Download pdf - Reducing Recidivism in the Juvenile Justice System: A · PDF fileReducing Recidivism in the Juvenile Justice System: A Case Study of the Moran Center Abstract The juvenile justice

Reducing Recidivism in the Juvenile Justice System: A Case Study of the Moran Center

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments Abstract I. Introduction

II. Juvenile Justice in the United States

III. Recidivism

A. What is Recidivism? B. Current Recidivism

IV. Theories of Recidivism

A. Causes B. Methods of Combating Recidivism

V. Hypothesis

VI. Methodology

A. What is the Moran Center? a. History/Mission b. Who The Moran Center Serves c. What The Moran Center Does d. Why The Moran Center?

B. Data Collection C. Data Breakdown

VII. Results

A. Limitations of Study B. Recidivism Rates C. Comparison the the Moran Center Recidivism Rates to other Rates

a. Comparison b. Analysis of Data Comparison

VIII. Conclusion IX. Works Cited X. Appendix

A. Staff Member Interviews

2


Acknowledgements

There are many people I need to thank who contributed to this research study. First and foremost,

I am very appreciative to Colgate University and the Lampert Institute for Civic and Global Affairs

for providing the funding for this project. I would like to thank Professor Gregory Wolf for

sponsoring my project, and also for his guidance from the proposal process through editing the

final document. I would like to than k Professor Jason Kaw all for his encouragement as I

considered applying for the project, and his assistance in helping me organize my initial thoughts

on how to develop this paper and to find a sponsor. This project came about because the Moran

Center’s Executive Director, Patrick KeenanDevlin enthusiastically agreed to allow me the honor

of being an intern at the Moran Center. Patrick suggested that developing recidivism rates for the

first time for the Moran Center would be beneficial as it had not been done before. Kirsten

Kennard, the Moran Center’s Director of Social Services, was very helpful walking through the

types of therapeutic methods the Moran Center provided and offered a comprehensive

perspective on the socialemotional and basic day to day living needs of her clients. I learned a

significant amount about representing clients through watching Tom Verdun, one of the Moran

Center’s attorneys as he worked on cases at the Skokie Courthouse. I also learned all about the

expungement process as two days a week for a couple of hours each day, I worked at the

expungement desk for adults at the Skokie Courthouse, along with many Moran Center

volunteers and staff who showed me the ropes. A special thanks to Max Looper, a recently

graduated University of Chicago law student who worked with me as I pulled information to assist

Moran Center clients in their expungement process. Many thanks to the other Moran Center staff

and volunteers including Kathy Lyons, Maya Dimant Lentz, Ina Silvergleid, Donna Masini, Kelly

Austin, Asa Gezelius, and JoiAnissa Russell. I also want to thank my friends and family for their

support and willingness to listen me talk for hours about this project. Finally, I want to thank my

loving parents who always support me in my endeavors.

3


Abstract

The juvenile justice system in the United States was developed as an alternative to the more

punitive system for adult offenders as a means to rehabilitate juvenile delinquents before they turn

into habitual criminals who go through the revolving door of the criminal justice system.

Unfortunately, the juvenile justice system is failing to fulfill its purpose as juvenile recidivism is

extremely high. It's estimated that between twothirds and threefourths of all juveniles who enter

the criminal justice system end up back in it within a year of release. The longer juveniles stay in

the judicial system, the more detrimental the long term effects are on them. These effects can

include lower educational achievement, limited employment opportunities, and a higher likelihood

of ending up in the adult criminal system.

The successes and failures of the juvenile justice system can be observed by looking at

recidivism rates, which gauge how frequently an individual who has previously committed a crime

reenters the justice system. My research helps to understand the problem of juvenile recidivism.

The paper is broken down into two parts. The first section of the paper covers the academic

literature that seeks to understand recidivism. This section includes a historical background on the

juvenile justice system, a definition of recidivism (how it’s measured and what is the recidivism

rate), a review of the topic literature to better know why juveniles recidivate at such high levels, an

analysis of past attempts at reducing recidivism, and a hypothesis that programs targeting

behavioral problems, mental health issues, and poverty will show success at reducing recidivism.

The second part of the paper tests the hypothesis using an indepth case study of the James B.

Moran Center for Youth Advocacy, an organization dedicated to advocating for troubled youth in

Evanston, Illinois. The case study has several facets. It provides a summary of the services the

4


Center provides to juveniles. It includes interviews with two Center staff to get an insider

perspective on how the Center operates and how and why it has been successful. Additionally, it

features a comparison of recidivism rates of Moran Center clients, formulated through a

quantitative analysis of the juvenile records of seventy clients, to available recidivism data from

Cook County, Illinois and Virginia, Maine, and Washington.

While this case study found Moran Center recidivism rates to be higher than those of Cook

County, Virginia, Maine, and Washington, the results were ultimately inconclusive because the

lack of standardized national and county level recidivism data made an accurate

comparison/analysis impossible. This paper recommends that to study the effectiveness of

programs like the Moran Center more conclusively, a standardized way of measuring juvenile

recidivism rates must be established throughout the country. The only way recidivism will ever be

lowered is through a data driven understanding of how and why certain programs reduce

recidivism.

5


I. Introduction

Recent studies show that the areas of the human brain responsible for executive function and

complex reasoning do not become fully developed until an individual reaches their midtwenties. 1

As a result of this underdevelopment, juveniles tend to take more risks and succumb more easily

to peer pressure both of which are contributing factors to delinquent behavior. This, combined 2

with a variety of other nondevelopmental factors such as low school participation, living in

poverty, or being runaways/homeless, have led to extremely high numbers of juveniles in the

criminal system. In light of this, efforts have been made to reduce the number of people who 34

enter the juvenile justice system. These efforts have been largely successful. Between 1997 and

2011, juvenile confinement rates declined by almost fifty percent and arrests of juveniles for

violent crimes also dropped by about fifty percent. 5

Despite these improvements, the juvenile justice system still requires significant progress to be

made. While confinement rates have dropped, recidivism rates have not. Recidivism is the

commission of an offense by an individual already known to have committed at least one other

offense. In fact, it estimated that between twothirds and threefourths of all juveniles who enter

the criminal justice system end up back in it within a year of release. This is a major issue as 6

1 Gottesman, David M, and Susan Wile Schwarz. "Juvenile justice in the US: Facts for policymakers." (2011). 2 Physicians for Human Rights. Adolescent brain development: A critical factor in juvenile justice reform. Retrieved from physiciansforhumanrights.org/juvenilejustice/factsheets/braindev.pdf. 3 Christle, C., Jolivette, K., Nelson, C. M., & Scott, T. M. (2007). Moving beyond what we know: Risk and resilience factors and the development of EBD: The National Center on Education, Disability and Juvenile Justice. 4 Aratani, Y. (2009). Homeless children and youth: Causes and consequences. New York: National Center for Children in Poverty. 5 Council of State Governments Justice Center, Measuring and Using Juvenile Recidivism Data to Inform Policy, Practice, and Resource Allocation (New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2014). 6 Elizabeth Seigle, Nastassia Walsh, and Josh Weber, Core Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System (New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2014)

6


the longer young people are trapped in the system, the harder it is for them to become

functioning members of society. Lower future wages, as well as overall lost productivity, are just

a few of the harms associated with confinement.

This paper has two goals. The first is to better understand the problem of juvenile recidivism,

including figuring out why rates are so high and how rates can be reduced. I begin by providing

a background on the juvenile justice system, a definition of recidivism, a review of the topic

literature to better know why juveniles recidivate at such high rates, and an analysis of past

attempts at reducing recidivism. The second goal is to investigate the James B. Moran Center

for Youth Advocacy with a particular focus on the agency’s impact on juvenile recidivism in

comparison to other agencies. My research led me to conduct interviews with Center staff. I also

conducted a quantitative analysis of the juvenile records of the clients of the Moran Center and

clients of other agencies to produce comparable recidivism data. Through my investigation I

found that the lack of standardized national and county level data concerning recidivism made

any comparison/analysis difficult. The problem of high recidivism rates can only be solved

through further study of the effectiveness of the Moran Center and other programs like it. This

endeavour is made challenging by the dearth of comparable countrywide recidivism data.

7


II. History of Juvenile Justice In the United States Juvenile justice has come a long way in the United States. Up until the early 1800’s, the justice

system provided the same legal treatment and rights to juveniles and adults. While we now think

of adulthood beginning at the age of eighteen, during the Colonial Era (16001800), the courts

ruled that it started much earlier. Juveniles, from the age of seven onwards, were held by the 7

courts as being responsible for their actions. These juveniles would receive punishments largely

the same as adults and those found guilty of more serious and violent crimes would be jailed

with adults. From the age of fourteen, juveniles were believed to be capable of satisfying both 8

Mens Rea , intent, and Actus Rea , action, meaning they were fully subject to the Common Law

of the time. The housing of juveniles with hardened adult criminals and the mentally ill created a 9

number of issues, namely leading to these penal institutions becoming “overcrowded and

decrepit” and subject to staff abuse. 10

It wasn’t until the beginning of the 19th century that this practice began to change. The Quakers

and other social reformers developed the concept of a House of Refuge in 1824 as an

alternative way to treat delinquent juvenile or those seen as being on the path of delinquency

such as the poor and the destitute. It was meant to be part “prison, school, and job training.” 11 12

The first House of Refuge opened in 1825 in New York and many more were opened around the

country in the next few decades. While these institutions were initially designed with the 13

7 Whitfield, Rachael. "Encyclopedia of Juvenile Violence 2008 210 Edited by Laura L. Finley. Encyclopedia of Juvenile Violence . Westport, CT and London: Greenwood Press 2007 8 Ibid 9 Ibid 10 "Juvenile Justice History." — Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice . Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, n.d. Web. 13 Aug. 2016. 11 Ibid 12 Whitfield, Rachael. "Encyclopedia of Juvenile Violence 2008 210 Edited by Laura L. Finley. Encyclopedia of Juvenile Violence . Westport, CT and London: Greenwood Press 2007 13 Ibid

8


intention of helping children, they fell prey to many of the same problems that the former

penitentiary institutions had. They too became overpopulated, and there were many cases of

staff members mistreating the juvenile residents. Moreover, the justice system still dealt harsh 14

punishments to juveniles and tried them in the same courts as adults. As the country became 15

more and more industrialized and psychologists and sociologists recognized childhood and

adolescence as “a developmentally distinct period of life,” there was a greater push for change.

