Sometimes you need just need to step back and listen when the people have something to say - especially the youth.
This awesome video was composed and put up on YouTube by thelovepolicearizona.
Thanks for sharing it with the rest of us...
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Annie E. Casey: The Waste of Juvenile Incarceration
From the Annie E. Casey Foundation today - something we've known all along. What makes us think it works any better for adults?
Annie E. Casey Foundation
Baltimore, MD (October 4, 2011)
Reliance on Juvenile Incarceration is Not Paying Off for States, Taxpayers or Kids, Report Finds Evidence Supports Trend among States to Scale Back Costly, Often Abusive Youth Prison Systems
Locking up juvenile offenders in correctional facilities, which costs states a yearly average of $88,000 per youth, is not paying off from a public safety, rehabilitation or cost perspective, according to a new report from the Annie E. Casey Foundation. The report documents four decades of scandals and lawsuits over abusive conditions in juvenile institutions and reinforces the growing consensus among experts that the current incarceration model provides little public safety benefit. Its release, at a time when states
nationwide are struggling with enormous budget deficits and looking for ways to trim spending, also highlights an emerging trend in which at least 18 states have closed more than 50 juvenile corrections facilities over the past four years.
No Place for Kids: The Case for Reducing Juvenile Incarceration is the most comprehensive recent analysis of research and new data on the effectiveness and costs of juvenile incarceration. The report concludes that there is now overwhelming evidence that the wholesale incarceration of juvenile offenders is a failed strategy for combating youth crime because it:
* Does not reduce future offending by confined youth: Within three years of release, roughly three-quarters of youth are rearrested; up to 72 percent, depending on individual state measures, are convicted of a new offense.
* Does not enhance public safety: States which lowered juvenile confinement rates the most from 1997 to 2007 saw a greater decline in juvenile violent crime arrests than states which increased incarceration rates or reduced them more slowly.
* Wastes taxpayer dollars: Nationwide, states continue to spend the bulk of their juvenile justice budgets – $5 billion in 2008 – to confine and house young offenders in incarceration facilities despite evidence showing that alternative in-home or community-based programs can deliver equal or better results for a fraction of the cost.
* Exposes youth to violence and abuse: In nearly half of the states, persistent maltreatment has been documented since 2000 in at least one state-funded institution. One in eight confined youth reported being sexually abused by staff or other youth and 42 percent feared physical attack according to reports released in 2010.
Roughly 60,500 U.S. youth – disproportionately young people of color – are confined in juvenile correctional facilities or other residential programs on any given night, according to an official national count of youth in correctional custody conducted in 2007. That is more adolescents than currently reside in cities like Baltimore, MD and Nashville, TN.
The report also tracks a notable trend in recent years among a growing number of states that have shuttered youth incarceration facilities and substantially shrunk the number of confined youth, often prompted by budget crises or abuse scandals. No Place for Kids highlights six recommendations for how state and local juvenile justice officials can alter youth incarceration patterns and improve system outcomes, noting that the recent declines in youth confinement have not generally been accompanied by comprehensive reforms that maximize both public safety and positive youth development.
“The traditional approach of locking up youth offenders wholesale – even those with limited histories of serious or violent offending – has continued for decades without any evidence that it helps kids or protects the public,” says Bart Lubow, director of the Juvenile Justice Strategy Group at the Annie E. Casey Foundation and former director of Alternatives to Incarceration for New York State. “This report highlights the crucial challenges facing the youth corrections field. Our hope is that the research will serve as a catalyst for developing more effective and efficient juvenile justice strategies.”
The Annie E. Casey Foundation is a private charitable organization dedicated to helping build better futures for disadvantaged children in the United States. For the past 15 years, the Annie E. Casey Foundation has supported efforts to reform the juvenile justice system, primarily through its Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI), which has pioneered major reforms to reduce unnecessary confinement of youth in the pre-trial phase of the juvenile court process. Approximately 150 jurisdictions in 35 states and the District of Columbia are currently working with the Casey Foundation to implement the JDAI model.
Download the Map of Recurring Maltreatment in Juvenile Correctional Facilities in the U.S. (2.17 KB)
--------------------
Annie E. Casey Foundation
Baltimore, MD (October 4, 2011)
Reliance on Juvenile Incarceration is Not Paying Off for States, Taxpayers or Kids, Report Finds Evidence Supports Trend among States to Scale Back Costly, Often Abusive Youth Prison Systems
Locking up juvenile offenders in correctional facilities, which costs states a yearly average of $88,000 per youth, is not paying off from a public safety, rehabilitation or cost perspective, according to a new report from the Annie E. Casey Foundation. The report documents four decades of scandals and lawsuits over abusive conditions in juvenile institutions and reinforces the growing consensus among experts that the current incarceration model provides little public safety benefit. Its release, at a time when states
nationwide are struggling with enormous budget deficits and looking for ways to trim spending, also highlights an emerging trend in which at least 18 states have closed more than 50 juvenile corrections facilities over the past four years.
No Place for Kids: The Case for Reducing Juvenile Incarceration is the most comprehensive recent analysis of research and new data on the effectiveness and costs of juvenile incarceration. The report concludes that there is now overwhelming evidence that the wholesale incarceration of juvenile offenders is a failed strategy for combating youth crime because it:
* Does not reduce future offending by confined youth: Within three years of release, roughly three-quarters of youth are rearrested; up to 72 percent, depending on individual state measures, are convicted of a new offense.
* Does not enhance public safety: States which lowered juvenile confinement rates the most from 1997 to 2007 saw a greater decline in juvenile violent crime arrests than states which increased incarceration rates or reduced them more slowly.
* Wastes taxpayer dollars: Nationwide, states continue to spend the bulk of their juvenile justice budgets – $5 billion in 2008 – to confine and house young offenders in incarceration facilities despite evidence showing that alternative in-home or community-based programs can deliver equal or better results for a fraction of the cost.
* Exposes youth to violence and abuse: In nearly half of the states, persistent maltreatment has been documented since 2000 in at least one state-funded institution. One in eight confined youth reported being sexually abused by staff or other youth and 42 percent feared physical attack according to reports released in 2010.
Roughly 60,500 U.S. youth – disproportionately young people of color – are confined in juvenile correctional facilities or other residential programs on any given night, according to an official national count of youth in correctional custody conducted in 2007. That is more adolescents than currently reside in cities like Baltimore, MD and Nashville, TN.
The report also tracks a notable trend in recent years among a growing number of states that have shuttered youth incarceration facilities and substantially shrunk the number of confined youth, often prompted by budget crises or abuse scandals. No Place for Kids highlights six recommendations for how state and local juvenile justice officials can alter youth incarceration patterns and improve system outcomes, noting that the recent declines in youth confinement have not generally been accompanied by comprehensive reforms that maximize both public safety and positive youth development.
“The traditional approach of locking up youth offenders wholesale – even those with limited histories of serious or violent offending – has continued for decades without any evidence that it helps kids or protects the public,” says Bart Lubow, director of the Juvenile Justice Strategy Group at the Annie E. Casey Foundation and former director of Alternatives to Incarceration for New York State. “This report highlights the crucial challenges facing the youth corrections field. Our hope is that the research will serve as a catalyst for developing more effective and efficient juvenile justice strategies.”
The Annie E. Casey Foundation is a private charitable organization dedicated to helping build better futures for disadvantaged children in the United States. For the past 15 years, the Annie E. Casey Foundation has supported efforts to reform the juvenile justice system, primarily through its Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI), which has pioneered major reforms to reduce unnecessary confinement of youth in the pre-trial phase of the juvenile court process. Approximately 150 jurisdictions in 35 states and the District of Columbia are currently working with the Casey Foundation to implement the JDAI model.
State-level data:
- Total Number of Juveniles in Committed Custody in the U.S. (1997 and 2007)
- 2008 Juvenile Correction Budgets by State
- Facility Closures in the United States Since 2007
- Change in Juvenile Correction Confinement Rates in the U.S. (1997 and 2007)
Download the Map of Recurring Maltreatment in Juvenile Correctional Facilities in the U.S. (2.17 KB)
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
ACLU-AZ: Juvenile Diversion Works.
Below are excerpts from the new ACLU-AZ report this summer:
Protecting what works: Juvenile Diversion in Maricopa County.
