 |
|||
| A
publication of the Justice Center |
Alaska Justice Statistical Analysis Center |
||
 |
|||
|
Since 1999, through an arrangement
with the Alaska Division of Juvenile Justice, the Emmonak Elders’
Group Project has handled certain non-felony juvenile cases in
the village. The project permits youths to remain within the
community while their offenses are adjudicated through the body
of elders – thus avoiding formal justice system processing
which usually entails removal from the village. Youths are held
accountable within the context of the local community and its
traditions.
The Justice Center at the University
of Alaska Anchorage conducted an initial evaluation of the program
in early 2001, after the court had been in operation for approximately
a year and a half. The evaluation comprised a review of program
files, direct observations of meetings, discussions with community
residents and interviews with parents and juveniles. It primarily
focused on project implementation: the process involved in establishing
the court, its procedures and the necessary working relationships
among institutions and individual participants.
Program Background
Emmonak, which lies at the mouth of the Yukon, close to the Bering Sea, has a population of about 800, most Yup’ik Eskimo. The village economy depends heavily on commercial fishing supplemented by subsistence activities. The juvenile population is proportionately large, with over 200 children enrolled in the local school system.
Concern about the problems and
activities of this juvenile population led the Emmonak Tribal
Council to design a program that would involve the elders in
adjudicating juvenile misbehavior. A federal Juvenile Accountability
Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG) channeled through the Alaska Division
of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) funded the program.
The Emmonak Elders’ Group
was officially established in 1997 in response to increasing
social problems in the village. Although the elders had always
been integral to the cultural and social fabric of Emmonak, they
began to exert greater influence in community decisions and discussions
after a formal, tribally recognized council was established.
The goal of the Elders’ Group has been to pass down traditional
knowledge and wisdom to a new generation. They have formally
addressed such community problems as domestic violence by educating
families and providing culturally based guidelines. Becoming
involved with troubled youth was a logical step. The problems
of youth became increasingly obvious to the community after several
suicides occurred in the mid-1990s. During the same period delinquent
behavior was increasing.
This project proposed two major goals of equal importance. The
first was to reduce juvenile crime and recidivism. This was both
a goal with individual youths and a safety and health goal for
the community as a whole. It encompassed issues such as accountability,
sentencing, and local solutions to problems of youth crime. The
second, but no less important, goal was to increase the skills,
knowledge and control of local Native entities in administering
solutions to village issues. This included increasing collaboration
between state and local/tribal entities as well as restoring
cultural relevance to the way in which youth are educated and
guided toward positive behavior. Of primary importance here was
incorporating Yup’ik traditional values and beliefs into
the systems that serve youth, including the schools and, in this
case, the juvenile justice system.
Program Participants
The program funded with the
JAIBG grant established a formal link between the Juvenile Justice
office in Bethel and the Elders’ Group through which non-felony
cases could be referred to the elders at the discretion of the
juvenile probation officer.
Grant funds were used initially
to support one staff position for the program—the Elder-Youth
Specialist—which would bear responsibility for nearly all
of the administrative tasks. Foremost among these have been processing
referrals from the state justice system and monitoring sentence
completion. (Also, because outside the school system this position
is the only one in Emmonak that deals specifically with youth,
the Elder-Youth Specialist has become a source of information
and assistance beyond the program. ) The Elder-Youth Specialist
works as a facilitator, with the relationship between this position
and the participating elders critical to the success of the program.
The village elders are the essence
of the project in Emmonak. By requiring individuals to appear
before the elders, the grant project has stretched the role of
the Elders’ Group. Before its inception, some youth and
families received counseling from the elders, but they were usually
self-referred. The project has raised new dynamics within the
community. People who were less connected to Yup’ik traditions
are now exposed to traditional ideas; they have been spoken to
in Yup’ik; and they have interacted with a generation that
they previously might have avoided.
