TESTIMONY OF MARC A. SCHINDLER
STAFF ATTORNEY, YOUTH LAW CENTER

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE YOUTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES

Friday, October 19, 2001
Council Chamber
441 Fourth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001

Thank you for the giving me the opportunity to testify today. I am a staff attorney with the Youth Law Center, a national public interest law firm with offices in San Francisco and Washington, DC. For over 20 years the Center has worked with legislators, judges, probation officers, police, prosecutors and defenders, parents, citizens groups, children=s advocates, and young people in virtually every state in the country on juvenile justice issues, particularly problems in juvenile detention and corrections facilities. During this time have provided advice, counsel, public education, training, technical assistance, and legislative and administrative advocacy. We have also brought litigation over conditions of confinement in 20 states to protect incarcerated youth from abuse, maltreatment, and violation of their civil and constitutional rights.

I am offering testimony today on behalf of the Building Blocks for Youth initiative, a national project led by the Youth Law Center to address racial disparities in the juvenile justice system with the goal of creating a fairer and more effective youth justice system for children, families and communities throughout the country. In response to current research on the over representation in almost every state of African-American, Latino, and Native American youth in the juvenile justice system and recent trends in more than 40 states to increase prosecution of youths in adult court - the impact of which falls disproportionately on youth of color - the Building Blocks for Youth initiative has developed a national campaign that includes 5 major components:

• Research on juvenile justice policies
• Analysis of decision making in the field
• Direct advocacy for youth of color in the justice system
• Building a constituency for change
• Public education

As part of the research component of the Building Blocks initiative, over the past several years we have commissioned and published new research on issues related to racial inequities in the juvenile justice system. For example, amongst the reports released by Building Blocks for Youth are the following:

The Color of Justice: An Analysis of Juvenile Adult Court Transfers in California, prepared by the Justice Policy Institute, is the first analysis of racial and ethnic disparity in the transfer of youths to adult court and sentencing to California Youth Authority facilities in California. This study reveals that youth of color are 8.3 times more likely than white youth to be sentenced by an adult court to imprisonment in a California Youth Authority facility.

And Justice For Some: Differential Treatment of Minority Youth in the Justice System, prepared by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD), is the most complete and up-to-date collection of state and federal data on arrest, referral, detention, case processing, waiver to adult court, and incarceration, presenting a comprehensive view of the treatment of youth of color in the justice system. Among the key findings, the report shows that youth of color are over represented and receive disparate treatment at every stage of the juvenile justice system.

Youth Crime/Adult Time: Is Justice Served? reveals disturbing aspects in the transfer of youth, especially youth of color, to the adult criminal court. Prepared by the Pretrial Services Resource Center, the findings show over representation and disparate treatment of youth of color, and raise serious questions about the fairness and appropriateness of prosecuting youth in the adult criminal system.

All of the Building Blocks for Youth reports and related materials can be found on the initiative's website at www.buildingblocksforyouth.org

Specifically, I am here today to talk about a report being released next Tuesday (October 23, 2001) by Building Blocks for Youth that we believe is particularly relevant to the issues being addressed by your Committee at this time. This report, "A Tale of Two Jurisdictions: Youth Crime and Detention Rates in Maryland and the District of Columbia," was prepared by the Justice Policy Institute and has amongst it's key findings:

DC and Maryland: Two Different Detention System Stories Through the 1990s.

• Litigation over the conditions of confinement at the three DC facilities that confined youth (Cedar Knoll, which closed in 1994; the Receiving Home, which closed in 1995, and Oak Hill, which is still operating) compelled the District to reduce the number of youth detained. Over the 1990s, as new alternative to detention programs were put in place, the average daily population of youth detained in DC dropped from 411 to 124. The youth detention rate fell by 71%.
• While, Maryland closed one commitment facility (the Montrose Juvenile Training School) in the late 1980s, and pledged this year to close its largest detention facility (the Cheltenham Youth Facility), in the 1990s, the average daily population of youth detained in Maryland rose from 349 to 440-a per capita increase of 3%.

Public Safety Impact: Declining Use of Detention in DC came with Larger Crime Drop.

• Over the 1990s, DC's average daily population of youth in detention dropped by 70%, but DC experienced three times the drop in the juvenile violent crime rate experienced in Maryland.
• Maryland, which saw an increase in the number of youth in detention and a slight increase in its detention rate over the 1990s experienced a smaller drop in violent crime than DC.

• Conduct thorough utilization reviews and population profiles before new youth detention centers are built.
• Expand the use of community-based programs and detention alternatives, like those that helped DC to reduce the number youth detained over the 1990s.
• Study why disproportionate minority confinement is occurring in Maryland and DC, and suggest approaches to redress inequities in the use of detention. In Maryland, African American youth represent 32 percent of the youth population, but are 62 percent of the youth detained. In DC, on most days, every youth in detention is a youth of color.
• Use as a guide, standards promulgated by professional organizations (such as the American Bar Association and the Institute of Judicial Administration) before building youth detention facilities. These standards suggest smaller, community-based detention facilities are the best model to meet the needs of youth rehabilitation and public safety.

Finally, we are fortunate to be joined today by Lisa Feldman, the lead author of "A Tale of Two Jurisdictions," who is here on behalf of Building Blocks for Youth and the Justice Policy Institute to talk in more detail about the findings in the report being released next week and answer any questions you may have concerning the research.

Thank you very much for your consideration. I would be more than happy to answer any questions or provide additional information that may be helpful to the Committee as it performs its oversight role of the Youth Services Administration.