16

More states separated court hearings for juveniles in the 1870’s, with Massachusetts being the

first. Some states outlawed housing juveniles in the same facilities as adults. In 1899, the first 17

completely separate juvenile court was created in Cook County, Illinois. Within twentyfive years,

most states had set up juveniles courts of their own. These courts were primarily concerned 18

with rehabilitating and protecting juveniles following the “principle of Parens Patriae or the state

as the parent.” , This gave the judges of these courts an immense amount of discretion over 19 20

how to deal with delinquent juveniles, and as a result, juveniles lacked many of the due process

rights afforded to adults. This lack of due process put these young individuals at the mercy of

the changing mood and personal philosophy of a particular judge. The result was a large 21

14 Ibid 15 Ibid 16 "Child or Adult? A Century Long View." PBS . PBS, n.d. Web. 13 Aug. 2016. 17 Whitfield, Rachael. "Encyclopedia of Juvenile Violence 2008 210 Edited by Laura L. Finley. Encyclopedia of Juvenile Violence . Westport, CT and London: Greenwood Press 2007 18 Ibid 19 Whitfield, Rachael. "Encyclopedia of Juvenile Violence 2008 210 Edited by Laura L. Finley. Encyclopedia of Juvenile Violence . Westport, CT and London: Greenwood Press 2007 20 "Juvenile Justice History." — Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice . Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, n.d. Web. 13 Aug. 2016. 21 "Child or Adult? A Century Long View." PBS . PBS, n.d. Web. 13 Aug. 2016.

9


disparity in the way juveniles delinquents accused of similar crimes were treated. Complaints

centered around the lack of legal rights for juveniles began to spring up. 22

In the 1960’s, a series of Supreme Court decisions responded to these complaints and greatly

expanded the rights of juveniles. In cases such as Kent v. United States and In re Gault, the

Court ruled that juveniles were entitled to rights outlined under the 14th Amendment such as a

right to a formal hearing when facing prison or transfer to an adult court, notice of the charges

against them, the right against selfincrimination, and the right to crossexamine witness. The 23

progress of the 60’s and 70’s slowed to a halt when the “tough on crime” phase of the 80’s and

90’s swept through the nation. Countless laws were passed by state legislatures that 24

proscribed harsher punishments for juveniles and made it far easier for them to be tried in adult

court. 25

As it stands today, over a million individuals enter the juvenile justice system each year. In 2011,

the juvenile courts heard 1,236,200 cases. Of those cases, 891,100 concerned males while

345,100 concerned females. The largest age bloc of juveniles in the court system consists of 26

the ages thirteen to fifteen, making up nearly half of all cases. In 2013, 65% of all juvenile

delinquency cases involved white juveniles, 35% involved black juveniles, 2% involved Native

Americans, and 1% involved Asians. It should be noted that delinquency rates do not track

Hispanics separately and mostly lump them in the white category. For broader context, in 2015

22 Ibid 23 The History of Juvenile Justice Dialogue on Youth Justice American Bar Association Division for Public Education 2007 24 "Juvenile Justice History." — Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice . Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, n.d. Web. 13 Aug. 2016. 25 Ibid 26 Sickmund, M.; Sladky, A.; Kang, W. (2014). "Easy Access to Juvenile Court Statistics: 19852011". National Center for Juvenile Justice .

10


77% of all americans were white, 13% were black, 1% were Native American, 6% were Asian,

and 17% were Hispanic. The 2013 breakdown for types of offenses is as follows: 26% are 27

crimes against person (murder, assault, battery, etc.), 35% are crimes against property (theft,

trespassing, vandalism, etc.), 13% are drug crimes, and 26% are public order crimes

(obstruction of justice, disorderly conduct, weapons offenses, etc.). Regarding sentencing, in

2013, 31% of cases were adjudicated delinquent (akin to being found guilty in adult court) while

the other 69% were dismissed. Of the cases that were adjudicated 24% resulted in an out of

home placement (commitment to an institution, group home, or other residential facility), 64%

resulted in probation, and 12% resulted in some other sanction (ranging from mental health

treatment to community service to restitution). 28

27 United States of America. U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S Census Bureau. QuickFacts United States . N.p.: n.p., 2015. Print. 28Hockenberry, Sarah, and Puzzanchera, Charles. 2015. Juvenile Court Statistics 2013. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

11


III. Recidivism

A. What is Recidivism?

Recidivism generally refers to individuals who have already had at least one previous type of

contact with the criminal justice system having an additional contact of the same nature. A

recidivism rate is the percentage of a specific group of individuals who recidivate. Recidivism

rates have been used for many different purposes, but they are mostly seen as a way to

measure the effectiveness of the criminal justice system. In the United States, the goal of the

criminal justice system, especially the juvenile justice system, is not to simply punish criminals

and delinquents but also to show them the errors of their ways and turn them into productive

members of society. If most people who leave the justice system end up right back in it, then the

system is not doing a good job at rehabilitating them. This is why so many researchers and

policymakers have sought to measure recidivism and understand why it happens.

There are different ways to measure recidivism with no one way being necessarily better than

another. The differences between these measurement strategies largely center around three 29

main components: the type of contact with the system, the group of people, and the period of

time that is being studied. Changing any one of these components is going to result in a 30

different recidivism rate. 31

There are also a variety of different types of contact with the system that have been used to

define recidivism. Four of the most common of these measures are rearrest, rereferral to 32

29 Ruggero, Tayler, Jamie Dougherty, and John Klofas. Measuring Recidivism: Definitions, Errors, and Data Sources . Center for Public Safety Initiatives Rochester Institute of Technology, Feb. 2015. Web. 30 Ibid 31 Ibid 32 Ruggero, Tayler, Jamie Dougherty, and John Klofas. Measuring Recidivism: Definitions, Errors, and Data Sources . Center for Public Safety Initiatives Rochester Institute of Technology, Feb. 2015. Web.

12


court, reconviction/readjudication, and reincarceration/reconfinement. Rearrest recidivism 33

rates measures the percentage of a group of individuals who have been already arrested at

least once who were arrested again. Rereferrals recidivism rate measures the percentage of a

group of individuals who have already been referred to court (formally charged and arraigned) at

least once who were referred to court again. Reconvictions recidivism rate measures the

percentage of a group of individuals who have already been convicted of at least one crime who

were convicted of another. Reincarceration recidivism rate measures the percentage of a group

of individuals who have been incarcerated and released at least once before who were

subsequently incarcerated again. Each of these recidivism measurements produces a different

recidivism rate. As can be seen in table one below, the more serious the type of contact the

lower the recidivism rate. 34

Table 1:

33 Harris, P.W., Lockwood, B., & Mengers, L. (2009). A CJCA white paper: Defining and measuring recidivism [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.cjca.net 34 Ibid

13

http://www.cjca.net/


A recidivism rate utilizing arrests is going to be much higher than one utilizing confinement

because in order for someone to be incarcerated they first have to be arrested, then they have

to be charged with a crime, then they have to be convicted of that crime, and then they have to

receive a jail sentence. At each stage of that process there are going to be some people who

don’t reach the next stage, i.e. some people who are arrested but don’t get charged and some

people who get charged but don’t get convicted and so on. This is largely due to the fact that

there is a higher burden of proof at each progressive stage.

In addition to the type of contact that can be studied, there are different populations that can be

used to determine recidivism rates. The most common measure looks at individuals released 35

from incarceration that have gone back into the system, but this is by no means the only one.

Another way to measure recidivism is to look at released prisoners in a specific facility, a certain

city, a state, or nationwide. Recidivism rates could also be broken down by different

demographic or socioeconomic groups as well as by whether the individuals are juveniles or

adults. For example, for this project, I’m comparing a group of juveniles who either were or are

clients of the Moran Center to all juveniles that passed through the Cook County Probation

Office. Each group is going to recidivate at different rates because they all have different

experiences. Individuals from highrisk populations are likely going to recidivate more than those

from lowrisk populations. Individuals who have been incarcerated are likely going to recidivate 36

more than those who just received probation. The list goes on and on. The final way in which

recidivism measures differ is the period of time the researcher considers. Studies tend to look 37

35 Ibid 36 United States. Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators. Defining and Measuring Juvenile Recidivism . N.p.: Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators, 2011. Print. 37 Ruggero, Tayler, Jamie Dougherty, and John Klofas. Measuring Recidivism: Definitions, Errors, and Data Sources . Center for Public Safety Initiatives Rochester Institute of Technology, Feb. 2015. Web.

14


at intervals based on the number of years after the individual had their first contact (whatever

type that may be) with the criminal justice system. So a recidivism rate based on a 12month

interval would show the percentage of individuals who had a second contact with the justice

system within a year of their first contact. The longer the interval, the higher the recidivism rate

will be because there is more time for an individual to reenter the system. 38

B. Current Recidivism

What is the juvenile recidivism rate in the United States? This is not such an easy question to

answer. As of right now, there is no concrete national juvenile recidivism rate. This is because of

the different ways that states track juvenile recidivism. One in five states (11 out of 50 states) do

not track juvenile recidivism. The thirtynine states that do track recidivism do so in varying 39

ways. A little over half of those states that do track juvenile recidivism (21 out of 39) measure it

through multiple types of contact with the system (such as rearrest, readjudication, etc.) while

the other eighteen states only look at one type of contact. Of the limited data on juvenile 40

recidivism rates that is available, the results are not encouraging. Rearrest rates for juveniles

often can reach 75% or higher. For example, in Illinois, 86% of juveniles are rearrested within 41

three years of being released from incarceration, and 68% are reincarcerated. 42

38 United States. Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators. Defining and Measuring Juvenile Recidivism . N.p.: Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators, 2011. Print. 39 Council of State Governments Justice Center, Measuring and Using Juvenile Recidivism Data to Inform Policy, Practice, and Resource Allocation (New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2014). 40Ibid 41Ibid 42 Bostwick, L., Boulger, J., & Powers, M. (2013). Juvenile Recidivism: Examining rearrest and reincarceration of youth released from the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice. Chicago, IL: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority.