Introduction
In 2010, four percent of Arizona’s youth, or 41,040 juveniles, received at least one delinquency referral to the juvenile justice system.1 About half of these youth had not had any previous contact with the justice system, and 66 percent were referred for misdemeanors or status offenses.2 Fortunately, the rate of juveniles referred to the justice system who are being diverted is on the rise. Diversion is a process by which juveniles can avoid formal court processing, and therefore, a delinquency record, by successfully completing one or more diversion “consequences.” The consequences can range from writing an apology to community service, counseling, or teen court. In 2010, 46% of the youth referred were diverted.3 Two thirds of the youth diverted had never been referred to the court before.4 More than 86% of these youth had one prior referral or less, and 83% were referred for non-felony offenses.5
The concept of diversion has been around since the early days of the juvenile justice system. It is based on evidence that processing youth offenders through the court system can do more harm than good. Indeed, court involvement for low-level offenders has been shown to be related to lower educational attainment, more limited employment prospects and higher rates of re-offending. By handling such cases outside of the formal system, courts and prosecutors can avoid exacerbating these effects and also reduce the strain on overloaded dockets.
In 1967, partly in response to concerns that processing youth through the formal system could lead to further delinquency, the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice called on communities to establish local youth agencies or bureaus that could serve as an alternative to putting youths through court.6 The Commission’s recommendation led to a proliferation in diversion programs in the late 1960s and 1970s. Today, most diversion programs are no longer sustained by federal grants, but by state and local funding sources. As these budgets continue to get slashed, policymakers will undoubtedly face pressure to reduce the investment in good quality diversion programs and shift more of the cost onto the families of referred youth who may not be able to afford the cost. This would be a mistake. Diversion offers an important opportunity for many young people who, with limited intervention, need never return to the juvenile justice system. By investing in diversion, we not only increase the chance that these youth will succeed, but also save money over the long run and enhance public safety.
In 2010, following the announcement of some significant changes to the diversion program by the local county attorney’s office, the ACLU of Arizona undertook an investigation of juvenile diversion in Maricopa County. Maricopa County contains 60% of the state’s population and is home to the large metropolitan community of Phoenix.7 It handles just over half of the state’s juvenile referrals and an almost equal share of the diversion.8 As part of its investigation, the ACLU of Arizona examined data from the juvenile court, probation department and two private contractors that were retained by the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (MCAO) to provide fee-based diversion services. The ACLU also interviewed court and probation department staff, juvenile defenders, a juvenile prosecutor, and representatives from the private companies. This paper presents the findings and recommendations of the investigation.
Introduction
In 2010, four percent of Arizona’s youth, or 41,040 juveniles, received at least one delinquency referral to the juvenile justice system.1 About half of these youth had not had any previous contact with the justice system, and 66 percent were referred for misdemeanors or status offenses.2 Fortunately, the rate of juveniles referred to the justice system who are being diverted is on the rise. Diversion is a process by which juveniles can avoid formal court processing, and therefore, a delinquency record, by successfully completing one or more diversion “consequences.” The consequences can range from writing an apology to community service, counseling, or teen court. In 2010, 46% of the youth referred were diverted.3 Two thirds of the youth diverted had never been referred to the court before.4 More than 86% of these youth had one prior referral or less, and 83% were referred for non-felony offenses.5
The concept of diversion has been around since the early days of the juvenile justice system. It is based on evidence that processing youth offenders through the court system can do more harm than good. Indeed, court involvement for low-level offenders has been shown to be related to lower educational attainment, more limited employment prospects and higher rates of re-offending. By handling such cases outside of the formal system, courts and prosecutors can avoid exacerbating these effects and also reduce the strain on overloaded dockets.
In 1967, partly in response to concerns that processing youth through the formal system could lead to further delinquency, the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice called on communities to establish local youth agencies or bureaus that could serve as an alternative to putting youths through court.6 The Commission’s recommendation led to a proliferation in diversion programs in the late 1960s and 1970s. Today, most diversion programs are no longer sustained by federal grants, but by state and local funding sources. As these budgets continue to get slashed, policymakers will undoubtedly face pressure to reduce the investment in good quality diversion programs and shift more of the cost onto the families of referred youth who may not be able to afford the cost. This would be a mistake. Diversion offers an important opportunity for many young people who, with limited intervention, need never return to the juvenile justice system. By investing in diversion, we not only increase the chance that these youth will succeed, but also save money over the long run and enhance public safety.
In 2010, following the announcement of some significant changes to the diversion program by the local county attorney’s office, the ACLU of Arizona undertook an investigation of juvenile diversion in Maricopa County. Maricopa County contains 60% of the state’s population and is home to the large metropolitan community of Phoenix.7 It handles just over half of the state’s juvenile referrals and an almost equal share of the diversion.8 As part of its investigation, the ACLU of Arizona examined data from the juvenile court, probation department and two private contractors that were retained by the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (MCAO) to provide fee-based diversion services. The ACLU also interviewed court and probation department staff, juvenile defenders, a juvenile prosecutor, and representatives from the private companies. This paper presents the findings and recommendations of the investigation.
How Juvenile Diversion Works in Arizona
In Arizona, for cases processed through the 15 county juvenile courts, the authority to decide whether or not a case will be eligible for diversion rests with the prosecutor, or county attorney.9 However, the county attorney may designate certain offenses that are eligible for diversion, and those cases that fall within the criteria set by the county attorney may be handled directly by juvenile court probation officers assigned to diversion. Alternatively, the county attorney may refer diversion-eligible cases to an approved program in the community.10 Cities and towns can also establish their own diversion programs, but starting in 2009, those programs must also be pre-approved by the county attorney.11
Whether diversion is administered by the juvenile court or by a provider approved by the county attorney’s office, in order to participate, the juvenile must acknowledge responsibility for the offense.12 The juvenile must also complete each of the consequences imposed, including, where applicable, the payment of restitution to the victim.13 Participation in diversion cannot be used against the juvenile in any future proceeding.14 If the juvenile successfully completes diversion, the county attorney will not file any charges in court and the juvenile will be able to avoid a delinquency record.15
There are certain offenses that are always ineligible for diversion under Arizona law. For example, a juvenile that is referred for driving under the influence or related offenses will not be eligible for diversion.16 Chronic and violent felony offenders are also ineligible.17 In 2008, “dangerous offenses” involving the use or threatening exhibition of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument were added to the list of ineligible offenses.18 And in 2009, lawmakers amended the law again to exclude juveniles referred for any alcohol or drug offense from diversion if they had participated in a diversion program twice in the preceding 24 months.19 Further, juveniles that are detained for any offense for more than 24 hours will be ineligible for diversion since a petition must be filed within that time period by law.20
Juvenile diversion programs are funded through a combination of state grants, county appropriations and fees collected from the families participating in diversion. Each year, the Administrative Office of the Courts of the Arizona Supreme Court (AOC) calculates a “per juvenile” reimbursement rate for the provision of diversion services. The juvenile courts then receive a grant based on the number of juveniles they serve through diversion. Courts are further required to assess parents a fee of $50 unless they can demonstrate an inability to pay.21
Recommendations
As a result of the ACLU of Arizona’s study, we make the following six recommendations:
1. Reduce disproportionate minority treatment in the juvenile justice system by increasing opportunities for minority youth to be diverted, including selection into restorative justice programs107 such as CJCs and Teen Courts. This will require a concerted effort to establish more CJC panels and Teen Courts in underserved neighborhoods with a high concentration of low-income and minority youth.
2. Ensure that diversion programs are financially accessible to youth. While it may make some sense to increase the “stake” that families have in diversion by charging a nominal fee, care should be taken to accommodate those families who may be unfairly precluded from diversion because they cannot afford to pay the fee. MCAO or fee-based diversion providers should charge families a maximum of $50 for diversion and a $25 victim fee and create a sliding scale fee structure for families who cannot afford to pay. They should modify their materials to inform families of this option. County officials should explore options for tapping into public or private funding to make this possible, or keep the programs in the probation department.
3. Reduce other barriers to diversion. The probation department should explore options for operating after hours to accommodate single and working parents, and increase the use of satellite offices. This can have a significant impact on a family’s ability to complete diversion. All diversion providers should consider locating programs in the community, so that juveniles can meet with providers and complete diversion consequences without leaving their own neighborhoods. Establishing such community-based, culturally competent services in local neighborhoods would be an important step to expanding access to diversion. Providers should also update the way they communicate with youth and not rely solely on letters. Promising communication methods include text messaging and email. Providers should also ensure that diversion services are available in Spanish and other languages.
4. Increase public awareness about diversion. Many families do not have enough information about the juvenile justice system to make informed decisions about whether or not to go through with diversion. The juvenile court and other key players should conduct outreach and public education to increase awareness about the benefits of diversion, both for the juvenile and for the community at large.
5. Increase offenses that are eligible for diversion. The last year has shown that offenses such as graffiti can be effectively tackled through diversion and need not result in
a juvenile court petition. Policymakers should experiment with additional offense categories to see if they can be effectively addressed through diversion.
