Be a GIANT in the life of a San Francisco youth in crisis.

On January 12, 2012, the New York Giants won the Super
Bowl.  On Sunday, October 8, 2012, the San Francisco Giants won the
World Series for the second time in only three years.  And on November
4, 2012, the Yomiuri Giants won the Japan Series.  What a year to be a
Giant!  The good news is that the year isn’t over yet and there is
still time for you to be a Giant in the life of a San Francisco youth
in crisis.

City Youth Now has been working for over fifty years to
provide services and support to San Francisco youths in the foster
care and juvenile justice systems by providing funds for services and
programs that promote stability and personal growth.  Shannon Chain is
one of those youths.  Growing up in San Francisco was extremely
difficult for Shannon.  Her mother suffered from schizophrenia,
rendering her unable to provide Shannon with basic necessities that
most children take for granted – necessities like food, clothing, and
shelter.

At the age of thirteen, after about six years of essentially living
on the streets, Shannon came into contact with a probation officer at
the Juvenile Justice Center and, shortly thereafter, was introduced to
City Youth Now.  With support from City Youth Now, Shannon began
taking classes through the Juvenile Justice Center to catch up.  We
also began to pay for Shannon to take ballet lessons.  Pretty soon,
Shannon was employed part-time by City Youth Now and returning to
public school.  Shannon went on to study ballet professionally,
joining the American Ballet Theatre, the Zurich Ballet in Switzerland,
and other great ballets around the world.  Despite her great successes
and world travels, Shannon never forgot about City Youth Now.  She
returned to coordinate a hands-on chemistry program and to teach yoga
to incarcerated youth.

Through the support of City Youth Now, Shannon not only
turned her own life around, but also began to serve as a role model

for others looking to do the same – a group limited only by the
support and services available to help them.  That is where you come
in.  In reflecting on their recent World Series win, many of the San
Francisco Giants gave much of the credit to their fans.  Starting
pitcher Ryan Vogelsong said it was “because of you fans . . . that’s
why we won.”  Relief pitcher Sergio Romo told a throng of screaming
fans that “we couldn’t have done that without you,” later adding that
the San Francisco Giants and all of their fans were “are all World
Series champions.”

As a non-profit organization, City Youth Now depends
heavily upon your donations and your time through our many
opportunities to give and volunteer.  There is a direct relationship
between the support that we receive from people like you and the kinds
of support and services that we provide to youth in crisis like

Shannon.  You can learn about the different ways in which you can get

involved here: http://www.cityyouthnow.org/get-involved.  By getting

involved and supporting City Youth Now, you too can be a Giant in the
life of a child like Shannon.

-Nicholas Rose

Education in Detention: The Importance of High Quality Pedagogy for All Youth

“Education is the most pressing issue facing America.  Preparing young people for success in life is not just a moral obligation of society but also an economic imperative.  Education is the only sure path out of poverty and the only way to achieve a more equal and just society.”[1]

Anne Duncan, Secretary of Education

 

Whether or not one concurs with Duncan’s assessment of education as the “most pressing issue facing America,” it is undeniable that a quality education is one of the crucial factors in a juvenile’s development.  Specifically, a strong secondary education is an essential resource for youth because it serves at the critical link to post-secondary education and/or job opportunities.  According to the United Way’s report, Tale of Two Cities: LA County 10 Years Later, “high school and college graduation have consistently provided higher earnings power,” and Los Angeles “residents with a high school diploma earned on average $8,500 [per] year more than those who didn’t graduate from high school.”[2]  However, regardless of the mountain of empirical evidence supporting the importance of a high school diploma, high school results throughout the United States remain stagnant: “policy changes have not yielded increases in high school success and completion and have failed to produce any significant gains since the l970s.”[3]  Children of immigrants with low educational levels and urban Blacks and Latinos disproportionately carry the burdens produced by these failures of high schools.

