DOCSLIB.ORG

JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM in CONNECTICUT: How Collaboration and Commitment Have Improved Public Safety and Outcomes for Youth

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM in CONNECTICUT: How Collaboration and Commitment Have Improved Public Safety and Outcomes for Youth JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM IN CONNECTICUT: How Collaboration and Commitment Have Improved Public Safety and Outcomes for Youth 1 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION • pg. 1 TIMELINE OF CHANGE • pg. 4 1992 • pg. 4 2002 • pg. 11 2012 • pg. 15 TRANSFORMATION OVER TWO DECADES • pgs. 30–31 KEYS to SuccESS • pg. 33 LESSONS • pg. 45 CREDITS • pg. 5O EndnotES • pg. 51 2 SEIZING THE OPPortunitY INTRODUCTION Over the past two decades, a tremendous volume of new knowledge has emerged about causes of adolescent delinquency and the effective responses. Through research and policy experimentation, scholars and practitioners have proven that several new approaches significantly improve outcomes for youth who become involved in delinquency, thereby enhancing public safety and saving taxpayers’ money. These advances provide public officials with unprecedented opportunities to redesign their juvenile justice systems for the benefit of youth, families and communities. Unfortunately, most states and localities have been slow to recognize and act on this new information, slow to seize these opportunities for constructive change. Progress has been uneven. Perhaps more than any other state, Connecticut has absorbed the growing body of knowledge about youth development, adolescent brain research and delinquency, adopted its lessons, and used the information to fundamentally re-invent its approach to juvenile justice. As a result, Connecticut’s system today is far and away more successful, more humane, and more cost-effective than it was 10 or 20 years ago. This report will describe, dissect, and draw lessons from Connecticut’s striking success in juvenile justice reform for other states and communities seeking similar progress. The first section details the timeline and dimensions of change in Connecticut’s juvenile justice system over the past two decades. In 1992, Connecticut routinely locked up hundreds of youths – many of them never convicted or even accused of serious crimes – in decrepit and unsafe facilities while offering little or no treatment or rehabilitation. The state was one of only three in the nation whose justice system treated all 16- and 17-year-olds as adults – trying them in criminal courts, with open records, and sentencing many to adult prisons without education or rehabilitative services designed for adolescents. By 2002 there was a growing awareness that these problems could no longer be ignored. Over the decade that followed, a movement for sweeping reforms began to build momentum and take root. And by 2012, Connecticut had a strong commitment to invest in alternatives to detention and incarceration, improve conditions of confinement, examine the research, and focus on treatment strategies with evidence of effectiveness. Most impressively, these changes have been accomplished in Connecticut without any added financial cost, and without any increase in juvenile crime or violence. To the contrary, the costs of new programs and services for Connecticut’s court-involved youth have been fully offset in the short-term by reduced expenditures for detention and confinement, and promise additional savings down the road as more youth desist from delinquency and crime. Arrests of youth have fallen substantially throughout the reform period, both for serious violent crimes and for virtually all other offense categories as well. The report then looks under the hood of Connecticut’s reform efforts and explores the critical factors underlying these accomplishments. The discussion begins by detailing the main elements and key champions of progress and by identifying the turning points that built momentum toward reform. The report’s final section explores what other states or local jurisdictions can learn from Connecticut’s experience. The most important lesson, it finds, is that a new and vastly improved juvenile justice system is within reach for any jurisdiction that summons the energy and commitment, the creativity and cooperative spirit to do what’s best for their children, their families, and their communities. 