6. Invest in more comprehensive data collection and reporting so that the effectiveness of program changes can be evaluated. The juvenile court currently has only one primary
researcher who is responsible for gathering and analyzing yearly data. Further, it is not clear whether the results of diversion are being captured across the board in a way that
is conducive to analysis; nor is there currently an attempt to reliably assess the reasons why juveniles do not complete diversion. More resources for data collection, reporting,
and analysis can save money by allowing policymakers to understand how program changes positively or negatively impact other aspects of the system.
Conclusion
The rate of juveniles being diverted in Arizona is on the rise. This is significant because diversion can offer swifter and more effective intervention for juveniles referred for a delinquency offense without the stigma and cost of a lengthy court process. Many young people who successfully complete diversion programs never return to the juvenile justice system. Indeed, research shows that juveniles who participate in diversion re-offend at lower rates than those who are processed through the court. It is imperative that we continue to invest in cost-saving juvenile diversion programs that help keep kids out of the court system and in school. Furthermore, the juvenile justice community can strengthen existing programs by increasing diversion opportunities for minority youth and ensuring that diversion remains financially accessible to low-income families.
Although there has been some progress made on the diversion front, the fact remains that too many kids are referred to the justice system for minor offenses in the first place. Misdemeanors and status offenses still make up 66% of referrals. In addition to maintaining and expanding upon diversion programs, members of the juvenile justice community should make the reduction of referrals for minor offenses a policy priority.
In Arizona, for cases processed through the 15 county juvenile courts, the authority to decide whether or not a case will be eligible for diversion rests with the prosecutor, or county attorney.9 However, the county attorney may designate certain offenses that are eligible for diversion, and those cases that fall within the criteria set by the county attorney may be handled directly by juvenile court probation officers assigned to diversion. Alternatively, the county attorney may refer diversion-eligible cases to an approved program in the community.10 Cities and towns can also establish their own diversion programs, but starting in 2009, those programs must also be pre-approved by the county attorney.11
Whether diversion is administered by the juvenile court or by a provider approved by the county attorney’s office, in order to participate, the juvenile must acknowledge responsibility for the offense.12 The juvenile must also complete each of the consequences imposed, including, where applicable, the payment of restitution to the victim.13 Participation in diversion cannot be used against the juvenile in any future proceeding.14 If the juvenile successfully completes diversion, the county attorney will not file any charges in court and the juvenile will be able to avoid a delinquency record.15
There are certain offenses that are always ineligible for diversion under Arizona law. For example, a juvenile that is referred for driving under the influence or related offenses will not be eligible for diversion.16 Chronic and violent felony offenders are also ineligible.17 In 2008, “dangerous offenses” involving the use or threatening exhibition of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument were added to the list of ineligible offenses.18 And in 2009, lawmakers amended the law again to exclude juveniles referred for any alcohol or drug offense from diversion if they had participated in a diversion program twice in the preceding 24 months.19 Further, juveniles that are detained for any offense for more than 24 hours will be ineligible for diversion since a petition must be filed within that time period by law.20
Juvenile diversion programs are funded through a combination of state grants, county appropriations and fees collected from the families participating in diversion. Each year, the Administrative Office of the Courts of the Arizona Supreme Court (AOC) calculates a “per juvenile” reimbursement rate for the provision of diversion services. The juvenile courts then receive a grant based on the number of juveniles they serve through diversion. Courts are further required to assess parents a fee of $50 unless they can demonstrate an inability to pay.21
Recommendations
As a result of the ACLU of Arizona’s study, we make the following six recommendations:
1. Reduce disproportionate minority treatment in the juvenile justice system by increasing opportunities for minority youth to be diverted, including selection into restorative justice programs107 such as CJCs and Teen Courts. This will require a concerted effort to establish more CJC panels and Teen Courts in underserved neighborhoods with a high concentration of low-income and minority youth.
2. Ensure that diversion programs are financially accessible to youth. While it may make some sense to increase the “stake” that families have in diversion by charging a nominal fee, care should be taken to accommodate those families who may be unfairly precluded from diversion because they cannot afford to pay the fee. MCAO or fee-based diversion providers should charge families a maximum of $50 for diversion and a $25 victim fee and create a sliding scale fee structure for families who cannot afford to pay. They should modify their materials to inform families of this option. County officials should explore options for tapping into public or private funding to make this possible, or keep the programs in the probation department.
3. Reduce other barriers to diversion. The probation department should explore options for operating after hours to accommodate single and working parents, and increase the use of satellite offices. This can have a significant impact on a family’s ability to complete diversion. All diversion providers should consider locating programs in the community, so that juveniles can meet with providers and complete diversion consequences without leaving their own neighborhoods. Establishing such community-based, culturally competent services in local neighborhoods would be an important step to expanding access to diversion. Providers should also update the way they communicate with youth and not rely solely on letters. Promising communication methods include text messaging and email. Providers should also ensure that diversion services are available in Spanish and other languages.
4. Increase public awareness about diversion. Many families do not have enough information about the juvenile justice system to make informed decisions about whether or not to go through with diversion. The juvenile court and other key players should conduct outreach and public education to increase awareness about the benefits of diversion, both for the juvenile and for the community at large.
5. Increase offenses that are eligible for diversion. The last year has shown that offenses such as graffiti can be effectively tackled through diversion and need not result in
a juvenile court petition. Policymakers should experiment with additional offense categories to see if they can be effectively addressed through diversion.
6. Invest in more comprehensive data collection and reporting so that the effectiveness of program changes can be evaluated. The juvenile court currently has only one primary
researcher who is responsible for gathering and analyzing yearly data. Further, it is not clear whether the results of diversion are being captured across the board in a way that
is conducive to analysis; nor is there currently an attempt to reliably assess the reasons why juveniles do not complete diversion. More resources for data collection, reporting,
and analysis can save money by allowing policymakers to understand how program changes positively or negatively impact other aspects of the system.
Conclusion
The rate of juveniles being diverted in Arizona is on the rise. This is significant because diversion can offer swifter and more effective intervention for juveniles referred for a delinquency offense without the stigma and cost of a lengthy court process. Many young people who successfully complete diversion programs never return to the juvenile justice system. Indeed, research shows that juveniles who participate in diversion re-offend at lower rates than those who are processed through the court. It is imperative that we continue to invest in cost-saving juvenile diversion programs that help keep kids out of the court system and in school. Furthermore, the juvenile justice community can strengthen existing programs by increasing diversion opportunities for minority youth and ensuring that diversion remains financially accessible to low-income families.
Although there has been some progress made on the diversion front, the fact remains that too many kids are referred to the justice system for minor offenses in the first place. Misdemeanors and status offenses still make up 66% of referrals. In addition to maintaining and expanding upon diversion programs, members of the juvenile justice community should make the reduction of referrals for minor offenses a policy priority.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Salt River Juvenile Justice: Diverting Our Native Teens
When I originally posted this article I expressed my skepticism about the appropriateness of a corrections department getting prevention money that could otherwise be used for books and teachers and substance abuse treatment - which might just reduce the need for a law enforcement presence in the schools and state prisons for children. I also suggested that the article below was biased in favor of the DON'T program it describes because of the authors' respective roles with it.
I didn't explore the article any deeper than that, though, and having given it only a superficial read at the time, at best, I owe these folks an apology. I'm not at all down with the Scared Straight model of working with juvenile addicts and other offenders. I also still think it's a mistake to tax our food to pay for law enforcement agents to fulfill the role of civilian social workers in schools and on the streets. In doing so, we divert precious resources from high-risk communities to monstrous state institutions while allowing local after-school programs to be gutted and teachers to be fired, all the while feeding that school to prison pipeline.
Nevertheless, I think these guys are on the right track by aspiring to reduce the incarceration and recidivism rates among indigenous youth through evidence-based practice and diversion efforts instead of just planning to add more facilities to warehouse them in. I'm impressed with the Salt River Department of Corrections, their probation department, and the Boys and Girls Club of Greater Scottsdale, that they can think outside the box. All have taken some political risks to treat criminalized youth and their families more holistically than the rest of the system does - they really deserve some credit for that.
Given that we reside in one of the most punitive and cruel states in the country, this model being tested out is fairly progressive. It's evidence-based, not fear-based, and it positions the responsibility for rehabilitating most youth back in the families and communities they came from, rather than in archaic state penal institutions.
It's refreshing to find people in corrections who really want to put themselves out of business. Ironically, while the Salt River DOC is trying to de-institutionalize and de-criminalize their people, the Arizona Department of Corrections is planning a major expansion over the next few years, having invested their resources in lobbying for more stringent penalties and sentencing guidelines - and of course more prisons - instead of putting their billion dollar budget where it might actually prevent more crime.