One issue raised by the project was the extent of the elders’
authority, particularly if that authority seemed to conflict
with other established rules and regulations. On one occasion,
for example, an elder decided to go into the school to check
on a youth who had come before the Elders’ Group, but the
school district has regulations for non-family school visitors,
which the elder did not follow.
Procedures
Juveniles in Emmonak who violate
the law are referred to the Juvenile Justice office in Bethel.
Each case is assigned to a Juvenile Probation Officer who decides
whether the charged youth should have the option of appearing
before the Elders’ Group in Emmonak or continue through
formal processing within the state system. The officer considers
such factors as: number of prior offenses, nature of the charge
(only non-felony cases are heard by the Elders’ Group),
and age of the offender. Both the youth involved and the parents
must agree to authorize the Elders’ Group to administer
the case. Once this authorization is received, copies of the
original referral letter and the authorization letter are sent
to all of the elders for review. The Elder-Youth Specialist then
schedules an Elders’ Group hearing for the case.
Referrals from the official juvenile
justice process are termed state referrals to distinguish
them from the increasing number of local referrals being made
by family members, community members or school personnel without
the involvement of the DJJ office. These local referrals also
require the agreement of both parents and youth.
The Elders’ Group hearing
takes place in the community hall in the Tribal Offices Building.
Elders sit at a conference table facing the youth and the parent
or family member. Also present are the Elder-Youth Specialist
and occasionally a translator. Some of the elders are primarily
Yup’ik-speaking, with limited skill in English. At times
the Elder-Youth Specialist may serve as translator.
In two cases, the arresting Village
Public Safety Officer (VPSO) or Village Police Officer (VPO)
has also been present, but for the majority of cases the police,
although invited, have not attended. Each meeting has an agenda
that includes opportunities for all parties to speak, a break
for elders to confer in private, and finally the sentencing of
the youth. During the sentencing, all of the elders present have
an opportunity to speak to the youth and to family members. Their
presentation, which is the core of the hearing, may include stories
of their youth, discussion of the values and guidance handed
down from their own parents and grandparents, Yup’ik myths,
and warnings directed toward the behavior in question. Emphasis
is placed on the welfare of the community and the culture and
the role the youth themselves will someday play as leaders in
their community. The sessions, which last from two to four hours,
can be emotional and powerful statements about both the historical
and personal repercussions of destructive youth behaviors such
as drinking. Finally, the elders prescribe a sentence—usually
a period of community service—and the youth is given a chance
to speak.
The referral process appears to
work well. In its evaluation the Justice Center assessed the
turnaround time between arrest and referral to the Elders’
Group and between referral and Elders’ Group proceeding.
All state referrals were sent to the Elders’ Group within
six weeks of arrest, and hearings before the elders were scheduled
two weeks to a month after receipt of the referral. The turnaround
time was important to the community, because one of the problems
with the state justice system often mentioned by community members
was the length of time between the behavior and any repercussions.
This community concern mirrored the intent of JAIBG legislation
and reflected the belief that if too much time elapsed between
the behavior and its consequence the sense of responsibility
was diminished.
Follow-up and monitoring procedures
for the project have been less clearly articulated than the actual
hearings and sentencings. Failure to maintain careful records
of hours of community service completed and/or restitution paid
is a primary weakness of the program. At present the youth seem
to view their community service as busywork, and there is little
supervision of youth at their work assignments, unless the work
takes place in an office or classroom. Since work assignments
often involve walking around the village and picking up trash,
this is rarely the case. One important reason for this lack of
supervision is staffing: there is only one staff member. Another
is the absence of a plan for service opportunities in Emmonak.
There is also a lack of monitoring
of the youth’s behavior in school and at home after sentencing.
The original program proposal contained a very cursory description
of what would happen after the Elders’ Group Meeting. The
referral process and Elders’ Group hearings seem to be working
as described in the proposal, but as the number of youth who
flow into the program increases, more attention to follow-up
and monitoring is necessary.
