To the Judges of the LA County Courts:

As a citizen of the United States and resident of Los Angeles, I can easily relate to the concerns of those around me. This is especially true with all the dangers threatening the city of LA. After all, according to statistics from CityRating. “violent crime rate for Los Angeles in 2016 was higher than the violent crime rate in California by 61.45%”. This is why I write to the judges of the courts of Los Angeles and the administrators of juvenile rehabilitation programs in an attempt to shed some light on the subject juvenile justice and encourage progress towards a lower recidivism rate in the city of LA. Having a lower recidivism rate would indicate a strong juvenile justice system that is effective at preventing criminals from reoffending or committing the same crime.

In order to make improvements, one must first identify the flaws in what they are trying to make better. Take the current juvenile justice system for example. According to PPIC (Public Policy Institute of California), Proposition 47 decreased the jail population down to 73,500 out of 80,000 since March 2012. Even though the juvenile population dropped from the statewide capacity by 6,500, there is still much more work needed to be done to bring the number down even more. Another thing I will acknowledge and give the judges of LA credit for is how 40% of all juveniles are being redirected to rehabilitation programs. (Los Angeles County Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act, 49). According to the California Innocence Project, California has among the highest recidivism rate in the country. (California Innocence Project, Recidivism Rates).  For the readers who may not know what recidivism is, it represents the likelihood of a released prisoner to reoffend and commit more crimes. The recidivism rate represents how many people reoffend in an area. I hope I’ve made my definition clear enough that you can understand my previous bit of evidence listed above.Recidivism rates are very important as they can serve as a measurement of how safe a city or area is. The higher the rate, the more crimes re-committed. According to data provided by a non-profit organization at the  Western School of Law in San Diego, California known as the California Innocence Project. That same source goes on to say that The same source continues by saying that 65% to 73% recidivists commit a crime or violate parole after release from prison. (California Innocence Project, Recidivism Rates). Surely there’s a reason for this, right? If this weren’t the case, then the city of LA would be considered a much safer place than it currently is.

The most basic reasoning that can be applied is the fact that while statistics show progress being made towards the use of rehabilitation programs, this progress is simply not being made fast enough. To be more specific, the data provided above about how 73% of recidivists commit a new crime or violate parole within the first year of their release from prison can imply a failure of juvenile justice policies and rehabilitation programs to effectively do their jobs. This is why I am going to shed some light on what some of these rehabilitation programs are doing as of now, and propose new ideas of what they could or should be doing.

As there are a wide variety of sentences for juveniles to be given, the first one I will look at is camp services and residential treatment. According to the County of Los Angeles Probation Website, when a youth is sentenced to attend a youth camp, there are many objectives and people included in the process of deciding which camp would be best for the juvenile. This assessment can be referred to as the Multidisciplinary Assessment, or can simply be called MDA.  During this process, Representatives of Juvenile Court Health Services, Representatives from the department of mental health, the los angeles county of education, the youth’s guardians, and the youth all come together to assess the youth on various different topics and tests. The outcomes of these tests would depend on the youth’s age, gender, camp program length, medical and mental health needs, educational services, substance use, and the youth’s interests. This is once again playing a big part in the decision of which camp would be best fit for the youth. This is very important because those supporting the youth only want the best for him/her. If the supporters were to not full provide Once the camp has been chosen, the youth wouldn’t be able to reach their full potential after learning from their mistakes from the past. The also source talks about reunifying the youth with their family and reintegrate them into the community while at the same time monitoring their behavior and well being.

”(County of Los Angeles Probation, RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT & CAMP SERVICES). Upon joining the camp, the youth will go through orientation and then take part in three meetings with an MDT, or Multidisciplinary Team. There would also be a Behavior Modification Program, in which the youth is encouraged to earn “greater independence and privileges during the camp stay by demonstrating progress in behavior and self-control.” (County of Los Angeles Probation, RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT & CAMP SERVICES). Finally this is gone through in four stages, each with their own promotional systems. In the End the youth goes through a transitional MDT. Following the MDT is an evaluation of whether the youth’s home environment is suitable to return to.

(County of Los Angeles Probation, RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT & CAMP SERVICES).

While there are many some positives in this form of rehabilitation, there are also some things missing. Here are some questions I have about this system. These questions will help us look farther into how the system works and what can or should be improved. How can you know for sure that the youth is a changed human being after having gone through camp? How can you be completely sure that the youth is or is not pretending to develop better habits as to minimize the amount of time? In my opinion, I feel that these questions could be easily answered with the implementation of a new and additional set of steps added to the system. This system would simply be an in-depth background check taking place before, during, and after the camp.

