[ad_1]
Five years ago, Washington began an experiment to see if young people convicted of serious crimes could be better rehabilitated by remaining in youth facilities, rather than going straight to state prison, even into their mid-20s.
The resulting “Juvenile Rehabilitation to 25” law was framed as a forward-thinking effort based on brain science, which had proved how impressionable youths aged 15 to 25 can be — for good or for ill.
The idea was worthy. The way it has played out suggests either naiveté, or a cavalier disregard for the young people this law was intended to help.
In just the last few weeks at one of Washington’s youth lockups, the Green Hill School, there have been three fentanyl overdoses (none fatal), four assaults, a riot and an employee arrested for drug possession, according to area police. This was not just a bad patch. Green Hill has had these problems for years.
Whether JR to 25 is making the situation worse is debatable. But one thing is certain: It is not living up to its promise, certainly not for the young men who overdosed, nor those who have racked up additional criminal charges while under JR supervision. For their sake, and those coming up behind them, change is needed. Urgently.
Many others have sounded the alarm. Last summer, the chief of police in nearby Centralia begged Gov. Jay Inslee to have the attorney general’s office investigate Green Hill, which is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Children, Youth and Families. The chief was waved off with advice to “connect with DCYF to discuss any remaining concerns.”
A bill now in the Senate is calling for an audit of JR.
Sen. John Braun, R-Centralia, who opposed the original JR to 25 legislation, agrees it holds possibilities, “a kernel of goodness,” which was evident when a half-dozen young men from Green Hill and three young women at Echo Glen Children’s Center testified before the Legislature earlier this month. All had clearly benefited from the programs in these youth facilities.
But even lawmakers who pushed for the law worry that recent failures may put it in jeopardy. Indeed. If something doesn’t change soon, and dramatically, those who oppose JR to 25 will have good reason to call for its repeal.
“Our goal here ought to be that we keep ‘em safe and get them support and education they need to get on a better path,” Braun told the editorial board. “We are 100% not doing that.”
One source of the problem is staffing. More than 60% of JR employees were hired in the last three years, and many of them are calling in sick so often that young inmates can’t attend their school or training programs because there aren’t enough staff to supervise them. So they remain locked in their cells.
How much money is being spent for these results? Hard to know. Braun said he has been unable to get answers from DCYF. Nor could the editorial board. An outside agency assigned by the Legislature to conduct a study on JR to 25 reports similar difficulty. For a public agency to stonewall that way is outrageous.
But the problem goes deeper, all the way back to the legislators who approved JR to 25 without ensuring there were adequate guardrails in place to make it work.
Felice Upton, who became assistant secretary of Juvenile Rehabilitation after the law went into effect, acknowledged the “harm” done and lack of preparation. But she sounds confident that the department is now on the right track.
“I think we have laid the groundwork in the last two years to build the path toward safety and security,” Upton said in an interview. “I look forward to evaluating and assessing a program that’s defensible.”
Take Upton up on this offer.
Sen. Braun believes legislative hearings would give officials at DCYF a chance to publicly address the questions raised. We agree.
So should Rep. Roger Goodman, D-Kirkland, who sponsored the original legislation. As he says, it holds too much promise to pull the plug.
The job now is to fix JR to 25 — not throw it out.
[ad_2]
Source link