In 1974, advocating for justice and fair treatment on behalf of juveniles had been a daunting task, but voices were heard and the Juvenile Justice and Delinquent Prevention Act was passed and implemented. Since this time many communities have worked hard to develop programs and institute residential treatment facilities as an alternative to Juvenile Detention Centers, or worse, incarceration in Adult facilities (Bazelon Center for Mental Health, 2010). Yet, today, almost 30 years later, the problems this policy was enacted to mend have grown, and many communities are not meeting the requirements necessary to receive the government funding that may induce change for our youth. Furthermore, Juveniles with Mental Illness diagnosis are trapped in a cycle of recidivism that is exhausting funds without the basic self-determination or empowerment necessary to overcome or break free from a vicious and destructive cycle.
The JJPD (Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention) Act is the main thrust in Ohio’s programming through The Department of Youth Services (DYS). This Act determines Ohio’s Federal grant award by complying with the Four Core Values or Requirements set forth in JJPD Act. The Four Core Requirements are; Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC), Jail Removal, Separation from Adult Inmates, and De-institutional of Status Offenders. This Act basically protects youth from being charged as adults, being incarcerated with adults, from unjust treatment, and protects minority groups.
Although the JJDP Act afforded fair treatment and protection for incarcerated Juvenile Delinquents, this policy did not make provisions or meet the concerns of prevention or rehabilitation for the individual youth struggling in his / her community.
Ohio is a Home Rule state, meaning cities and counties throughout the State function with a great deal of autonomy. Because of this jurisdiction, “local governments have established a wide variety of prevention and early intervention programs, both community- and residential-based” (Ohio Juvenile Justice and Delinquent Prevention, 1997). Many of these programs are financially supported through a subsidy program at the DYS, the agency responsible for the "safe, secure, and humane confinement of all youth committed by Ohio's 88 juvenile courts . For instance, due to overcrowding in the DYS institutions, and the growing necessity for community / local involvement the “RECLAIM Ohio initiative (Reasoned and Equitable Community and Local Alternatives to the Incarceration of Minors) was created on July 1, 1993, in House Bill 152” (Ohio Department of Youth Services). Through this initiative there has been a noticeable decrease for recidivism, and youth offenders charged with felonies. Within RECLAIM, local courts are able to utilize subsidy grants toward alternative treatment plans in lieu of incarceration or detention. Following is a diagram of “Subsidy Grant Program Expenditures by Program Type utilized by local courts on direct service during Fiscal Year 2009;

