Indiana Juvenile Crime Forum Proceedings

March 25, 2002
by Gregory Brinker , Edmund McGarrell , H. John Okeson

Foreword

H. John Okeson

During the latter months of 1996, I began to consider seriously Indiana’s

approach to juvenile justice matters. My interest arose from both practical

and public policy concerns. First, if popular commentators predictions

that a “predator class” of youths will descend upon society are accurate,

my office must prepare to handle an onslaught of appeals arising from juvenile

matters at the trial level. Second, many local officials throughout Indiana

have recently observed that their constituents are growing increasingly

reluctant to approve new expenditures for any local governmental endeavor.

This sentiment creates fiscal hardship for local officials who face growing

juvenile justice costs such as detention facilities, expanded prosecutor

and probation staffs, and exploding court dockets. My concerns led me to

seek a series of hearings throughout Indiana. Rather than merely studying

statistics, I wanted to visit with Hoosiers on the front line judges, prosecutors,

probation officers, law enforcement officials, nonprofit agency representatives,

and laymen. I wanted to hear about the scope of juvenile crime in Indiana

and the impact of related costs on Hoosier communities. Between February

4 and February 18, 1997, we held hearings in Terre Haute, Evansville, Fort

Wayne, Crown Point, South Bend, and New Albany. While the following report

details the participants testimony, certain recurrent themes merit discussion.

Dollars (and Sense)

Local officials cited a lack of resources to pursue juvenile justice

solutions. Many local officials seemed resigned to the fact that while

more money would be helpful, additional local revenue may not be available.

This is because residents in many communities are simply unwilling to spend

more money on local government (whether it is juvenile justice, picking

up garbage, or opening public swimming pools). Though the state government

has a significant budget surplus, the excess does not find its way into

every budget. Such seems to be the case with juvenile justice programs.

Most local officials believe that the solution to their financial concerns

lies with more sensible and creative spending strategies. For these leaders,

the emphasis should be on prevention, aftercare, and the coordination of

the activities of the various juvenile justice system participants. In

addition, comprehensive approaches to juvenile crime and delinquency should

recognize the potential contributions available from nonprofit and other

private sector entities.

Aftercare

The most common criticism was that without aftercare to supplement

a juvenile’s treatment from a public or other facility, the time and resources

devoted to the juvenile during the referral period are essentially lost.

This is because many offenders come from relatively unstructured family

and home settings, encounter a disciplined environment upon referral to

a facility, and are then released into an “anything goes” setting. Aftercare

should concentrate not only on reinforcing the behavioral changes made

during the referral period, but also on aiding the family unit as it reintegrates

the juvenile. Unfortunately, burgeoning case loads and funding shortages

for probation officers and other aftercare professionals make meaningful

follow-up difficult or impossible in many Hoosier communities. Based on

testimony from Hoosiers across Indiana, I believe that the single most

influential step state or federal officials could take would be to initiate

or increase funding for aftercare programs to Indiana communities. This

funding should require minimal bureaucratic intrusion. While I am a true

skeptic of programs that “throw money” at problems, maintaining public

safety and preserving liberty should be government’s primary function.

By increasing the use of aftercare programs in Hoosier communities, we

would make a serious commitment to juvenile crime prevention.

Detention and Juvenile Correction Facilities

Many participants, especially those directly involved in law enforcement,

lamented the lack of pre-adjudication detention facilities for juveniles.

By federal law, and according to the Indiana Court of Appeals and our state

constitution, officials must segregate juvenile offenders not waived into

adult court into juvenile-only facilities upon being “adjudicated” (the

juvenile law equivalent of being found guilty of a criminal offense in

adult court). Simply put, most Indiana communities do not have sufficient

space to house all local juvenile offenders. Many local officials expressed

frustration at the limited options for post-adjudication residential placement.

Crowding and population limits at the Indiana Department of Correction

facilities have forced some communities to rely on costly out of state

placements or consider constructing and financing a long-term juvenile

facility. Local officials pointed to the significant capital costs inherent

in constructing these facilities. These and other costs have led many counties

to consider multi-county or privately owned and managed facilities. (For

example, Noble, LaGrange, Steuben, and DeKalb counties in northeast Indiana

have explored retaining a private contractor to build and manage a four-county

facility to service the needs of all four communities.)Numerous local commentators

noted that state assistance in constructing these facilities would greatly

increase the likelihood of their completion. This could allow more youths

to remain in their own communities.

