Dear Editor:
I am writing to express my gratitude to VJJA for your on-going support and encouragement of professionals in our field. I recently completed a Master of Arts degree in Human Relations Counseling at Liberty University and a note of congratulations appeared on the Members in the Spotlight section of the VJJA website within days. I have to admit, those words really look great in black and white. Thanks for the scholarship (winner of 2005 VJJA Scholarship) that helped make it happen and for helping me celebrate a milestone. To the Board of Directors, keep doing all that you do. It is not going unnoticed. I also would like to give a special thanks to our VJJA President, Beth Stinnett, who maintained continuous contact throughout my academic career. Her genuine compassion for people, not to mention an eye for detail will prove beneficial to the members of this wonderful organization for years to come.
Aileen Lewis
Probation Officer, 10th District CSU, Boydton
Dear Aileen: Congratulations on your MA in HR from LU! – Ed.
Dear Editor:
In the most recent publication (Summer 2007) page 14, there is an article entitled The Dangers of Detention, The Impact of Incarcerating Youth in Secure Facilities. This article was excerpted from the Justice Policy Institute in a November 2006 article.
I found this page of bullets most disturbing. What I can not understand is why VJJA would publish such an article without giving detention folks an equal opportunity for opposing view points. I can tell you that our facility and many others in this State have had the opposite effect on many of the youth brought to us. Furthermore, there was not one mention in this article that Detention is primarily a public safety function.
I need to know whether I am only one, one of a few, or one of many who feel this article without an opposing point of view is a slap in the face to those of us who have devoted our lives to public safety. This article has not one positive comment about secure detention. I know that our facility has many positives we will be writing to the Advocate about. How about you?
At this moment I am seriously reconsidering whether to renew my VJJA membership or allowing anyone at this facility to attend VJJA functions on the company dime. I don’t much care about their disclaimer about statements and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the members or the Board of Directors. When you aren’t even asked to present an opposing view, it’s pretty clear where they stand. The Advocate has a motto “Advocating for court-involved children and the professionals who touch their lives since 1966.” I wonder, does this include detention folks? Let me know what you think.
Charles Edwards
Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Home
Dear Editor:
I’m also concerned about the Advocate’s publishing of the article, “The Dangers of Detention.” As a member of the VJJA Board and a Detention Home Superintendent, I would have appreciated a “heads up” that this article was going to appear in the Advocate. Although the article provides some valid information, the way it was presented in the Advocate was incomplete. There was no introduction which could have included information about Virginia’s innovative approach to detention (for example, mental health services on-site, post-dispositional treatment that keeps youth close to home, and positive working relationships with schools to make transitions back into the community successful). Also, as Charlie points out, no mention of the public safety function we provide nor any chance for a rebuttal to be included with the article. I realize that there are some juvenile detention facilities in the United States which do not operate effectively. Yes, there are some scary places out there; but, here in Virginia we work hard to provide high quality services to youth placed in our care.
At NRVJDH for example, we’ve had Aggression Replacement Training groups all summer lead by qualified Mental Health Professionals and specially trained detention home staff. ART was identified in the article as the second most cost-effective intervention for delinquent youth. But, this information wasn’t included in the laundry list of the ills of detention. You had to follow the link to find the full article online to find this information. Thankfully, I receive my Advocate electronically. Further analysis of the state of detention in Virginia would also reveal that we are at a very exciting time...programming abounds, community relationships are being forged or solidified, and we are being included in efforts to reduce inappropriate youth of our facilities. But, where was this in the article?
The article was a slap in the face to those of us in detention. If VJJA truly wants to increase membership by including more detention staff, this most certainly isn’t the right approach.
Colleen A. French, Superintendent
New River Valley Juvenile Detention Home
Dear Charles and Colleen: OK. I get the message. Whew! I’d be happy to run an article in the Fall issue which balances out the findings published in the Summer issue offered by the Justice Policy Institute. The deadline for the Fall issue is October 1st. – Ed. (Please see Colleen’s article in this issue.)
Dear VJJA Editors:
In the summer 2007 edition of the Advocate, a publication of the Virginia Juvenile Justice Association, an excerpt from an article titled “The Danger of Detention: The Impact of Incarcerating Youth in Detention and Other Secure Facilities” is printed on page 14. Unlike the Advocate’s editors who failed to reveal the position of article’s authors, publish alternative points of view against which the article could be judged and interpreted or reveal the mission of the Justice Policy Institute, it is my sincere hope that readers understand the morality and position from which I make the following observations and claims.
I am a Justice Policy administrator, an advocate, educator and practitioner. I am an advocate of best practices in detention. I develop programs and write policies based on empirically tested or evidence-based practices involving systems integrated assessment, intervention and transitional planning for at-risk juveniles in the local community. I focus on core values of integrity, trust and responsibility and I am an advocate of an ethic to do no harm to children entering or leaving detention. I am also a member of the Virginia Juvenile Justice Association and I do not support or agree with the tacit position of VJJA’s editors to publish “The Dangers of Detention.”