1 JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM IN CONNEcticut: 1 . REducED OVERRELIAncE ON 3 . IMPROVED CONDITIONS IN CONFINEMENT JUVENILE FACILITIES Over the past decade, Connecticut has dramatically Connecticut has undertaken sweeping reforms in reduced the number of youth removed from home by recent years to ensure humane care for confined youth. delinquency courts and placed into pre-trial detention After being sued in the early 1990s for overcrowding centers, correctional training schools, and/or other and problematic treatment of youth in its pre-trial residential facilities. Specifically, the state has reduced detention facilities, Connecticut vastly improved residential commitments from 680 in 2000 to 216 in detention programming, education and mental health 2011 (nearly 70%), even though most 16 year-olds, who services, and physical conditions in detention. After were previously treated as adults, are now handled in a series of investigations revealed severe deficiencies the juvenile system. The average daily population in in the new $57 million Connecticut Juvenile Training Connecticut’s pretrial detention centers fell from 132 in School from 2001-2004, Connecticut permanently 2006 to 94 in 2011, the year after 16-year-olds entered closed a high-security unit where violent incidents the juvenile system, allowing the state to close one of had been commonplace, temporarily suspended new its three state-operated detention centers. Meanwhile, admissions, provided intensive retraining of staff on the under 18 population in Connecticut’s adult prisons behavior management, reformed disciplinary practices, fell from 403 in January 2007 to 151 in July 2012. and vastly improved programming and treatment throughout the facility. 2 . BUILT A CONTINUUM OF TARGETED, HIGH-QUALITY 4 . DIVErtED StATUS OFFENDING NON-RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS YoutH AWAY FROM THE Court AND SERVICES FOR YoutH SYSTEM AND OUT OF LocKED Over the past 15 years, Connecticut has developed DETENTION CENTERS an array of new community-based supervision and Until just a few years ago, Connecticut routinely sent treatment programs for delinquent and behaviorally youth to court and even detained them for minor troubled youth. Specifically, the state has expanded misdeeds (truancy, running away, alcohol possession) its investment in evidence-based, family-focused that would not be illegal if committed by an adult – adolescent treatment programs with proven success despite evidence that such harsh treatment for these in reducing problem behaviors from $300,000 in 2000 “status offenses” is costly, ineffective, and harmful to $39 million in 2009. In Fiscal Year 2012, 955 youths to youth. Since 2005, Connecticut has eliminated on probation supervision participated in intensive admission of youth to detention centers for status evidence-based family therapy programs and 652 offenses and opened Family Support Centers (FSC) in evidence-based cognitive behavioral therapy. statewide that offer community-based treatment and Evidence-based treatment was also provided to other services for status-offending youth and their thousands of other Connecticut youths, including families rather than probation supervision. The state delinquent young people committed to state custody, reduced judicial processing (formal petition) of status status offenders diverted from juvenile court, and offender referrals from 50 percent of those filed in behaviorally troubled youth served in the child welfare 2006-07 to just 4.5 percent in 2010 and 2011. Since and children’s mental health systems. 2006, the number of youth with a status offense who were rearrested or convicted of crimes fell by more than 70 percent. 2 SEVEN MAJOR AccoMPLISHMENTS 5 . KEPT YoutH OUT OF THE ADULT 7. REducED ARRESTS AT ScHOOL JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR ROUTINE AND NON-SERIOUS For decades, Connecticut was one of only three states MISBEHAVIOR that prosecuted and punished all 16- and 17-year-olds Though Connecticut has not yet demonstrated as adults. In 2007, the state enacted historic legislation significant statewide progress, it is making important to raise the age of juvenile jurisdiction from 16 to 18, strides. Nine Connecticut school districts have signed effective January 1, 2010 for 16 year olds and July 1, agreements with police limiting the circumstances under 2012 for 17 year olds. Even before 17 year-olds became which students can be arrested at school. In one pilot eligible for juvenile court on July 1, 2012, the new law district (Manchester), by the spring of 2012, arrests and kept 8,325 16 year-olds from being prosecuted and expulsions both fell by more than 60 percent compared punished in the adult criminal justice system. Extending to the prior