Acknowledgments

I must acknowledge several individuals and organizations whose

assistance was invaluable to the success of the field hearings. Hudson

Institute, through Dr. Ed McGarrell and Mr. Greg Brinker of Hudson’s Crime

Control Policy Center, provided vital academic background as I prepared

for the hearings. In addition, Hudson also recorded testimony at the field

hearings and prepared much of this report. The McVey Group provided important

pro bono logistical support for the hearings. Mr. Brose McVey and Mr. Todd

Huston handled scheduling and meeting room arrangements for the hearings,

and their voluntary support made it possible for the hearings to occur

at no public expense. Finally, the hearings were valuable because our sponsors

ensured a variety of testimony at each location. In addition to Hudson

Institute, I thank Mr. Steve Johnson and the Indiana Prosecuting Attorney’s

Council; Mr. Mike Ward and Indiana Association of Chiefs of Police; the

Association of County Commissioners; the Association of Indiana Counties;

and the Indiana State Bar Association. I also thank Mr. George Glass and

Mr. Jeff Bercovitz of the Indiana Judicial Center for their assistance.

Record of Proceedings

Fiscal Considerations

Mr. Okeson asked participants about the effects, real and perceived,

that juvenile crime has on local budgets. This question was prompted by

anecdotal evidence that other policy initiatives, agencies, and programs

will see reduced or limited funding as a result of juvenile justice expenditures.

Most participants were critically concerned about fiscal challenges facing

local governments. Budgets for juvenile offenders, troubled, and needy

youth have increased dramatically with the rise in the number of young

offenders entering Indiana’s justice system.

Financial Resources

The forums revealed a general consensus that the public has reached

the maximum acceptable level of local taxation. Thus, the issue in many

communities is how to allocate existing resources. Other participants desired

greater federal and state funding without the typical “interference” associated

with such resources. One participant stated that it is not that communities

are not able to pay for effective juvenile justice programs, but that taxpayers

are unwilling to part with any more resources for any governmental programs.

This sentiment again suggests that to maximize its juvenile justice resources,

government must reprioritize where and how it allocates those resources.

Many participants stated that government, specifically the general assembly

and local elected officials, need to give juvenile crime intervention,

prevention, and education programs higher priority. The common sentiment

among participants was, “Pay now, or pay later.” Small and rural county

participants expressed concern about their communities’ ability to pay

for juvenile justice at all. Many smaller counties simply do not have the

tax base to afford proper facilities and programs. These counties must

send juvenile offenders to out-of-state facilities, private facilities,

or waive juvenile offenders to adult court. Some participants stated that

cost considerations often dictate the disposition and sentencing of youthful

offenders; i.e., that officials sometimes waive offenders into adult court

because adult detention or incarceration is often less expensive than in

the juvenile system. Conversely, other participants stated that the welfare

of the juvenile and the well-being of the community were paramount.

Facilities

Increased juvenile crime has also created a greater need for state,

local, and private detention facilities. St. Joseph County recently completed

a $20 million juvenile justice facility. The new facility replaced an aging

one and was necessary to meet increased demand. The cost of the new facility

seriously concerned local residents. Merely replacing existing facilities

is expensive. Equipping these facilities to provide needed specialized

care or treatment can be prohibitive. Examples of specialized care include

treatment emphasizing education, substance abuse or anger control, and

specialized housing for youthful offenders. Besides the high cost of construction,

referrals to these facilities, though often considered effective, are terribly

expensive. This has led to shorter stays, frustrating to officials, one

of whom stated, “You cannot change sixteen years worth of problems in ninety

days.” Several participants from the Indiana Department of Corrections

(IDOC) stated that bed space is a problem and that new facilities are costly.

One participant stated that his county can no longer afford to send juveniles

to out-of-county long-term detention facilities. This is because referrals

to these facilities are so expensive; only five weeks into the fiscal year,

the county had exhausted its 1997 budget for juvenile detention costs.

A probation officer from a moderately populated county stated that increased

caseloads created a need for more such officers in the county. This placed

greater pressure on the county’s juvenile justice budget.