Drug rehabilitation, affordable supported housing, and effective mental health treatment programs could easily eliminate the need for 5000 new beds behind bars - as could the sentencing reform that Representative Cecil Ash has been working on in the AZ state legislature. The ADC, however, isn't about to lead that charge - Director Chuck Ryan is clearly too invested in the status quo.
As for the AZ Department of Juvenile Corrections under new director Charles Flanagan: I don't see him driving many progressive reforms in juvenile justice either. I think Governor Brewer just brought him in to be her hatchet man and dismantle the agency, sending young prisoners back to their respective (and mostly broke) counties to bear the weight of incarcerating (and hopefully rehabilitating them) in local facilities.
Anyway, this is a good article, though it lacks some details. For more information on Diverting our Native Teens (DON'T), contact William Daly at the Salt River Department of Corrections at 480-362-7299, or by snail mail at 10005 E. Osborn Rd., Scottsdale, AZ 85256.
Thanks to the reader out there who convinced me that I needed to take another look at this program...
I didn't explore the article any deeper than that, though, and having given it only a superficial read at the time, at best, I owe these folks an apology. I'm not at all down with the Scared Straight model of working with juvenile addicts and other offenders. I also still think it's a mistake to tax our food to pay for law enforcement agents to fulfill the role of civilian social workers in schools and on the streets. In doing so, we divert precious resources from high-risk communities to monstrous state institutions while allowing local after-school programs to be gutted and teachers to be fired, all the while feeding that school to prison pipeline.
Nevertheless, I think these guys are on the right track by aspiring to reduce the incarceration and recidivism rates among indigenous youth through evidence-based practice and diversion efforts instead of just planning to add more facilities to warehouse them in. I'm impressed with the Salt River Department of Corrections, their probation department, and the Boys and Girls Club of Greater Scottsdale, that they can think outside the box. All have taken some political risks to treat criminalized youth and their families more holistically than the rest of the system does - they really deserve some credit for that.
Given that we reside in one of the most punitive and cruel states in the country, this model being tested out is fairly progressive. It's evidence-based, not fear-based, and it positions the responsibility for rehabilitating most youth back in the families and communities they came from, rather than in archaic state penal institutions.
It's refreshing to find people in corrections who really want to put themselves out of business. Ironically, while the Salt River DOC is trying to de-institutionalize and de-criminalize their people, the Arizona Department of Corrections is planning a major expansion over the next few years, having invested their resources in lobbying for more stringent penalties and sentencing guidelines - and of course more prisons - instead of putting their billion dollar budget where it might actually prevent more crime.
Drug rehabilitation, affordable supported housing, and effective mental health treatment programs could easily eliminate the need for 5000 new beds behind bars - as could the sentencing reform that Representative Cecil Ash has been working on in the AZ state legislature. The ADC, however, isn't about to lead that charge - Director Chuck Ryan is clearly too invested in the status quo.
As for the AZ Department of Juvenile Corrections under new director Charles Flanagan: I don't see him driving many progressive reforms in juvenile justice either. I think Governor Brewer just brought him in to be her hatchet man and dismantle the agency, sending young prisoners back to their respective (and mostly broke) counties to bear the weight of incarcerating (and hopefully rehabilitating them) in local facilities.
Anyway, this is a good article, though it lacks some details. For more information on Diverting our Native Teens (DON'T), contact William Daly at the Salt River Department of Corrections at 480-362-7299, or by snail mail at 10005 E. Osborn Rd., Scottsdale, AZ 85256.
Thanks to the reader out there who convinced me that I needed to take another look at this program...
| During, After and Before…? |
| By William Daly , CPM, CCE, CJM, & James Short, M.S.C.J |
| Published: 08/29/2011 |
| Normally the phrase that is used to describe a particular sequence of events is “before, during and after”. Most departments and organizations invoke this “before, during and after” philosophy to provide a balanced approach to their work and to ultimately reach their departmental and organizational goals. Conversely, corrections and detention departments have always operated in their own, rather unique, sequence. With correctional staff working every minute of every shift in a world that is surrounded by the walls of the secure care facility, it is no wonder that corrections departments have focused primarily on the “During” portion of this sequence. Nearly every secure care facility in the free world faces the same dilemma of choosing which programs and services will be the most effective “During” inmate incarceration. This particular dilemma is prevalent in all secure care facilities, large or small, regardless of population or location. External pressure also plays a role in the operation of a correctional facility. One school of thought believes that investing in programs will prevent inmates from a life of recidivism, thereby reducing costs to taxpayers and creating a more positive community. There is also the school of thought that stanchly supports the idea that incarceration should be punitive and that we should just lock them up and throw away the key. Regardless of which way or how far the correctional pendulum swings, this debate will continue to exist. Recently the discussions about the “After” phase and the sequence and the ideology surrounding the concept of re-entry have made its way front and center in the correctional conversation. Administrators are continuously looking for evidence based programs that will change behavior and assist in preventing a return to incarceration. As we all know there are many different variables when it comes to the re-entry process, including substance abuse, mental health, financial resources, employment and other stakeholders. Academics, politicians, public safety administrators and the general public are now focusing much of their attention on the re-entry process in the hope that it can quell what appears to be a vicious and endless cycle of recidivism. For the purpose of this discussion we will focus our attention on the “Before” phase of incarceration. The question that is being posed is whether or not this is a phase of the sequence that a corrections department should be responsible for, concerned about or even delve into. Is it corrections job to simply provide care, custody and control for the “During” phase of the sequence or do they have the responsibility to participate in the “Before” and “After” phases as well? From my experience I understand that most corrections agencies, facilities and administrators have their hands full simply trying to managing the day to day issues that arise inside the walls of their correctional facilities. But what if a department had the financial resources, staff and facility to provide assistance and truly have an impact on the re-entry process? The Salt River Department of Corrections in cooperation with The Boys and Girls Club of Greater Scottsdale has decided to once again join forces and test this unorthodox approach to prevention. Those of us in this business remember the days of “scared straight”. Despite its early popularity and now the debate in regards to its effectiveness, we are making another run of it but with a twist of our own. Our program is the culmination of a number of programs and ideas such as scared straight, drug court, diversion as well as a number of other youth development curricula. It is our belief that "Effective Intervention" is the key to diverting the community youth away from a life of criminality and delinquent behavior. Research has shown that prevention and intervention programs, such as this one, can have a substantial impact on the number of youth entering the jail system or re-offending and becoming recidivists. The DON’T Program stands for Diverting Our Native Teens. This program is a collaborative effort on the part of the Salt River Department of Corrections, The Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Scottsdale and the Salt River Probation Department. This program provides community youth, that are in the early stages of the juvenile justice system, an opportunity to find an alternative path to incarceration and the ability to become successful, contributing members of the community. This program focuses on goal setting, financial literacy, career exploration, substance abuse awareness, positive choices, culture and relationships. The overall goal of this program is to provide these at risk teens the social tools that are necessary to make positive choices, become productive citizens and divert them from becoming further involved in the justice system. Although many of our participants come from dysfunctional or nontraditional families, we encourage the families to be involved in the process and to participate in the program with their children. Many of the parents that we work with don’t have the skills or knowledge to help their children and believe that they are doing their job by merely dropping their sons and daughters off at the program and hoping that someone else will produce positive results We try to emphasize to these parents that they are a key component in this process and the success of their children lies in their participation and support. The final and most important component is the tracking of the youth’s performance and recidivism after they have successfully completed the program. As much as we like to throw out concepts and ideas, we cannot truly show the impact of the program and the success of the youth without raw data and true statistics. The 80’ and 90’s set the stage for a huge shift in the mentality of corrections departments across the country. This paradigm shift changed the focus of corrections from a treatment driven model to a much more punitive approach. Not only did this affect the operations in the adult system but, unfortunately, this mentality ultimately filtered down to the juvenile system as well. Thankfully it appears that the pendulum is quickly swinging back towards the direction of rehabilitation. At Salt River we consistently strive to be ahead of the pendulum. Can a corrections department move outside its comfort zone and provide services outside of the facility that will have a direct impact on incarceration and recidivism rates? Can a corrections department delve into the “Before” phase of incarceration and truly make a difference for generations to come? Only time will tell. I contend that corrections, as an industry, cannot afford to dismiss any alternatives to incarceration. We must always be looking for new ideas and programs that can assist with lowering incarceration rates and helping people become productive members of society, even if those programs don’t fall directly inside the walls of the facility. Editors note: Corrections.com author, William Daly, CPM, CCE, CJM is a veteran in the field of Corrections, entering his 25th year. Daly is a retired Captain from the New York City Department of Correction and Currently the Acting Director of the Salt River Department of Correction, in Scottsdale, Arizona. Co-Author James Short, M.S.C.J. is the Director of Correctional Programs for the Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Scottsdale |
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Flanagan: The closing of Catalina.