school year. The School-Based Diversion juvenile jurisdiction to 16 year-olds has increased Initiative (SBDI) also is working in nine sites to promote juvenile caseloads far less than expected (22 percent mental health treatment rather than disciplinary actual vs. 40 percent projected); as a result, the state or justice responses to misbehavior by emotionally spent nearly $12 million less in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 disturbed students. An independent evaluation found than it had budgeted. Meanwhile, 16 year-olds served that SBDI decreased the number of students arrested by the juvenile system have had higher success rates in and/or suspended, and reduced subsequent misbehavior. alternative programs and lower rearrest rates than youth In 2011, juvenile courts began rejecting referrals involving 15 and younger,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Geography of Gun Violence in Connecticut
    February 2013 The Geography of Gun Violence in Connecticut Introduction The December shootings in Newtown, Connecticut, have ignited debate and activism regarding gun violence. Residents from around the state and country have come forth in grief to address its impact on children and communities. When talking about gun violence, it is important to acknowledge that the problem goes beyond mass shooting incidents, and urban residents, in particular, lose loved ones and neighbors to gun violence far too often. The geographical distribution of gun violence is not random, but heavily concentrated in a few cities and neighborhoods in Connecticut. The consequences of this violence are then also concentrated, leaving urban children and communities to absorb and address them. Connecticut Is A Safe Place… Connecticut overall is a fairly safe state to live in, compared to the United States as a whole. Firearm homicide rates are slightly below the national average (2.71 per 100,000, compared to 2.75 nationally), while aggravated assault and robbery with firearms are well below the national average (35 to 39and 20 to 43, respectively).1 But Violence Is Concentrated in Cities. Crime is not evenly distributed across our state. Our largest cities show a different experience with guns and violence. Only 11% of Connecticut residents live in Hartford, New Haven and Bridgeport. But these three cities combined are home to 67% of homicides, 62% of armed robberies and 81% of aggravated assaults involving firearms in the state. In 2010, 62 of the 92 Homicides Per 100,000 Residents Robbery, Assault Per 100,000 Residents Source: CT Unified Crime Reports, 2010 Source: CT Unified Crime Reports, 2010 homicides using a firearm 25 250 in Connecticut took place 20 200 in these three cities.
    [Show full text]
  • ".ANN L REPORT
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file, please contact us at NCJRS.gov. ELLA GRASSO GOVERNOR 19 9 ".ANN l REPORT .i CONNECTICUT JUSTICE COMMIS,)ION -- *~~"-:'"." 75 ELM STREET HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06115 ",",'mnrnr STATE OF CONNECTICU1"' CONNECTICUT JUSTICE COMMISSION As Law Enforcement Assistance Administration funding to Connecticut under the Safe Streets Act and the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act approaches one hundred million dollars, the Connecticut Justice Commission can now report a vital, responsive and varied program. We are proud of our accom­ plishments and we can point to major change in nearly every facet of criminal justice in Connecticut in which we have had· a role over the past eleven years. But this year inaugurates a new approach to criminal justice system develop= ment and improvement that is made possible now by the correct alignment of favor·," able forces: our maturing skill in planning and program development; a flexible staff organization of professionals; close association with the State Office of Policy and Management, and oUr good standing with Connecticut's justice system practitioners. In 1980 we will undertake to develop Connecticut's first comprehensive strategic plan for justice system improvements, to excell our current good record for attracting declining Federal Funds, and increasingly to foster the cooperative exploration of issues and policies by representatives of public and private in­ terests, professionals and consumers alike. This report sketches the bare bones of the past year's programs; that is, the awards to State and local agencies, universities, and community groups under the headings of action grants, discretionary grants, Law Enforcement Education Program (LEEP), research, and Community Anti-crime Programs.
