SAFETY
53
Table 4.10: Juvenile Interaction with the Justice System by Race (2010) Youth in Teen Detention Placed on YRTC i ii iii iv Population Arrests Facilities Probation Commitmentsv
Juveniles Juveniles Tried in Incarcerated in Adult Courtvi Adult Prisonvii
White
70%
78%
45%
62%
47%
60%
38%
Black
5%
19%
32%
17%
24%
10%
39%
Native American
1%
2%
6%
3%
5%
2%
0%
Asian
2%
0%
1%
1%
1%
1%
0%
Other
22%
0%
17%
18%
24%
14%
23%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
13%
0%
213,321
14,030
2,949
5,152
592
4,469
90
Unknown Total
Note: Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number, figures may not add to 100%. The “Teen Population” in this figure comprises youth in Nebraska ages 10 through 17 in 2010, according to 2010 U.S. Decennial Census Tables P12A-P121. “Other” includes, of all teens, 4% of two or more races, 12% Hispanic and 6% other. i
DArrests include 1,729 Hispanic youth.
ii
iii
Data were provided by individual detention facilities. “Other” represents primarily Hispanic youth, who made up 16% of youth in detention, and 1% other.
iv
Out of the total of 5,152 juveniles on probation, 957 or 19% were Hispanic.
This is the total of YRTC commitments at both Geneva and Kearney for FY2010. The Geneva totals by race and ethnicity include commitments of parole safekeepers, those offenders being held until a hearing to determine whether or not parole should be revoked. The Kearney totals do not include parole safekeepers. For Kearney, “Other” represents Hispanics only. For Geneva, “Other” represents primarily Hispanic youth and a small number from an “other” category. v
Juveniles Tried in Adult Court is broken down by race and ethnicity, so the “Other” percentage encompasses 14% Hispanic. Total juveniles tried in adult court is out of 4,469 juvenile cases filed in adult court and not transferred to juvenile court. vi
Juveniles in Adult Prison is broken down by race and ethnicity, so the “Other” percentage encompasses 19 Hispanic and 2 youth from an “other” category.
vii
child welfare reform initiative in 2009 that aimed to “flip the pyramid,”
for in-home services, using them selectively can be effective and can
and serve more children in their homes through the use of private con-
prevent unnecessary removals. More recently, differential response, an
tractors. The privatization of services has not had a significant impact
alternative to formal child protective services investigations, has also
on the number of children served in their homes, however.
shown some success in effectively engaging and preserving families.4
Nationally, attention to providing “in-home” services (also called
Unfortunately, only limited federal funding is available to support
family preservation and wrap-around) grew in the late 1980s, as a number
family preservation and wrap-around services. If Nebraska really wants
of states invested in pilot projects in response to the federal mandate
to provide safe and meaningful in-home services to children and their
that states provide evidence that “reasonable efforts” to keep families
families, it will require substantial state investment in building and support-
together had been made before children were removed into out-of-
ing effective services that focus on and address the needs of families.
home care.3 In general, family preservation programs aim to intervene
1
intensively with families for short periods to address any safety concerns. These programs can help address challenges families find themselves in whether it be safe and stable housing, providing for their children’s basic needs, or training for effective parenting. While not every family who comes to the attention of child protective services will be a candidate
COMPASS. Nebraska DHHS, October 2011. http://www.hhs.state.ne.us/compass/acc/ reunif-median.htm Pathways to Progress: Data at a Glance. Nebraska DHHS, April 2011. http://www.dhhs. ne.gov/FamiliesMatter/docs/PathwaysDAG.pdf 2
Farrow, Frank. “The Shifting Impact of Intensive Family Preservation Services.” University of Chicago – Chapin Hall Center for Children. 2001. 3
“Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect.” Child Welfare Information Gateway: 2008. http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/differential_response/ 4