An editorial to the AZ Daily Star from the Director of the Department of Juvenile Corrections...
------------------------
"The deepest definition of youth is life as yet untouched by tragedy."
- Alfred North Whitehead
While the vast majority of Arizona's youths never have problems with criminal conduct, some do. There are many factors that can often derail these young people on the path to adulthood, leading them toward self-destructive behavior. The Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections believes that rehabilitation, treatment, education and positive enforcement are the most effective avenues for getting our young people back on the right track to live happy, safe and productive lives. I firmly believe in the agency's vision: "Safer Communities Through Successful Youth."
As the new director for the department, one of my goals is to provide troubled youths with the best resources possible in order to turn their lives around. As part of this charge, I am making some changes to more effectively serve the entire state and provide the widest possible range of services to each of the youths in our custody so that we can successfully reintegrate them into our shared communities. Most prominent among these changes is the planned closure of Catalina Mountain School in Pima County.
By the end of September, the 70-74 youths currently at Catalina Mountain will be transferred to the Department's Adobe Mountain/Black Canyon complex in Maricopa County. This relocation will accomplish several goals. It allows the department to close its most outdated unit (Catalina Mountain was built in 1967); takes advantage of efficiencies by consolidating youths and services at a single complex; and makes available the state's full range of programs and treatment options to every child in the state's custody and care.
The goal of this plan is to provide a concentration of all resources and services on a single campus, making available specialized treatment for substance abuse, mental health concerns and sex offenders. Currently, specialized treatment for mental health issues and sex offenders is not available at Catalina Mountain School, which also houses only male youths. Consolidation also will allow the department to add a Skills-4-Work program to the Adobe Mountain School, enabling youths to learn trades associated with culinary arts, cosmetology, building trades, sewing, fire science, working with wildlife and other technical careers.
The consolidation of youths, staff and programs to a single complex will result in estimated cost savings to the state of nearly $1.5 million in fiscal 2012 and $3.8 million in fiscal 2013. In fact, we anticipate a savings of approximately $100 per youth, per day, by combining operations rather than maintaining the Catalina Mountain School.
I understand this closure and relocation will result in disruption for some department staffers and families of youths in custody. The department's goal is to employ or facilitate the employment of the majority of Catalina Mountain School employees. The concentration of staff at one facility will enhance coverage for youths in crisis and provide a larger, more professionally diverse staff with expertise in a range of areas.
Additionally, the department will make available video visitation in Tucson for families of youths from Southeastern Arizona who are relocated to the Adobe Mountain/Black Canyon complex. The department also will maintain the area's parole services, private-sector service providers and community service activities, and is exploring the establishment of halfway houses.
The Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections takes seriously its mission to positively impact the thought process and behavior pattern of youths in its custody. I believe the consolidation of services and programs to our Adobe Mountain/Black Canyon complex will help us perform that mission more effectively and efficiently.
By joining together in this effort, we have the tremendous opportunity to provide a positive outcome for troubled youths.
Charles Flanagan is director of the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
AzDJC's Flanagan closes Catalina Mountain School
Sorry to be so slow with this, folks...I'm still on hiatus.
July 12, 2011
The state will close the Catalina Mountain School on North Oracle Road by Oct. 1, the director of the Department of Juvenile Corrections said Thursday.
Tucson's Catalina Mountain School for troubled youths to close
AZ Daily StarJuly 12, 2011
The state will close the Catalina Mountain School on North Oracle Road by Oct. 1, the director of the Department of Juvenile Corrections said Thursday.
Director Charles Flanagan said it isn't sound fiscal or correctional practice to operate the Tucson school plus two others just north of Phoenix.
Catalina Mountain School will stop admitting kids "in about a week," Flanagan said.
He told employees about the closure at a meeting early Thursday afternoon.
The shutdown will save the state nearly $1.5 million this fiscal year and $3.8 million in 2013, he said.
The 74 males at the 124-bed Tucson school will be moved to Black Canyon and Adobe Mountain, which are operated as one facility.
The Tucson school is the one closing for several reasons, he said, including:
• All girls and juveniles who are sex offenders or need mental-health treatment are already sent to the Phoenix facilities.
• Tucson doesn't have as many career-training programs, and fewer options for moving and managing boys who have behavioral problems during their incarceration.
• Youths now at Catalina Mountain will have better access to programs for substance dependence. Flanagan said 90 percent of the kids have substance use histories and roughly 60 percent are substance-dependent.
a "huge loss"
Pima County Juvenile Court officials were surprised by the announcement.
While the court does not send a lot of children to the facility, officials said the move could be a detriment to youths who won't have direct access to family and friends.
Judge Karen Adam, who presides over Pima County Juvenile Court, described the facility's closure as a "huge loss."
It's important to place youths in their community because they can receive visits from friends and family, and it's easier for them to reintegrate to society, Adam said.
Juvenile Court Director Rik Schmidt echoed Adam's concerns.
Flanagan, the state's Juvenile Corrections director, agreed that a downside to the closure is that some kids will be farther away from family.
However, he said, only 15 percent of the youths receive family visits at least once every two weeks. Only 30 percent of the boys at Catalina Mountain are ever visited by relatives, he added.
Juvenile Corrections will set up a video visitation system to ease the burden of families driving to Maricopa County.
The department will move its parole office to central Tucson.
About a quarter of the boys at Catalina Mountain are from Pima County, with 15 percent from Cochise. Many of the rest will actually be closer to their homes once they move. They were sent to Tucson to keep the head count up.
The average stay in the state juvenile system is about seven months, but it is about three months at Catalina Mountain.
Most are in the system for property crimes.
There are between 30 and 40 Pima County juveniles in the state's three facilities, said Pima County's Schmidt. The number committed there has decreased over the years. In 2010, Pima's Juvenile Court sent 61 juveniles to state facilities. About five years ago, it sent more than 100, he said.
employee, volunteer losses
Besides the relocation of the detained youths, the loss of employees and 119 volunteers are the other downsides to Catalina Mountain's closure, Flanagan said.
"These people are committed to this profession," he said. "These are good, good people."
He said he hopes to find places for the volunteers in community corrections and parole services.
Some of the 124 Tucson employees will be offered the 68 jobs to be added at the Phoenix schools, he said. Transfer offers will be based on state employment rules, and he estimated about 30 will end up working in Phoenix.
Six employees will remain to provide security at the Tucson campus through the end of the department's lease next June 30.
The state owns the buildings on land leased from the state Land Department. That department will decide whether to sell the property or lease it to someone else.
The Phoenix schools have about 330 youths and about 270 vacant beds.
In the last fiscal year, it cost $132,218 to house a child at Catalina Mountain, compared with $95,765 at the Phoenix schools.
"That's still too high in our estimation," Flanagan said of Phoenix, although he said there is no national standard for juvenile costs because state laws differ. Arizona juvenile corrections houses kids up to age 18, while in some states it's longer.
DID YOU KNOW?
Catalina Mountain School, at 14500 N. Oracle Road, was built in the late 1960s, and is the oldest of the state's three juvenile centers, said Department of Juvenile Corrections Director Charles Flanagan.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
ACLU-AZ: tasers, prisoner abuse, and juvenile diversion.
This is really exciting folks. Go to all if you can if for no other reason than to show them how many people out here care....
From: ACLU of Arizona [mailto:grassroots@acluaz.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 2:53 PM
Subject: Location update: You bring your lunch. We'll bring the experts.
All lectures will be held at 3707 N. 7th Street, Suite 100, Phoenix, AZ 85014
You are invited to the ACLU of Arizona's Summer 2011 Brown Bag Lecture Series!
Who says there is nothing to do during the summer in the Valley of the Sun?
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
In Their Own Words: Enduring Abuse in Arizona Immigration Detention Centers
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Protecting What Works: Juvenile Diversion in Maricopa County
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
A Force to Be Reckoned With: Taser Use in Arizona Police Departments
All brown bag lectures will be from noon to 1 p.m.
Free and open to the public. Drinks and desserts served.
Seating is limited, so please make reservations by calling Mary Hope Lee at 602-650-1854 ext. 100 or by emailing info@acluaz.org.
Free and open to the public. Drinks and desserts served.
Seating is limited, so please make reservations by calling Mary Hope Lee at 602-650-1854 ext. 100 or by emailing info@acluaz.org.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
New AZ Juvenile Corrections Director: Charles Flanagan
For those receiving this via email: this is not new or revised - I had just taken it down to work on, but don't have time, so it's back up. Will post a new, separate piece on Flanagan's appointment once I can chat with him and take the time to write it up.