Youth referred to Subsidy Grant programs have a high rate of successful program completion. Among all FY 2009 program terminations self-reported by the courts, 84% were the result of successful program completion” (Ohio Department of Youth Services).
Under O.R.C. 121.73 Ohio Family and Children First Cabinet Council, “composed of the superintendent of public instruction and the directors of youth services, job and family services, mental health, health, alcohol and drug addiction services, developmental disabilities, aging, rehabilitation and correction, and budget and management” (LAWriter), there are many venues to forge policy reform and establish help and healing for oppressed youth. The main purpose of this council is to assess current procedures and programs in order to correct discrepancy and further implement innovative and rehabilitative programs in local communities to address at-risk populations or social problems. The council also ensures funds to address the proposed changes, or reform of current prevention and assistance programs. Again, Ohio Administrative Code 5139:1-1-01 Governor's council on juvenile justice bylaws “serve[s] as the state advisory group for the Title II formula grant of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002, and Title V incentive grants for local delinquency prevention programs” (LAWriter). Ohio is not struggling against the goads for support or funding to implement change. But the discrepancy lies somewhere between the policy and the implementation.
It is evident Ohio has made strides investing money and effort into caring for our youth, yet there is still a great discrepancy that must be addressed. With the policies and codes in place to forge progress, ultimately paving a foundation for hope, there should be more services available in prevention and rehabilitation. More specifically, executing Individualized Care-Plans, Evidence-Based Counseling, Programs, and Treatment, including effective residential care for youth with Mental Illness rather than incarceration.
How are the current policies implemented in the juvenile justice system creating lasting and effective change for one youth at a time? Looking close to home will help to identify why there must be reform and compliance of the policies in place.
One major consideration in identifying Juvenile Justice for mentally ill youth is defining Mental Illness. The definition for Mental Illness plays a key role in determining the proper care plan for the offender. Often, there is incongruity when trying to diagnose juvenile offenders because criminal behavior can be observed and identified as mental illness, which in turn can be a misdiagnosis. Although there are no current statistics to show how many juveniles are actually diagnosed with a mental illness, there have not been as many as some may believe. Precautions have been implemented to ensure best case scenario for youth that enter the justice system. For example, Juvenile Offender Project has been created and implemented in order to identify undiagnosed or under-diagnosed juveniles placed in the detention home. For the past 20 years, policy development, strengths-based community action, and evidence-based treatment plans for the Mentally Ill population have made internal changes. In the annual report from the Department of Residential Services for 2009, Lorain County served 929 Juvenile offenders. From that total, 43 Juveniles had Mental Illness diagnosis, and were placed in programs. Out of 43 Juvenile offenders with Mental Illness only 28% (12) successfully completed and were released from Community Control (also known as probation). Also, out of 43 offenders, 3 juveniles were committed to the Ohio Department of Youth Services. From this report, only 15 of the 43 youth, approximately 35%, are accounted for.
One divergence of proper care for juvenile offenders is the regulation placed by Job and Family Services in Lorain County. Youth who are receiving care through a provider that is funded by Medicaid is no longer eligible to continue services during incarceration. As a means to support the youth, a Social Worker from the Applewood Centers Inc. is contracted by the Juvenile Court to visit the detention home weekly, providing opportunity for youth to receive some type of care. The break from the previous therapeutic relationship hinders the youth from continuing to progress toward rehabilitation. Another consequence of discontinued Medicaid funding is the youth on medications are no longer able to receive them.
The Lorain County Detention facility currently has two non-secure, court-operated programs for male and female offenders. Pathways and Stepping Stones is funded and licensed through the Department of Job and Family Services. Entrance into these group homes are based upon referrals by a team of professionals, availability, and expected outcome. Case plans are developed for each juvenile using extensive drug / alcohol, and Mental Health assessment tools. During 2009, there were 2455 participants, 19 were considered successful completion, and 8 were placed in DYS.
Beyond the Detention home, Lorain County Court has created alliances with several key disciplines in the community to achieve success for Juvenile offenders. Lorain County Mental Health Board receives funds through local taxes, and continues services through a levee. The Mental Health Board does not offer direct services, but is the main source for cooperative efforts by contracting providers from a variety of disciplines pooled together to meet the needs of individual clients and / or groups from high-risk populations. The Director of Integrative Youth Services plays an important role creating and implementing programs to meet the needs of Juvenile Delinquents with Mental Illnesses. For starters, Juvenile Offenders entering the court system with a pre-existing, long-term care plan are considered a “special case”, and therefore are moved quickly out of the detention facility because the environment can exacerbate the symptoms of the youth.
During the Fiscal year 2009, 13 Juveniles were placed in residential care facilities as a direct result of the alliance with the court. That was a 100% referral placement for the first time since instituting the Integrative Partnership Services, connecting Mental Health venues with the Juvenile Court.
Residential Care occurs outside of the county through contracts with institutions located nearby in Cuyahoga County. Contracts currently are held with:
• Parmadale Adolescent Institute located in Parma, and funded through the Cleveland Catholic Charities. This therapeutic-based, secure facility provides “specially trained mental health professionals utiliz[ing] evidence-based, best-practice models, and methods of treatment to enhance the overall placement experience for youth, and to improve their chances at a life worth living” (Catholic Charities Health and Human Services). Although Lorain Juvenile Court has established contract with this residential care facility, there has been “no referrals or placements from Lorain County in the past year” (Gyekenyesi, 2010).
• Beach Brook is a campus-setting, secure environment for court-involved youth with mental health issues, and located in Cleveland. The goal of in-house treatment is to “change anti-social behavior so that youth can leave the juvenile justice system and return to their families and the community with continued safe behavior patterns” (Beech Brook).
• Berea Children’s Home, “a locked, closely supervised unit is especially for children, ages 12-17, who are acting out in response to an acute personal crisis. Secure Treatment is recommended for children experiencing unpredictable, explosive outbursts, temporary loss of reality or seriously self-endangering behaviors” (Berea Children's Home and Family Services).
•Bellefaire in Shaker Heights. A campus-setting, residential care facility which “provides five levels of residential treatment: Crisis Stabilization; Intensive Treatment; Intermediate Treatment; Transitional Living; and Co-occurring Integrated Treatment . . . Our residential programs utilize a multidisciplinary approach to address the complex needs of each youth and build upon his or her strength” (Bellefaire JBC).