Programs

Participants questioned the cost effectiveness of many juvenile

justice programs. One participant stated that those involved should take

the cost/benefit considerations seriously and not merely throw money at

juvenile crime. Fiscal considerations often dictate juvenile sentencing.

Often, underfunded courts and related agencies contribute to the lenient

treatment of nonviolent offenders. Less serious offenders and status offenders

often know that more serious cases need to be addressed and that prosecutors

and others are burdened with overwhelming caseloads. Several participants

commented that a better-funded juvenile justice system could pay more attention

to these offenders, possibly preventing a return encounter with the system.

A law enforcement officer argued that status offenders (those committing

low-level offenses) should be sent to the Division of Family and Children

or to a similar state agency. He believes that these offenders are simply

troubled youths who need specialized care. Such cases increase the caseload

of criminal justice personnel and slow down the court process. One northern

Indiana judge believes that creative and alternative funding and spending

ideas could make scarce resources go further. He noted that in his county,

a pooling of court, school, and social service resources had produced a

“necessary response to the individual juvenile offender.” He concluded,

however, that even greater coordination of efforts and resources must occur

to ensure maximum efficiency and effect.

Juvenile Aftercare Programs

Participants in every community identified lack of aftercare programs

available to youthful offenders and their families as a major deficiency.

They advocated community investment of public dollars in some form of aftercare,

either public or private. Aftercare is defined as additional follow-up

performed by probation officers, social workers, and other trained youth

workers once a youth offender completes a referral program. One participant

bluntly stated, “without aftercare, the referral period itself is a waste

of time and taxpayer dollars.” One participant stated that by not following

up with aftercare for offenders, the system is going only halfway. Many

incarcerated juveniles have left an “anything goes” setting at home for

a “zero tolerance” atmosphere at a detention facility. Without follow-up,

the behavioral modification learned in an institution is lost when the

youth returns home. One state program that mandates aftercare is the LaPorte

juvenile boot camp known as Camp Summit. Officials representing Camp Summit

noted that if an offender refuses to attend aftercare, it is a violation

of the release and the offender will usually be returned to a detention

facility. This insistence on aftercare helps youths make the transition

from incarceration to community. However, this program is relatively new,

and Camp Summit is currently evaluating its effectiveness. Some participants

stated that aftercare, mentoring, and reintegration programs were necessary

for youthful offenders. Many stated that simply “cutting juveniles loose”

after a commitment into a long-term facility is unfair to both the juvenile

and the community.

The Role of Nonprofits and Charitable Organizations

Nonprofit and charitable organizations play an important role in the

lives of juveniles and communities by extending services where public and

private services are lacking or do not exist. Charitable organizations

often have the ability and internal organization to offer services more

immediately than public providers. One participant at the Fort Wayne forum

believes charities offer much to address juvenile crime. For example, nonprofit

residential treatment centers offer family programs to those in need in

the Fort Wayne community. He also suggested that state and local communities

explore the use of religious organizations to address community and juvenile

problems. One participant, from a church-affiliated organization, asserted

that the criminal justice system merely reacts to, and is too distant from,

the social problems and issues of local communities. Religious organizations

and nonprofit organizations, he stated, usually have an interest in the

problem and offender. These organizations are in the community where the

issues and problems occur, and often they are familiar with the individuals

and families affected. Another individual stated that some form of religious

orientation should be part of the public school system and part of the

criminal justice system, specifically when counseling or treating juveniles.

Yet another participant discussed offering family intervention programs

through churches. Some participants were concerned, however, about using

church-affiliated organizations to provide public services and raised potential

legal issues that could stem from this practice. Participants noted that

nonprofits and charitable organizations are not without limitations and

often must work with limited financial resources. These organizations rely

on donations from individuals and sometimes government grants. Because

of the ebb and flow of donations, financial limitations often restrict

the types of programs offered and the number of people who can be served.

Many programs are short-lived without community-wide support and a guaranteed

funding source.

Prevention, Intervention, and Education

At every forum site, participants extensively discussed intervention,

prevention, and educational programs. Most participants expressed concern

about the value and need for such programs. Most also believed that early

intervention with high-risk and at-risk youths and families must be a long-term

goal of the juvenile justice system and is necessary to achieve any meaningful

measure of prevention. Intervention programs intervene with at-risk youth

in an attempt to disrupt and modify a specific behavior, process, or action.