Peg
I seldom ever re-write blog posts, but sometimes new information or insight calls for a re-evaluation of my positions or strategies. In this case, time and reflection has compelled me to re-evaluate both. This is therefore a rewrite - the older version is gone.
Last week, Governor Jan Brewer announced the retirement of the current director of the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections, Michael Branham. This alone concerned me, as I knew he'd been resisting her desire to privatize the whole department. What concerned me more, however, is the naming of his replacement: current Deputy Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections, Charles Flanagan - the one man for whom I've had more animosity towards than his boss, Chuck Ryan.
My feelings about Deputy Director Flanagan are rooted in experiences I've had or been privy to behind the scenes that aren't necessary to detail here. What matters is that under his watch the homicide and suicide rates in the state prisons have skyrocketed. The ACLU is investigating the ADC's abuse and neglect of seriously mentally ill prisoners - all too often managed with solitary confinement, which has been shown to be especially harmful to the mental health of prisoners with pre-existing psychiatric disorders.
As an example of both the effects of solitary and the cruel mentality of the state: one young man I know of, Mark, set himself on fire in desperation after begging for a year to have a cellie or be re-classified to a different yard (out of SMU-I, which is where he was when he set himself on fire), the experience of exile and isolation was so tortuous for him. Characteristic of this administration, despite being burned over 80% of his body - arguably punishment enough for an apparent suicide attempt - the state prosecuted him for arson and gave him more time. Is it any wonder that the level of despair and violence has risen so high in there, when the most vulnerable and impaired prisoners are so brutally treated by the ADC as a matter of course?
Such responses to mentally ill prisoners already traumatized by the conditions of their confinement not only shows an institutional culture void of compassion, but also a lack of competency and creativity. Charles Flanagan may have only been in his current position for the past 2 1/2 years, but one of the cases made for his appointment as the new ADJC director is that he's been helping build the ADC into what it is all this time - he's a career soldier there. If he wants credit for that - as if it's something worth claiming - then he needs to take responsibility for where things have gone awry, too - the pattern of abuse and neglect emerging at the state prisons under this administration has been festering for decades under bureaucrats like Chuck Ryan and his mentor, Terry Stewart.
The degree to which Charles Flanagan is part of the same good old boys network at the ADC or part of the resistance to it has yet to be seen. Former ASPC-Eyman Deputy Warden Carl Toersbijns - who I respect immensely, for an officer of the law in this state - keeps trying to convince me that Flanagan is one of the "good guys". My own verdict came in on him long ago - but with new testimony and a look at the old evidence, I'm willing to give his case another look. I want the judiciary in this state to do the same more often for our prisoners with wrongful conviction claims, so I'll try to lead by example.
Still, a good many people have died while Deputy Director Flanagan has helped whitewash the festering conditions inside his prisons over the past couple of years. That's not for me to forgive - that's for those victims and survivors of prison violence and neglect to wrestle with. My job, as I see it, is to amplify their voices, their protest, their resistance to what's happened and continues to happen to Arizona's state prisoners under the current regime, not to give those already in power even more by giving them "equal" space or consideration in my blogs. They already have the benefit of the doubt from everyone else - I'm often the only one to present the other side.
So, while I'm open to Carl's version of the deputy director's role in things under Chuck Ryan, I'm not cutting Flanagan a break. He's responsible by his own claim to leadership there for where the ADC is now at this point in history. I just recognize that I'm not in a position myself to judge accurately what he's done behind the scenes on behalf of prisoners to counter the damage his boss' leadership through the years has done - that is, I'm not absolutely sure if he's part of the problem or part of the solution.
In either case, Charles Flanagan's going to be part of this whole system injustice for some time to come, since the ADJC feeds so many of its kids to the ADC when they're done "correcting" them. In light of that, I invited him to have a dialogue with me; that, after a year or so of having ADC General Counsel Karyn Klausner run interference between us because I simmered with rage at the thought of him (I can only imagine how he feels about me). He promptly and graciously accepted. We'll talk after he settles into his new job - assuming I'm not sidelined over my graffiti by then.
In the meantime, those of you who have questions for him about his term in the adult system or his vision for criminalized youth, please shoot them to me between now and July 1. I can't promise that they'll be answered, but I'll make sure that they're publicly asked. Let your friends and loved ones inside know the invitation extends to them as well, and have them write to me at:
Arizona Prison Watch
PO Box 20494
Phoenix, AZ 85036
I'd love to get some prisoner feedback to share with the community out here about this new appointment; put the word out that it would mean a lot to me what the guys who have seen Flanagan rise through the ranks have to say about his integrity and competency as a CO and administrator.
Anyone interested in following juvenile justice issues in Arizona and helping to maintain a new blog, Arizona Juvenile Prison Watch, please contact me as well.
Thanks.
Peg
I seldom ever re-write blog posts, but sometimes new information or insight calls for a re-evaluation of my positions or strategies. In this case, time and reflection has compelled me to re-evaluate both. This is therefore a rewrite - the older version is gone.
Last week, Governor Jan Brewer announced the retirement of the current director of the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections, Michael Branham. This alone concerned me, as I knew he'd been resisting her desire to privatize the whole department. What concerned me more, however, is the naming of his replacement: current Deputy Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections, Charles Flanagan - the one man for whom I've had more animosity towards than his boss, Chuck Ryan.
My feelings about Deputy Director Flanagan are rooted in experiences I've had or been privy to behind the scenes that aren't necessary to detail here. What matters is that under his watch the homicide and suicide rates in the state prisons have skyrocketed. The ACLU is investigating the ADC's abuse and neglect of seriously mentally ill prisoners - all too often managed with solitary confinement, which has been shown to be especially harmful to the mental health of prisoners with pre-existing psychiatric disorders.
As an example of both the effects of solitary and the cruel mentality of the state: one young man I know of, Mark, set himself on fire in desperation after begging for a year to have a cellie or be re-classified to a different yard (out of SMU-I, which is where he was when he set himself on fire), the experience of exile and isolation was so tortuous for him. Characteristic of this administration, despite being burned over 80% of his body - arguably punishment enough for an apparent suicide attempt - the state prosecuted him for arson and gave him more time. Is it any wonder that the level of despair and violence has risen so high in there, when the most vulnerable and impaired prisoners are so brutally treated by the ADC as a matter of course?
Such responses to mentally ill prisoners already traumatized by the conditions of their confinement not only shows an institutional culture void of compassion, but also a lack of competency and creativity. Charles Flanagan may have only been in his current position for the past 2 1/2 years, but one of the cases made for his appointment as the new ADJC director is that he's been helping build the ADC into what it is all this time - he's a career soldier there. If he wants credit for that - as if it's something worth claiming - then he needs to take responsibility for where things have gone awry, too - the pattern of abuse and neglect emerging at the state prisons under this administration has been festering for decades under bureaucrats like Chuck Ryan and his mentor, Terry Stewart.
The degree to which Charles Flanagan is part of the same good old boys network at the ADC or part of the resistance to it has yet to be seen. Former ASPC-Eyman Deputy Warden Carl Toersbijns - who I respect immensely, for an officer of the law in this state - keeps trying to convince me that Flanagan is one of the "good guys". My own verdict came in on him long ago - but with new testimony and a look at the old evidence, I'm willing to give his case another look. I want the judiciary in this state to do the same more often for our prisoners with wrongful conviction claims, so I'll try to lead by example.
Still, a good many people have died while Deputy Director Flanagan has helped whitewash the festering conditions inside his prisons over the past couple of years. That's not for me to forgive - that's for those victims and survivors of prison violence and neglect to wrestle with. My job, as I see it, is to amplify their voices, their protest, their resistance to what's happened and continues to happen to Arizona's state prisoners under the current regime, not to give those already in power even more by giving them "equal" space or consideration in my blogs. They already have the benefit of the doubt from everyone else - I'm often the only one to present the other side.
So, while I'm open to Carl's version of the deputy director's role in things under Chuck Ryan, I'm not cutting Flanagan a break. He's responsible by his own claim to leadership there for where the ADC is now at this point in history. I just recognize that I'm not in a position myself to judge accurately what he's done behind the scenes on behalf of prisoners to counter the damage his boss' leadership through the years has done - that is, I'm not absolutely sure if he's part of the problem or part of the solution.
In either case, Charles Flanagan's going to be part of this whole system injustice for some time to come, since the ADJC feeds so many of its kids to the ADC when they're done "correcting" them. In light of that, I invited him to have a dialogue with me; that, after a year or so of having ADC General Counsel Karyn Klausner run interference between us because I simmered with rage at the thought of him (I can only imagine how he feels about me). He promptly and graciously accepted. We'll talk after he settles into his new job - assuming I'm not sidelined over my graffiti by then.