As highlighted by Barry C. Feld, one of the nation’s leading scholars in juvenile justice, “education programs to enhance employment prospects of the concentrated poor” could “equalize opportunity for all individuals, regardless of race or ethnicity.”[4]  However, these potential solutions are being overlooked because “the political, media, and public association of urban black males with crime have fostered punitive policies rather than efforts to expand the employment and educational opportunities that prevent crime.”[5]  Taking this argument a step further, not only is there a lack of investment in the educational opportunities that could help prevent crime, but there is also a lack of investment in the educational opportunities that juveniles have access to while in detention.  As an extreme example, consider youth detained in DJJ (Division of Juvenile Justice) facilities, who historically received their ‘education’ via worksheets while housed in isolation boxes.  However, even in more moderate cases, youth that are detained fail to receive an adequate education.  This lack of education undeniably contributes to American economist Jeremy Rifkin’s “concept of ‘economic irrelevance,’ the condition of those segments of our population who have no possibility of contributing to society because their members have nether desirable skills nor significant purchasing power.”[6]  Juvenile probation officer Judith Cox and Attorney James Bell explain that “many of the youth of color in the juvenile justice system reflect this circumstance, which results in structural decisions that do not include them in a productive future.”[7]

Unfortunately, even when it comes to traditional public schools, youth from disenfranchised and low socio-economic backgrounds are disproportionately represented in underperforming and failing schools.  This problem is only exacerbated when one considers the fact that youth of color are also overrepresented in the juvenile justice system, where educational conditions are even worse.  It would appear that the result is a devastating feedback loop: barred from educational opportunities that would help keep them out of detention, underprivileged youth remain barred from additional opportunities while detained and are thus less likely to achieve a meaningful future.  Luckily, you can have a direct impact on the educational opportunities available to youth in foster care or the juvenile justice system by volunteering your time as a tutor (http://www.cityyouthnow.org/get-involved/volunteer-today). 

---

[1] Tale of Two Cities: LA County 10 Years Later. Report by United Way at 6 (2009).

[2] Id.

[3] Gary Orfield, PhD.  UCLA education professor and founder of the Civil Rights Project.

[4] Barry C. Feld, Race, Politics, and Juvenile Justice: The Warren Court and the Conservative “Backlash”, 87 Minn. L. Rev. 1447, 1576-77 (2003).

[5] Feld, Race, Politics, and Juvenile Justice, 1575-76.

[6] Cox and Bell, Addressing Disproportionate Representation of Youth of Color in the Juvenile Justice System. Journal of the Center for Families, Children, & the Courts at 32 (2001).

[7] Id.

 

-Brandon Golob

Minor Criminal, Major Crime: Is ‘Life Without Parole’ Ever the Right Sentence for Minors?

 

            Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding whether or not it is proper for youths who commit murder to face the possibility of life without parole.  Although the Court has previously ruled against the death penalty for youths who commit murder,[1] as well as life without parole for non-homicide crimes,[2] this latest judicial review will offer further guidance on how rulings of retributive justice should differ for juveniles compared to adults.  The opinions arising from the cases of Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobson will undoubtedly shape future juvenile justice jurisprudence throughout the nation, while simultaneously building on the holdings of previous seminal cases such as Roper v. Simmons and Graham v. Florida.

Reviewing these contemporary juvenile cases is a shocking reminder of two different, yet interrelated topics: 1) how the restrictions placed on youth are far greater than the rights they are granted, and 2) the divergent nature of the United States juvenile justice system, in comparison to the rest of the international community.  Although Graham v. Florida held that juvenile offenders could not be sentenced to life without parole for non-homicide crimes, there are a number of other ways that juvenile offenders continue to be punished in jarringly similar ways to adults.  Towards the end of the opinion in Graham, Justice Kennedy, writing for the Court, asserts that: “The Court has treated the laws and practices of other nations and international agreements as relevant to the Eighth Amendment not because those norms are binding or controlling but because the judgment of the world’s nations that a particular sentencing practice is inconsistent with the basic principles of decency demonstrates that the Court’s rationale has respected reasoning to support it [emphasis added].”[3]