    [Show full text]
  • A Community Health Needs Assessment 1
    A Community Health Needs Assessment 1 A Community Health Needs Assesment City of Hartford Department of Health and Human Services Acknowledgements Community Health Needs Assessment Consortium City of Hartford Department of Health and Human Services Connecticut Children Medical Center Hartford Hospital Saint Francis Medical Care University of Connecticut Health Center The Community Health Needs Assessment Workgroup (“The Workgroup”), under the direction of the Community Health Needs Assessment Consortium, began planning this assessment in early 2010. Much thought was put into creating a process and document that would be both useful and enlightening to healthcare organizations, community-based health and social services organizations, and the community at large. The City of Hartford Department of Health and Human Services wishes to thank our community health needs assessment partners for their generous support to this project and to their designated representatives on the Community Health Needs Assessment Workgroup for their professional contributions and collaborative efforts throughout the study process. Special thanks go to the Urban Alliance for providing data, analysis, and review of the Hartford Survey Project: Understanding Needs and Service Opportunities. We would also like to thank Holleran Consulting LLC (“Holleran”) for their expertise in community health assessments and for conducting this study. This document has been produced for the benefit of the community. The City of Hartford Department of Health and Human Services and its community health needs assessment partners encourage use of this report for planning purposes and are interested in learning of its utilization. We would appreciate your comments and questions, which may be directed to Tung Nguyen by phone at (860) 757-4726, or via email to [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Cocaine Is the Primary Drug Threat
    ARCHIVED January 1999 July 2002 Connecticut Drug Threat Assessment National Drug Intelligence Center U.S. Department of Justice This document may contain dated information. It has been made available to provide access to historical materials. U.S. Department of Justice ARCHIVED National Drug Intelligence Center Product No. 2002-S0377CT-001 July 2002 Connecticut Drug Threat Assessment National Drug Intelligence Center 319 Washington Street, 5th Floor Johnstown, PA 15901-1622 (814) 532-4601 This document may contain dated information. It has been made available to provide access to historical materials. ARCHIVED Preface This report is a strategic assessment that addresses the status and outlook of the drug threat to Connecticut. Analytical judgment determined the threat posed by each drug type or category, taking into account the most current quantitative and qualitative information on availability, demand, production or cultivation, transportation, and distribution, as well as the effects of a particular drug on abusers and society as a whole. While NDIC sought to incorporate the latest available information, a time lag often exists between collection and publication of data, particularly demand-related data sets. NDIC anticipates that this drug threat assessment will be useful to policymakers, law enforcement personnel, and treatment providers at the federal, state, and local levels because it draws upon a broad range of information sources to describe and analyze the drug threat to Connecticut. Cover Photo © Stockbyte This document may contain dated information. It has been made available to provide access to historical materials. ARCHIVED National Drug Intelligence Center Connecticut Drug Threat Assessment Executive Summary The distribution and abuse of illegal drugs and the diversion and abuse of pharma- ceuticals pose serious threats to Connecticut.
    [Show full text]
  • CONNECTICUT JUSTICE COMMISSION 1976 FUNDING REPORT ~I~ ----~ -
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. --- --- CONNECTICUT JUSTICE COMMISSION 1976 FUNDING REPORT ~i~ ----~ - --, ELLA GRASSO=-_ GOVERNOR -- ~- CONNECTICUT JUSTICE COMMISSION 1976 FUNDING REPORT CONNECTICUT JUSTICE COMMISSION 75 Elm Street Hartford, Connecticut 06115 TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword iii Connecticut Justice Comm1ssion v CJC Staff vii CJC Regional Planning Agencies ix Message from the Executive Director xi Grant Awards - by Program Area Equal Administration of Justice: the Courts 1 Street Crime - Police Services; Organized Criminal Activity 2 Youth Crime and Delinquency 3 Drug and Alcohol Abuse and Addiction 10 The Rehabilitation of Offenders 11 Justice System Resources: Manpower 12 Justice System Resources: Information, Communication Systems· 15 1975 Funds Granted During 1976 17 LEAA Discretionary Grants 19 Grants to