Juvenile intervention programs are tailored toward youth, families, and

the community and often involve close collaboration among the police, schools,

case managers, and other youth service providers. One participant cited

a RAND study that demonstrated intervention programs as more cost effective

than incarceration, but pointed out that serious violent offenders still

need detention and correction facilities. Currently, Indiana has only one

statewide network of youth-serving agencies designed to intervene or prevent

juvenile delinquency. The Indiana Youth Services Bureau operates twenty-nine

offices throughout the state with a budget of approximately $600,000.

Cost Considerations

Participants repeatedly expressed concern about the cost of such

programs. The more problems or the more extensive problems a youthful offender

exhibits, the higher the cost of placement and treatment. Unfortunately,

many early intervention, prevention, and educational programs are poorly

funded or poorly staffed. Many services are overlapping and uncoordinated

among communities, counties, and regions of the state. Most agreed that

intervention programs are expensive and offer no sure solutions. Many participants

stated that intervention programs are not suitable for all juvenile offenders

and that the most serious (violent) juvenile offenders are beyond the reach

of known intervention or prevention programs. Most participants believed

that these offenders require long-term incarceration for the protection

of the community, and often themselves.

Coordination

One participant advocated the state taking an aggressive stance

toward the funding of juvenile prevention and early intervention programs.

Patchwork funding of youth-oriented programs is not effective. Most participants

also agreed that money should not be concentrated on one specific issue,

problem, or program but should provide an array of early, middle, and late

intervention, prevention, education, or aftercare services. One social

worker observed that neighboring counties frequently do not coordinate

efforts and services directed at juvenile offenders. Participants suggested

more coordination between local and community agencies along with increased

coordination with state agencies. Specifically, state agencies should provide

some form of oversight, guidance, and support of programs, policies, and

initiatives. There was some disagreement about federal and state oversight

of community-oriented programs. Many local intervention and prevention

program providers believe there is too much bureaucratic regulation of

these programs, which in turn limits their effectiveness. On the other

hand, many participants recognized the need for a governing or administrative

agency with authority to prevent fiscal mismanagement and ensure the coordination

and effectiveness of various programs.

Miscellaneous Concerns

Many participants believe that the Healthy Families Indiana program,

modeled after the Healthy Families America program, has been a success.

Healthy Families Indiana focuses on reducing child abuse and neglect, promoting

child wellness and proper development, strengthening family relations,

promoting family unity, and reducing dependency on drugs and alcohol within

at-risk families. The Healthy Families program provides the following services

to at-risk families: informal counseling or emotional support services,

assistance in developing parenting and coping skills; education on the

importance of good nutritional habits to improve the overall health of

their children; education on developmental assessments so that learning

disabilities, physical handicaps, and behavioral health needs are identified

as early as possible; education on the importance of preventative health

care; assistance and encouragement to provide age appropriate immunizations;

assistance and encouragement to access comprehensive private and public

preschool and other school readiness programs; and assistance in applying

for private and public financial assistance including employment services.

One participant saw a need for better methods of “profiling,” i.e., making

early assessments of the needs of at-risk youth and juvenile offenders.

One university professor warned that labeling, real or perceived, could

occur when dealing with at-risk children and families. This could damage

the child’s self-image and ability to change his behavior for the better.

One participant stated that serious violent offenders need long-term,

multidimensional treatment. Currently, the typical ninety-day program is

neither long enough nor intensive enough to address serious behavioral

and emotional problems characteristic of a serious violent offender. These

ninety-day, one-size-fits-all programs seem to result from financial

constraints. Many participants agreed that schools, community or nonprofit

organizations, or governmental agencies should offer at-risk families

basic life-skill classes, parenting classes, and technical training classes.

Participants disagreed on the intrusiveness of intervention programs. One

specific intervention proposal that was discussed was to make parenting

or child rearing courses mandatory for parents, expectant parents, or newlyweds.

Many participants made statements such as “you have to pass a test to get

a driver’s license but anyone can have a child.” On the other hand, others

believe that government intervention programs are too intrusive and should

be curtailed. Participants stated that Indiana needs more diversion

programs to stem the increased court caseload and IDOC’s commitments.

An example of such a program is the Teen Court program. Teen courts offer

youths firsthand experience concerning the court process by allowing youth

peers to preside over the case and a youth jury to arrive at a verdict.