In the meantime, those of you who have questions for him about his term in the adult system or his vision for criminalized youth, please shoot them to me between now and July 1. I can't promise that they'll be answered, but I'll make sure that they're publicly asked. Let your friends and loved ones inside know the invitation extends to them as well, and have them write to me at:
Arizona Prison Watch
PO Box 20494
Phoenix, AZ 85036
I'd love to get some prisoner feedback to share with the community out here about this new appointment; put the word out that it would mean a lot to me what the guys who have seen Flanagan rise through the ranks have to say about his integrity and competency as a CO and administrator.
Anyone interested in following juvenile justice issues in Arizona and helping to maintain a new blog, Arizona Juvenile Prison Watch, please contact me as well.
Thanks.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
TUSD students, community FIGHT BACK!!!
It may seem strange that I'm posting a white guy's blog on the TUSD Board meeting and protest last night, but I just can't stay up all night tonight to recount last night's events, and this is pretty thorough, from that perspective. It was unbelievable - definitely historic. You need to hit all the media yourself to grasp it.So, the photos here are mine, but the blog post is Stephen Lemon's, appropriated from the Phoenix New Times as part of the Commons. I plan to keep doing that until he complains (I lean towards anarchy and anti-copyright, but try not to be rude about it...). If you want to see Stephen's pictures from Tucson and all the comments that follow the original post, hit the title link.
The cops were really overkill. They were thugs, too.
For more critical analysis on the racist Arizona Ethnic Studies' ban from a diverse (albeit progressive) community of Tucson bloggers, hit the Tucson Citizen; Abie Morales' blog is the Three Sonorans.
For great independent video coverage on this and other AZ issues, subscribe to whatABCs, Dennis Gilman's humanleague002, and PANLEFT Productions on Youtube.
Robert Haasch is at most protests I'm at, and then some - he does some good indymedia coverage of AZ politics - especially as expressed at the community level - at the Desert Free Press. He's a great photographer, too, and frequently puts out his own videos.
I loved this guy...
some of the stickers going around...
----------------------------------
Signs of resistance were everywhere...
Signs of resistance were everywhere...
Tucson Unified School District's Tuesday Night Debacle
Police in full riot gear, some tech-ed out SWAT-style with pepper-spray guns. A cop chopper overhead. Protesters locking arms to prevent police vehicles from moving. A 69 year-old activist on crutches arrested and cited, along with six others. Cops flinging demonstrators around like rag dolls.
In other words, not your average school board meeting.
Such was the scene last night as the Tucson Unified School District's governing board once more took up the issue of Mexican-American ethnic studies, the target of a new Arizona law championed by now Arizona Attorney General and former state schools Superintendent Tom Horne, seeking to end the program.
Before leaving office, Horne declared the program to be in non-compliance with the statute, and called for the complete elimination of the courses. However, current school's Superintendent John Huppenthal has commissioned an audit of TUSD's Mexican-American Studies, the findings for which have yet to be released.
Last week, TUSD board members were expected to consider a proposal to downgrade the courses, making them electives that will no longer fulfill core requirements. But before they could be seated, student activists with the group UNIDOS took over the meeting by chaining themselves to members' chairs.
The protest April 26 was raucous, but nonviolent. No arrests were made.
TUSD canceled the meeting, and rescheduled for May 5, Cinco de Mayo. There was talk of holding it at a local high school. TUSD then changed that plan, deciding to hold the meeting May 3 at TUSD's cramped headquarters at 1010 West 10th Street in Tucson.
The proposal from board president Mark Stegeman to make the courses electives, an apparent move to placate Huppenthal before the audit is concluded, was still on the agenda.
After hours of discussion, TUSD members decided to put off the vote until a public forum can be scheduled to discuss the proffered changes.
The community wanted none of it, however. More than 300 demonstrators had gathered outside the TUSD building, with others packed inside the small board room.
They were countered by 100 Tucson cops, who closed off the streets surrounding TUSD, filled its halls, and escorted those who intentionally violated the niceties of parliamentary procedure out of the room. These supposedly dangerous radicals were arrested and cited for 3rd degree criminal trespassing, a misdemeanor.
The TPD later issued a statement saying that its presence was at the request of the governing board, as were the arrests.
Not all of the governing board, however. Staunchly pro-ethnic studies members Adelita Grijalva and Judy Burns were both critical of the police state overkill.
"I was told we were going to hire four to six [off duty] Tucson police officers to assist security," Burns told me after the meeting.
Instead, she said, "I was tripping over cops all night."
So who was to blame for the Fort Knox-like atmosphere? Burns pointed the finger at Stegeman.
"He was told by me, and by [TUSD superintendent John] Pedicone that this was horrible timing." Burns related. "That we needed to wait for the state report...I still believe they will not find us in violation of the law."
But Stegeman, an economics professor at the University of Arizona, remains tone deaf to the furor he has provoked.
During the meeting, as demonstrators were dragged away by police and those listening outside via loudspeakers seethed with anger, Stegeman went into "lecture mode" as he called it, patronizng those present with hoary tales of "when I was in high school...a 100 years ago."
Indeed, despite his advanced degree, he came off as a class-A idiot.
A reputed Democrat whose term is up next year, he even ignored the calls of his own party, which has been unified in defense of ethnic studies.
Pima County Democratic Party Chair Jeff Rogers, who spoke on behalf of the program before the board, couldn't explain why Stegeman seemed so set on playing the heavy in this drama. Or why board member and Democrat Miguel Cuevas was so willing to cop the role of Quisling, or the "swing vote," as some refer to him.
(Board member Michael Hicks, a prototypical "angry white man" Tea Bagger, is anti-ethnic studies. Naturally.)
"No one would have predicted that Stegeman or Cuevas would have supported anything like this," Rogers explained. "We helped both of these people get on the ballot and now they turn their backs on us.
"You've got a school district they say is 60.5 percent -- but is really closer to 70 percent -- Hispanic, and many of their families were indigenous to this area way before it was even a territory or a state. For them to ask to have their heritage taught as part of history, what's wrong with that?"
Some observers are already discussing a recall for Stegeman, with the ultimate goal of firing Pedicone as superintendent.
Pedicone has spoken out of both sides of his mouth on the issue, sometimes praising ethnic studies, sometimes dissing pro-ethnic studies students as "pawns."
Tucson attorney Richard Martinez, who has brought a lawsuit challenging the new anti-ethnic studies law as well as Horne's finding against the TUSD, believes Pedicone is behind Stegeman's proposal.
"This is Pedicone's agenda," stated Martinez, "and he's gotten Stegeman to be his stooge."
But why has Pedicone praised the program in past statements?
"These are people who are afraid to say what they really feel," Martinez told me. "You may not agree with him, but at least Horne has the cojones to say, `I hate what you teach. I don't like the content.'"
Martinez makes a very good case that the Horne-sponsored law will be overturned as vague and unconstitutional. In fact, he's debated Horne at length on the issue. David Morales' Three Sonorans blog has the full give-and-take online, here.
Whatever Stegeman and Pedicone had in mind going forward, Tuesday was a disastrous spectacle for them, and totally unnecessary. It inflamed the community, bringing down the wrath of students, parents, politicos and longtime activists, further alienating all to the board.
"It's absolutely outrageous, unconscionable that they put the cops on us in this heavy way," said Pima County Legal Defender Isabel Garcia. "Never, ever have we seen this kind of action."
She said cops and security wanded and patted everyone down, searching bags and purses, forcing attendees to leave their water bottles behind. Garcia was particularly incensed that 69 year-old Guadalupe Castillo, the lady on crutches mentioned above, was arrested after she tried to read portions of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s famous "Letter from a Birmingham Jail."
Indeed, the crowd outside rang with the cries of "Free Lupe!" until she was finally allowed to exit the building after being cited.
There have been some accusations of police abuse. One girl, a 16 year-old brown beret told me both her and her mother had been hit and jerked around by the cops. She showed me her hands, which were bleeding, almost like stigmata.
At one point, I and others eyeballed a squad of SWAT-team types, who looked ready to rumble, standing behind a building near some students waging a sit-in. But they did not attack. The students ultimately disbanded and walked back to the front of the building.
All of the ethnic studies students, current and former, that I spoke with praised the program as teaching them to think critically.
An Anglo gal by the name of Erin, now a freshman at the University of Arizona, said the courses were similar in reading matter and structure to the courses she's taking at U of A.
I asked her about criticisms of the program from Horne and others, specifically over the phrase "kill the gringo," a quote from a Chicano activist used in the history book Occupied America, which Horne often cites as an example of what ethnic studies teaches.
