Task Force did was beneficial, it showed that their was a flaw in the system (several flaws) and it made recommendations on how to fix it. I believe another Task Force should be made getting involved on the controversial issues, such as policing.
I also appreciate the visit from President Travis and his willingness to give us the insider's view of how such things actually evolve and happen.
I love how President Travis insisted his task force first decide upon a set of principles that would then inform and guide the specific policies to be recommended. I love how President Travis is clear about how in this venue, with that mission and goal, the approach (how to think, how to act) must be strategic (keep the focus on the task at hand, not deal with other issues--however important they may be--for this project, at this time). It's so important to understand how to think and act about something depending on the venue, the mission, the goal.
Here's my concern. We've got a history of "de-instiutionalizing" vulnerable populations in the not-too-distant past. For example, the de-institutionalization of people with diagnoses of mental illness--the emptying of "mental institutions" exacerbated the homeless situation in NY during the 1980s (but that's not the only reason for the rise in homelessness during that time). While I'm not suggesting that the two populations (young people in the juvenile justice system and people w/ diagnoses of mental illness in state institutions) are themselves alike, I worry about what happened then: the idea was to empty these terrible institutions and have the patients be housed and cared for in local, community-based, more humane (etc) settings. But the resources never appeared for that and yet they closed the institutions! That's my concern, especially right now when we are in a very tight budget situation. Unless the local communities get the resources, unless the young people and their communities get the help they need, then indeed there will be failure of the sort Marling worries about. And then (some) folks will claim, "You see? It didn't work!" while the real causes of failure would get erased, silenced, lost, and the status quo would keep on churning.
I guess I would like to see the task force consider this possibility. Should the members agree that this is a real concern, I'd like them to make sure the powers-that-be know the task force is keeping an eye on. I wonder if that can be done strategically and tactfully?!
I think when talking about juvenile justice, Professor Waterston's emphasis on preventative measures really comes to mind. There shouldn't be a reason for so many kids to be involved in the criminal justice system in the first place. Kids shouldn't be exposed to drug dealers and guns while hanging out in their neighborhood, and they shouldn't have to steal food or money to survive. I'm not sure if sending kids back to their communities is the best idea because their communities are not necessarily places that foster growth and positive change. However, if more resources were allocated to these communities and the effort was made to change them, then sending the kids back would be a much better idea. We have to stop trying to catch up to and fix the consequences of the problems we have created and actually fix the original problem itself. And that means a lot of effort and resources reallocated to these communities. I understand the concern and resistance to changes in the current system...by closing down the institutions, a lot of people will lose their jobs and this issue must be addressed, but that cannot be the reason to justify keeping these kids in prison. Why do we always forget that these are just kids? They're relying on the adults to stand up for them and take care of them, and we have to rise to the challenge.
When leaving this discussion, I, ultimately, wanted to know how the juvenile candidates would feel about the goals of the task force. If the reaction is positive, which I am hoping it would be, then maybe this could help in the developmental stages of the task force. Perhaps the reaction of those the task force is looking to help would be an excellent way to provoke the plan into action. A positive reaction from not only the producers, but the candidates as well would be a great way to gain motivation for the plan to move forward.
Post a Comment