It seems that the recommendations made by M.L. in the Juvenile Justice section of the very useful reports, do not explicitly address what the counties and or the state would do to change how the system deals with the "worst of the worst" youths whom the counties historically would refer to the state lockups. Is there an assumption that only two or three state lockups will be necessary? Will those State lockups be under a new Juvenile Justice agency (which the Leg. is has mandated), or shifted to a specialized and expanded division within TDCJ? What training and programs will be funded for Juvenile Probation departments (if that is what they will be called) on the County level to maintain the same troublesome youths in the county that they could not or would not maintain in the past for longer periods of time? Would new criteria be set to "guide and limit" local judges authority before they are allowed to make the referrals? Is the alleged success in Dallas County in part due to their size (and economy of scale)? If so, what does that mean for the small (and presumably poorer) counties in remote parts of the State? How would you re-educate local police departments or CPS workers about changing or modifying their initial interventions with juveniles who need to be removed from the home, due to dangerous behavior? There are many stakeholders in the whole process. Now that local ISD's are having their budgets slashed, they may not be a willing stakeholder. They would seem to be a central player in any potentially successful programs. And with the State's proposed cuts to mental health, those critical services will be severely limited. The history of the system shows that it has been a patchwork of uncoordinated agencies working without a coordinated and mandated plan. Maybe a commission should be formed to specifically look at how juvenile services should be seamlessly integrated, before trying to accomplish a mamoth task in the 140 days that the Legislature is in session. This will not only create a more effective program, but will eliminate wasted dollars.
Does Marc Levin have enough positive influence with the Legislatures to where these reports get some serious review by the staff members of those law makers who are on committees in the house and senate that have oversight on the areas addressed in his reports? It seems that maybe yourself and Levin can exert some of the same positive influence that T. Fiablo once seemed to exert on criminal justice matters before he was exiled. Let us Pray!
On the parole section, I read nothing about long term prisoners (over 20-25 years) who years ago committed a horribe crime. What' the point of rehabilitation and a 20year perfect disciplinary record while in prison if the "nature of the crime" prohibits parole? Releasing a 70 or 80 year old will not return a productive taxpaying citizen.
HB 3200 is wonderful. Mr. Levin is mistaken when it comes to risk levels though. Funding should never be related to risk because it encourages people to fudge risk levels in order to increase funding.
No new criminal laws is a great idea, but in the long run it had better come with making it easier for people to settle disputes between themselves -- otherwise, the push for more criminalization will never end. http://law4lunch.blogspot.com/2009/08/socialism-of-personal-accountability.html
It seems that the recommendations made by M.L. in the Juvenile Justice section of the very useful reports, do not explicitly address what the counties and or the state would do to change how the system deals with the "worst of the worst" youths whom the counties historically would refer to the state lockups. Is there an assumption that only two or three state lockups will be necessary? Will those State lockups be under a new Juvenile Justice agency (which the Leg. is has mandated), or shifted to a specialized and expanded division within TDCJ? What training and programs will be funded for Juvenile Probation departments (if that is what they will be called) on the County level to maintain the same troublesome youths in the county that they could not or would not maintain in the past for longer periods of time? Would new criteria be set to "guide and limit" local judges authority before they are allowed to make the referrals? Is the alleged success in Dallas County in part due to their size (and economy of scale)? If so, what does that mean for the small (and presumably poorer) counties in remote parts of the State? How would you re-educate local police departments or CPS workers about changing or modifying their initial interventions with juveniles who need to be removed from the home, due to dangerous behavior? There are many stakeholders in the whole process. Now that local ISD's are having their budgets slashed, they may not be a willing stakeholder. They would seem to be a central player in any potentially successful programs. And with the State's proposed cuts to mental health, those critical services will be severely limited. The history of the system shows that it has been a patchwork of uncoordinated agencies working without a coordinated and mandated plan. Maybe a commission should be formed to specifically look at how juvenile services should be seamlessly integrated, before trying to accomplish a mamoth task in the 140 days that the Legislature is in session. This will not only create a more effective program, but will eliminate wasted dollars.
ReplyDeleteThe JJ and School Discipline sections are very good.
ReplyDeleteBB
Grits,
ReplyDeleteDoes Marc Levin have enough positive influence with the Legislatures to where these reports get some serious review by the staff members of those law makers who are on committees in the house and senate that have oversight on the areas addressed in his reports? It seems that maybe yourself and Levin can exert some of the same positive influence that T. Fiablo once seemed to exert on criminal justice matters before he was exiled. Let us Pray!
Close TYC.
ReplyDeleteOn the parole section, I read nothing about long term prisoners (over 20-25 years) who years ago committed a horribe crime. What' the point of rehabilitation and a 20year perfect disciplinary record while in prison if the "nature of the crime" prohibits parole? Releasing a 70 or 80 year old will not return a productive taxpaying citizen.
ReplyDeleteHB 3200 is wonderful. Mr. Levin is mistaken when it comes to risk levels though. Funding should never be related to risk because it encourages people to fudge risk levels in order to increase funding.
ReplyDeleteNo new criminal laws is a great idea, but in the long run it had better come with making it easier for people to settle disputes between themselves -- otherwise, the push for more criminalization will never end.
ReplyDeletehttp://law4lunch.blogspot.com/2009/08/socialism-of-personal-accountability.html
Troy