Erin, who like myself belongs to the "gringo" category, laughed, and explained that a phrase such as that would be presented in the context of who said it and when, not as some sort of commandment.
"It's inaccurate to pick out one sentence in probably the 50 different texts you read each semester," she explained. "He's just looking in the text from his perspective...I don't think that's very accurate."
This should be a no-brainer. Take as an example the quote from '60s radical H. Rap Brown, who once said, "Violence is American as cherry pie." If you teach people what the '60s were all about, the phrase might be discussed. But that doesn't mean the person teaching the class is preaching "violence."
What I liked about the protest Tuesday was the diversity of voices all uniting to stave off Stegeman's attack on the program, which is seen as the first step in killing it altogether. Nearly every ethnicity and color was represented.
Jana Happel, an Anglo mom who has two kids attending TUSD, disputed Stegeman's misleading statistics before the board. Stegeman contended that only five percent of TUSD students take ethnic studies.
But Happel pointed out that, "on the average 365 graduates per year took these classes," meaning that, "out of those graduates who had the opportunity to take the classes, one in four" did.
In other words, they are quite popular, and even Pedicone in the past has argued that the classes result in higher AIMS scores, graduation rates, and students matriculating to college.
So why fix it if it ain't broke? TUSD fears the loss of millions in state aid if they keep the status quo.
But critics like Martinez believe that the courts will overturn the law, and that TUSD board members such as Stegeman either are opposed to the courses or are allowing themselves to be bullied by the threat of loss of funds.
There were a few refuseniks present, like one roly-poly senior citizen by the name of Ray Clark, who claimed to be a Navajo and a regular attendee of TUSD meetings.
"The prisons are full of these people," Clark told me of the demonstrators. "They think that this is their land and that they have the right to take over."
Clark also joked that the situation needed a "Bull Connor" and some "police dogs" to straighten things out. He later said he was being facetious, but the gleam in his eyes seemed to belie this, just as when he told me, chuckling, that most journalists deserved to be strung up.
Edwin Rivera, a Latino man in an Arizona Cardinals T-shirt and cap, berated some of the brown berets for wearing a Mexican flag patch on their uniforms. The berets, all students, explained they were not supportive of the Mexican government, just that it was a symbol of their culture.
But Rivera, father of an 18 year-old at TUSD, wasn't buying it. He told me he was a naturalized citizen, and that wearing a Mexican flag is "a slap in the face" to the American flag.
"I feel sorry for those people," he said. "They're born here, they're educated here, and they wear the Mexican flag...You want to wear the Mexican flag, go to Mexico."
Thing is, I told him, you'll probably see more Irish flags on St. Paddy's Day in New York than you'll ever see in Dublin on any given day. If someone has a shirt with an Irish or Italian or British flag on it, no one gets bent out of shape. So what's the big deal with someone waving a Mexican flag or carrying a banner with the Virgin of Guadalupe on it?
To me, it seems self-evident from Tuesday evening's fracas that the ethnic studies ban and the desire of some on the TUSD board to downgrade the program is simply creating more division, anger and distrust in that community.
And with each passing day, it becomes clearer that the effort to axe ethnic studies in Tucson will eventually fail, the sentiments of a few like Rivera and Clark aside.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Signs of Resistance at TUSD: VIVA LA RAZA!!!
The post is from the Tucson Citizen Three Sonorans Blog, written, I believe, by David Abie Morales.
The photos are mine, from the TUSD HQ protest yesterday afternoon. What an amazing crowd was there - hundreds and hundreds of young people, old people, hippies, queers, Brown Berets (in uniform)...and over 100 cops.
This is a good account of the public highlights...I'm just too exhausted to write my own right now.
-----------The Tucson Citizen: Three Sonorans Blog---------
To begin with, my phone battery died at around 5:30, as the meeting was starting.
No email/text/facebook until now, 8 hours later. 60 text messages and 66 facebook alerts. So to all my friends, no I was not arrested, and yes I’m alright.
I was inside the TUSD board room capturing video and didn’t know what was going on outside until I was debriefed afterwards. Well, I knew a little bit from those around me who still had juice on their phones. In addition, I went through two camcorder batteries.
Why does the Southern Arizona Leadership Council have leaders that compromise on justice and racist attacks on Mexican-Americans in Tucson?
Preliminary thoughts: John Pedicone royally messed up tonight. There was about a hundred cops there, all armed, some in riot gear, and one would think they were at a G8 meeting, not a local school board meeting.
Not even top elected officials like Richard Elias could get inside. Full pat-downs, metal detectors, and cops after cops after cops.
There was cops in the back board room, a wall of cops of about 5 in front of the board, another wall of cops at the back, more cops in the lobby, and more cops outside to get in, and several dozen outside protecting a barricade of the building.
Helicopters, riot gear, and police everywhere you looked.
This is what a leader from Oro Valley, where John Pedicone lives, thinks of Tucsonans. All a bunch of thugs and criminals. The cops were not there to protect and serve us the community, they were there to arrest us the community.
There were arrests, there was police brutality, and there were other extreme violations of rights.
All of this I will cover more in depth tomorrow. It is still surreal to me. John Pedicone actually ordered the arrest of Lupe Castillo, one of our most loved professors, elderly and disabled. The cops brought her to the ground. Her crime?
Free speech.
This is an example of how Pedicone and Stegeman do not understand the community. Treating her like they did was like beating up our abuelita, our loved grandmother.
Pedicone crossed the line tonight. Lots of veteranos were there tonight that were involved in the student walkouts in the 1960s. They said this is the worse they have ever seen it, even worse that the civil rights movement of the 60s.
And all of this conflict of Ethnic Studies is created by Mark Stegeman and John Pedicone.
It is a crisis that need not exist, but exists solely through the stubbornness of Mark Stegeman and the racially insensitive (or just flat out racist) leadership of the Vice President of the Southern Arizona Leadership Council. For myself, SALC’s reputation has been forever tarnished, and I want nothing at all to do with anything they do. From urban renewal and destroying La Calle, to destroying Mexican-American Studies today, this is not the kind of “leadership” I want leading us.
I have many thoughts, and I will explore them in more detail tomorrow, but I will leave this with one final thought for tonight.
John Pedicone needs to resign.
No email/text/facebook until now, 8 hours later. 60 text messages and 66 facebook alerts. So to all my friends, no I was not arrested, and yes I’m alright.
I was inside the TUSD board room capturing video and didn’t know what was going on outside until I was debriefed afterwards. Well, I knew a little bit from those around me who still had juice on their phones. In addition, I went through two camcorder batteries.
Why does the Southern Arizona Leadership Council have leaders that compromise on justice and racist attacks on Mexican-Americans in Tucson?
Preliminary thoughts: John Pedicone royally messed up tonight. There was about a hundred cops there, all armed, some in riot gear, and one would think they were at a G8 meeting, not a local school board meeting.
Not even top elected officials like Richard Elias could get inside. Full pat-downs, metal detectors, and cops after cops after cops.
There was cops in the back board room, a wall of cops of about 5 in front of the board, another wall of cops at the back, more cops in the lobby, and more cops outside to get in, and several dozen outside protecting a barricade of the building.
Helicopters, riot gear, and police everywhere you looked.
This is what a leader from Oro Valley, where John Pedicone lives, thinks of Tucsonans. All a bunch of thugs and criminals. The cops were not there to protect and serve us the community, they were there to arrest us the community.
There were arrests, there was police brutality, and there were other extreme violations of rights.
All of this I will cover more in depth tomorrow. It is still surreal to me. John Pedicone actually ordered the arrest of Lupe Castillo, one of our most loved professors, elderly and disabled. The cops brought her to the ground. Her crime?
Free speech.
This is an example of how Pedicone and Stegeman do not understand the community. Treating her like they did was like beating up our abuelita, our loved grandmother.
Pedicone crossed the line tonight. Lots of veteranos were there tonight that were involved in the student walkouts in the 1960s. They said this is the worse they have ever seen it, even worse that the civil rights movement of the 60s.And all of this conflict of Ethnic Studies is created by Mark Stegeman and John Pedicone.
It is a crisis that need not exist, but exists solely through the stubbornness of Mark Stegeman and the racially insensitive (or just flat out racist) leadership of the Vice President of the Southern Arizona Leadership Council. For myself, SALC’s reputation has been forever tarnished, and I want nothing at all to do with anything they do. From urban renewal and destroying La Calle, to destroying Mexican-American Studies today, this is not the kind of “leadership” I want leading us.
I have many thoughts, and I will explore them in more detail tomorrow, but I will leave this with one final thought for tonight.
John Pedicone needs to resign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)