15


IV: Theories of Recidivism

A. Causes

In order to fully understand juvenile recidivism it is essential to determine its leading causes.

Since recidivism is broadly defined as an individual who has already had at least one previous

type of contact with the criminal justice system having an additional contact of the same nature,

it stands to reason that whatever issue caused that first contact is also fueling second contact.

Therefore it is imperative to understand why juveniles commit delinquent acts in the first place.

While this subject is an incredibly complex issue with a large degree of explanations, three key

factors have been identified as important predictors of juvenile delinquency: poverty, behavioral

issues, and psychological disorders. 43

These three factors tend to be interconnected and the presence of one is often correlated with

the presence of another. In attempting to discern exactly how these factors are related to one

another and how they lead to criminal behavior, a good place to start is with poverty as it tends

to cause and/or exacerbate behavioral issues and psychological disorders. Juveniles living in

poverty, attending schools with low levels of funding, and living in a community with low

socioeconomic indicators are at a greater risk of becoming delinquents in comparison with the

general population. 44

An explanation for why this is the case can be found in Structural Strain Theory, a sociological

theory developed by Robert K. Merton . Structural Strain Theory is the idea that deviance 45

occurs when citizens in a society with certain cultural goals do not have the means to achieve

43 Development Services Group, Inc. 2015. “Risk Factors for Delinquency.” Literature review. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 44 Ibid 45 Merton, Robert K. (19680801). Social Theory and Social Structure (1968 enlarged ed.). New York, NY, US: Free Press. ISBN 0029211301 .

16

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-02-921130-1


those goals. This idea can be contextualized within the United States where economic success

is one of the main cultural goals. The idea goes that citizens who are at a structural

disadvantage, like the working class and minorities, are more likely to turn to deviant behavior,

in this case, crime. The strain caused by poverty doesn’t just influence individuals, however, it

can also impact families. Families play an essential important role in shaping the lives of

juveniles. This has been known to be especially true when it comes to deviance given that

certain family factors have been proven to be highly correlated with juvenile delinquency. 46

These factors include a history of problematic/criminal behavior in the family such as parents

with criminal records or drug abuse problems; problematic parenting styles which can take the

form of children living outside of the family, lack of parental supervision/involvement, and

inconsistent or harsh discipline; violence/conflict within the family such as divorce or domestic

abuse; and poorly educated or illiterate parents. Factors that possess some or many of these 47

factors tend to be referred to as “broken” families. The combination of low socioeconomic 48

status, low social mobility, low social control, and lack of access to resources increases the

likelihood of these broken families because both parents are less likely to have jobs and

stability. 49

Another sociological theory, Social Learning Theory, developed by Albert Bandura, helps to

explain how families can have such an influential role on the actions a juvenile takes later in life.

This theory posits that the identity of individuals is largely shaped not by their own 50

unconscious but rather by the social stimuli around them. It argues that people’s identity and

46 Development Services Group, Inc. 2015. “Risk Factors for Delinquency.” Literature review. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 47 Ibid 48 Sampson, Robert J. and Wilson, Julius William. 2005. “Toward a Theory of Race, Crime, and Urban Inequality” Pp. 177189 in Race, Crime, and Justice . edited by S. L. Gabbidon and H. T. Greene 49 Ibid 50 Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

17


actions are created and reinforced by society and its expectations and norms. Families are

almost always the first and usually the primary social stimuli that juveniles are exposed to, so

much of a juvenile's identity and behavior is going to depend on their family. This is where

another key predictor of juvenile delinquency, behavioral issues, often stems from. , These 51 52

issues include but are not limited to antisocial behavior such as drug use/abuse, gang

involvement, rebelliousness, an antisocial personality, and early instances of aggressive and

violent behavior. Juveniles raised in violent families, raised by parents involved in 53

gangs/criminal behavior, or raised by parents who use/abuse drugs are going to grow up with

those norms and expectations leading to a higher likelihood of the juveniles exhibiting those

issues themselves.

Another key predictor of juvenile delinquency is the presence of psychological disorders such as

learning disabilities, low IQ, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, emotional disturbance, and

traumatic brain injury. This is evidenced by the fact that it is estimated that between 65% and 54

70% of juveniles arrested in the US have some mental health disorder. For one, if a juvenile 55

with a psychological disorder is living in poverty then they are less likely to have access to

proper healthcare meaning that in some cases the disorder may go undiagnosed or untreated.

This is inherently going to make it more difficult for the juvenile to interact in society in positive

prosocial ways and perhaps, depending on the mental illness, lead to violent outbursts. In

addition, if a juvenile with a disorder is not getting the care they need they are less likely to

51 Royal College of Psychologists http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/healthadvice/parentsandyouthinfo/parentscarers/behaviouralproblems.aspx 52 Development Services Group, Inc. 2015. “Risk Factors for Delinquency.” Literature review. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 53 Ibid 54 Ibid 55 United States. National Council of State Legislatures. Juvenile Justice Guide Book for Legislatures Mental Health Needs of Juvenile Offenders . N.p.: National Council of State Legislatures, 2011. Print.

18

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/healthadvice/parentsandyouthinfo/parentscarers/behaviouralproblems.aspx


perform well in school. This is compounded by the fact that a juvenile coming from a

lowsocioeconomic background is going to be more likely to attend an underfunded school

which may not be able to provide the juvenile with the special education services they need to

succeed. This is problematic because low academic achievement is also correlated with juvenile

delinquency. 56

B. Methods of Combating Recidivism

The next step to understanding juvenile recidivism is to figure out which past attempts at

lowering recidivism rates have shown success. Given how the theory and research has

demonstrated that behavioral issues, psychological disorders, and poverty are all strongly

correlated with high rates of juvenile delinquency; any intervention method that targets any or all

of these is likely going to produce a decrease in recidivism. The data on previous interventions

aimed at reducing recidivism bears this theory out.

Methods that have been historically ineffective at reducing recidivism center around using

techniques designed to control the lives of the juvenile. Control based methods can be broken 57

down into three main categories: surveillance, discipline, and deterrence. Surveillance based 58

interventions are, unsurprisingly, centered around closely monitoring a juvenile’s behavior for a

set period of time. , They usually take the form of some intense probation or parole that 59 60

allows for criminal justice officials, such as probation or parole officers, to keep a close eye on

56 Development Services Group, Inc. 2015. “Risk Factors for Delinquency.” Literature review. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 57 Lipsey, Mark W. "The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A metaanalytic overview." Victims and offenders 4.2 (2009): 124147. 58 Ibid 59 Ibid 60 Tennyson, Heidi R. "Reducing juvenile recidivism: A metaanalysis of treatment outcomes." School of Professional Psychology (2009): 109.

19


the juvenile in question. This surveillance takes the form of house arrest, electronic monitoring,

frequent checkins, and other types of restrictions. There has been little to no evidence that this

method reduces recidivism. , Discipline based interventions are largely centered around the 61 62

idea that discipline is essential for juveniles to succeed in life and can be taught through

structured regimen. Discipline based programs usually take the form of militarystyle boot 63

camps and due to the strict rules imposed on the juvenile, clashes between staff members and

juveniles are common. They have shown no reductions in recidivism, and one analysis even

found that they increase recidivism by about eight percent. , Deterrence based interventions 64 65

are centered around the idea that exposing the harsh consequences of criminal behavior to

juveniles will deter them from engaging in delinquent behavior. , These interventions usually 66 67

take the form of socalled “scared straight” programs where juvenile offenders are brought into

adult prisons to speak with prisoners about their experiences in prison. They have been shown 68

to increase recidivism by anywhere from two to thirty percent. , 69 70

61 Lipsey, Mark W. "The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A metaanalytic overview." Victims and offenders 4.2 (2009): 124147. 62 Tennyson, Heidi R. "Reducing juvenile recidivism: A metaanalysis of treatment outcomes." School of Professional Psychology (2009): 109. 63 Lipsey, Mark W. "The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A metaanalytic overview." Victims and offenders 4.2 (2009): 124147. 64 Ibid 65 Tennyson, Heidi R. "Reducing juvenile recidivism: A metaanalysis of treatment outcomes." School of Professional Psychology (2009): 109. 66 Ibid 67 Lipsey, Mark W. "The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A metaanalytic overview." Victims and offenders 4.2 (2009): 124147. 68 Tennyson, Heidi R. "Reducing juvenile recidivism: A metaanalysis of treatment outcomes." School of Professional Psychology (2009): 109. 69 Ibid 70 Lipsey, Mark W. "The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A metaanalytic overview." Victims and offenders 4.2 (2009): 124147.

20


Methods that have been shown to reduce recidivism tend to be more therapeutic in nature and

center around fostering the personal development juveniles. Interventions that share this focus 71

can be broken down into four categories: restorative programs, counseling, skillbuilding

programs, and multiple coordinated services. There are two main ways that these amends are

made: restitution and mediation. Restitution involves the juvenile giving back in some way, either

through financial compensation to the victim or community service. Mediation is where the 72

juvenile offender apologizes to their victim and possibly meets with them under supervision. 73

The idea is that forcing the offender to take responsibility for their actions and in some cases

even seeing first hand the harm they caused will dissuade them from committing further crimes.

Both restitution and mediation were found to decrease recidivism, restitution reduces 74

recidivism by 9% and mediation reduces recidivism by 12%. The success of this method, 75

which seeks to essentially recognize how and why their delinquent behaviors were wrong,

makes sense given that juvenile delinquency can be traced back to these juveniles learning

from past social stimuli that certain negative behaviors are acceptable.

