 | This is an archive of an Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention OJJDP publication. |
|
 Connecticut: Balancing Service and Public Safety Objectives in Juvenile Justice System Reform Introduction With the enactment in June 1995 of Public Act (P.A.) 95225,305 An Act Concerning Juvenile Justice, Connecticut set out to reform its juvenile justice system. The principal thrust of the State's reform initiative was to make major corrections in a system that was viewed as both too lenient with serious and violent juvenile offenders who posed public safety risks and unresponsive to the treatment needs of juvenile offenders. The centerpiece of Connecticut's reform initiative was a set of provisions that would require the transfer of 14- and 15-year-olds who commit serious felonies to adult court, permit access to confidential juvenile records, transfer prosecutorial jurisdiction for juvenile crime from the State's judicial branch to the Division of Criminal Justice, and expand services for and supervision of juvenile offenders.306 P.A. 95225 also called for the development of a plan to bring about an across-the-board reorganization of the State's juvenile justice system. The act charged a task force composed of executive, judicial, and legislative branch officials with developing the plan for consideration by the Governor and the State legislature. By fall 1996, the State had completed its reorganization plan and moved forward to implement various features of its reform initiative. Earlier that year, however, the reorganization effort had suffered a setback when, despite overwhelming support for the initiative, the State legislature did not pass enabling legislation needed to support implementation of two key components of the plan: the transfer of juveniles awaiting trial as adults to the Department of Corrections and expedited renovation and construction of juvenile facilities.307 Enabling legislation was to be reintroduced in January 1997. Officials closely involved with the reform initiative are optimistic that the needed legislation will be enacted and that the goals of P.A. 95225 will be achieved. Connecticut's reform of its juvenile justice system evolved in many ways from major reforms accomplished in the State's adult system beginning in the early 1990's.308 By 1994, the State had delivered on its promise that adults convicted of violent offenses would serve longer terms. The State had acted to ensure that adults convicted of violent offenses would serve the sentences that they received, and it had built the new prisons needed to hold them. However, by the mid-1990's, it was clear to the public and its elected and appointed officials that during the period of improving the adult system the juvenile justice system had been largely neglected. "When the improvements in the adult system were complete, all of a sudden all of the problems in the juvenile justice system were glaringly obvious," according to one State executive branch official.309 A principal catalyst for the public's focus on the juvenile justice system in the State was an evolving gang problem that encompassed not only Connecticut's urban centers but some of its more suburban communities.310 Law enforcement officials were finding large numbers of juveniles in broad sweeps of gangs. These juveniles, though young in age, were often experienced gang members who were committing serious and violent crimes and receiving minimal sanctions for their activities. Their youth was being exploited by older gang leaders who knew that these young gang members would receive lesser penalties for their actions in the juvenile justice system than their older, adult counterparts would in the criminal justice system. Moreover, there was only a slim chance that a juvenile gang member adjudicated for a serious or violent crime would serve any significant time in a correctional facility. The Long Lane School, the most secure and prisonlike facility for juveniles in the State, was seriously overcrowded, and it was widely known that stays at the school were limited to only a few months.311 The contrast in the justice system's treatment of adult and juvenile offenders who committed similar crimes was obvious to all observers. To one State official, it seemed as if the State was hammering the adult members of the gang and being manipulated with respect to the juvenile members of the gang.312 The public wondered why 16- and 17-year-olds (adults under Connecticut law) who committed serious crimes had to serve serious time in prison, but 15-year-olds who committed similar crimes did not. P.A. 95225 is an expansive law that establishes the framework, and sometimes prescribes the specifics, for dramatic change in the operations of the State of Connecticut's juvenile justice system. The law sets out numerous organizational and operational changes in agencies of the juvenile justice and related systems, including the courts, probation, children and family services, and corrections.313 It calls for the development of risk assessment, case classification, and purchase-of-services systems; enumerates and describes programs to be included in an expanded network of services for juvenile offenders; and makes changes in judicial proceedings concerning both delinquent children and juveniles accused of serious crimes. The three principal goals of P.A. 95225 are to ensure that:
The statute states: It is the intent of the general assembly that the juvenile justice system provide individualized supervision, care, accountability and treatment in a manner consistent with public safety to those juveniles who violate the law . . . . The juvenile justice system shall also promote prevention efforts through the support of programs and services designed to meet the needs of juveniles charged with the commission of a delinquent act.315 At the heart of P.A. 95225 are provisions that reflect the divergent viewpoints of the two principal constituencies that helped to shape the reform initiative: policymakers who favored concentrating system improvements on the serious and violent juvenile offender and those who focused their efforts on making substantial investments in expanding and improving services for all juvenile offenders. The following four key elements of the statute further reflect these two constituent interests:
The new law envisioned sweeping changes in the State's traditional approach to managing juvenile offenders. Accordingly, implementation of the new law would require a massive reshuffling of the juvenile justice system and additional laws and resources to support the mandated changes. The State legislature called for the development of a juvenile justice reorganization plan to be submitted to the Governor and the State legislature by February 1, 1996.317 To develop that plan, the legislature created a task force composed of the chief court administrator, the commissioner of children and families, and the under secretary of the Planning Division of the Office of Policy and Management.318
The legislature charged the task force, known as
the Policy Group, with producing recommendations
in 16 areas that ranged from studying the feasibility
of transferring the State's juvenile detention
centers from the judicial branch to the Department of
Children and Families, to entering into contracts
with service providers, to producing a
comprehensive plan for juveniles who are substance
abusers.319 The legislature instructed the Policy Group to consult with the attorney general, the State treasurer,
the chief State's attorney, the Division of Public
Defender Services, and the cochairs and ranking
members of the State legislature's judiciary and appropriations committees in formulating the
reorganization plan. Overall, the reorganization
plan would address the allocation of staff and
responsibilities between the Department of Children
and Families and the judicial branch and would
"include recommendations for revisions and reallocations
in Three principles guided the work of the Policy Group:
To ensure that its mandate was met fully, the Policy Group developed a planning process under which five committees -- State facilities, community-based programs and services, mental health services, substance abuse services, and State-operated services -- were convened and the 16 legislative requirements divided among the committees. The Policy Group and its committees were aided in their work by a planning and management group, which provided assistance in project management, and by designated committee facilitators, who provided assistance in meeting timetables and in preparing the final report.322 The State's gubernatorially appointed juvenile justice advisory committee, created to oversee administration of the State's participation in the Federal Juvenile Justice Formula Grants Program, also provided advice and support for the reorganization effort. On February 1, the Policy Group formally transmitted its reorganization plan to Governor John Rowland and the Connecticut General Assembly. On February 7, the Governor forwarded his budgetary and legislative proposals to implement the reorganization plan to the General Assembly. The reorganization plan presented some two dozen detailed recommendations for achieving the legislative goals set forth in P.A. 95225. Chief among them were recommendations to provide access to previously confidential juvenile records; implement a mechanism to transfer 14- and 15-year-old juveniles who commit serious felony crimes to adult court; transfer prosecutorial jurisdiction for juvenile crime from the State's judicial branch to the Division of Criminal Justice of the Office of the Chief State's Attorney; and enhance supervision, programming, and services for all levels of juvenile offenders. The reorganization plan also identified four areas in which new legislation would be needed to support implementation of its principal recommendations: Transfer of Juveniles. P.A. 95225 mandated that 14- and 15-year-olds who are charged with committing serious felony crimes be transferred to criminal court. The legislature charged the Policy Group with developing appropriate transfer procedures. The Policy Group recommended that juveniles transferred to criminal court be committed to the custody of the Department of Corrections for pretrial detention and for serving their sentences. Legislation would be required to effect the custody transfer. New Funding. The Policy Group recommended that the State legislature repeal § 8(C) of P.A. 95225, which required that there be "no increase in budget allocations for the department of children and families, the judicial branch, the department of corrections or the office of policy and management for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1997, but the State legislature may deploy staff and redirect funding among these agencies." The reorganization plan called for new funds in the amount of $16 million to implement the plan fully over 3 years, from the State's fiscal year 199697 to 199899. An additional $61.9 million in existing funds would be allotted over the 3-year program to support plan implementation. Legislation was needed to repeal the section of P.A. 95225 that prohibited the allocation of new resources for the implementation plan. Transfer of Juvenile Justice Centers. The reorganization plan called for the transfer of the management and operation of the Juvenile Justice Centers from the Office of Policy and Management to the judicial branch. The centers provide short-term, nonresidential services statewide for juvenile probation clients. However, under § 44 of P.A. 95225, this transfer could not be made until the centers no longer received any Federal funding. Because the centers regularly received funding from Federal programs, including funds from the Federal Juvenile Justice Formula Grants Program -- transfer of the centers could be postponed indefinitely. Legislative measures were recommended to remove this restriction.323 Early in the 1995 legislative session, the legislature's Judiciary Committee began hearings on pending juvenile justice proposals, and it seemed that a major clash over system reform was likely. However, as the first hearings were about to be convened, opposing parties agreed to pursue a compromise that would reflect the strengths of both proposals. Driven by a general agreement that something needed to be done about the direction of the State's juvenile justice system, the two camps forged a compromise. P.A. 95225 was enacted and signed into law on June 28, 1995. "When the reform bill finally passed, it contained something for everyone," a State official observed.324 By early 1996, Connecticut had moved forward to implement provisions of P.A. 95225. Confidential juvenile records had been opened to prosecutors, police, and other justice system officials; the new transfer mechanism for juveniles who had committed serious crimes was in place; and prosecutorial jurisdiction for juvenile crime was scheduled for transfer from the judicial branch to the Division of Criminal Justice, an executive branch agency that handles all prosecutions of adult offenders.325 In February, legislation was introduced in the Senate to make the necessary statutory changes called for in the reorganization plan.326 Also in February, a supplemental funding measure was introduced in the House that included $6.7 million in new funding that the reorganization plan recommended for implementation of the plan in the State's fiscal year 199697 biennium.327 The State legislature authorized funding to support implementation of other key components of the reform plan but with $1.4 million less in new funding than had been requested by the Governor. In addition, the legislature approved an amendment to P.A. 95225 that would facilitate the transfer of the management and operation of the juvenile justice centers from the Office of Policy Management to the judicial branch. However, in 1996, despite continued bipartisan support for P.A. 95225, legislation to implement two key provisions of the reform package died in the House. S. 81 would have allowed juveniles awaiting trial as criminals to be detained pretrial and to serve their sentences in adult correctional facilities and also would have provided for expedited renovation and construction of juvenile detention facilities and the courthouse at Bridgeport. The implementation bill failed when it became embroiled in controversy surrounding unrelated issues, including two contentious intraparty leadership debates.328 In addition, in the Republican-controlled Senate, the bill passed handily, but not before being amended to include a prison privatization measure that raised budget issues in the executive branch and was opposed vehemently by labor interests. Opponents of new spending on juvenile institutions were vocal about their dislike of the expedited construction provision. Ultimately, the implementation bill was kept off the House calendar and thereby prevented from coming to the floor for a vote. But S. 81 was not defeated on its merits. One State official observed, "If the [transfer/expedited construction bill] had been subject to a vote strictly on its merits, it would have passed overwhelmingly."329 S. 81's defeat in the legislature presented State officials with an immediate need to find an administrative solution to the confinement issues raised by implementation of P.A. 95225's provision that authorized the transfer of 14- and 15-year-olds to criminal court. Without the legal authority that S. 81 would have provided to confine certain juveniles in adult facilities, State officials needed to find placements for juveniles who were awaiting transfer to or who were adjudicated and sentenced in