Here is today's Post article about the emergency bill the Council passed to deal with the recent jump in crime in DC. Under the emergency legislation (which lasts 90 days, but could later be made permanent) the curfew for those younger than 18 would be 10pm. The new legislation also calls for survellance cameras in residentail neighborhoods (installation begins this week). Here's a Baltimore City Paper story on surveillance cameras in Charm City. This was sent out on the ANC6A listserv, but I think it's of general interest, so I'm reposting it here:
ANC6A Public Safety Committee Memorandum
to: ANC6A Public Safety Committee
from: Stephanie Nixon
subject: DYRS, Vincent Shiraldi DYRS
date: 6/23/2006
***NOTE: All examples, are merely examples.***
DC is an unusual place for the sentencing process. Juveniles are confined at Oak Hill and other places but then sent home. There is no set amount of time for a sentence.
Mr. Shiraldi functions similar to State systems and County systems in other locales. If a juvenile is detained, then it is done by Mr. Shiraldi. If the juvenile is not detained, then he/she is released back to community. Supervision at that point is completed by Court Social Services (Terry Odom) by CSS probation officers. In DC, the District funds DYRS and the Federal government funds CSS.
Several options to judge if convicted – (1) sentenced to DYRS or (2) placed on probation. DYRS is usually monitoring about 450 kids that have spent time at Oak Hill or in program, this monitoring is similar to parole. Probation is under the auspices of CSS and Parole is under the auspices of DYRS.
Recidivism:
Recidivism statistics are from the most recently analyzed available data from 2001 and 2002: Within 6 months after juveniles committed to Oak Hill are released, 30% are re-arrested. Mr. Shiraldi stated that this number is "unacceptably high". We discussed that it is difficult to leave behavior that leads to being committed, if and when juveniles return to the place the behavior occurred.
32% of DC's juveniles released from Oak Hill go to adult prisons with 3 years of exiting the juvenile system. In Missouri, this number is only 8%. In other parts of country 32% is not unusual. To obtain the reduction, Missouri moved away from large facilities to smaller facilities that are more home-like. DYRS has brought in people from Missouri to train the people. They have started 1 demonstration unit and will begin to train 30 staff for 2 more units in October. The trainers are there for several days, on-site. The goal is to change the culture of a very prison-like facility. Oak Hill is not good. Mr. Shiraldi reported that at times teenagers were locked down 24 hours per day in Oak Hill, but he argued against continuing to keep juveniles locked down this much. If this continues, then it is more likely that juveniles will turn back to streets as they came to Oak Hill. The Deputy Superintendent for Oak Hill was taken from St. Louis, Mo. They are currently working on a demonstration unit and they plan to do 2 more by October and 1-2 more by January.
Evidence-based practices:
DYRS is trying to bring in evidence-based practices. The Justice department has done some nice randomized control trials. Mr. Shiraldi focused on those examining multiple contact programs because a juvenile doesn't go to Oak Hill on the first arrest, usually. Also, a child is almost 100% likely to be arrested a 4th time if arrested 3 times.
(1) Multi-systemic therapy: (MST) Most of the research has been done in across types of areas (i.e., urban, rural, suburban, Northeast, South, etc.). This type of therapy has been effective in showing decrease in negative behaviors and an increase in positive behaviors such as education. The best version was completed by the Washington Institute of Public Policy. There are a series of blueprints for violence prevention. A prerequisite: The home has to be tenable. Some are initially untenable but with some help some of those become tenable. If juveniles are not primary locus of rehab, then view in multi-systems by looking at family. If the family provides trouble and the juvenile returns to the environment, then the juvenile will be more likely to get in more trouble with the law. Therefore, the job is to do classic family therapy and serve as advocates for the children like many parents do. This program began in February/March 2006. This approach includes individualized therapy, getting the juveniles back in school, getting them the necessary services (e.g., special education, counseling, etc.).
(2) Multi-dimensional treatment in foster care: Multi-systemic therapy in a foster home setting when the juveniles home is entire untenable. There is strong oversight and Universities that developed this follow-up. Local vendors need to increase capacity. There are programs like this in other jurisdictions.
(3) 2 new detainee programs –
a. Intensive monitoring: Intensive supervision used to be 2 meetings face-to-face per week. A contract was recently issued for intensive monitoring 3x per day, 21x per week. The goal is for the juvenile to go back to court without messing up. The worker doesn't sit in classes with them. Research shows that return to court is really high and later rearrests are lower than control.
b. Evening recording program in Wards 4 and 8: The children's families are not home after school. Therefore, they drive the children from school to the program in Ward 4/Ward 8. There is access to a variety of items including family counseling. The programming occupies the entire evening and provides face-to-face supervision Mon-Sat. Rearrests are only 2% and failure-to-appear is only 4%. Mr. Shiraldi was unaware of a single statistic with an overall number of failure-to-appear. However, none of Mr. Shiraldi's statistics indicated a failure-to-appear rate over 10% - technical violations.
Why the recent change?
Mr. Shiraldi went through all technical failures and made new protocols. It took too long to get children into a program. Now the DYRS picks child up from court. DYRS would like to reduce the 30% failure rate.