Counseling based interventions, for the most part, all share a common theme of a responsible

adult who tries to influence the offender's feelings, cognitions, and behavior. They also often 76

seek to recognize and address any mental illnesses the juvenile might have. Sometimes these

methods include family members or peers, with a few even being peerled, but they are

ultimately managed by either a trained mental health professional or a mentoring figure of some

71 Lipsey, Mark W et al. "Improving the effectiveness of juvenile justice programs." Washington, DC: Georgetown Center for Juvenile Justice Reform (2010). 72 Ibid 73 Ibid 74 Tennyson, Heidi R. "Reducing juvenile recidivism: A metaanalysis of treatment outcomes." School of Professional Psychology (2009): 109. 75 Lipsey, Mark W. "The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A metaanalytic overview." Victims and offenders 4.2 (2009): 124147. 76 Ibid

21


sorts. There are a variety of different counseling methods including but not limited to individual

therapy, group therapy, and family counseling. All of these methods have shown some success

at reducing recidivism, resulting in reductions ranging from five to twentyone percent. It is 77

unsurprising that these types of intervention have been impactful at reducing recidivism given

that they target two of the main causes of juvenile delinquency: psychological disorders (through

mental health treatment) and behavioral problems (through a variety of therapeutic and

mentoring based methods).

Skill building programs are all centered around teaching juveniles skills that can help them

“control their behavior and/or enhance their ability to participate in normative prosocial

functions.” Programs that fall under this category include cognitive behavioral therapy, 78

academic training, job related interventions, and several others. These kinds of programs have

led to reductions in recidivism ranging from six to twentysix percent. Considering that skill 79

building programs seek to address two of the main causes of recidivism: behavioral issues,

done through behavioral programs and the cognitive behavioral therapy which both seek to help

juveniles unlearn negative tendencies and learn positive ones, and poverty, mainly

accomplished through improving academic performance and helping juveniles gain

employment; the success of these programs is to be expected. Multiple coordinated services

are essentially a combination of some or all of the intervention types discussed above, often

implemented through a package that is tailored to the needs of the individual juvenile, and have

led to recidivism reductions of anywhere from three to twenty percent. 80

77 Ibid 78 Ibid 79 Ibid 80 Ibid

22


V. Hypothesis

The research has shown that behavioral issues, psychological disorders, and low

socioeconomic conditions are primary causes of recidivism, and that methods targeting these

areas have demonstrated reductions in recidivism. These findings lead me to predict that a

program or organization that implements some or all of these methods would show greater

reductions in recidivism than a program or organization that doesn’t implement any of these

methods. To test this hypothesis I examined outcomes of the clients of the Moran Center for

Youth Advocacy, which employs a number of proven programs, and the clients of Cook County’s

and other states’ Public Defenders Offices which don’t employ these programs.

23


VI. Methodology

A. What is the Moran Center?

a. History/Mission

The Moran Center for Youth Advocacy traces its roots back to 1976 when it was known as the

Evanston Defender Project (EDP). The EDP was started by the Evanston City Council as a

response to a review of the city's indigent legal services, which found them severely inadequate.

It was meant to provide the impoverished youth of Evanston with effective legal representation.

In 1980 the organization broke off from the City to become a nonprofit human service agency

called the Evanston Community Defender Project. The Community Defender Project went on to

serve Evanston youth for another thirty years until the Board of Directors voted to change the

name to the James B. Moran Center for Youth Advocacy after one of its most celebrated

employees, Judge James B. Moran, in 2010. The Moran Center offers a variety of legal and 81

social work services and programs to underprivileged youth in Evanston. In the Centers own

words, its “goal is to provide Evanston youth and their families with the tools to make positive life

choices, the support to successfully emerge from a challenging legal situation, and the ability to

thrive in the local community as productive citizens.” 82

b. Who The Moran Center Serves

The Moran Center largely serves atrisk youth in Evanston, Illinois. To qualify for most of the

Center’s services, an individual must meet three requirements. First, they must be twentyone 83

years old or younger (or the guardian of someone twentyone or younger). Second, they must

be at or below eighty percent of the poverty line as set by the U.S. Department of Housing and

81 "History." Moran Center for Youth Advocacy . Moran Center for Youth Advocacy, n.d. Web. 82 "Mission." Moran Center for Youth Advocacy . Moran Center for Youth Advocacy, n.d. Web. 83 "How To Get Help." Moran Center for Youth Advocacy . Moran Center for Youth Advocacy, n.d. Web.

24


Urban Development. Third, they must be residents of the City of Evanston. The Moran Center

serves an incredibly diverse demographic. On a yearly basis about 73.3% of their clients are 84

African American; 19.2% are white, and the remaining 7.5% identify as racially other or

multiracial. Around 87% of their clients are male, while 13% are female. 49% of their clients are

age sixteen or younger while the other 51% fall between the ages of seventeen to twentyone.

Of their schoolaged clients, 78% are in high school while the remaining 22% are in middle or

elementary school. The Moran Center also has other programs, such as the expungement help

desk, which serve a much broader range of people.

c. What The Moran Center Does 85

One of their primary functions is to provide legal representation for criminal offenders up the age

of 21 in juvenile delinquency court and adult criminal court. However, their legal services do not

only extend to the courtroom. The Center also represents younger individuals in matters of

school discipline, such as in the case of suspension or expulsion, and in special education

hearings, to help students receive whatever services from the school they need to succeed. The

lawyers at the Moran Center also do a lot of work with expungement. They have helped dozens

of their clients expunge their juvenile and adult criminal records over the years. One of the

projects I worked on this summer was analyzing the criminal records of all of the Center’s clients

from the past seven years to see who was eligible for expungement. The Center is now in the

process of filing on behalf of all those clients we found to be eligible, which will make a

substantive difference in all of those clients lives by making applying for jobs, seeking loans, and

finding housing much easier. While these are the Moran Center’s primary legal services, they

84 "Who We Serve." Moran Center for Youth Advocacy . Moran Center for Youth Advocacy, n.d. Web. 85 "What We Do." Moran Center for Youth Advocacy . Moran Center for Youth Advocacy, n.d. Web.

25


also will assist their clients in a variety of other legal matters. For example, the Moran Center

has helped their clients get birth certificates for either themselves or for family members.

Another of the Moran Center’s primary functions is their social work program. The Moran Center

has several social workers on staff who provide a number of services to their clients. These

services include the following. Case Management which involves arranging services for their

clients to help them successfully fulfill all court orders and manage other areas of their life

including living situation, employment, and schooling. According to Kristen Kennard, the

Center’s Director of Social Work Services, case management is used on clients who don’t feel

as comfortable talking about their problems for a variety of reasons but for whom the Moran

Center still wants to build a connection. Most of the Center clients want jobs and want to know

where they can do their community service so they receive assistance in those in those areas

as well. This method allows the Moran Center to build a rapport with its clients. The goal is to let

the clients know they can trust the Moran Center and that the Moran Center is available to help.

The hope is that eventually once this level of trust is established the Moran Center can get the

client into individual counseling. Individual Counseling which “is a collaborative and confidential

process in which clients meet with a social worker to explore the client’s feelings and behaviors,

relationships, choices, and decisions, as well as the client’s current situation.” According to

Kristen Kennard individual counseling involves meeting on a weekly or bi weekly basis.

Sometimes these meetings will take place in the Moran Center office and sometimes they will

take outside on a basketball court so the client can diffuse some physical energy while talking

about his or her problems. The Moran Center individualizes the talk therapy so it best fits each

of clients depending on their specific situation. During this individual therapy time, the social

worker tries to find out what each client’s strengths are because many clients are struggling with

26


self esteem issues stemming from people telling them they aren’t good at anything. The Moran

Center helps its clients build confidence based on the skills they have and works with them to

develop more skills over time. Full Life Future Planning (FLFP) which involves working with

clients to identify their future goals and helping them achieve those goals. Crisis Intervention

which provides clients immediate help in coping with any challenging disruptions or crises in

their lives. Anger Management/Conflict Resolution which helps clients build productive ways to

deal with their emotions to help them live a productive life. Finally, Community Services

Assistance which helps clients complete any court ordered community service by arranging

potential service opportunities and monitoring progress.

In addition to the Moran Center’s extensive services available to their clients, the Center also

runs a number of programs for the broader community. One such example is their Expungement

Help Desk, which is located at the Skokie Courthouse. At this desk, Moran Center lawyers and

social workers along with other volunteers help adults expunge or seal their Cook County

criminal records. This help includes assessing whether an individual qualifies for expungement

or sealing and if they do, filling out all the necessary paperwork. Another example is their

Voices, Ideas, & Perspectives Project (VIP) which is available to students at Evanston Township

High School and Oakton Elementary School. At the high school, students are referred by a

Dean and the program is an alternative to suspension. At the elementary school, students are

identified by school officials as struggling behaviorally and/or emotionally. The VIP Project

“teaches youth communication, problemsolving and conflict resolution skills, as well as the

promotion of healthy choices.” Another example includes their Diversion Program, which was

developed in partnership with the City of Evanston as an alternative punishment for Evanston

juvenile cited with city ordinance violations such as trespassing or cannabis possession. Instead

27


of receiving a fine of five hundred dollars or more, these juveniles can choose to complete a

designated number of hours of community service and or counseling which the Moran Center

will help them complete. On top of these programs, the Center hosts a number of legal rights

and traumainformed social work trainings. These trainings touch on a variety of topics including

Knowing Your Rights and Responsibilities, Anger Management, Conflict Resolution, Personal

Advocacy and Empowerment, Navigating the Juvenile Justice System, Special Education

Rights and Advocacy, and Criminal Records: Expungement and Sealing and Education Boot

Camp: School Law 101.

d. Why The Moran Center?

Based on interviews/discussions with Moran Center staff and my observations; the Moran

Center offers a majority of the program types that have been shown to be effective in reducing

recidivism. See tables two and three below for details.

Table 2:

Programs with Success in Reducing Recidivism

Moran Center Program Offerings

Restitution Programs

Restitution The Moran Center assists its clients with fulfilling any of their court requirements. This would, and has, included community service and reparations if it was ordered by the court. Its Diversion Program also is centered around helping to facilitate Evanston Residents complete community service requirements.

Mediation The Moran Center assists its clients with fulfilling any of their court requirements. This would, and has, included mediation if it court ordered.

Counseling

Individual Counseling This is one of the centerpieces of the Moran’s Center therapeutic program and it is referred to as individual therapy.

Mentoring This is one of the features of the Moran Center’s Case Management program whereby clients are helped by mentors to find jobs, create resumes, etc.

