Line
Ohio
Line

State Demographics

In 1996, Ohio's youth population under age 18 was approximately 2,847,800 (Casey Foundation 1998).

In 1995, approximately 10 percent of the State's children were living in families with incomes below 50 percent of the poverty level. Further, it is estimated that in 1995, approximately 8 percent of Ohio's children under age 13 were living in working-poor families or families where at least one parent was working 50 or more hours a week but the family's income was still below the poverty level (Casey Foundation 1998).

Ohio ranked 29th in the country in terms of teen birth rate for 1995. This same year, the birth rate in the State was approximately 33 births per 1,000 young women ages 15-17. This is up from 29 births per 1,000 young women in 1985 (Casey Foundation 1996, p. 105). In 1995, one out of every eight students dropped out of school and one out of every eight infants born in the State was born to a teen mother (Children's Defense Fund 1996).

Overview of the Juvenile Justice System

Ohio's juvenile justice system is unique in that it is a Home Rule system, meaning that cities and counties throughout the State function with a great deal of autonomy. Therefore, most juvenile justice services are provided by local government and vary from location to location (Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services 1997, p. 3). Juvenile divisions of the courts are branches of either Probate Courts or the Domestic Relations Division of the Court of Common Pleas. However, nine Ohio counties, have separate Juvenile Divisions of the Court of Common Pleas (Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services 1997, p. 7).

To meet the individual placement and service delivery needs of juvenile offenders in the State, local governments have established a wide variety of prevention and early intervention programs, both community- and residential-based. Many of these programs are financially supported through a subsidy program at the Ohio Department of Youth Services (DYS), the agency responsible for the "safe, secure, and humane confinement of all youth committed by Ohio's 88 juvenile courts" (Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services 1997, p. 14). For instance, the State has approximately 403 community correction facilities designed for felony level offenders who would otherwise be committed to DYS. These facilities serve 51 of Ohio's 88 juvenile courts (Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services 1997, p. 13).

Further, the State has approximately 34 detention centers designed to provide temporary care, protection, and treatment for juvenile offenders (Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services 1997, p. 4). All of these detention centers receive financial assistance through DYS (Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services 1997, p. 5). Finally, DYS operates five regional aftercare offices, eight juvenile secure facilities (and contracts for an additional three facilities), nine Community Rehabilitation Centers, and numerous local community corrections programs (Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services 1997, p. 15).

The State's Formula Grants Program is housed in the Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services.

Offense Patterns and Processing of Juvenile Female Offenders

The following statistics give an overview of the information available on female offending and processing patterns in Ohio:

  • Ohio's 1991 and 1992 compliance monitoring data shows that Anglo females are more frequently detained for status offenses than any other segment of Ohio's juvenile population (Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services 1994).

  • In 1992, young women represented 25 percent (9,075) of the youth admitted to detention and 19 percent (1,920) of the youth committed (Poe-Yamagata and Butts 1996, p. 19).

Approach to Female Offenders

The specific objectives of Ohio's efforts to address the needs of female juvenile offenders have remained consistent since 1995. They include the following initiatives: form a work group to evaluate the service delivery system for female youth and to develop a comprehensive strategy to reduce and eliminate inequalities in placement and treatment of young women in Ohio's juvenile justice system; devise a plan of action for improving the service delivery system for female youth; educate juvenile justice professionals about gender-specific services and gender bias in placement and treatment; and assemble a report that includes the recommendations of the work group and distribute it to juvenile justice decisionmakers and practitioners (Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services 1995, p. 18).

In 1995, the Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services formed a work group of 19 professionals from the State's juvenile justice and related systems. The work group, called the Gender-Specific Services Work Group, was charged with identifying the specific needs of the young women in Ohio's juvenile justice system and making recommendations for improvements in service delivery. From 1995-97, this work group gathered information on existing programs in the State for young women, educated itself and others about female development issues, and collected data on the young women in the system. The result was a report to the Governor issued in January 1997 (Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services 1997, p. 12).

This report highlights the existing literature in the field of female development and discusses the appropriateness of gender-specific programming. The report also contains the results of two specially designed focus group efforts conducted in September and October 1996 (Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services 1997, pp. 10, 25).

The first effort involved five separate focus group sessions with 42 professionals from across the State. These focus groups identified the following key issues:

  • There appears to be a lack of facilities for young women, insufficient funding for young women's programs, and a lack of communication within the system. Practitioners expressed a lack of confidence in their ability to treat young women using the most effective measures.

  • There was recognition of differences between young women and young males although staff could not always clearly articulate these differences.

  • Parents were identified as a significant force in young women's lives. In fact, practitioners often felt that the parents were "part of the problem."

  • Practitioners were able to identify which currently operational programs they believed were effective and which were not effective, and there seemed to be a general perception that female offenses are becoming more serious and are being conducted by young women of younger ages (Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services 1997, pp. 28-31).

The second effort involved six separate focus group sessions with approximately 58 young women involved in Ohio's juvenile justice system at various levels. These focus groups identified the following key issues:

  • In general the young women do not feel respected by staff and often feel as though the staff "put them down" instead of functioning as adult role models.

  • The young women were able to identify differences they experienced in treatment by the system because of their gender. In general, the young women perceived the males as having "more privileges, more space, more equipment, and better treatment."

  • The young women identified traumatic family experiences as having played a key role in their development of delinquent behaviors. This was particularly true when their own parents had been involved with illegal activities or involved in the adult justice system.

  • The young women identified several key health issues that were important to them. Among these were pregnancy, drug use, eating disorders, and sexually transmitted diseases.

  • The young women incarcerated in institutional settings identified fears of not being able to leave the facility successfully. In particular, they were concerned with a lack of support once they were on their own and fear of repeating the behaviors that brought them to the institution (Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services 1997, pp. 25-28).

References

Annie E. Casey Foundation. 1996. KIDS COUNT Data Book. Annie E. Casey Foundation, Baltimore, MD.

Annie E. Casey Foundation. 1998. KIDS COUNT Online Data Service. Annie E. Casey Foundation, Baltimore, MD.

Belknap, Joanne, Melissa Dunn, and K. Holsinger. 1997. Gender-Specific Services Work Group: A Report to the Governor. Office of Criminal Justice Services, Columbus, OH.

Children's Defense Fund. 1996. Stand for Children. Washington, DC.

Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services. 1994. Ohio Application and Three-Year Comprehensive Plan. Submitted to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Washington, DC.

Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services. 1995. Ohio 1995 Challenge Activity E Application. Submitted to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Washington, DC.

Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services. 1997. Ohio Application and Three-Year Comprehensive Plan. Submitted to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Washington, DC.

Poe-Yamagata, E., and J.A. Butts. 1996. Female Offenders in the Juvenile Justice System: Statistics Summary. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Washington, DC.

Line
Juvenile Female Offenders: A Status of the States Report October 1998