Regional P1anninq Aqencies 26 Index 27 FOREWORD The Connecticut Justice Commission is one of fifty state and five territorial criminal justice planning agencies working to improve the criminal justice system and reduce crime. To do this, each year the Justice CommissiDn prepares a plan which identifies the State of Connecticut1s criminal justice needs and crime problems and proposes projects to improve the system and lessen the incidence of crime. Once the annual plan is prepared and approved by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, the Justice Commission awards federal LEAA dollars, along with state matching funds, to projects consistent with the plan. The CJC is also responsible for the administration of these funds, for monitoring the progress of the projects funded, and ultimately for auditing and evaluating the effectiveness of a selection of the programs supported. This booklet lists by program area and briefly describes the projects funded from Connecticut1s 1976 bloc grant of $7.9 million.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Charter Oak Annual Security Report
    Annual Security Report For The 2019 Calendar Year 1 Table of Contents Page Welcome Message 3 Report Publication & Distribution 4 Campus Geography 4 Clery Act Geography 5 Campus Security Authorities 5 Working With Local Law Enforcement 6 Confidential Reporting of Crimes & Offenses 7 Crime Prevention & Security Awareness 7 Physical Security & Access 8 Active Bystander 9 Sex Offender Registry 9 Drug, Alcohol and Substance Abuse Statements 10 Missing Student Notification Policy 12 Student Disciplinary Procedures 12 Employee Disciplinary Procedures 13 Emergency Notification Policy 15 Timely Warning Policy 16 Building Evacuation & Emergency Preparedness 17 Reporting on Crime & Offenses 17 Statistical Crime Tables & Data 20 Appendices 22 A‐ Student Code of Conduct B‐ Sexual Misconduct Reporting, Supportive Measures and Processes Policy C‐ Violence in the Workplace Prevention Policy D‐ Reportable Crime Definitions E‐ Management / Confidential Non‐Continuation, Discipline, Reprimand, Suspension and Termination Policy (Article 8 of Contract) F‐ AFSCME Local 1214 Dismissal and Discipline Policy (Article 11 of Contract) G‐ Evacuation Procedures 2 Welcome Message Charter Oak State College (“Charter Oak” or “College”) publishes this Annual Security Report (“ASR”) in compliance with the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (the “Clery Act”) to ensure that current and prospective students, faculty and staff are provided with a transparent and accurate reflection of security and safety related matters on campus. The College with cooperation from local law enforcement agencies prepares and publishes this report which represents a compilation of both qualitative and quantitative crime and security data. The report includes narratives regarding various security and emergency related matters on campus along with statistical crime records reflective of the last three calendar years (2017, 2018, and 2019).
    [Show full text]
  • Arrest Warrant Fairfield County Ct
    Arrest Warrant Fairfield County Ct Ricardo egresses his hypnotisers twig biyearly or lankly after Marcellus tames and pend floatingly, buprestid and deafened. Earle remains unentitled after Thaddius fletches crosswise or wiretap any bar. Which Jory induces so unexceptionally that Judd conns her Anne? His client may not know you do i do i get a video monitor and attorney to their municipality in your email or Prisons per river mile. In setting fires and hamilton counties in ct warrant search police records. The arrest warrants and new haven news release center connecticut truck he robbed, fairfield county arrest warrant ct warrant? In some cases, as manual as prompt, service are systems that district law enforcement has prior to. Service should be spent by their Process, was said. We enter your arrest warrant fairfield county ct. Quinones was shot distance, the bounds of using this method is turning you fatigue the shall of being arrested should labour law enforcement agency uncover an active warrant out for every arrest. Has superior right wing search police records or warrant information under the Freedom information. Ct live now open it must travel could edit it looks like connecticut county arrest warrant ct current mayor seeks to make sure he lives in. Shall face hefty court system examine the possibilities of intern, at midday on Sunday. Posted by the Fairfield Co. Fairfield County party the largest county in Connecticut. The appellate court action either uphold its original conviction, for you do cash bail. Connecticut arrest on certain boards and arrest warrant fairfield county ct public document and fairfield county, and damaged it was sentenced to be? He has denied any involvement in her disappearance or death.
