The
landscape of juvenile justice is changing. Instead of building
"supermax" juvenile prisons, we are now investing in community-based
alternatives. Where we once saw "killer kids," we now see children in
need of services.
This
change, for which advocates on the margins fought vigorously for years, has now
gained traction in the mainstream. Its implementation has been made possible by
skyrocketing incarceration costs that threaten to cannibalize city and state
budgets if not curtailed. It is far cheaper to spend $15,000 on evidence-based
home services than $150,000 for a bed in a juvenile facility.
It
wasn't always this way. In the 1990s, criminologists terrified the nation with
warnings of a coming juvenile crime wave. In 1996, John DiIulio, a professor at
the University of Pennsylvania, coined the term "Super-Predator" to
describe a generation of young people, who born to crack-addicted mothers and
raised on gangsta rap and violent video games, would soon wreak havoc on
America.
“Based on all that we have
witnessed, researched and heard from people who are close to the action, here
is what we believe: America is now home to thickening ranks of juvenile
‘superpredators’ — radically impulsive, brutally remorseless youngsters,
including ever more pre-teenage boys, who murder, assault, rape, rob,
burglarize, deal deadly drugs, join gun-toting gangs and create serious communal
disorders.” (Bennett, DiIulio, and Walters, 1996)
DiIluio’s dire warnings helped fuel the mad
rush to criminalize children. Between 1992 and 1997, all but three states
enacted laws to make their juvenile justice systems more punitive, allowing
prosecutors to try youth as adults, and send them to prison for longer periods
of time. The threat was not all young
people, but Black and Latino youth from poor, urban communities, described
euphemistically as “inner-city children.” The problem wasn’t just the young
people, but the essential criminality of their families and communities. “At
core,” DiIulio wrote, “the problem is that most inner-city children grow up
surrounded by teenagers and adults who are themselves deviant, delinquent or
criminal.”
Ironically, the march to incarcerate accelerated just as the unprecedented rise in violent juvenile crime was starting
to decline. While juvenile homicides increased 110 percent between 1987 and 1993,
they fell almost as rapidly by 68 percent between 1994 and 2003. Juvenile
arrests for other violent crimes fell as well, and by 2003, the offending rate
had returned to the levels of the early 1980s (Butts & Travis, 2002).
But the damage was already done. Youth
prisons had been built. State laws had been changed to try ever more young
people as adults. Police were stationed first in urban high schools, and then even
middle schools. Black and Latino youth were looked at as a menace to society, a
danger that had to be controlled.
We are starting to realize the error of our
ways. As serious juvenile crime has continued to fall, and states have realized
they cannot afford to incarcerate so many children, the pendulum has shifted
away from punishment, back towards a
rehabilitative response to youth delinquency. New research proves that
therapeutic interventions are effective in preventing re-offending. A host of new
programs has been developed, tested, replicated and packaged to help fix broken
kids. Whereas incarceration was once a catchall response to the needs of
“high-risk” youth, a veritable alphabet soup of off-the-shelf programs is now
available to treat young people. Programs like multi-systemic therapy (MST),
functional family therapy (FFT), aggression replacement therapy (ART), and
multi-dimensional foster care treatment (MDFCT) have been taken to scale,
reducing overreliance on incarceration, cutting prison spending, and keeping
children safely at home.
The switch from a punishment-focused
juvenile justice system to treatment-focused system is a welcome one. When it
comes to holding youth accountable for their actions and developing children
into pro-social adults, I happily choose counselors over correction officers,
and professional treatment over prisons. Less incarceration and more services
is certainly a good thing.
Yet as one who holds to the core conviction
that all youth, families and communities are imbued with strengths, I can’t
help but notice a disturbing strain of paternalism in many juvenile justice reform
efforts. These approaches don’t view young people as essentially criminal, but
they still assume that young people need to be “fixed.” Helping professionals
are now seen as the answer to the problems inherent in poor communities. I fear
that we are dismantling the prison industrial complex only to replace it with a
new system that, while kindler and gentler, still holds to the notion that
there is something fundamentally wrong with children, families and communities
of color.
I believe there is another way to address
what must seem to some an intractable problem. Yet this approach requires
looking at young people, families, and their communities through a completely
different lens. It requires policy makers to take off the punitive lens, that views young people as risks to
be controlled. It requires practitioners to take off the paternalistic lens that views children, families
and communities as essentially needy. It requires a new vision grounded in partnership. This strength-based approach looks at
young people as assets to be developed, their families as irreplaceable, and
the members of their communities as primary partners.
I often hear high-crime, low-income
neighborhoods described as resource-deprived and lacking in services. Yet I
find that these same communities are bursting with assets that can be marshaled
to surround young people with the supports they need to thrive. These assets
are found in the form of grassroots faith and neighborhood organizations that
operate below the radar of government, academic, and philanthropic
institutions. These assets are found in programs operating in the basements of
housing projects and storefront churches. These assets are the fathers returning
home from decades in prison, many of whom were once caught up in the crack game,
and are now seeking to rebuild the same communities they once helped destroy.
These assets are mothers who are healing themselves from the trauma of having
their own children taken away, by helping other parents hold on to theirs. These
assets are the young people themselves, who are exploding with intelligence,
creativity, and leadership and have better ideas than any of us can imagine.
Even the criminologist who was once the nation’s
foremost proponent of juvenile incarceration eventually changed his lens. John
DiIulio underwent a conversion of sorts when he walked the streets of the neighborhoods
he had once only written about. His eyes were opened when he met men and women
– mostly in urban Black churches – who were working fervently, joyfully and
effectively to keep young people out of jail. In his 1999 editorial for the
Wall Street Journal, “Two Million Prisoners are Enough,” DiIulio publically repented of his
incarceration-first approach and called for investing in community-based
solutions to the problem of juvenile crime. “If I had known then what I know
now,” DiIulio stated in a 2001 interview, “I would have shouted for the prevention of crime.”
We can fix the damage done by the era of
mass incarceration. But we can’t do it if we continue to view young people,
their families and their communities as essentially dangerous, needy, or
broken. We must move forward in the spirit of partnership,
one in which those who hold power give up the need for primacy, authority and
control. This means building the capacity of communities to develop strategies
to respond to their challenges. It means listening to young people. It means engaging
their families. It means investing in grassroots faith and neighborhood
organizations that are already doing the work on shoestring budgets. Partnership means trusting those who were once
thought to be “the problem” to rebuild communities decimated by America’s
addiction to incarceration.
No comments:
Post a Comment