Many participants labeled preliminary results quite positive. Most participants

believe that the social service systems should focus their efforts on proactive

measures. A rural prosecuting attorney stated that by the time a

youth reaches the prosecutor, AI have little recourse but to try to punish

the offender to the best of my ability that my position offers. He concluded,

when they “reach me, prevention and intervention programs will not affect

the youth. They are too far gone.” One participant believed that there

is no state mandate or law addressing prevention or intervention programs,

although many laws concern the incarceration of juvenile offenders. A social

worker stated that prevention, intervention, aftercare, and education programs

“get more bang for their bucks” compared with incarceration. Other participants

concurred that the long-term benefits and effects of prevention, intervention,

education, and aftercare programs far outweigh the short-term benefits

and effects of incarceration. However, several prosecuting attorneys and

judges questioned the effectiveness of such programs. Another social worker

stated that “throwing all the money into punishment is not the answer.”

Rather, Indiana needs a well-funded, well-staffed, comprehensive plan to

deal with juvenile offenders, which includes various aspects of education,

prevention, intervention, treatment, and incarceration. One participant,

concerned about the lack of reliable aftercare, stated that aftercare programs

should emphasize the discipline begun in correctional facilities. In southwest

Indiana, one prosecuting attorney stated that the sale of drugs was still

the number one problem among juveniles, because it enabled them to “make

big money.” He argued that the entire spectrum of programs and laws should

be utilized to attack this problem.

Adequate and Proper Juvenile Facilities

Cost Considerations Many participants stated that local communities

had inadequate facilities either to detain or treat juvenile offenders.

This was primarily due to the great expense in constructing and operating

such facilities. Many forum participants from small rural counties stated

that the residents of their counties cannot afford the facilities necessary

to handle juvenile offenders and their associated problems. Several citizens

of one northern Indiana county were outraged at the costs associated with

a new detention facility. Most agreed that the old facility was dilapidated

and could no longer meet the increased demand of juvenile offenders. The

issue for many residents was the cost of a new structure (which has run

several million dollars and more than 100 percent over its original budget)

and the lack of any substantial treatment programs (i.e., substance abuse,

education, and anger control) offered at the detention facility.

Private Facilities

Many participants advocated joint funding efforts by adjacent counties.

Nevertheless, some participants stated that efforts had failed to resolve

differences over how facilities should be operated, funded, and staffed.

One participant stated that “everyone wants to have the last word.” Due

to lack of adequate facilities and funding for such projects, many county

officials have turned to private correction businesses that specialize

in detention and correction facilities. Private facilities offer as many

features (i.e., specialized treatment) as public facilities do. Several

participants from private corrections firms attended forums to discuss

the benefits of their programs. Some participants were apprehensive of

the cost of private corrections facilities. Daily expenses at private facilities

tend to be significantly more than at public facilities. Others criticized

private correction facilities for allegedly cutting corners, thus decreasing

their programs’ effectiveness. There is no consensus on whether the effectiveness

of private facilities justifies their expense. Despite concerns, most private

corrections facilities often offer more immediate responses to community

needs than do publicly funded facilities. Out-of-State Facilities Several

participants observed that because many local communities do not have adequate

detention facilities or facilities that offer specialized treatment, many

juvenile offenders are sent out of state. One judge said that he sends

most special-needs youths to Arizona, Ohio, Colorado, or Pennsylvania.

These states offer privately operated programs that stress behavior modification,

education, and vocational skills. Participants voiced two critical concerns

with out-of-state programs. First, the programs are costly, with some programs

costing $300 per day per offender versus $90 to $95 per day in an in-state,

public facility. Second, family ties are difficult to maintain when a youthful

offender is sent to another state. Depending on the offender, this can

be detrimental to successful treatment and eventual reintegration.

Miscellaneous Concerns

One IDOC official stated that the Indiana Boys’ School in Plainfield

has been under a federal consent decree to reduce its enrollment. These

efforts have had a twofold effect. First, fewer counties can use Indiana’s

maxi

Edmund F. McGarrell was a senior adjunct fellow with Hudson Institute’s Crime Control Policy Center until 2004.

Click here to view the full list of Studies and Papers.

Share

Featured Publications

Email List

Indiana Juvenile Crime Forum Proceedings

Share