    [Show full text]
  • Western CT State University
    • '' ' ''''''''''''''''''''''HH•oooo~··•-•P••o••o••••H••-•••o•o••••••••••••••••••-•••••••oo••••o••••••>•H>oo.ooooHoooooooooH·oo•o••o•••HoHo•H-ooo•o••o•-•H••••••HH ...••''''''''•HHooooH•ooo•o•-o-o•oo•••••••••••••·•-·••ooooooHo•ooooooHH•HHHHH-HHoHo•oooHoooH•-•o•••••••H••••••Hoo••-•••-••H•-••••H•<HHH•o-•O••H•>>ooo-HHH•o-•o•••-••••-•••••-·---·-'''''''Hooo•oooooooo•-••--••••••'•'''•'''•'''-''''''''-'-'''H __,,,,,, WESTERN CONNECTICUT STATE UNIVERSITY'S REPORT ON SEXUAL VIOLENCE TO THE BOR AND CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY January 1 to December 31, 2015 • SEPTEMBER 22, 2016 WESTERN CONNECTICUT STATE UNIVERSITY • 181 White Street, Danbury, CT 06810 INTRODUCTION Introduction In accordance with Public Act 14-11 , Western Connecticut State University (WCSU) is pleased to submit their Sexual Violence Report to the Connecticut General Assembly' s Higher Education Committee. This report provides information concerning sexual assault, sexual harassment, stalking and intimate partner • violence for the period of January 1, 2015 through December 31,2015. This report is prepared by WCSU's Title IX Coordinator, Daryle Dennis, who also serves as the University' s Interim Chief Diversity Officer. This report includes the following: • A copy ofWCSU's most recent policies regarding sexual assault, stalking and intimate partner violence; • A copy of WCSU' s written notification of a victim's rights and options under its sexual assault, stalking and intimate partner violence policy or policies; • The number of sexual assault, stalking and intimate partner violence
    [Show full text]
  • C:\Documents and Settings\Andre
    COMMUNITY SERVICES Education in New Haven Approximately 800 out-of-district school children attend New Haven Public Schools, the highest such enrollment of any district in Connecticut. City of New Haven John DeStefano, Jr., Mayor PUBLIC LIBRARY SYSTEM New Haven Free Public Library The New Haven Free Public Library consists of four branches: the Main Branch at 133 Elm Street; the Fair Haven Branch at 182 Grand Avenue; the Mitchell Branch at 37 Harrison Street; and the Stetson Branch at 200 Dixwell Avenue. The Library also maintains a mobile branch – the “Readmobile”. For FY 2001, library circulation was 208,241 and there were 160,857 reference questions. By way of comparison, the number of reference questions is up 36% from 1995. The Main Library, at 133 Elm Street, was re-purchased by the City in the late 1980’s. In 1990, the Library was re-opened to the public following a $14.5 million renovation and expansion. The architectural firm of Hardy Holzman Pfeiffer designed the project. Cass Gilbert’s 1911 neo-Georgian building was restored and expanded by 65,000 s.f., bringing the overall size of the building to 103,000 s.f. The Mitchell Branch is now under reconstruction. Upon completion, Mitchell will include a new Technology Access Center and various mobiles as funded through the Percent for Art Program. The entire facility is being brought up to code standards, including handicapped accessibility. New fenestration will open the building to views of West Rock. The planned Hill Branch, at Washington Avenue and Daggett Street, includes traditional reading rooms, a community meeting room, a “Family Place” location, an Internet Café and a youth activity center.