Family Counseling The Moran Center uses different pieces of family counseling methods such as multisystemic and family therapy, however, it's not something it can always do

28


because often times with its legal clients, there is a conflict because family members are often victims or complaining witnesses. So while it tries to deal with as many family issues as it can, it often refers out for family counseling.

Short Term Family Crisis Counseling

Similarly to family counseling, the Moran Center does as much of this as it can. However, due to often present conflicts of interest between family members and their clients it often refers out for this form of counseling.

Group Therapy The Moran Center’s VIP program uses group therapy but it does not do group therapy with its individual/legal clients because of confidentiality. The Moran Center can't introduce its legal clients to each other in a group setting because that would essentially be saying "each of you have a legal case" and that would violate confidentiality

Peer Led Therapy The Moran Center does not use peer led therapy because that result in the same confidentially as group therapy does.

Mixed Therapy The Moran Center uses a variety of different therapeutic methods and does combine the methods listed above to the degree that it is able to do so.

Table 3:

Programs with Success in

Reducing Recidivism

Moran Center Program Offerings

Skill Building

Behavioral Programs

The Moran Center’s VIP program is a type of a behavioral program and it does use techniques aimed at changing certain behaviors in its individual therapeutic sessions with their clients.

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

The Moran Center uses CBT on a daily basis with its individual clients.

Social Skills Training

A component of the Moran Center’s individual therapy program focuses on helping its clients improve their social skills.

Challenge Programs

The Moran Center does not directly use this program but often helps its clients receive residential placements that may use this program.

Academic Training

The Moran Center’s social workers often help their clients with their school work by either directly tutoring them or providing them with safe spaces to complete school assignments. In addition, the Center’s special education program is instrumental in helping clients to succeed in school by getting them any special education services that they might need.

Job Training

The Moran Center itself does not provide job training for its clients. However, a major component of its Case Management program is helping its clients create resumes and search/apply for jobs. Additionally, the Center will often help its clients get into job training programs such as Job Corps.

29


Multiple Coordinated Services

Case Management

This is one of the Moran Center’s primary services that is provide to its clients.

Service Broker The Moran Center will help refer its clients to any services it cannot provide. However, unlike with a service broker, the Center stays very much involved with its clients. In this way, the Moran Center is better than a service broker since the data shows that the lack of involvement is a weakness of this type of service.

Multimodal Regime

The Moran Center does not employ a multimodal regime but it will often help its clients receive residential placements at facilities that do use this method.

Additionally, the Moran Center’s unique social workerlawyer collaboration model provides

another reason to think the Center would be effective. According to the Center’s Executive

Director, this collaboration provides three advantages. The first advantage is that the Moran

Center lawyers are not mental health providers but their clients are going through probably one

of the most traumatic experience of their lives, which is interfacing with the Criminal justice

system. The Moran Center social workers are uniquely trained to support the attorneys in

being trauma informed providers, so that’s one advantage of having an integrated system. The

second advantage is that if the Moran Center’s children are put on probation or supervision and

counseling is a condition of that probation or supervision, that service can be provided in house,

and we as lawyers can manage our clients follow through with those social services.

Accordingly the lawyers can better guarantee that their clients will be in full compliance with the

conditions set by the court, which of course is something a lawyer always wants to achieve for

his or her client because if they don’t, it's a violation and could result in harsher penalties. A third

advantage is that the social workers can support the lawyers in what’s called mitigation at least

in a criminal context. Often the attorneys are just seen as advocates that will say anything in

order to cause or to ensure a less harsh result for their clients, but judges see social workers

and therapists and mental health providers as being uniquely unbiased; so they are able to

30


come into court and advocate for their clients to receive services in the community, to not be

institutionalized, or sent to the Illinois Department of Criminal Justice or the illinois Department

Of Corrections for very specific mental health reasons. Since the Moran Center uses methods

proven to be effective and has the unique advantage of employing both lawyers and social

workers, studying the impact of their specific programs on reducing recidivism presents an ideal

way to test my hypothesis.

B. Data Collection

In order to evaluate the Moran Center’s methods and test my hypothesis I collected the data

necessary to produce recidivism rates for both the legal clients of the Moran Center and of the

Cook County Public Defender's Office. This data was came from the Cook County Juvenile

Justice System and the Moran Center’s own legal database. My initial research strategy was to

compare the criminal records of a set of Moran Center clients to the criminal records of a set of

Cook County clients, matching individuals with similar demographic variables; race, gender,

ethnicity, age, language, family income, education; and criminal variables; years in the

center/system, when/what was their first offense, when were they charged. However, the Moran

Center’s database had only begun to be updated with accurate and complete information on the

criminal records of their clients and so I had to adjust my approach. To produce a robust

recidivism rate for the Moran Center’s clients I updated their information by looking their names

up in the County's juvenile database. This, unfortunately, was not the biggest obstacle to my

initial approach. The far greater problem was the format of the County’s database. In the state of

Illinois juvenile criminal records are automatically sealed. This means that only certain

individual/organizations have access to it. The actual database itself is kept by the Juvenile

Probation Office, the office that processes all juvenile delinquents. The Moran Center was given

31


access to this database as part of a project to help their clients expunge, or destroy, their

juvenile records. It was through the Moran Center and this project that I was able to get

permission to use the database. However, the format of the database made it of little use to me

outside of determining a recidivism rate for the Moran Center’s clients. The database did not

allow me to scroll through and pick out specific individuals, as I had hoped to do. Instead, it was

only searchable by name of the individual or the case number of a specific criminal case.

Additionally, the part of the database I had access to contained no demographic information nor

did it differentiate between clients of the PD’s office and clients of private attorneys, it only

contained the juvenile's name and criminal record.

This meant that not only could I not match individuals with similar racial, ethnic, or economic

backgrounds but I could not even produce a set of juveniles that were not represented by the

Moran Center. So while I could still produce a recidivism rate for Moran Center clients because I

had their names and case numbers, I had to look elsewhere for something to compare it to. To

solve this issue I reached out to the staff member of the Juvenile Probation Office who was in

charge of producing data for the county. She was able to give me two recidivism rates based on

every juvenile record in Cook County, as opposed to a specific population of juveniles. I also

researched recidivism rates from other states to have more comparison points. Next I, along

with another Moran Center intern, looked up the criminal record of every one of the center’s

current and former juvenile clients. I recorded all the information relevant for filing expungement

on worksheets that the center would later use to determine which of their clients would be

eligible for getting their records expunged. For my own purposes, using these worksheets, I

created a dataset that contained several categories which allowed me to determine the Centers

recidivism rates.

32


C. Creating The Moran Center’s Recidivism Rates

The data that I collected to form recidivism rates for Moran Center clients consisted of

information about the criminal records of seventy individuals. These seventy individuals all

became juvenile clients of the Moran Center at some point in the last eight years. 81% of the

data cohort is male and 19% is female. The racial breakdown is as follows: 94% or 66 were

black, 4% or 3 were multiracial, and 1% or 1 was white. As of July 2016, the age breakdown of

the seventy clients is: 29% or 19 are 17 or under, 44% or 31 are 18 to 20 years, and 27% or 20

are 21 to 25.

33


To produce a number of different recidivism rates I collected the following information for each

individual in the sample:

The number of juvenile delinquency referrals each individual had

The number of those referrals that were adjudicated delinquent

The number of those referrals that resulted in an order of supervision that was

completed successfully

The number of adult criminal cases each individual had

The number of those cases that resulted in a conviction

The number of those cases that resulted in an order of supervision that was completed

successfully

34


VII. Results

A. Limitations of the Study

Probably the greatest limitation of this study was the fact that a sample of individuals from the

Cook County juvenile database could not be collected. This made a robust comparison between

the Moran Center’s clients and the County’s clients impossible. Without being able to match up

a group of Moran Center clients and County Clients by demographic variables such as race,

gender, ethnicity, age, language, family income, education; and criminal variables such as years

in the center/system, when/what was their first offense, when were they charged, and what

sentence received none of these factors could be ruled out as causes for differences between

recidivism rates. Moreover, even my solution to this problem did not work out as planned. Ideally

there would be some countywide statistics that looked at a variety of different recidivism

measures so a comparison could be made, although as was explained before not a very robust

one. However, the bureaucratic difficulties of interacting with the County made even this tough.

In the end, I could only very briefly get in contact with the data person at the County’s Juvenile

Probation Office and only received three statistics representing three measure of recidivism.

This meant that while was able to produce numerous data points based on the Moran Center

clients, there was a lack of comparable data. Other limitations of the study dealt the sample

collected from the Moran Center. For one, the data set was based on a relatively small sample

size. This is because the Moran Center is itself a very small organization, so they don’t have as

many clients as agencies like the County’s Public Defender's Office, and also the Center is

required by law to delete its records after a certain period of time, so only clients from the past

eight years could be studied. Another issue with the sample is that due to social workerclient

confidentiality there was no way to measure the efficacy of specific programs of the Moran

Center because that information was confidential.

35


B. Recidivism Rates

I was able to use the six data points I collected to create nineteen different recidivism measures

for the Moran Center cohort of seventy clients. These measures and their definitions are listed in

tables four and five below.

Table 4:

Recidivism Measure Moran Center Data

Definition

Juvenile ReReferral 69% (48 out of 70) This measure refers to an individual charged with 2 or more crimes as a juvenile

Juvenile ReAdjudication 61% (27 out of 44) This measure refers to an individual adjudicated delinquent (analogous to an adult conviction) 2 or more times. This excludes those in the sample who were never adjudicated delinquent.

Juvenile ReAdjudication (STS)

49% (29 out of 59) This measure refers to an individual adjudicated delinquent (analogous to an adult conviction) 2 or more times. In this measure, Successfully Terminated Supervisions (STS) are counted as a delinquent adjudication. This excludes those in the sample who were never adjudicated delinquent.

JuvenileAdult ReReferral 66% (35 out of 53) This measure refers to an individual that has been charged with at least one crime as a juvenile who is subsequently charged with at least one crime as an adult. This excludes those in the sample under the age of 18 except for two who have been charged with at least one crime in adult court.