Although this contention is powerful, United States justice systems are unfortunately rarely influenced by the norms and standards established by international law.  In Graham, it is highlighted that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child has been “ratified by every nation except the United States and Somalia.”[4]  In short, the United States stands to learn a great deal about proper treatment of youths from the international community; as argued by law professor Bernardine Dohrn, we should “encourage children’s lawyers in the U.S. to look to developments at the [European Convention on Human Rights] and the [Inter-American Convention on Human Rights] for standards, concepts, and trajectories that will strengthen the rights of children in families.”[5]  However, I would take this argument one step further and argue that the U.S. could benefit from looking to many international and regional human rights systems as a means of improving the rights and treatment of children generally.

Research on adolescent development makes it explicitly clear that the brains of youth are less developed than those of adults, thus often making it more difficult for youth to understand the effects and potentially negative consequences of their actions.[6]  In the United States, we appear to account for these differences in the way we set certain policies because “as a society, we recognize the limitations of adolescents and, therefore, restrict their privileges to vote, serve on a jury, consume alcohol, marry, enter into contracts, and even watch movies with mature content.”[7]  Yet, “when it comes to the death penalty,” we have historically cast these differences aside, and “treat them as fully functioning adults.”[8]  To borrow from the words of Justice Harlan in In Re Gault, a case discussed at length in previous posts, it seems as though “the child receives the worst of both worlds.”

Why is it that the cognitive abilities of youth are valued heavily in certain policy considerations, but seemingly ignored when it comes to others?  Why does our justice system continue to value retribution so highly that it is willing to look past all the empirical and medical data that speaks to decreased culpability of youth?  Above all, why is it that the United States seems unaffected by global pressures to change its policies?  As a country, we so often join or even spearhead initiatives to intervene in other nations’ decision-making processes, but when the pressure is directed toward us, why do we fail to improve our internal policies?

While you reflect on these queries, take a moment to find out how you can help our at-risk youth who are often the victims of an anomalous juvenile justice system: whether it is through volunteering your time (http://www.cityyouthnow.org/get-involved/volunteer-today) or making a quick donation in any amount (http://www.cityyouthnow.org/get-involved/donate-now).

---

[1] Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).

[2] Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S.__(2010).

[3] Id. at 31.

[4] Id. at 30.

[5] Bernardine Dohrn, Something’s Happening Here: Children and Human Rights Jurisprudence in Two International Courts, 6 Nev. L.J. 749 at 15.

[6] “Adolescence, Brain Development and Legal Culpability,” Juvenile Justice Center (Washington D.C.: American Bar Association, 2004) 2. 

[7] Id. at 1.

[8] Id.

Re-Visiting In Re Gault as a Means of Meditating on the Media

Last week, I discussed the seminal importance of In Re Gault and its extension of procedural due process rights to juveniles.  Absent from this discussion, however, were the due process rights that juveniles are still denied.  For example, the right to a jury trial is still reserved for the adult criminal system.  On one level, it can be debated what such a right would look like pragmatically: would it still be a “jury of one’s peers?”  Can we actually imagine a jury box chalk full of ten-year-olds, deliberating the fate of another young child?  If not, would a jury of adults still fulfill the spirit of the law?  On another level, there is the fundamental question of what the purpose of a jury really is.  According to Steven Drizin, Clinical Professor of Law at Northwestern, and Greg Luloff, law clerk to the Honorable J. Robin Hunt, one of the primary functions of a jury is public scrutiny.[1]  Thus, they argue that if the media were allowed in juvenile courts, they would help compensate for the lack of jury presence: in their view, “media access is arguably even more essential in providing public oversight and scrutiny to juvenile court proceedings.”[2]  However, not all legal scholars readily accept the potential benefits of media presence during juvenile court proceedings.  Consider the following contrasting opinions. 