criminal court. With the aid of $500,000 in Federal funds from the Justice Department's Violent Offender/Truth in Sentencing grant program, a building on the grounds of an existing adult corrections facility was converted to a temporary detention facility to hold an estimated 30 to 40 juveniles awaiting transfer to criminal court. It is an expensive solution, costing the judicial branch an estimated $1 million a year to operate the facility -- significantly more than it would cost the Department of Corrections to house these youth. State officials hope that it will be a temporary solution and that a bill that would fully support the transfer and be effective upon passage will be enacted in the 1997 legislative session. "For every public policy issue, there exists a window of opportunity when you can most effectively address an issue. Conversely, poor timing will often doom an otherwise credible initiative," a Connecticut official observed.330 A variety of circumstances and conditions collectively created a window of opportunity that was a major factor in Connecticut's juvenile justice system reform initiative. Because of demographic factors, changing Connecticut's juvenile justice system arguably is easier than changing systems in many other States. Connecticut is a relatively small State with a small juvenile offender population and an even smaller population of serious and violent juvenile offenders. Such numbers can be dealt with, according to one Connecticut official.331 Connecticut's small size likewise makes it easier to reach and convene all the people who may be needed to address a problem. A second factor that facilitated the juvenile justice reform initiative is the State's highly centralized government. All functions of Connecticut's criminal and juvenile justice systems, except policing, are carried out at the State level. Local prosecutors are appointed by a gubernatorially appointed commission. Their activities are overseen by the Office of the Chief State's Attorney, a State executive branch agency that operates under the supervision of that commission. A decision that might involve scores of high-level officials in most States requires only a handful of very powerful executive, legislative, and judicial branch officials.332 Perhaps the single most significant factor in Connecticut's overhaul of its juvenile justice system was the widely supported view that the system needed reform. The public had reached the limits of its patience with the State's juvenile justice system, in particular with its handling of serious juvenile offenders. The public wanted serious and violent juvenile offenders off the street, and the bill proposed to do that. The transfer provision became the centerpiece of Connecticut's reform initiative. A State official asserted that proponents of the reform package could not have sold it without the transfer provision.333 Supporters of juvenile justice reform in Connecticut were aided considerably by the absence of any major opposition. Overall, there were numerous reform advocates and few detractors. The Governor, then in his first term and a strong advocate of tax cuts and reduced government spending, was willing to put forward a significant reform proposal and to find the money to pay for it.334 The chief court administrator was a major proponent and facilitator of the reform initiative, and the State legislature, while not in complete agreement with all aspects of the Governor's proposal, was willing to support reform. "There were folks who might have wanted a more minimal program than what we had, who might have been satisfied with transfer alone," a State official said.335 "And there were folks who thought that spending on Long Lane would be a waste and that we should spend money on more programs and smaller facilities. There was no one standing up and shouting it [the reform plan] down." Even the news media, which had followed closely the State's reform of its adult corrections system, paid modest attention to P.A. 95225's progress through the State legislature.336 The publicity that juvenile justice reform did receive was largely favorable to the Governor's plan. P.A. 95225's focus on the most serious juvenile offenses resonated well and helped to minimize opposition to the measure from constituencies that wished to preserve the traditional distinctions between the juvenile and criminal systems of justice.337 Reticence about transferring 14- and 15-year-olds was assuaged by the knowledge that the transfer provision would affect a relatively small number of offenders in the State. Any concerns about housing juveniles adjudicated in criminal court in adult corrections facilities were offset by the knowledge that these youth would in fact be placed in a special Department of Corrections facility that would house only younger inmates. Clearly, juveniles would not be housed with significantly older adult offenders.338 Juvenile justice system reform seems well underway in Connecticut. "We've made a lot of progress; it's a very good change," one State official concluded.339
305. 1995 Conn. Acts 225 (Reg. Sess.). This act was signed into law by Connecticut Gov. John Rowland on June 28, 1995.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