Adults w/ One or More Adult Convictions

48% (24 out of 50) This measure refers to the number of subjects in the sample that have been convicted of at least one crime as an adult. This excludes those in the sample under of the age of 18 except for one who has been convicted of a crime in adult court

Adults w/ One or More Adult Convictions (STS)

52% (26 out of 50) This measure refers to the number of subjects in the sample that have been convicted of at least one crime as an adult. In this measure, Successfully Terminated Supervisions (STS) are counted as convictions. This excludes those in the sample under of the age of 18 except for one who has been convicted of a crime in adult court.

JuvenileAdult Reconviction 58% (18 out of 31) This measure refers to a juvenile who has been adjudicated delinquent at least once and has been convicted in adult court at least once. This excludes those in the sample under of the age of 18, except for one who has been convicted of a crime in adult court, as well as those who have never been adjudicated delinquent.

36


Table 5:

Recidivism Measure

Moran Center Data

Definition

JuvenileAdult Reconviction (STS)

65% (20 out of 31) This measure refers to a juvenile who has been adjudicated delinquent at least once and has been convicted in adult court at least once. In this measure, Successfully Terminated Supervisions (STS) are counted as convictions. This excludes those in the sample under of the age of 18, except for one who has been convicted of a crime in adult court, as well as those who have never been adjudicated delinquent.

JuvenileAdult ReReferral (21+)

85% (17 out of 20) This measure refers to an individual that has been charged with at least one crime as a juvenile who is subsequently charged with at least one crime as an adult. This excludes those in the sample under the age of 21.

Adults w/One or More Adult Convictions (21+)

75% (15 out of 20) This measure refers to the number of subjects in the sample that have been convicted of at least one crime as an adult. This excludes those in the sample under of the age of 21.

Adults w/One or More Adult Convictions (21+, STS)

80% (16 out of 20) This measure refers to the number of subjects in the sample that have been convicted of at least one crime as an adult. In this measure, Successfully Terminated Supervisions (STS) are counted as convictions. This excludes those in the sample under of the age of 21.

JuvenileAdult Reconviction (21+)

42% (6 out of 14) This measure refers to a juvenile who has been adjudicated delinquent at least once and has been convicted in adult court at least once. This excludes those in the sample under of the age of 21 as well as those who have never been adjudicated delinquent.

JuvenileAdult Reconviction (21+, STS)

50% (7 out of 14) This measure refers to a juvenile who has been adjudicated delinquent at least once and has been convicted in adult court at least once. In this measure, Successfully Terminated Supervisions (STS) are counted as convictions. This excludes those in the sample under of the age of 21 as well as those who have never been adjudicated delinquent.

Adult ReReferral 80% (28 out of 35) This measure refers to an individual charged with 2 or more crimes as an adult.

Adult Reconviction 71% (17 out of 24) This measure refers to an individual convicted of a crime as an adult 2 or more times. This excludes those in the sample who were never convicted of a crime as an adult.

Adult Reconviction (STS) 73% (19 out of 26) This measure refers to an individual convicted of a crime as an adult 2 or more times. In this measure, Successfully Terminated Supervisions (STS) are counted as an adult conviction. This excludes those in the sample who were never convicted of a crime as an adult.

Adult ReReferral (21+) 76% (13 out of 17) This measure refers to an individual charged with two or more crimes as an adult. This excludes those in the sample under the age of 18 except for two who have been charged with at least two crimes in adult court.

Adult Reconviction (21+) 79% (11 out of 14) This measure refers to an individual convicted of a crime as an adult 2 or more times. This excludes those in the sample who were never convicted of a crime as an adult as well as those under the age of 21.

Adult Reconviction (21+, STS)

73% (11 out of 15) This measure refers to an individual convicted of a crime as an adult 2 or more times. In this measure, Successfully Terminated Supervisions (STS) are counted as an adult conviction. This excludes those in the sample who were never convicted of a crime as an adult as well as those under the age of 21.

37


C. Comparison of Moran Center Recidivism Rates and Other Recidivism Rates

a. Comparison

Table 6:

Recidivism Measure

Moran Center

Comparison Data

Explanation of Comparison Data

Juvenile ReReferral

69% 60% Cook County 29% Oregon 86

The percentage of juveniles on a sentence of probation in Cook County who were referred to court for another case during that probation.

The percentage of juveniles in Oregon who within 1 year of being released from a sentence of probation were referred to court at least once.

Juvenile Re Adjudication

61% (No STS) 49% (STS)

20% Cook County 28% Cook County 20% Virginia 87

The percentage of juveniles on a sentence of probation in Cook County who were adjudicated delinquency on a different case during their original probation.

The percentage of juveniles who were adjudicated delinquent within 3 years of the termination of a previous case where they were adjudicated delinquent

The percentage of juveniles in Virginia who within 1 year of being released from a sentence of probation were adjudicated delinquent at least once.

Adult ReReferral 80% 76% (21+)

43% Virginia 88

The percentage of adults in Virginia who within 1 year of being released from a sentence of probation were referred to court at least once.

Adult Reconviction (21+)

79% (No STS) 73% (STS)

63% Washington 89

39% Virginia 90

The percentage of adult felony sentence in Washington in 2007 that involved individuals who had at least one other prior felony sentence

The percentage of adults in Virginia who within 1 year of being released from a sentence of probation were convicted of a crime at least once.

86 United States. State of Oregon. Oregon Commission on Children and Families. Oregon Juvenile Justice System Needs Analysis: Juvenile Crime Trends and Recidivism Report . By William Feyerherm. N.p.: State of Oregon, 2011. 87United States. State of Virginia. Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice. 2015 Data Resource Guide Recidivism . By Andrew Block. N.p.: State of Virginia, 2015. Print. 88 Ibid 89 United States. State of Washington. Sentencing Guidelines Commission. Recidivism of Adult Felons 2007 . N.p.: State of Washington, 2007. Print. 90 United States. State of Virginia. Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice. 2015 Data Resource Guide Recidivism . By Andrew Block. N.p.: State of Virginia, 2015. Print.

38


b. Analysis of Comparison

Despite the fact that the Moran Center is offering a majority of best practice programs, their

recidivism rates are still significantly higher than any of the comparison points listed in the table

below. However, there are two main reasons that these comparisons may be misleading. First,

none of the recidivism measures used in the comparison rates are the same as their respective

Moran Center counterpart. For example, most of the comparison rates only look at either a

followup period of one year; as is the case in the Oregon juvenile rereferral rate, Virginia

juvenile readjudication rate, Virginia adult rereferral rate, and Virginia adult reconviction rate; or

a followup period ranging from one month to five years; as is the case in the Cook County

juvenile rereferral rate and the Cook County readjudication rates. On the other hand, the

Moran Center juvenile rates are looking at the first eighteen years of the individual's life and the

Moran Center adult 21+ rates are looking at the first three to five years of the individual's adult

life. As was explained earlier in the recidivism section of this paper, the longer the followup

period, the higher the recidivism rate is going to be because there is more opportunity to

reoffend. Second, the Moran Center rates are drawing from an exclusively highrisk population

while all the other data points are drawing from either entire states or an entire county, meaning

they likely include significant amounts of lower risk individuals. As was previously explained in

the recidivism section of this paper, a recidivism rate looking at a population of individuals at a

highrisk for delinquent or criminal behavior is likely going to be higher than a recidivism rate

looking at a population of individuals at a lowerrisk for delinquent or criminal behavior.

Regardless of the fact that there are legitimate reasons to think the comparisons above are not

accurate, the Moran Center’s recidivism rates are still high by any standards. However, there

are still a variety of reasons to think the Center makes a positive difference in the lives of their

39


clients. There are more measures of success than just recidivism rates. Beneficial resolutions to

a client's legal problems and improved client mental health are two examples of such additional

measures. Two client stories provide perfect illustrations of these kinds of measures. In one,

which I directly witnessed, a severely mentally ill girl charged with battery received a finding of

not fit to stand trial and was able to get paid placement in top tier mental health facility. In

another, relayed to me by Kristen Kennard, the Center discovered that one of its clients suffering

from mental health issues was not receiving the necessary special educational services from the

school because of misplaced paperwork. During this time period, the client also got into legal

trouble. As a result of the Center’s action, this juvenile was able to get placement in a facility

better suited to his needs, fulfill all of his court ordered conditions, and is now functioning at a

much higher social/mental level.

40


VIII. Conclusion

Given the state of inconsistency in data collection, data definition, and data parameters it is very

difficult to make a valid comparison between the Moran Center recidivism statistics and the

recidivism data from various states. The need for standardization, consistent collection and

ongoing analysis of recidivism data is the focus of many recent studies including the widely cited

(in this document and within the criminal justice community) Council of State Government’s

Measuring and Using Juvenile Recidivism Data to Inform Policy, Practice, And Resource

Allocation and Pew Charitable Trust’s Measuring Juvenile Recidivism: Data Collection and

Reporting Practice in Juvenile Corrections. This paper recommends that all state and local

criminal justice systems keep track of recidivism using all four types of contact with the justice

system outlined earlier; rearrest, rereferral, readjudication, and reincarceration; and follow up

periods ranging from one to five years. Such a standardized system can be created using data

available to every criminal justice system in the country and would create an easy way to

evaluate and compare the effectiveness of these systems. The impact of this would be twofold.

First, it would put a spotlight on failing justice systems, pressuring them to make improvements.

Second, it would identify successful justice systems so researchers could figure out why the

causes of their success.

As for the impact of this paper, that the Moran Center as a result of this study has its first set of

recidivism statistics is a positive outcome of this research project. While these statistics may not

have necessarily reflected the expectations of an organization that employs a number of

services proven to reduce recidivism, they help to further demonstrate the need for more data.

Why are these rates so high? Is there something the Moran Center could or should be doing to

improve them? These are essential questions that the Moran Center, along with the entire

41


juvenile justice system, must answer. However, these questions will only be asked because of

this study and others like it, and they can only be answered through the commission of further

studies and the collection of more data.

A key goal of the juvenile justice system is, or at least should be, making the country safer.

Reducing recidivism can help accomplish this goal, but there are other ways as well.