            In Are Juvenile Courts A Breeding Ground for Wrongful Convictions?, Drizin and Luloff embrace the positive potential of media coverage of juvenile cases, with little reflection on the possible backlash.  They use “the Ryan Harris murder case in Chicago” as an exemplar of “just how effective the media can be when covering juvenile cases.”[3]  As previously hinted at, they conclude that “the media allows for public scrutiny which is vital in a system of self-government, and there is no reason why media access would not bring the same benefits to the juvenile justice system.”[4]  Conversely, William Ayers, author of A Kind and Just Parent, argues that “as consumers of mediated images we need to be mindful that there is always something more, something beneath the headline, beyond the spectacle.  We should remember that the mediated image is voyeuristic and full of the thrill of danger.”[5]  Specifically, Ayers contends that the media is often too quick to use a single case to present an issue to the public.  Such an approach diminishes the complexities and nuances of a social issue to a single, reductive archetype that “is either too big or too outlandish or both.”[6]

            Juxtaposing these perspectives, we can begin to seek out the best way to frame media coverage of juvenile cases in order to accrue the benefits (eg. public scrutiny of the juvenile court system) without reducing the complexity of issues that surround at-risk youth.  Beyond this, we should wonder how the power of media could be mobilized to compel people to effectuate change.  In doing so, consider philosopher Judith Butler’s powerful perspective regarding the circulation of images through media: “the movement of the image or the text outside of confinement is a kind of “breaking out,” so that even though neither the image nor poetry can free anyone from prison, or stop a bomb or, indeed, reverse the course of the war, they nevertheless do provide the conditions for breaking out of the quotidian acceptance of war and for a more generalized horror and outrage that will support and impel calls for justice and an end to violence.”[7]  Although Butler writes with respect to images of war, a similar argument could be advanced regarding images of at-risk youth.  Taking Drizin and Luloff’s argument one-step further, perhaps the purpose of allowing the media inside juvenile courts is more than fostering public scrutiny.  When images and writings of how the court system fails our youth become a more prevalent aspect of our public consciousness, we can begin to imagine a society that not only scrutinizes the way the system functions, but also makes palpable “calls for justice.”  That is, even if a media presence in the juvenile courtroom is unavoidably voyeuristic and at first only encourages transparency on a case-by-case basis, the impact on a larger scale could one day be a public demand for comprehensive changes in the juvenile justice system itself.

As we begin to meditate on the ‘macro’ changes we hope to see in the system, let us not forget that the ‘micro’ efforts to effect change can begin now: whether it is through volunteering your time (http://www.cityyouthnow.org/get-involved/volunteer-today) or making a quick donation in any amount (http://www.cityyouthnow.org/get-involved/donate-now).

 

- Brandon Golob

---

[1] Are Juvenile Courts A Breeding Ground for Wrongful Convictions? 20.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] A Kind and Just Parent 81.

[6] Id.

[7] Judith Butler, Frames of War: When is Life Grievable? 11 (Verso Books 2009).

Reductive Rhetoric: The Classifications of At-Risk Youth

Child development experts argue that the youth of today are maturing faster than their historical counterparts.  While children’s behavioral and psychological patterns continue to evolve, the language we use to classify juveniles has remained more or less stagnant.  Although people are rarely cognizant of it, the terminology used to categorize juveniles in the justice system greatly impacts public perception of those individuals.  Thus, we must be mindful of the various reductive terms used to generalize at-risk youth, and a make a concerted effort to rise above the cultural baggage that often comes attached to such terms.