DYRS is trying to data driven. The goal is to provide effectiveness data to the judges monthly. People still make mistakes, but DYRS is trying to build trust in what is done in community and the legal system. In fact, DYRS had just closed a shelter home that provided lousy service at the time of this conversation. Mr. Shiraldi is requiring data from those working with and for DYRS.
To keep children out of arrests in the first place, we need positive youth development. Deputy Mayor Reiskin is very focused on this. How to keep kids out of arrest in first place?
Court Social Services
The head of Court Social Services is Terri Odom 202-508-1800. This is similar to CSOSA for juveniles.
There is no bail/bond for juveniles.
11 comments:
Also, wanted to let you all know that I have requested a camera for our community based on our long standing request. This is the letter I sent out today.
July 20, 2006
Edward D. Reiskin
Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice
Government of the District of Columbia
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 327
Washington, DC 20004
Re: Anti-crime legislation – request for camera installation
Mr. Reiskin:
On July 19, 2006, the D.C. Council approved an emergency bill that contained three provisions that address the curfew, access to juvenile offender’s information and use of cameras. As reported in the Washington Post on July 20, 2006, on page A13, the police have access to four cameras that can be installed almost immediately.
As the Single Member District Commissioner representing the community immediately bordered roughly by 8th to 13th Street between H Street and Maryland Avenue, NE, I am formally requesting that our community receive one of the four available police cameras to combat crime.
Recall, our Commission sent a letter of unanimous support on June 16, 2006, for this legislation (initially submitted as PR 16-766) to Councilmember Phil Mendelson, who is the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for the District of Colombia.
Our community has been working with your office for close to a year to provide input on this legislation in order to give the critical tools needed for the Metropolitan Police Department to combat crime. On August 8, 2005, we sent a formal request to install a camera in the alley between 12th and 13th Streets and H Street and Linden Place, NE in response to a brutal murder in that alley.
While I am sure there are many locations that these cameras are needed, I wanted to take this opportunity to renew our request for the use of a camera in our community. I forward to your reply to this request.
Respectfully,
Joseph Fengler, ANC 6A-02
Cc:
Councilmember Ambrose
Commander Diane Groomes, First District
a camera won't change anything other than where the crimes occur. and some people will STILL commit crimes with the camera right there. did armed robbery stop when convenience stores got cameras? not at all. why would cameras stop crime just because they're outside? be sensible. criminals aren't rational. if they were, they'd find a legal way to make money. all those cameras will do is invade the privacy of law abiding citizens in the h street area. i oppose this idea...
Cameras may not prevent crime directly or immediately, but they go a long way to helping the police solve crimes. While criminals can shift their focus to other areas, (which is a desirable effect, isn't it?) giving the police the tools they need to better handle their responsibilities is essential to changing the overall mentality of an area. Police are only intended in part to deter crime, but also to solve crimes and take offenders off the street. Speaking to the rationality of criminals, nothing can make people stop commiting crimes, but something can be done to ensure capture and punishment (perhaps with evidence gathered by these cameras) of these irrational criminals. Furthermore, what invasion of privacy are you concerned about? Unless it is illegal, what do you need to maintain privacy for in the middle of the streets?
There are some fairly ignorant laws out there that make some things some people do illegal. Smoking pot is a pefect example. Yes it's against the law. Is that a good law? That's highly questionable. I'm guessing there are also probably some laws governing sex acts that many routinely engage in still on the books. That, and the fact I question where it will end, are why I am opposed (and, yes, I live in Trinidad).
One can aruge the validity of laws, and one can question where the "infringement" of privacy will end; but to refuse or challenge a device to promote a modicum of safety or assist in the administering of justice, over concerns of violations of personal privacy, would be doing the community a great disservice. If you have ever had a crime commited against you, only to find that the police have no means of apprehending the offender(s), that violation of your person far supercedes the percieved injustice of being recorded on a street corner.
First of all tim if you are engaged in sex acts in the middle of the street you probably should be arrested. Pot should be legalized but do you really need to smoke it in the middle of the street.
Certainly the middle of the street is no place for either of the things I suggested. If those in charge of the cameras guaranteed me that the line of sight of the camera would never be on private property, I would be more open to them. That said, I think such a promise would be very difficult to make.
About 2 months ago my car was sprayed with 7 bullets while it sat on a corner in Trinidad. I am aware of violence and the role it plays in my life. I am afraid at times. But that fear is nothing compared with the fear invoked in my by the thought of a government grown too powerful, which has been happening steadily for the last 6 years. Maybe everyone else can shrug it off, but not me and I'm not willing to say this is ok for the 'greater good' or some possible perceived benefit (which I will not assume, but rather agree it is possible).
I think you would change your mind if someone you loved was in that car, and a camera could have helped to catch the shooter? Also, this is a municipal decision, not a federal one. Other major cities have done the same, with some positive results.
I think you're wrong, but you're entitled to intrepret my comments as you wish.
And, the municipality is growing in power, as this bill proves. It's not that different from what's happened at the federal level, just on a much smaller scale.
I should amend my last comment. I would, in fact, be happy if someone who harmed my love one was caught on tape. But that would be born out of grief and a desire for revenge, two things that I most certainly do not believe should be a part of any legislation.
It is my opinion that my grief and desire for revenge are sufficient justification for the erosiion of yours, or anyones, civil liberties.
should read
"...are not sufficient justification for the erosion...."
Post a Comment