One Intervention-based Program developed and implemented by the Mental Health Board is the Juvenile Offender Project (JOP). “A collaborative effort between the court, Integrative Services Partnership of Lorain County, Board of Mental Illness, and Bellefaire Jewish Children’s Bureau forms a “systems” approach to best aid Juvenile offenders. This program “provides an extensive assessment, the MAYSI (Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument), and psychological evaluation for the offender, primarily for offenses of violence that exhibit mental health issues” (Riley, 2010), locating under diagnosed or undiagnosed juveniles already in the system to collaborate for their care.
One more asset to the Lorain County Court for Juvenile Offenders is the Children’s Continuum of Care Committee (4-C) cluster reviews are utilized in serving severe cases of mentally ill delinquents. This committee takes a systems approach toward creating and implementing personalized care plans for the individual. The committee comprises of professionals from a variety of sects surrounding the client, including; Mental Health Board, Children’s Services Board, Alcohol and Drug Dependency Board, Department of Youth Services, Juvenile Court, Education, and County Health Board. These professionals meet to address the client’s issues and determine the greatest benefit for the client from a clinical perspective, without regard for funding.
There are several facets within the structures, policies, programs, and care all intertwined, yet playing an individual role in juvenile justice. It is important to remember that we are dealing with complex circumstances, individuals and stressful, imposed relations. A few important factors in determining justice for juveniles beyond all the current policies and implementation, the evidence-based treatment, and best-practice care available, we must consider the youth themselves. For instance, the Director of Integrative Services stated, “juveniles will deny mental health issues and prefer to be labeled “criminal” rather than labeled “insane”, on the other hand, “kids from upper-class areas will fake symptoms of mental illness preferring hospitalization rather than incarceration . . . it is important to understand that criminal behavior does not always negate mental illness.” (Riley, 2010).
Concern for the fair-treatment of juvenile delinquents incarcerated in secure facilities is the main thrust for identifying where there may be discrepancy in policy formation and implementation. Ill-treatment of Juveniles with Mental Illness is posed as a grave concern from the general public to workers in the detention homes. After researching policies in place, structures and organizations set up in response to these concerns, we must not forget that juveniles have committed a crime in order to be sentenced in serving time in a detention home. Professionals state their own observations and concerns that may show a different perspective on concerning ill-treatment statements. One statement, made by Doug Messer, the Court Administrator, stated “more often, youth acting out with violent behavior are not the ones diagnosed with mental illness”. A concern over the use of Pepper spray to restrain youths assaulting staff in a locked facility was raised. When questioned, the response give was plausible, “there is no perfect situation, pepper spray has become the alternative to physical restraint because it is less combative” (Messer, 2010).
The most recent progress made by the Juvenile Court in Lorain County to address Juvenile offenders with Mental Illness diagnosis is the conception of the Mental Health court, put into operation in February 2010. The purpose of this new court is to maintain and keep close supervision of youth and their compliance to the care plan set forth by the court. The Mental Health Court is composed of Judge Berta, the Care Provider involved with the juvenile, Community Control Officer, and parent. The court demands appearance twice a month in order to assess progress and make adjustments necessary for the juvenile to continue toward successful completion. The Mental Health Court does not involve cases of lesser social issues, such as the Axis II of DSM, but is more concerned with Juveniles whom are diagnosed with severe Mental Illness, such as; Depression, Bipolar Disorder, Mood Disorders, etc. Behavioral therapy, cognitive therapy and many others are all mandated services to be made available in less restrictive environments in hopes of prevention.
No system is perfect. Considering the funds available, the amount of research, assessments, policy, advocacy, and all the systems and multidimensional approaches to aiding our youth into a healthy, balanced, successful lifestyle as adults, it is difficult for me to identify where we are failing as a county. The target population of this research has been juvenile offenders with Mental Illness, and in all my research I am not finding substantial evidence for concern with our judicial system in Lorain County. Even with the concerns voiced by my peers, I have found plausible responses from the professionals directly related to implementing programs to best meet the needs of this population. Do I agree wholeheartedly with every decision and effort made to accommodate success in juvenile delinquents? No. But I recognize progress in the infrastructure, and I also recognize the complexity of the issue.