The seminal U.S. Supreme Court case of In Re Gault is heralded as forever changing the juvenile court system by holding that juveniles must be granted many of the same procedural due process rights as adults (eg. the right to counsel, the right to timely notification of the charges, etc).  However, in trumpeting the successes of this landmark ruling, people have virtually ignored the more nuanced messages that arise from the case.  In one particularly poignant part of the opinion, Justice Fortas reveals how uniquely aware he is of the powers of rhetoric.  Fortas recognizes that one of “the important benefits of the special juvenile court procedures” is that those procedures “avoid classifying the juvenile as a ‘criminal.’”[1]  He goes on to note, however, that this benefit is no longer being accrued because juvenile court procedures classify juvenile offenders as “delinquents” and “this term has come to involve only slightly less stigma than the term ‘criminal’ applied to adults.”[2]  Accordingly, Fortas refers to the defendant (as well as other youths in his position) as “boy” throughout his opinion: “a boy is charged with misconduct,” “the boy is committed to an institution where he may be restrained of liberty for years,” “judgment as to the possibility that the boy could be disciplined,” etc.[3]  As I parsed through the opinion, I realized that the use of the word “boy” over any other option (eg. young man, juvenile, etc.) made me more sympathetic to the defendant as a very young and vulnerable individual, but this begs the question:  Is this result Justice Fortas’s intention, or did he not really consider the emotional effects of his diction?

Subsequent cases addressing juveniles’ due process rights have also used specific diction when classifying juveniles in the system.  For example, in People v. Westmorland, a case that dealt with coerced confession of a minor, there is a brief reference to the youth’s gender and age in the opinion (labeling him an “immature boy”[4]), but the majority of the opinion uses the gender-neutral classification of “defendant.”  Juxtaposing this case alongside In Re Gault leads one to question why certain judges and justices opt for gender- and age-neutral classifications for the subjects of their opinions, while others select more emotive language.  Although we often expect the media to make specific choices about the language they use when framing a news story in order to sway public opinion, is it possible that judges and justices ever do the same?

Our juvenile court system entrusts judges with an inordinate amount of power.  Unlike adults in the criminal system, juveniles are not granted the right to a jury trial.  Instead, a single judge often renders a verdict that can forever alter the course of a youth’s life.  Reading over the opinions of judges in various cases regarding ‘juvenile delinquents,’ do you see hints of bias seeping through the (often) stoic verbiage?  Does a judge who describes a youth as an “immature boy” seem to have more compassion than one who selects the generic classification of “defendant”?  Take a moment to reflect on the various ways we all categorize youth, and the various sentiments we associate with those differing terms – from ‘youth’ to ‘juvenile’ to ‘child’ to ‘young girl’ to ‘delinquent,’ they all could be describing the same person, but to a vastly different end.

And while you’re still feeling riled up about the topic of at-risk youth, also take a moment to find out how you can help these youths who need it most: whether it is through volunteering your time (http://www.cityyouthnow.org/get-involved/volunteer-today) or making a quick donation in any amount (http://www.cityyouthnow.org/get-involved/donate-now).

–Blog written by Brandon Golob

---

[1] Application of Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1428, 23 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1967).

[2] Id.

[3] Id. at 28.

[4] People v. Westmorland, 372 Ill. App. 3d 868, 869, 866 N.E.2d 608, 613 (2007).

William Ayers�…

William Ayers’ A Kind and Just Parent is a must read for anyone with an interest in juvenile justice.  I just picked it up this past week and have not been able to shake the power of its message, and the beauty of its prose, from my thoughts.  We all know the typical portrait of ‘juvenile offenders’ that the news and media paints, but its time to push past this skewed paradigm and embrace a more holistic perspective of at-risk youth. 

As with countless other social justice issues, individuals from disenfranchised, impoverished, and/or minority backgrounds are disproportionately affected by the juvenile justice system: “from the very beginning, [. . .] juvenile justice engaged in class favoritism that resulted in poor children being processed through the system while middle-class children were more likely to be excused,”[1] and in a 2005 study of the arrest rates of juveniles (ages 10-17) in America, “the black rate was more than twice the white rate.”[2]  The truth is, it is not hard to find a never-ending barrage of statistics about how the juvenile system is flawed if you so choose.  Just flip to your local news channel, or conduct a Google search, and you will quickly discover how the scales of justice are far from balanced.  However, none of this really teaches us about the individuals who are affected by the injustices of the system.  None of this gives us insight into how at-risk youth, at the end of the day, share passions, challenges, and aspirations that are no different from those of all other youth.  If you want these insights – if you want to foster a perspective that values individual realities, rather than confirms statistics – then grab a copy of Ayer’s book.

