Actually, despite the fact that the tone of the topic is kind of intended to troll, but you bring up several good points.
The last time I heard any static about public sector stuff is when Marvin Lee Anderson was killed. Even though that particular boot camp is closed, it would stand to reason there are hundreds of other places that fly under the radar.
Yeah, the tone of the OP is blatantly antagonistic. So much so, that it shows more hostility than any attempt to broaden the discussion. This is underscored by the page of troll tripe “topics” left in its wake within minutes of this one.
The following is excerpted from an article by Stacey Gurian-Sherman cited and linked in Public Sector Gulags before this thread was opened:
Disproportionate detention of minority children Detention should be based on objective factors, i.e., whether the child will return to court, is a danger to herself/himself or the community, and has a willing parent to provide shelter. Regrettably, factors of race, economics, and family make-up unwittingly affect detention and disproportionately so against children of color.
In Maryland, although African Americans makeup only 17 percent of the youth population, they account for 39 percent of arrests and a staggering 64 percent of the over 7,000 annual admissions to state detention facilities. Indeed, 81 percent of the youth in the state's largest juvenile detention institution, the Cheltenham Youth Facility, are African American. Founded in 1872 as the racially segregated "Private House of Reformation for Colored Boys," Cheltenham remains an unfortunate legacy of what should be days gone by.
Studies of poverty such as Shelton's clearly have shown that a turbulent home life and neighborhood have an impact on the physical and mental development of youth. School-age children with behavior and emotional problems become the youth who commit delinquent acts. Estimates for 1995 from the Maryland 1999 Kids Count Factbook published by the Annie E. Casey Foundation indicate that 171,746 Maryland children live in poverty, and "African-American children are nearly four times more likely to live in poverty than white children." One in five Maryland children living in poverty are from a single-parent family, and 40 percent of children under five years old in female-headed households live in poverty.
The effects of poverty cannot be ignored. Children living in poverty, especially those doing so year after year, are more subject to "abuse and neglect, problems in school . . . lead poisoning and developmental delays associated with pre- and post-natal malnutrition." This can lead to "learning disorders, attention problems, low self-esteem, long-term health and mental health problems and even violent behavior." In turn, this can result in "elevated school dropout rates, teen pregnancy and unemployment," as well as ". . . poor school performance, including falling behind one or more grade levels, and absence from school."
Because there are so many more children of color in poverty, it should come as no surprise that these children are more likely to enter the juvenile justice system. Nonetheless, race, economics, and family make up are not de facto evidence that a particular child has incapable parents, is a danger to commit violence, or will fail to return to court. Yet according to a 1999 article by Todd Richissin in the Baltimore Sun, "nationally and in Maryland, it has long been a pattern for justice officials to push more cases involving minority delinquents into court while dismissing those against white teens."
Poverty and its effects may provide an understanding of the type of intervention and services needed for a child or family, but these factors alone should not be substituted for the strict legal factors needed to justify detention. "Family values" is not just a middle-class virtue. Although low-income children of color may be subject to more risks, many have nurturing and capable parents and guardians. The presumption that they come from dysfunctional families, schools, or communities is a paternalistic misperception. Yet the belief that the state can better parent these "troubled" children unfortunately is all too prevalent and causes harsher consequences for children of color.
In a significant study appearing in the American Sociological Review, Professor George Bridges of the University of Washington, and Sara Steen, a UW doctoral graduate and now assistant professor of sociology at Vanderbilt University, concluded that juvenile probation officers consistently portray African American and white offenders differently. African American youth were situated similarly in the study to white youth in age, crimes charged, and criminal history. Bridges and Steen reviewed reports by probation officers prior to sentencing that included facts and perceptions about the offenders, their families, and life circumstances. Probation officers depicted the crimes committed by African American youth as being caused by deficiencies in their internal attributes and character, such as disrespect for authority or the condoning of criminal behavior. White youth, on the other hand, were portrayed as victims of negative environmental factors, such as internal family conflict or association with delinquent peers.
This is crucial because internal attributes, or character flaws, are seen as making a youth less amenable to treatment and rehabilitation. Relying on the probation officer reports, the court tended to punish African American youth more harshly. Bridges and Steen found that these youths were more likely to be detained, charged with a criminal offense, tried, and committed to confined institutions or programs. Researchers caution that probation officers genuinely care for all children and are not acting out of racial hatred, but, rather, complex prejudicial norms. Nonetheless, the disparity in treatment found in the study is disturbing in light of a 1978 Washington law limiting the criteria that can be used in juvenile sentences to prior offenses, the severity of the crime, and age of the offender.