Recidivism, or lack thereof, is not the sole indicator of an effective juvenile justice system. Other

outcomes such as educational achievement, improved mental health, employment, healthy

familial/peer relationships, and many others must be taken into consideration as well. It is in

these areas where the data presented in this study sells the Moran Center short. Take Kristen

Kennard’s success story for example, where a juvenile was able to feel more confident in

himself and comfortable around others thanks to the help of the Moran Center. A final

recommendation for this paper is to not only continue to collect and standardize recidivism

measures but to explore these other outcomes as well.

42


IX. Works Cited

Anderson, Elijah. 2000. “Code of the Street: Decency, Violence, and the Moral Life of the Inner City” W. W. Norton and Company Aratani, Y. (2009). Homeless children and youth: Causes and consequences. New York: National Center for Children in Poverty. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Beck, Aaron. "What Is Cognitive Behavior Therapy | Beck Institute." Beck Institute for Cognitive Behavior Therapy . Beck Institute for Cognitive Behavior Therapy, n.d. Web. 14 Aug. 2016. "Behavioural Problems and Conduct Disorder: Information for Parents, Carers and Anyone Who Works with Young People." Behavioural Problems and Conduct Disorder . Ed. Vasu Balaguru. Royal College of Psychiatrists, Mar. 2012. Web. 26 Sept. 2016. Bostwick, L., Boulger, J., & Powers, M. (2013). Juvenile Recidivism: Examining rearrest and reincarceration of youth released from the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice. Chicago, IL: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. "Child or Adult? A Century Long View." PBS . PBS, n.d. Web. 13 Aug. 2016. Christle, C., Jolivette, K., Nelson, C. M., & Scott, T. M. (2007). Moving beyond what we know: Risk and resilience factors and the development of EBD: The National Center on Education, Disability and Juvenile Justice. Council of State Governments Justice Center, Measuring and Using Juvenile Recidivism Data to Inform Policy, Practice, and Resource Allocation (New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2014). Development Services Group, Inc. 2015. “Risk Factors for Delinquency.” Literature review. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Elizabeth Seigle, Nastassia Walsh, and Josh Weber, Core Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System (New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2014) Gottesman, David M, and Susan Wile Schwarz. "Juvenile justice in the US: Facts for policymakers." (2011). Harris, P.W., Lockwood, B., & Mengers, L. (2009). A CJCA white paper: Defining and measuring recidivism [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.cjca.net "History." Moran Center for Youth Advocacy . Moran Center for Youth Advocacy, n.d. Web. Hockenberry, Sarah, and Puzzanchera, Charles. 2015. Juvenile Court Statistics 2013. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice. "How To Get Help." Moran Center for Youth Advocacy . Moran Center for Youth Advocacy, n.d. Web. "Juvenile Justice History." — Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice . Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, n.d. Web. 13 Aug. 2016.

43

http://www.cjca.net/


Lipsey, Mark W et al. "Improving the effectiveness of juvenile justice programs." Washington, DC: Georgetown Center for Juvenile Justice Reform (2010). Lipsey, Mark W. "The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A metaanalytic overview." Victims and offenders 4.2 (2009): 124147. Merton, Robert K. (19680801). Social Theory and Social Structure (1968 enlarged ed.). New York, NY, US: Free Press. ISBN 0029211301 . "Mission." Moran Center for Youth Advocacy . Moran Center for Youth Advocacy, n.d. Web. Physicians for Human Rights. Adolescent brain development: A critical factor in juvenile justice reform. Retrieved from physiciansforhumanrights.org/juvenilejustice/factsheets/braindev.pdf. Roberts, Bryan R. and Yu Chen. 2013. "Drugs, Violence, and the State." Annual Review of Sociology, Vol 39 39:105125. Ruggero, Tayler, Jamie Dougherty, and John Klofas. Measuring Recidivism: Definitions, Errors, and Data Sources . Center for Public Safety Initiatives Rochester Institute of Technology, Feb. 2015. Web. Sampson, Robert J. and Wilson, Julius William. 2005. “Toward a Theory of Race, Crime, and Urban Inequality” Pp. 177189 in Race, Crime, and Justice . edited by S. L. Gabbidon and H. T. Greene Sickmund, M.; Sladky, A.; Kang, W. (2014). "Easy Access to Juvenile Court Statistics: 19852011". National Center for Juvenile Justice . "Social Skills Training for Young Offenders." Child Trends . Child Trends, 16 Jan. 2013. Web. 14 Aug. 2016. Tennyson, Heidi R. "Reducing juvenile recidivism: A metaanalysis of treatment outcomes." School of Professional Psychology (2009): 109. The History of Juvenile Justice Dialogue on Youth Justice American Bar Association Division for Public Education 2007 United States. Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators. Defining and Measuring Juvenile Recidivism . N.p.: Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators, 2011. Print. United States. National Council of State Legislatures. Juvenile Justice Guide Book for Legislatures Mental Health Needs of Juvenile Offenders . N.p.: National Council of State Legislatures, 2011. Print. United States. State of Oregon. Oregon Commission on Children and Families. Oregon Juvenile Justice System Needs Analysis: Juvenile Crime Trends and Recidivism Report . By William Feyerherm. N.p.: n.p., 2011. United States of America. U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S Census Bureau. QuickFacts United States . N.p.: n.p., 2015. Print. United States. State of Virginia. Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice. 2015 Data Resource Guide Recidivism . By Andrew Block. N.p.: State of Virginia, 2015. Print. United States. State of Washington. Sentencing Guidelines Commission. Recidivism of Adult Felons 2007 . N.p.: State of Washington, 2007. Print.

44

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-02-921130-1


Vigil, JD. 2003. "Urban violence and street gangs." Annual Review of Anthropology 32:225242. "What We Do." Moran Center for Youth Advocacy . Moran Center for Youth Advocacy, n.d. Web.

Whitfield, Rachael. "Encyclopedia of Juvenile Violence 2008 210 Edited by Laura L. Finley. Encyclopedia of Juvenile Violence . Westport, CT and London: Greenwood Press 2007. Xxiii 336 Pp., ISBN: 978 0 313 33682 9 £51.95/$85." Reference Reviews 22.5 (2008): n. pag. Web. "Who We Serve." Moran Center for Youth Advocacy . Moran Center for Youth Advocacy, n.d. Web.

45


X. Appendix A. Staff Members Interviews

Through the Eyes of the Moran Center’s Executive Director

Executive Director’s Role at the Moran Center

“I serve as the Executive Director of the Moran Center, which means that I lead a staff of both lawyers and social workers who provide an integrated legal and social work services to low income youth in the evanston community. I also serve as a staff attorney in the organizations, I represent young men and young woman in the juvenile delinquency system here in cook county. Um, and I shouldn’t even say cook county, I represent evanston youth who are caught up in the delinquency system and we follow the child so if the child picks up a delinquency case in Lake county we go to lake county, if its in mchenry county we go to mchenry county, it is a holistic approach, how we serve our clients and the families that we serve, i also presently serve as a special education attorney representing low income families in dispute with the school districts here in the community to try to get the support systems services they need to succeed and to stay in school, though we are currently in the process of hiring a special education staff attorney to replace me and that position is going full time which is very exciting.”

A Typical Day At The Moran Center

“There are no typical days at the Moran Center, um, for me it can involve spending the morning at a child's jail side, at the cook county temporary juvenile detention center, at the Evanston Police Department, it can involve going to court, holding a trial, having a hearing, going to one of our local schools and meeting with school officials and school district attorneys to try and resolve disputes to ensure again that children succeed in our school systems, it involves community outreach, going to meetings at night, during the day, early in the morning, to ensure that our kids voices are always present and are always taken into consideration, then as a manager now in the organization it also involves fundraising so taking donors to lunch, organizing events with event committees, people don’t realize that nonprofits don’t just exist they require a significant amount of funding and that requires a tremendous amount of effort, meeting individually with donors, but also crafting and pitching grants, grant requests to family foundations, etc. so that’s why my day looks different every day, but also I love my job.”

The Advantages of Lawyer/Social Worker Collaboration

“The advantages are that we as lawyers are not mental health providers but our clients are going through probably one of the most traumatic experience of their lives, which is interfacing with the Criminal justice system, and our social workers are uniquely trained to support our attorneys in being trauma informed providers, so that’s one advantage of having that integrated system, the second is that if our children are put on prob or sup and counseling is a condition of prob or sup, we can provide that service in house, and we as lawyers can manage our clients follow through with those services and can better guarantee that our clients will be in full compliance with the conditions set by the court which of course is something a lawyer always wants to achieve for his or her client because if they don’t, it's a violation and could result in harsher penalties, a third advantage is our

46


social workers can support us in what’s called mitigation at least in a criminal context so often times we as attorneys are just seen as advocates that will say anything in order to cause a less or to ensure a less harsh result for our clients, but judges see social workers and therapists and mental health providers as being uniquely unbiased, and so they are able to come into court and advocate for our clients to receive services in the community to not be institutionalized or sent to the illinois department of criminal justice or sent to the illinois DOC for very specific mental health reasons and so that is a third advantage i can think of, um, at the Moran Center, there are probably a lot more but those are the three i’ve got.”

Through the Eyes of the Director of Social Services

Director of Social Services Role at the Moran Center

“So I along with the other social worker attend juvenile court every monday which is where we get most of our referrals both for our legal work and our social work program, every juvenile client that comes through the legal court system automatically gets a social worker, so with those specific clients we do anything from individual therapy, case management, crisis management, anything that we need to do in order to help them complete successfully whatever they have going on in court as well as make their lives and family lives and school lives easier in the community, in addition to that i oversee all of our social work groups and programs, so we have a VIP program which is Voices, Ideas, and Perspectives at the High school and at Oakton Elementary school, at the high school it is more of an alternative to suspension, we want to try and keep kids in school and most of the kids that are getting suspended for more serious offenses, verbal or physical fighting, what the Deans see as more severe and more serious are referred to our program, and if they participate and complete our program, their amount of suspension days are either decreased or completely gone, and with that happening then we allow them to stay in school but also learn from whatever it is they did to get themselves in trouble in the first place, and hopefully develop coping skills, ways to manage their anger, conflict resolution, along the way so they are actually learning from their mistakes, and based off of that we went into younger grades which is why we are at oakton elementary right now, and that's not an alternative to suspension because hopefully not too many of those kiddos are getting suspended, but that is more the staff and administration attempting to identify kids who are struggling either behaviorally, emotionally, and could use that extra support, so its the same curriculum but we just tweak it so that it is, it works for younger kids rather than the older kids, so I oversee the facilitators that do that as well, um, and then we have our diversion program which our other social worker runs, so I oversee all of that, and then just in regards to community meetings, any community meetings regarding trauma, mental health, violence, I generally attend all of those, participate in the mental health board, and anything to continue our networking, and relationship building within the community, obviously for our whole agency but i’m specifically there for mental health services and social work services that we have.”