From the first pages, your perspective of youth in the juvenile justice system will be altered.  Early on, Ayers writes about his experiences with Jeff, a 16-year-old who is eager to get to his judicial hearing, in a touchingly humane manner; he describes how Jeff’s “face betrays just a hint of doubt, but his words are eager, perhaps a little frenetic, and optimistic.”[3]  This beginning to the text serves to move us past all the facts, statistics, and numbers, and remind us about the individuality of each juvenile in ‘the system.’  What really affected me was the reading of Jeff’s story alongside that of Ayers’ son, who “allows himself, uncharacteristically, to be seen as vulnerable” after passing his driving test.[4]  Juxtaposing this phrase with Ayers’ description of the youth at the detention center, I was truly reminded about the vulnerability of human nature.  Just as “each kid” at the center is “vulnerable,”[5] so too is Ayers’ son, in his own right.  For me, being an honest advocate and a concerned citizen demands that one constantly remember the fundamental parts of our humanity that connect us all.  Vulnerability is one of those unique qualities; all of us are vulnerable to a system, external power, or negative force at some point in our lives – the only critical difference often being a lottery of birth that exacerbates the consequences of our vulnerabilities. 

However, each and every one of us can help ensure that this lottery of birth does not become the determining factor of a youth’s life.  Find out more about how you can help make a meaningful difference in the lives of at-risk youth, whether it is through volunteering your time (http://www.cityyouthnow.org/get-involved/volunteer-today) or making a quick donation in any amount (http://www.cityyouthnow.org/get-involved/donate-now).

---

[1] Juvenile Justice in America 8. 

[2] “General Juvenile Justice Facts & Figures.”

[3] A Kind and Just Parent 3.

[4] Id. at 7.

[5] Id. at 4.

 

This blog was written by volunteer, Brandon Golob, UCLA | J.D. Candidate | Class of 2013 |

Starting Anew

At the beginning of a new year, many people make resolutions to better themselves.  Whether it is to get fit, quit smoking, or find a new hobby, the significance of creating resolutions is vital in allowing us to reflect on the changes we want and need to improve our lives.

Youth in the juvenile justice and foster care systems are faced with a different reality and often make resolutions more regularly than the adults in their lives.  They constantly want to change and improve however, these changes can prove difficult.  Harmful habits and behavior, like skipping classes or stealing are often intertwined with issues of peer pressure, poverty, and supervision. Many want to break out of the system but are unclear how to get from here to there.

City Youth Now supports youth in the San Francisco juvenile justice and foster care systems by providing funds for services and programs that help improve their lives.

Individual Grants for youth play a significant role in those involved in the system.  City Youth Now makes these individual grants in recognition of the importance of individual needs, big or small. From textbooks to summer camp or martial arts classes, City Youth Now tries to provide opportunities where they are lacking thereby providing the support and resources youth need to stabilize their life.  

Learning something new is a resolution that City Youth Now supports for youth in the system.  Many have never had the opportunity to do so before City Youth Now. Youth take recreational classes, such as singing, dancing, art, and karate because of City Youth Now. These programs are funded because it helps promote positive youth development through skills building and other healthy behaviors, which can be very effective when it comes to decision making as an adult.

Helping others is another resolution that is in the top ten. It is popular because it involved selflessness and giving back to the community. City Youth Now is a nonprofit organization that relies heavily on volunteers and donations to support the services and programs they provide. For more information, please visit http://www.cityyouthnow.org/get-involved/volunteer-today. Or if you would like to make a donation, please visit http://www.cityyouthnow.org/get-involved/donate-now. Please know that your help is necessary to changing and improving the lives of young people in San Francisco.