Collaborative Relationships with Key Entities
The Emmonak Elders’ Project has required ongoing collaborative relationships with a number of agencies and groups as well as continuous efforts to form new relationships with other entities. Among those groups working with the project have been:
- Juvenile Justice Office. The Bethel office of the Alaska Division of Juvenile Justice has cooperated in both the development and implementation phases of this project. The probation officer who handles Emmonak youth has routinely referred misdemeanor cases to the Elders’ Group for disposition. This relationship continues to be a strong one.
- Tribal Council. The Tribal Council was the initiator of the program and received the JAIBG grant. Their belief in and support of the program have not diminished. The Council formally recognized the initial Elder-Youth Specialist with a community service award for his work on the project. Many council members have expressed their support for the concepts underlying the project: they recognize the contribution of the elders to maintaining Yup’ik traditions and passing these on to the youth.
- Magistrate. In rural Alaska the magistrate handles minor (misdemeanor) juvenile cases under the authority of a District Court Judge. The relationship with the magistrate’s office has been strong since the inception of the program. The magistrate is now directly referring youth offenders handled by her office to the Elder-Youth Specialist for assignment to community service. Although this has added to the workload of the single staff member, it has also increased the visibility and credibility of the project.
- Rural CAP Youth Empowerment Project. The Rural Alaska Community Action Program, Inc., was originally established through federal legislation to “protect and improve” life for rural Alaskans. Their Youth Empowerment project in Emmonak has provided volunteer activities for youth and some community service opportunities for referred youth who appear before the elders.
- School District. At the time of the evaluation there was not a strong connection between the school and the program. This is a general community issue, as there appears to be a strong social division between community and school personnel. Most school personnel are not permanent residents of the community; many are from outside Alaska. The school/program linkage was not developed at the outset of the project but in the second year several meetings were held with the principal; as a direct result of these meetings four school referrals to the Elders’ Group were initiated. This is, at present, an under-utilized relationship but one that has potential for growth.
In addition to these ongoing relationships, efforts are underway to establish links with other groups.
Results
The Bethel office of the Division of Juvenile Justice referred a total of seventeen youth to the Elders’ Group from July 1999 through January 2001. Nearly two-thirds of these youth were under fourteen; five were younger than ten. Only two of the state-referred youth were female. Table 1 displays details on the state-referred youth.
The state-referred youth had
committed a variety of offences, including burglary, criminal
trespass, vandalism, theft, domestic violence, minor consuming,
resisting arrest, and in one case threatening another youth with
an unloaded firearm. All cases referred by the state juvenile
justice system met the terms outlined in the original agreement.
None of offenses were sex crimes.
Since January 1, 2001 only one case has been referred to the
Elders’ Group from the Bethel Juvenile Justice Office. The
Bethel Probation Officer also stated that there had only been
one Emmonak youth case referred to the Division of Juvenile Justice
during the last six months of 2000.
Sixteen of the seventeen referred youth appeared before the Elders’
Group for counseling and sentencing; one moved to Anchorage after
referral but prior to his scheduled Elders’ Group appearance
date. Three of the sixteen appearing before the group were ultimately
referred back to the Bethel office because of additional charges;
two were referred on felony charges and one was waived to adult
court.
In the first five cases the youths
were sentenced to restitution of property if the crime involved
theft or destruction; a verbal warning was given and an apology
for other crimes was required. It had been the original intention
of the elders to give those appearing for the first time a warning
along with guidance regarding their behavior. After several parents
and one crime victim (who happened to be the local magistrate
at the time) requested that the youth all be assigned community
service hours in addition to restitution for their first offense,
the policy was changed. It was noted that although this was a
first time for these youth to be referred to the Elders’
Group, many had accumulated multiple prior violations of city
ordinances. After the fifth case, all state-referred youth were
given 10 to 100 hours of community service in addition to restitution
and/or restoration of property.
Community service assignments tended
to focus on cleanup tasks—e.g., picking up trash. A few
youth worked at the school or maintained the community hall.
There did not seem to be very many occurrences of the culture-specific
types of community service that were emphasized in the proposal,
e.g., chopping wood, drying fish, etc. This seemed to be due
to an absence of necessary supervision and training.