The Justice Policy Institute is a non-for-profit think tank with a stated mission to “promote effective solutions to social problems” by suggesting a causal connection between detained juveniles and the increased threat of criminal victimization. It should not be a surprise that their data reflects the bias of their position and uses correlations supporting an otherwise undocumented causal link between detention and juvenile delinquency. For example, their article includes data they claim confirms that “detention can increase recidivism”. This conclusion reflects causal assumptions linking juvenile delinquency with detention. No reasonable person could deny a correlation between detained juveniles and recidivism. An educated reader will know that the causes of crime are considerably more complicated than simply being detained. The conclusions reached by the authors of the article include a number of other spurious conclusions suggesting a causal link between detention and delinquency, mental health disorders and educational services. The editors of the Advocate have made the same mistake as the authors of the article by providing data as conclusions and by making causal inferences about the impact of detention on crime rates, rehabilitation and public safety when only correlations exists. While the Justice Policy Institute’s organizational mission is to reduce and eliminate social problems associated with incarceration and detention, VJJA is a multi-disciplinary organization with diverse membership. Presenting information as “conclusions” is irresponsible and potentially alienating to members who do not share the same position as the Justice Policy Institute and who believe they are developing programs that change the lives of juveniles in detention.
The second area of concern noted in the article is the impact of detention on juveniles’ mental health and propensity to self-harm. Once again, research used to support statements constructed as conclusions (i.e. “Detention makes mentally ill youth worse”) is also causally misleading. The article cites conflicting empirical studies suggesting and indicating connection between mental illness, suicidiality, self-harm and detention. It is claimed that detaining juveniles with mental health histories or diagnosis’ exacerbate symptoms of mental illness and puts detainees at increased risk for self harm. Again, the mission of the Justice Policy Institute informs its conclusions. Instead, VJJA would have been better served in promoting and reporting on Virginia’s leadership and modeling of best practices in the area of mental health assessment, intervention and treatment for juveniles in secure detention. The General Assembly provided funding to the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services in collaboration with local Community Services Boards for staffing of clinical and case management positions in Virginia Detention facilities. At Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention, we are in the second year of funding to provide professional support and psychiatric services to detained juveniles. I have collected data indicating that these programs and services effectively assess, identify, stabilize, intervene, treat and plan for the needs of children suffering from mental illness. Detention does not cause illness in children; rather it can be a place or site for stabilizing and accessing services.
My final criticism is without reservation. I am incredulous of the claim that detained youth with special needs fail to return to school and have reduced success in the labor market. The evidence is clearly contradictory and the authors of the article attribute and place blame for complex social problems on the use of incarceration and detention. Again, this is an instance where the Advocate could have chosen to fulfill its mission by pointing out Virginia’s recent comprehensive legislative and policy reform effecting school re-enrollment for the majority
of school age children in local detention centers and in the Department of Juvenile Justice. Second, enhanced legal protection is provided to students with special needs. Specifically, students with special needs are afforded protection by state and federal regulations requiring continuity of educational services through the age of 21. Detention is a site for accessing and coordinating those services and educators in Virginia’s detention centers often fulfill an advocacy role for their students. Finally, issues involving education and youth employment are the responsibility of the local community. Complex social problems and successes require integration of community services both public and private. It is irresponsible to attribute the cause or the solution of these problems to institutions of incarceration.
Advocacy has a moral purpose. In the Moral Commonwealth, Philip Selznick writes that “contemporary anxieties arise in part from raised expectations and from vulnerabilities born of success.” By printing the Dangers of Detention, the VJJA editors, knowingly or not, participated in irresponsible moral decision making. The peril, as noted by Selznick is failure to recognize the responsibility groups and individuals have in understanding modernity not as a sign of moral decay but as the price paid for a certain kind of moral development. VJJA has a mandate to correct, not by apology or retraction, but by advocacy, moral choice and responsibility, their distortion of success as failure. In an effort to assist VJJA in their advocacy I have attached to this correspondence convictions and thoughtful reflections of the success of detention which I hope you will share with your members.
Thoughtfully Submitted in Advocacy of Our Youth,
Ed Bowman, Programs Coordinator
Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention
Dear Ed: Rarely have I been so eloquently bashed. Thank you. The Advocate will continue to print the occasional findings and articles with which our membership and/or I disagree. We are not Fox News and make no claims to be “fair and balanced.” As long as we can provide a forum for members to share their ideas and concerns then we have served some purpose. – Ed.
Dear Editor:
The last two issues of the Advocate I received were folded in the middle and stapled at the top. Please note that I prefer my Advocate mailed flat, without any folds or staples. I trust you will make that correction.
Signed,
Don’t Bend, Fold, Staple or Mutilate
Dear Don’t Bend: Well, excuuuuuuuuuse me! According to our Mailing Department, when three or more Advocates are mailed to the same address, they are mailed flat, bundled in a 10 X 13 envelope. When there are less than three Advocates mailed to the same address, they are mailed individually. The Summer issue of the newsletter cost 97 cents to mail one copy. By folding and stapling each copy, the mailing cost went down to 49 cents per copy. With 268 individual copies to mail, the Association saved $128.64 on the Summer issue mailing costs by folding and stapling the individual copies (268 X .97 – 268 X .49). If you don’t want your Advocate folded and stapled when it arrives to you, here are some options you may wish to consider: go to work for an agency that has three or more VJJA members; send us a check each quarter for $128.64; have someone take out the staple and iron the issue for you; or drag yourself into the 21st century and opt for the eAdvocate. – Ed.
Read Letters to the
Editor for January 2007 (featuring letters from Mike
Sawyer, Dave Marsden, Richard Hagy)
Submit letters to: advocateeditor@vjja.org
