Nemesis
03-11-2004, 05:24 PM
http://www.lexisone.com/news/ap/ap031104d.html
by Don Thompson
Associated Press
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — March 11, 2004
When Will Roy entered a state juvenile facility for robbery as a 16-year-old, he said officials encouraged him to join a prison gang because being unaffiliated was too dangerous.
Once he did, the gang's name was tacked over his cell door.
Roy drew an extra year for fighting, another year for smoking smuggled marijuana, and after serving six years, said he can no longer show emotion for fear it will be perceived as weakness.
"You have to constantly be on your toes," Roy said during a recent rally at the state Capitol. "In an institutional setting, that would show vulnerability."
The problems within the California Youth Authority have reformers proposing everything from giving counties responsibility for many of the most violent youths to dismantling the state system altogether.
State Sen. Gloria Romero has called the state's juvenile facilities "a gladiator school to hone one's skills in brutality and criminality."
Recent reports by national experts said authorities at one youth facility used chemical Mace on 270 offenders in one month last year. Experts say offenders are routinely locked in small wire mesh cages or in their cells for 23 hours a day.
And even with California's population of wards in decline, things have gotten so bad that some local officials do everything they can to avoid sending offenders into the system.
"We've had a long-standing policy not to send youth to the California Youth Authority precisely because we would hear these stories," said San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi.
Authorities generally exhaust every other alternative before sending juveniles into the system, saving it for the most violent youths. It often is a last chance before juveniles are prosecuted as adults, said Kurt Kumli, a longtime critic who heads the Santa Clara County district attorney's juvenile division.
"It really is the last place in the juvenile justice system that you want to place kids," Kumli said.
Five counties, most in the San Francisco Bay area, have decided or are considering whether to stop sending juveniles to state facilities.
Eleven counties in that area also considered creating their own regional youth facility, but decided to give new leadership at the California Youth Authority a chance, said Loren Buddress, chairman and San Mateo County chief probation officer. They formed a committee to visit selected youth facilities over the next year to gauge whether the reform promises were being met.
Experts say the move away from state facilities may be the best way to reform the system.
About 40 percent of state wards are nonviolent and could safely be moved to county-run programs, said David Steinhart, who directs the juvenile justice program at Commonweal, a Bay-area reform and advocacy group.
San Francisco once sent more than 100 youths each year to state facilities, among the most in the state, said Dan Macallair, director of the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. But starting in 1978, the county began creating its own juvenile camps and centers, coupled with intensive screening, intervention and probation programs designed to keep troubled youths out of any facilities where possible.
San Francisco has just three wards in state custody now.
"You can take that model and apply it in other counties," Macallair said. "It's time we moved away from the old 19th Century training school design."
Overall, the system's population has plummeted since 10,500 youths were being triple-bunked in warehouse-style wards in 1995. A system that held 7,890 youths in June 2000 was down to 4,351 by last month, a decline of 300 just since November.
It's partly because of an aging population and a drop in juvenile crime, and partly by design. To reduce crowding, a 1997 state law charged counties more to send less serious offenders.
Counties still only pay about 75 percent of the cost of sending their worst youths to state facilities, said Gregory Jolivette, director of the Legislative Analyst's criminal justice section. They should be charged 100 percent, he said, a further incentive to build their own rehabilitation centers or find alternatives.
Romero, the state senator, said it might be better to eliminate the youth authority and spend its $450 million budget on county rehabilitation programs and facilities. And the state's nonpartisan Legislative Analyst recommended a severe downsizing that would put most responsibility for young criminals' rehabilitation on counties.
Yet Steinhart, Macallair and other reformers are concerned that budget-strapped counties are in no better position than the state to expand youth programs and parole oversight.
And while rehabilitation is one goal, protecting the community from violent predators is another, said prosecutor Kumli. There may always be a need for some state facility to lock them away.
"The youth authority exists for a reason," he said. "These are kids who committed rapes, who committed armed robberies, who committed murder."