These subtle and complex racial misperceptions play themselves out in the delivery of juvenile justice in Maryland. Statistics on disproportionate representation from the Maryland Department of Juvenile Justice show that in 1995 white males and African American males had virtually identical numbers of referrals to the department. However, once formal proceedings were initiated, the disparity between these two populations became marked. Although more than 65 percent of white males receive department action not requiring a court referral, less than 50 percent of African Americans had similar informal action. Indeed, 52 percent of the black males were involved in court proceedings compared to 33 percent of the while males. An alarming 66 percent of the black males were detained as compared to 24 percent for white males.
Example: "Germaine S." is an African American Baltimore City youth who was arrested for burglary charges in August 1998. A court-ordered psychiatric report found diagnoses that included oppositional defiant disorder, learning disorder, and estimated borderline intellectual functioning. Court-ordered psychological and psychiatric reports recommended that the youth be returned home with a rigorous supervised program of services. The department's caseworker opposed these recommendations, and the court committed this youth. He waited two months before being placed in a two-month impact program. Despite successfully completing the program, he remained there for six more months until August 1999.
Detention pending placement
The Germaine S. case illustrates not only the existence of bias, but also how committed children still are subject to detention, often for prolonged periods of time. There is no maximum period of time a child must wait for placement, and yet sitting without benefit of services directly contravenes court orders for treatment. As one author wrote in 1979 in the American Bar Association's Juvenile Justice Standards,
The curse of juvenile courts has always been their lack of appropriate disposition resources for the variety of problem children they handle. The availability of detention facilities for holding juveniles indefinitely in lieu of a proper final placement thus has proved a convenient device for avoiding reform. . . . After detention of (at most) a few weeks, release or transfer to a permanent placement should be mandatory. If a juvenile justice system in fact has no resources to treat or rehabilitate, the dilemma ought to be faced in open court.
Although one could not be faulted for believing this to be a contemporary statement, it actually was included as commentary to Juvenile Justice Standards from a 1976 article by U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Patricia Wald. The problem of "warehousing" children for unreasonably long periods has not abated since this article was written 23 years ago.
In Maryland, the courts in most jurisdictions rarely intervene to issue a specific order for community-based treatment with home supervision once a commitment order is issued. In the rare instances where the court exerts this authority, the department simply can ignore the order. Without statutory authority for automatic court review, these children may sit for months waiting for placement. This particularly affects children with behavioral issues and mental health diagnoses.
Example: "Antonio L." is an African American youth who was at a youth center when he went on a self-imposed hunger strike. Exasperated staff classified his behavior as a suicide attempt and sent him to the Crownsville Mental Hospital. He was evaluated for one day, and professionals determined once again that Antonio had a conduct disorder problem, not a mental health issue. They recommended that he be returned to the youth center. Instead, the department sent Antonio to a detention facility, where he sat for more than four months.
Example: "Miguel N." was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and a special education level VI. He has been detained for 80 days after failing to return to his program. During this period, Miguel only has been referred to placements that specialize in behavior modification, but given his mental health diagnosis he will not be admitted to these programs.
Impact on children with mental health issues
According to Shelton's study, it is estimated that, nationwide, between 60 and 70 percent of youth in juvenile correctional facilities suffer from emotional disorders, including attention problems, anxiety, and depression. Shelton found that 53 percent of the Maryland youth in her study group had been classified for at least one AXIS I diagnosis by the Diagnostic Interview Survey for Children (DISC), and almost 19 percent were diagnosed with an AXIS II diagnosis (learning and personality disorders). Seventy-four percent of these classified youths had a dual diagnosis, and 58 percent were experiencing anxiety symptoms, feelings of apprehension, or tension caused by the anticipation of an imagined threat. High rates of anxiety may indicate post-traumatic stress disorder, especially given the 53 percent of youth who have experienced abuse and the 67 percent who had exposure to family, community, or personal violence.
Especially for low-income children, there is an alarming deficiency of services to identify and treat children before they enter the juvenile justice system.
http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/cjmag/15-1sg.htmlThis article by Stacey Gurian-Sherman