Of the seventeen state-referred
youth, eleven satisfactorily completed the disposition requirements,
one partially completed them, three did not complete them, and
for two the outcomes were not known. Five had had no additional
violations of the law after their referrals, and for five it
was not determined if additional violations had occurred. Seven
of the youth had at least one further violation; some had several,
and two committed felonies.
As of December 30, 1999, nine youth
had been locally referred to the Elders’ Group. (See Table
2.) These referrals came from the school or families. Local referrals
ranged in age from 10 to 14 years. Two of the nine were female.
This local referral component of the Elder Group’s work
is becoming substantial. While local referrals were not part
of the original proposal, they appear to take as much time as
state referrals do. They also consume as much of the Elder-Youth
Specialist’s time as do state referrals. The local referrals
were processed much like the state-referred youth. The meetings
were identical in form as those for the state-referred youth,
although for the most part these youth received guidance and
warnings and were not required to perform formal community service.
Because they reflect an effort on the part of the community to
intervene early in a youth’s problem behavior, local referrals
can be seen as a positive expansion of the program.
All of the locally referred
youth had committed one or more violations of such city ordinances
as minor consuming alcohol, violation of curfew, or underage
smoking—all status offenses. As a group, the locally referred
youth had higher numbers of city ordinance violations in the
past two years than the state-referred group, both before and
after the Elders’ Group intervention. Locally referred youth
had a mean of 4.1 violations per person between January 1, 1999
and February 22, 2001, compared with .88 violations per person
for the state-referred group. Parents who requested help from
the Elders’ Group cited these violations as reasons for
the referral, along with school issues, not doing chores, and
parental disrespect.
To date, youth have not been directly
referred to the Elders’ Group by the local magistrate or
by local police, but during the second year of the project the
Elder-Youth Specialist began supervising the community service
component of juvenile dispositions handed down by the local magistrate.
None of these youth was referred to the Elders’ Group. In
some months, the Elder-Youth Specialist has received as many
as 10 of these community service cases. Although this has added
to his workload, it is indicative of a strengthening relationship
between the magistrate and the project.
Overview
Although there has been no substantial
accumulation of quantitative data for evaluation, the two major
goals of the project appear to be being met: juvenile crime seems
to have decreased and village control of the administration of
justice has risen. Through its use of the traditional strengths
of the elders to formally address the delinquent behavior of
youth, the Emmonak Elders’ Group Project has helped to demonstrate
the efficacy of a locally-based approach to handling juvenile
misbehavior.
The Elders’ Group Project
has, by several measures, been a success. Although a direct cause-and-effect
relationship cannot be established, there has been a decrease
in the number of Emmonak referrals to the Division of Juvenile
Justice. There were none during the last six months of the period
covered by the evaluation —September 2000 to February 2001.
The relationship with the DJJ Bethel Office has functioned well.
The project is also resulting in financial savings by avoiding
more costly formal processing.
Intensive on-site observation and
discussions with parents, community members, and youth suggest
that the program is having a positive effect on the community.
More members of the community have had opportunities for contact
with the elders, and many express pride in the elders and in
the program.
One important measure of success
is the interest near-by villages have shown in the program. One
has suggested sending youth to Emmonak for appearances before
the elders, and a more serious suggestion has been to establish
similar elder-youth programs in these villages.
Expanding the program to local referrals in Emmonak can also
be seen as a measure of success. The move toward dealing with
local referrals whose offenses are usually status offenses suggests
a high level of trust in the influence of the elders as well
as a belief that earlier intervention in the behavior will have
greater impact.
Another outcome of the project
has been a renewed interest in understanding youth needs.
The program does exhibit some weaknesses. The sole staff position
is now over-extended in responsibilities. In addition, poor record-keeping
has been a major weakness in the program. If other villages hope
to emulate this program, records information is important. It
is also useful for evaluation. The number of post-disposition
contacts might be a factor in the success of some youth, but
this cannot be determined without a log.