Copyright 2004 Associated Press
by Don Thompson
Associated Press
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — March 11, 2004
When Will Roy entered a state juvenile facility for robbery as a 16-year-old, he said officials encouraged him to join a prison gang because being unaffiliated was too dangerous.
Once he did, the gang's name was tacked over his cell door.
Roy drew an extra year for fighting, another year for smoking smuggled marijuana, and after serving six years, said he can no longer show emotion for fear it will be perceived as weakness.
"You have to constantly be on your toes," Roy said during a recent rally at the state Capitol. "In an institutional setting, that would show vulnerability."
The problems within the California Youth Authority have reformers proposing everything from giving counties responsibility for many of the most violent youths to dismantling the state system altogether.
State Sen. Gloria Romero has called the state's juvenile facilities "a gladiator school to hone one's skills in brutality and criminality."
Recent reports by national experts said authorities at one youth facility used chemical Mace on 270 offenders in one month last year. Experts say offenders are routinely locked in small wire mesh cages or in their cells for 23 hours a day.
And even with California's population of wards in decline, things have gotten so bad that some local officials do everything they can to avoid sending offenders into the system.
"We've had a long-standing policy not to send youth to the California Youth Authority precisely because we would hear these stories," said San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi.
Authorities generally exhaust every other alternative before sending juveniles into the system, saving it for the most violent youths. It often is a last chance before juveniles are prosecuted as adults, said Kurt Kumli, a longtime critic who heads the Santa Clara County district attorney's juvenile division.
"It really is the last place in the juvenile justice system that you want to place kids," Kumli said.
Five counties, most in the San Francisco Bay area, have decided or are considering whether to stop sending juveniles to state facilities.
Eleven counties in that area also considered creating their own regional youth facility, but decided to give new leadership at the California Youth Authority a chance, said Loren Buddress, chairman and San Mateo County chief probation officer. They formed a committee to visit selected youth facilities over the next year to gauge whether the reform promises were being met.
Experts say the move away from state facilities may be the best way to reform the system.
About 40 percent of state wards are nonviolent and could safely be moved to county-run programs, said David Steinhart, who directs the juvenile justice program at Commonweal, a Bay-area reform and advocacy group.
San Francisco once sent more than 100 youths each year to state facilities, among the most in the state, said Dan Macallair, director of the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. But starting in 1978, the county began creating its own juvenile camps and centers, coupled with intensive screening, intervention and probation programs designed to keep troubled youths out of any facilities where possible.
San Francisco has just three wards in state custody now.
"You can take that model and apply it in other counties," Macallair said. "It's time we moved away from the old 19th Century training school design."
Overall, the system's population has plummeted since 10,500 youths were being triple-bunked in warehouse-style wards in 1995. A system that held 7,890 youths in June 2000 was down to 4,351 by last month, a decline of 300 just since November.
It's partly because of an aging population and a drop in juvenile crime, and partly by design. To reduce crowding, a 1997 state law charged counties more to send less serious offenders.
Counties still only pay about 75 percent of the cost of sending their worst youths to state facilities, said Gregory Jolivette, director of the Legislative Analyst's criminal justice section. They should be charged 100 percent, he said, a further incentive to build their own rehabilitation centers or find alternatives.
Romero, the state senator, said it might be better to eliminate the youth authority and spend its $450 million budget on county rehabilitation programs and facilities. And the state's nonpartisan Legislative Analyst recommended a severe downsizing that would put most responsibility for young criminals' rehabilitation on counties.
Yet Steinhart, Macallair and other reformers are concerned that budget-strapped counties are in no better position than the state to expand youth programs and parole oversight.
And while rehabilitation is one goal, protecting the community from violent predators is another, said prosecutor Kumli. There may always be a need for some state facility to lock them away.
"The youth authority exists for a reason," he said. "These are kids who committed rapes, who committed armed robberies, who committed murder."
Copyright 2004 Associated Press