The Moran Center’s Therapeutic Methods

“Yea so the individual therapy, that we provide it's based really situation to situation so we attempt to see all of our clients at least once a week on a regular basis and that's just we use all different types of models and ways to connect different with different kids, we try to use our strength based perspective a lot to really pull out what these individuals are good at, a lot of what they are struggling

47


with is self esteem and people telling them that they are not good at anything and that is kind of leading them to the trouble they are in, so one of our goals is to really help them identify what they are good at, and then work to develop more skills throughout that time so that's what we try to do on a weekly basis with every client we have, we have two social workers so capacity is small, so we also sit down in the beginning and try to assess the severity of their needs so some kids we only meet with every other week, to one try to free up some time but also they aren’t as in need as other children, so individual therapy is really based on their individual needs, that's talk therapy, going out and playing basketball with them every once and awhile to let them get some physical energy out and all of that, so it really looks differently for everybody, and we have some kids that come along in the case management piece of it that maybe aren’t so willing to sit down and talk about their lives or really think that they have things all together or what not, but we want to make sure we still stay connected with them so we approach that situation in more of a case management type relationship, where most of our kids want jobs and want to know where they can do their community service and more not personal things, but things we can help them with along the way and that is how we start to build rapport with those kids, who are a little more closed off to therapy, we start helping them say oh you can come in and look for jobs so they start coming in every other week and work on a resume, well do very tangible things so that they start to get to know us and generally with that comes that therapeutic relationship as well because they start to feel like ok you are here to help me and they get to know you a little bit and they feel better about that so that's kind of just another technique we try to use the crisis management is generally for our individual clients that we are already seeing for our individual therapy, a lot of things come in regard to being suicidal being homicidal, kids who have been shot, been shot at, kids who have family members who have been shot and killed or are in the hospital, so those are just somethings that are less predictable but i’m available and on call the majority of the time to respond to those calls so as to hopefully not have a situation escalate with that particular client, we will get random crisis calls from people that are not our clients, sometimes friends of our clients, in the community, and we try our best to do what we can for that as well as far as referring them to the right places or getting through the initial crisis and then sending them to somebody else, but most of the crisis work is with clients we are already seeing on an individual basis.”

Why The Moran Center Is Uniquely Effective

From the Perspective of the Executive Director

“Unfortunately in Cook County, and it's really true across the country, legal aid agencies are for the most part big, and the Cook County Public Defender’s office, similarly, is a huge office, with thousands of lawyers and support staff and that is the model of care that our nation has essentially decided is the best way to serve low income children and families, and at the Moran Center, we are very unique in that we are community based, meaning that we are small, that we serve a very discrete population it's just for the citizens of the city of evanston, and because of that we are able to go deep with our families so we are able to address many if not all of their legal needs, under one roof, but we are also able to address many of their mental health issues, their challenges in dealing with other bureaucracies, both in the city of evanston but also statewide in the county of cook, and i think that makes us really unique, i think the other thing that makes really unique is that we say no to nobody, so every case that comes in, if they qualify for our services they get our services, we don’t

48


have caps, we don’t say oh we only take fifty cases per attorney, we work as long and as hard as we need to in order to satisfy each and every child and family need that comes across our threshold and i think that makes us extremely unique, and different”

From the Perspective of the Director of Social Services

“I think that one of the largest things that makes us unique is that we do integrate these two services, we integrate the legal services with the mental health services, it blows my mind to think that their is not more, there are no more agencies that also take that approach, because i think that in the data, in the research, in the statistics, the majority of people who are coming into court, especially kids, especially teenagers have other things going on and you really don’t find the services that we have here in many other places if any at all, so I think that's the biggest piece of it, beyond that people talk about wraparound services, a lot of agencies talk about wraparound services and i can truly say that the MC has every single type of wrap around service you can think of.” (At this point I asked what are wraparound services) “So wraparound services, it's basically termed that because you have a kid who has a specific need that's being targeted, so we have a kid that is in juvenile court, and then you look at every other aspect of their life and see how we can wrap around that child so we can make sure that, oh ok your parents are losing housing because of this, let's get somebody on housing, oh you're not doing well in school, so it's making sure that although they are there for one specific reason that you are looking at all other aspects of their life, and either that agency themselves are helping with that or refer them to an agency that can and with the MC i think which is diff than most other places is we pretty much, anything that those families or clients need, we figure out a way to make happen, whether it's specifically through the MC which a lot of it is, with our connections to psychologists and psychiatrists and people who can do neural psychological reports for kids who need intense care and things like that, our relationships help get those kids, and then we are the ones who drive them there, the ones who sit there with them, and participate in all of that so I don’t think that that happens at a lot of other places, ya know I joke around sometimes that we are like a cab drive because it is, we make sure, because the kids that we work with are so untrusting of many many things if not everything in their lives, that when they do get here and feel safe it's not realistic for us to say oh ok go call this number and talk to this person so you can get help with that, ya know they need us to facilitate that, and the MC does that with every single thing that comes to our plate, and I think that’s very unique because its hours and hours and we also, we are very small, we do have a big caseload for how small we are, but compared to other places who don’t have the opportunity to get to know their clients especially attorneys, the PD’s office, ya know you see them in court and that's about it, here at the MC, we have the ability to build those relationships with clients which helps us rather than kind of casting our net huge, going wide in regards to quantity we get to really dig deep and really give quality services and get to know our clients and our families and everything there is to know about them because we have the ability to sit down and get to know them that way.”

49


Two Client Success Stories

A Client Success Story in the Words of the Executive Director

“Yes, so I’ll talk about a case that james you actually saw come to fruition in your time at the MC, so I represented a young girl in juvenile court, she came to me because her guardian didn’t know who else to turn to, her child had been suspended from school on so many different occasions, and at that point has been hospitalized at numerous occasions, and really was unmanageable, we started the process of working with the schools to find a better placement within the educational spectrum for that child, during that period unfortunately she attacked a stranger on the street because she was very mentally ill, that then brought her into the juvenile system, so we quickly had to exercise our integrated legal social work model to really address very complex needs so we were providing mental health services for this child, we were providing special education services for this child, advocacy, and we were also providing juvenile delinquency representation in the courts, it was one lawyer one social worker doing all of this, so their was no piecemeal representation so in the courts we were able to speak very effectively to what was happening in the schools, and when we were in the schools we were able to speak very effectively to what was happening in the courts, and ultimately we got this child who experience such trauma and such pain, a really what i believe is a good result, her juvenile cases, she was essentially released from those charges because she was found unfit to stand trial, and in special education we ultimately got her placed in residential facility in pennsylvania which is one of the premier psychiatric hospitals for children, I don’t think typical legal aid agency or a typical public defender could have achieved this goal for this child, we were again uniquely position because we are so integrated”

A Client Success Story in the Words of the Director of Social Services

“Yes so we had a client, i got him about three years in september, and he came to us through juvenile court, and it was very apparent to me in meeting him the first time that he had severe mental health issues and when we first met him he was in there for battery against a safety officer at his hs and it was his first court contact that he had actually gotten referred to court and he was 15 and it was, just in meeting him and then talking about where he was at in school and what kind of classes he was in it was very apparent that he wasn’t receiving the services he needed to receive, and so this is an example of kind of all of our different services coming into play at once, he utilized our legal program, our special education program, our social work program, i started meeting with him individually got to know him and his family better, and I learned that he had been in special education classes since kindergarten in self contained classes where tests were read to him, one on one aid with him throughout everything and somehow somewhere when he graduated 8th grade that paperwork, got mixed up, didn’t get transferred over, and he went into general education classes at the HS with no help and it was his freshman year, he was getting in trouble the dean was seeing him all the time, he couldn’t stay in classes, he was getting into arguments with safety officers and what not, and nobody could figure out why and that's how he came to court with us, and i realized very quickly in meeting with him and his family that 1. Yes he use to have these supports but also that his issues were very severe and how he really needed that support, so our legal program helped him in the court world, and the special education attorney and myself advocated for him in school and we went in and told him ya know he used to have an iep, where is it all these things so all of a sudden it is april of his freshman year, he already lost his first semester, he has no credits or anything, they

50


wanted to kick him out of the school because of his behavioral issues and his non performance in academic classes and we were able to say that the school was the one who dropped the ball and he wasn’t able to get any services, and retroactively that has hurt him as well because he wasn’t getting any social work services and all of that so while i was meeting with him for individual therapy and what not we also went towards the school and said they needed to be providing these services so ultimately down the road we advocated for him to be residentially placed because his mental health issues because of his inability to perform in the classroom because of those mental health issues he couldn’t be, and because of his struggles in the community and at home and he didn’t really have a family that could always take care of him and the court was also advocating for him to be put in residential but we were trying to avoid DCFS, so that's another reason we went the school route but also because the school needed, they had the responsibility to do that so we were actually able to get him placed in residential placement in wisconsin and he went to that, i went and saw him every month we talked very week, we continued the relationship because knowing he was going to be coming back to the community, we wanted to make sure that that connection was still there, we figured out everything he needed to do in court, and what not and so he was there for almost a year, he did wonderful out there, did everything he was supposed to be doing, did everything a lot quicker than anybody thought that he could, he successfully completed probation so, and now I still see him for social work services, he still has his struggles but he is talkative and he is open and he knows all of us now and his family knows us so well and i think that that touches on majority of all of our programs, you talk about the collaboration, integrating those services, ya know if i was just a mental health professional in a private practices or just the PD i don’t know that half of those issues would have been one discovered but then also kind of sought out to do everything we could to get him the services he needs defender, I don’t know that half of those issues would have even been discovered much less resolved.”

51