Works Cited
Bazelon Center for Mental Health. (2010, September 25). Retrieved September 2010, from Bazelon.org: http://bazelon.org/What-You-Can-Do/Take-Action/Alerts/Alerts-Archive/9-20-10JJDPA.aspx
Beech Brook. (n.d.). Retrieved September 25, 2010, from Beech Brook: http://www.beechbrook.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/fs_court.pdf
Bellefaire JBC. (n.d.). Retrieved September 27, 2010, from http://www.bellefairejcb.org/adoption-foster-care-autism/residential-care/
Berea Children's Home and Family Services. (n.d.). Retrieved September 25, 2010, from http://www.bchfs.org/programs/search/list.pl?db=p7&uid=default&program=Residential+Treatment+Campus:+Secure+Treatment&view_records=Search
Catholic Charities Health and Human Services. (n.d.). Retrieved September 23, 2010, from Cleveland Catholic Charities Parmadale: http://www.clevelandcatholiccharities.org/parmadaleinstitute/steps.htm
Gyekenyesi, C. (2010, September 27). Director of Admissions. (J. Salloum, Interviewer)
LAWriter. (n.d.). Retrieved September 27, 2010, from Ohio Codes and Rules: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/121.37
Messer, D. (2010, September 28). Court Administrator. (J. Dudek, Interviewer)
National Center for Juvenile Justice State Profiles. (2006). Retrieved Septmeber 26, 2010, from http://70.89.227.250:8080/stateprofiles/profiles/OH06.asp?topic=Highlights&state=/stateprofiles/profiles/OH06.asp
Ohio Department of Youth Services. (n.d.). Retrieved September 26, 2010, from DYS: http://www.dys.ohio.gov/dnn/Community/ReclaimOhio/tabid/131/Default.aspx
Ohio Juvenile Justice and Delinquent Prevention. (1997). Retrieved September 28, 2010, from http://www.ojjdp.gov/PUBS/gender/state-oh.html
Riley, M. A. (2010, September 21). Director of Integrative Youth Services Partnership. (J. Dudek, Interviewer)

Lorain County fires detention center supervisor

ELYRIA -- A juvenile detention center supervisor in northeast Ohio has been fired after authorities said a security videotape showed him slamming the face of a 16-year-old inmate on a table.

James Catalano was suspended following the July incident in Elyria. He was fired Tuesday by a Lorain County administrator.

The teen was facing a weapons charge. Catalano says he restrained the teen because of taunting comments made while staff members were trying to restore order after a fight. The video shows the teen getting slammed headfirst into a tabletop, but there is no audio. The boy had a split chin and required 17 stitches.

Catalano could not be reached for comment. There is no phone listing under his name in the Lorain County area.

© 2010 The Associated Press