VII. Reentry and the Effects of IncarcerationUnder international norms, children who find themselves in conflict with the law have the right to be treated in a way which promotes their social reintegration and their ability to take on a constructive role in society.602 Upon releasing a child, facilities are responsible for making “arrangements designed to assist them in returning to society, family life, education or employment.”603 Facilities staff must coordinate with community service providers with a view to ensuring children a smooth return to the community upon release.604 In particular, provisions should be made for mental health care to be continued beyond release.605 Reentry assistance is lacking for many girls released from OCFS custody and nonexistent for some. Felicia H. was taken from her mother’s custody at the age of 8, and involved first in the child welfare system and then the juvenile justice system until being released in 2006 from Tryon on the day she turned 18.606 Some post-release planning was attempted, but seemed to fall apart when Felicia H.’s mother and stepfather, with whom she has always had a troubled relationship, proved unprepared to accept her into their home. This rejection was entirely foreseeable. They had a whole plan for me set up, but my home assessment kept coming back negative so they couldn’t send me home. A month before going home I said I wanted to go to a group home and stay until I was twenty-one, until I was stable. [My lawyer] was trying, too. But they [the facilities staff] said it was too late.607 Felicia H. was not placed in any educational or job training programs, or even provided with written information concerning such programs. She was simply placed in a New York City homeless shelter:
Thus, after ten years enmeshed in the child welfare and later the juvenile justice system, Felicia H. found herself ejected from OCFS with a ninth grade education, no school or work plans, and no home. Devon A. had a similar experience. When asked what reentry assistance she had received when preparing to leave Tryon, she responded:
Post-release services are even more scant for children placed in contract residential facilities, rather than in state-run facilities. Children in privately-run contract facilities are required to spend their entire placement in the facilities, and the contract agencies are provided no state funding for post-release services.610 Some contract agencies raise private funds to provide follow-up services while at least one simply releases children “with a bus ticket.”611 While some children are unconditionally released after serving their entire placements, others are conditionally released to “aftercare,” the juvenile equivalent of parole. These children often are provided with more services, but to avoid rearrest must comply with rules such as curfew, abstaining from drinking or doing drugs, regular school or work attendance, obeying parents and not running away, regular reporting to a case worker, and abstaining from contact with anyone who might exert a bad influence.612 Aftercare workers are charged with supervising and serving children during the conditional release period, including enrolling children in school, helping them resolve personal problems, and referring children to community based services.613 Children may receive one of three levels of supervision or they may be enrolled in one of a number of more intensive programs.614 When asked what care she would receive after leaving Brooklyn Residential Center, a non-secure OCFS facility, Amy F., now 14 years old, replied:
Asked what assistance she received upon leaving OCFS, Janine Y. replied:
A number of serious deficiencies have been identified in the aftercare services provided by OCFS. According to a children’s advocacy group, aftercare counselors do not receive some children’s case files or begin facilitating their transition until shortly prior to the children’s release or even on the day of release. In addition, counselors’ caseloads are too high, assessments of the ability of children’s families to accept them are inadequate, post-release services to the family are lacking, children are not regularly reenrolled in Medicaid, leaving them uninsured, and it may take weeks or months to reenroll children in school. The group also asserts that children’s school attendance is insufficiently monitored and their attendance at aftercare appointments not strictly required, and that counselors are left to compile their own, sometimes incomplete, lists of community resources to which to refer their clients. 617 Echoing some of these concerns, a service provider interviewed by HRW/ACLU was critical of the aftercare provided by OCFS:
Facilities staff say that they find it hard to help girls transition back to the communities because they are not in touch with services in the communities.619 OCFS has recently established a Bureau of Aftercare Services charged with providing post-release reintegration assistance to children, which it hopes will help close the services gap.620 Maintaining the continuity of mental health care provision is especially problematic for girls leaving OCFS facilities. OCFS attempts to provide transitional services directly and through partnerships with other agencies and by contracting with outside providers. At its most effective, aftercare involves a team of professionals who get to know a child and her family prior to her release and provide psychological counseling in anticipation of the turbulent process of reintegration.621 The provision of such services to girls is hampered by the paucity of programs specific to girls.622 In addition, while programs frequently apply facially gender-neutral criteria when determining eligibility—such as the severity of crime the potential participant committed, the severity of the child’s mental health problems, and the stability of their families—girls are disproportionately affected because girls on average commit higher level offenses before they are committed, exhibit more mental health needs, and come from more volatile families.623 Appearing to recognize this problem, OCFS has in some cases urged service providers to follow special intake rules for girls.624 602 Convention on the Rights of the Child, (CRC) adopted November 20, 1989, G.A. Res. 44/25, U.N. Doc. A/RES/44/25, entered into force September 2, 1990, signed by the United States of America on February 16, 1995, art. 40(1); United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (“Standard Minimum Rules”), U.N. ECOSOC Res. 663C and 2076, adopted July 31, 1957 and May 13, 1977, para. 60(2). 603 United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (“U.N. Rules”), adopted December 14,1990 by General Assembly Resolution 45/113, rule 79. See also Standard Minimum Rules, para. 64 (“The duty of society does not end with a prisoner's release. There should, therefore, be governmental or private agencies capable of lending the released prisoner efficient after-care directed towards the lessening of prejudice against him and towards his social rehabilitation.”). 604 U.N. Rules, rule 80. 605 Standard Minimum Rules, para. 83. 606 HRW/ACLU interview with Felicia H., New York, New York, May 4, 2006. 607 Ibid. 608 Ibid. 609 HRW/ACLU interview with Devon A., Albany, New York, February 28, 2006. 610 “Returning Home: A Look at Aftercare Services Provided to Delinquent Youth,” Citizens’ Committee for Children of New York, Inc., (2000), pp. 21-22. 611 Ibid. 612 “Conditions of Release/Grounds for Release Revocation,” OCFS form reprinted in “Returning Home: A Look at Aftercare Services Provided to Delinquent Youth,” Citizens’ Committee for Children of New York, Inc., (2000), p. 26. 613 “Returning Home: A Look at Aftercare Services Provided to Delinquent Youth,” Citizens’ Committee for Children of New York, Inc., (2000), p. 8. 614 Ibid., pp. 6-8. 615 HRW/ACLU interview with Amy F., New York, New York, March 22, 2006. 616 HRW/ACLU interview with Janine Y., New York, New York, May 24, 2006. 617 “Returning Home: A Look at Aftercare Services Provided to Delinquent Youth,” Citizens’ Committee for Children of New York, Inc., (2000), pp. 11-20. 618 HRW/ACLU telephone interview with social service provider in the Staten Island Residential Facility, November 21, 2005. 619 Review of Legal Aid Society attorney’s redacted notes of visit to the Tryon facility on December 28, 2005 (“Legal Aid Society site visit”). 620 Statement of OCFS staff member to Legal Aid Society, Legal Aid Society site visit. 621 HRW/ACLU telephone interview with anonymous aftercare service provider, December 27, 2005. 622 Ibid. 623 Ibid. 624 Ibid. |