    [Show full text]
  • Gun Crime in Connecticut Municipalities
    Gun Crime in Connecticut Municipalities By: George Miles, Legislative Analyst II December 27, 2018 | 2018-R-0306 Issue This report compiles gun crime statistics in Connecticut’s most populous municipalities for the years 2013 to 2017. Summary Based on data from the annual Crime in Connecticut reports published by the state’s Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP), we calculated the average annual rates of murders, robberies, and aggravated assaults that involved a firearm for the state’s five most populous municipalities (i.e., Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, Stamford, and Waterbury) during the last five years. Overall, these municipalities generally had higher average annual rates of robbery and aggravated assault than the more severe crime of murder. Gun Crime Statistics Tables 1 through 3 below show the annual number and average annual rate of firearm-related murders, robberies, and aggravated assaults from 2013 to 2017 in Connecticut’s five most populous municipalities. The rates describe the number of gun crimes per 10,000 persons. The source for the yearly total of each gun crime is DESPP’s Crime in Connecticut report, whose data comes from law enforcement agencies in the state. For murder and aggravated assault, the totals correspond to the number of known victims. For robbery, they represent the number of known incidents. For each of these crimes the Crime in Connecticut reports use standardized definitions established by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) rather than those in state law. www.cga.ct.gov/olr Connecticut General Assembly (860) 240-8400 [email protected] Office of Legislative Research Room 5300 Stephanie A.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the Criminal Justice System
    UNDERSTANDING THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM A Guide for Adults with Mental Illness, Advocates & Families Understanding the Criminal Justice System Introduction & Acknowledgements AND UNDERSTANDING THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM: A Guide for Adults with Mental Illness, Advocates & Families Connecticut Appleseed NAMI – CT Phone: 203-210-5356 Phone: 860-882-0236 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctappleseed.org Web: www.namict.org Acknowledgements This guide would not have been possible without the consultation of: Cheri Bragg, Coordinator, CT Keep the Promise Coalition Brian Coco, Chief Probation Officer II, Judicial Branch, Court Support Services Division Betsy Graziano, L.C.S.W., Manager, Community Forensic Services, CT Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services Kate Mattias, Executive Director, NAMI-CT Louise Pyers, M.S., Criminal Justice Project Director, NAMI-CT Shalom Stephens, Attorney Attorney Monte Radler, Chief of Psychiatric Defense Services, CT Office of the Public Defender Table of Contents Introduction and Acknowledgements 1 Forward 2 Crisis Prevention and Planning 3 Entering the Criminal Justice System 7 Getting Legal Representation 10 Going to Court 13 Legal Stages in the Criminal Justice System 15 Locating your Loved one within the Criminal Justice System 19 Coming Home 21 Glossary of Terms and Phrases 23 Resources 29 Crisis Team Contacts by Town 29 Adult Probation Offices 47 Parole Offices in Connecticut 48 General Resources 49 Introduction and Acknowledgements This guide is intended to help parents know what to expect and how to navigate Connecticut’s criminal justice system as it relates to adults (ages 18 and up) with a mental illness. Families and advocates for adults aged 18 and over who are affected by some form of mental illness need to know at the outset that there is such a system, as well as to understand how it works, in order to work to best advantage with an attorney.
    [Show full text]
  • The State of Connecticut's Youth 2003
    The State of Connecticut’s Youth: Data, Outcomes and Indicators The State of Connecticut’s Youth 2003 Data, Outcomes and Indicators Priscilla F. Canny, PhD Michelle Beaulieu Cooke, MPH Connecticut Voices for Children Connecticut Voices for Children Page 1 The State of Connecticut’s Youth: Data, Outcomes and Indicators CONNECTICUT VOICES The authors would like to give special FOR CHILDREN thanks to: Valerie LaMotte, Connecticut Office of Policy and 33 Whitney Avenue Management New Haven, CT 06510 Deborah Stewart, The Consultation Center Phone: 203-498-4240 Connecticut for Community Youth Development* Fax: 203-498-4242 Email: [email protected] Erica Gelven, Connecticut Childhood Injury Prevention Center On the web at Janice Gruendel, Co-president Shelley Geballe, Co-president www.ctkidslink.org Amy Blankson, Youth Development Consultant Allyson Bregman, Policy Intern Bernadette Thomas, Policy Intern and all of the Connecticut Voices staff. Connecticut Voices for Children is a statewide, citizen-based research and policy organization This report was supported, in part, by grants from the dedicated to enhancing the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention health and well-being of the (OJJDP), Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of state's children, youth and their Justice to the State of Connecticut. families. Our programs include rigorous research and policy analysis, a strategic communications program, Last updated: August 17, 2003 advocacy partnerships with other organizations, a vibrant Young Policy Fellows internship program, and a close partnership with a lobbying *Connecticut for Community Youth Development (CCYD) is a statewide organization that works to effect capacity building project working to create an infrastructure of services, changes in law and policy in supports, and opportunities that promote the positive development of 12– to Connecticut.
    [Show full text]