A related flaw in the program has
been the lack of a formal system for providing case information
to referral agencies. Communication with the Bethel Juvenile
Justice Office is good, but feedback should occur with all local
referral agencies (school, magistrate, police). This is particularly
important for a project that deals with overlapping jurisdictions.
The research discussed in the preceding article was conducted by Corey Knox, Research Associate, and N.E. Schafer, Professor, Justice Center.
The Justice Center evaluator interviewed as many participants as possible about their personal experiences with the program described in the accompanying article. Concerns regarding privacy limited interviewing, but the comments of several people involved in the program are presented here.
Parental comments
This is better for minors. To stay in community. The elders are good at transmitting the ideas of caring and love but they needed to be more strict. They (elders) are not good at setting rules. Kids need to do community work. [The boy was referred prior to the new policy that all referred youth be assigned some community work.] Youth need more follow-up after the elders’ meeting.... I did not see a difference in his behavior after Elders’ Group. I would still rather him go before the Elders’ Group than through regular court system. Because they (court system) do more harm than good.... I took my son to the Elders’ Group again. And it seems to have made a difference. His grades are better, he has a better attitude. He is taking more responsibility.
She had been in trouble with the law, had been sent to Bethel, and had spent time in juvenile custody. When she started to get in trouble again, staying out late, drinking, etc., I referred her to the elders’ court.... When she was incarcerated in Bethel she was very angry. They had someone talk to her there-a counselor, but she didn’t understand anything about her as a person. She was just a piece of paper. She was angry the whole time and just wanted to come home. When she went before the elders she didn’t seem angry. The elders opened her eyes. It doesn’t make sense for the young people to sit in jail and not do anything. They should be here in the community at home, doing something productive. In court the kids are just pieces of paper and with elders’ court the kids are people with families and histories.... She really changed, changed her attitude. The whole community gets involved when the general elders’ meetings occur. After going to Elders’ Group she changed her group of friends and started doing things with the Sunshine Group. She later decided by herself to go to Lifegivers Project (Rehab) for three months. The Elders’ Group didn’t force her to do these thing- they just sort of opened her eyes to what she was doing to herself. They encouraged traditional ideas and explained to her how they are useful to her and her life.... Elders should work with Headstart. Need to get the elders’ message to kids at an earlier age. Need to start working with young adults, training them to be future elders.
The elders provided very good advice. My daughter changed as a result of the elders’ meeting. Within a week I noticed that her face was glowing. The elders talked a lot about hanging around the wrong people. They told her their own stories about their troubles, and those of their kids. I think that a lot of what they told her might not sink in right away but it will make sense to her as she confronts different problems. We were able to talk more openly about things after the group. We talk about things now that we never did before. Going to the elders for help with your kids takes a load off of you.... By referring my daughter to the Elders’ Group it made my daughter feel more cared about, both from me, and also by people in the community-the elders. She mentioned that she is now closer to elders. When they see me out in the street or at the store they stop and ask my how my family is and how I am. In the past I never before talked to elders except those in my own family.
Elders’ Comments
Our role is to pass on wisdom. We don’t add on stuff that we make up. It’s knowledge, values, passed down. Knowledge is worthless unless it’s passed on.
We try to give advice, without breaking their spirit. This is what I see when kids come back, from Bethel. Their spirit is broken.
Everyone can change their way of life. I’ve seen this for many years. The kids know we think this.
Community comments
Elders, parents and community leaders also discussed the merits and challenges of the program at a public meeting.
There are few elders left in the village. We are grateful to have people in the community whom we can ask for advice and help.
We’ve seen change in the community; there is more interaction between the generations.
[The project] is helping to bring back a new generation. Our dances are coming back and we are taping the elders’ proceedings, saving the wisdom and the language.
Kids shouldn’t go to jail, we need our kids here. We can solve these things with the help of the elders.
Our kids need to be more accountable at home. This can only happen if they are taught here in the village.
This project is a good start. We need more of it.