This would be no ordinary background check as it would include more than the average background check would. These background checks are mainly limited to looking at anything that applies to how well you can perform the tasks of the given job or career. What’s missing is a kind of mental health check that would consistently take place all throughout the youths time at camp. This would also include additional follow-ups after the youth’s reintegration into society.  The mental health test would look at the youth’s intentions, their thought process, and also how reliable their conscience is in terms of knowing right from wrong. One other thing included in the test is the youth’s ability to maintain a stable relationship with those around them as well as their friends and family, and their ability to create new relationships. Unlike the camp, this test would look at the teamwork aspect as well as look into how compatible youth is with others, how much trust they can build within themselves and others, and finally their ability to establish new bonds or relationships. By implementing these extra procedures into the juvenile justice system and rehabilitation programs authorities can be completely confident that a juvenile is ready to be reintegrated into society, as well as that the youth knows that their past actions were bad and that the youth has learned from his/her mistakes. Despite what is missing (in my opinion) from the current youth camps, I believe these camps serve as a better alternative for the rehabilitation of youths than simply having them idly spend time in jail. It is thanks to these camps that juveniles have the opportunity of a second chance at living a law abiding life as a citizen of Los Angeles.

The second method of handling juvenile offenders (although this one mainly concerns first time juvenile offenders) is putting the youth offender through a STAR Court. This court is a redirect for first time female juvenile offenders. “The program’s goal is primarily rehabilitative, and it addresses underlying family or personal issues that precipitated the child’s activities.” (Judicial Branch of California, Handbook for STAR (“Succeed Through Achievement and Resilience”) Court.) The source goes on to say that “It does so by providing enhanced services and supervision through partnership with a multi-disciplinary team composed of the youth’s lawyer, the Asst. District Attorney, a probation officer dedicated to supervision of the youth on this docket, and advocates from several community based organizations which work with sex trafficked youth on an ongoing basis.” The program’s goal is to “promote youth and public safety, to reduce recidivism, and to disrupt the pattern leading to increasing criminal activity.” However, in order to take part in this program the subject must meet a few specific requirements. Subject must be under 17 years old, must be  female, and must also live near the court providing the STAR guidance program. After having met these requirements, the court will ask for information regarding the subjects past. Examples of what information is needed can include but is not limited to: History of sexual abuse, current happenings regarding the youth’s abusers, and also whether or not there had any been prior arrests. With having gained the needed information, the court will then hold a meeting with the youth and her parents to discuss the objectives and goals for rehabilitation. From then on the court will keep a watchful eye on the youth through the supervision of a probation officer and hold consistent conferences regarding the youth’s progress and also the challenges they have yet to face ahead. Similarly to my suggestion earlier, the Star Handbook states that the judge will also be looking for any changes in the mental health or behavior of the youth. Should any changes occur, they are to be reported to the court immediately. To summarize what STAR is, it is a program in which the youth’s behavior upon redirection is monitored so that the court can keep a close eye on the developments of the youth and any changes that occur in the youth’s behavior.

However, I believe that this program could be so much more successful if the youth was not only watched, but also put through a rehabilitation program at the same time. This way, there would be not one but two sets of watchful eyes set upon the youth. With more “guardian angels” watching over the youth, there would be a lower probability or chance of either side missing a crucial change in the youth’s mentality or behavior. The program would however be limited to only females but the fact that having more supervisors makes it harder to miss change is undeniable. Another thing is the STAR program is mainly for first time juvenile offenders. Because of this, the parents of the youth may not be familiar with the proceedings of juvenile rehabilitation. To solve this, the STAR program could also guide the parents and their child to effective programs that the family would otherwise have a difficult time trying to find. In the end, the constant and over-obsessive supervision of youth will fuel her motivation to once again gain the trust of those around her and walk away having learned from her mistakes.

While I can confidently acknowledge the positive effects of what has been done, I still can see the vacancy of progress in what has yet to be achieved. But it is thanks to the vacancy that we know where and what change is or is not applicable. As everyone has a different perspective or opinion, what you have read originates from mine. Think of the city as one big family. As families and friends watch over each other, I believe we can do the same through the implementation of a strengthened juvenile surveillance system. By doing so, we can work towards a stronger city with more unity, and less recidivism.

Works Cited:

“Recidivism Rates | Prison Reform | CIP.” California Innocence Project, California Innocence Project, 2018.

“Los Angeles Crime Rate Report (California).” CityRating: Find the Best Places to Live in the USA, CityRating, 2018.

“Edmund G. Brown Jr.” California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, LAPD, 28 Nov. 2018.

“Multidisciplinary Evaluation and Assessment.” My Child Without Limits RSS, MyChildWithoutLimits, 2018.

“Residential Treatment & Camp Services – Probation.” Los Angeles County Probation Department-Adult Services-AB 109, “California.” 

“Handbook for STAR (‘Succeed Through Achievement and Resilience’) Court.” 15 Jan. 2015.