Testimony on The Age of Criminal Responsibility and its Impact in New York State

Transcription

1 Testimony on The Age of Criminal Responsibility and its Impact in New York State Presented Before: New York State Senate Standing Committee on Children and Families Chair, Senator Tony Avella & New York State Senate Standing Committee on Crime Victims, Crime and Correction Chair, Senator Patrick M. Gallivan February 6, 2017 Testimony Submitted by: Fran Turner Director, Legislative and Political Action

2 I d like to start by thanking Chairman Avella, Chairman Gallivan, and members of the committees for the opportunity to comment on raising the age of criminal responsibility in New York State. CSEA proudly represents a wide range of workers within the Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS), including those that work in detention facilities. In addition, we represent probation officers in nearly every county outside of New York City. These two groups of workers will be critical components in any raise the age proposal. The Executive Budget proposes to raise the age of criminal responsibility from 16 to 18 years of age for a large number of crimes. The proposal would, in many instances, divert this population from incarceration to probation services. CSEA understands the arguments in favor of this policy change and appreciate those that wish to see the change. However, CSEA has two major concerns regarding this proposal that must be met in order for this program to be successfully implemented: 1. The legislature must ensure a long-term commitment to fully funding county probation departments for all new expenses incurred under this program. 2. Youths sentenced under this program who are required to be placed in state custody must be sent to an OCFS facility and treated by OCFS employees. Proper Probation Funding State law requires county probation officers to be responsible for monitoring not only those placed on probation, but also sex offenders, individuals convicted of certain drunk driving crimes, and youths who are placed on probation instead of being sent to an OCFS facility. 1

3 These local probation departments have seen their workloads continually increase as the state has increased oversight authority while providing inadequate funding to administer these programs. This has led to severe understaffing in counties across the state. Funding for local probation departments has been held flat since FY Further, caseloads continue to increase as the State continues to divert people from state prison to community based services. Under the Raise the Age proposal, county probation officers will play a critical role in diverting youths from detention facilities. Under existing proposals from the Executive, probation officers will be required to assess all youths who enter the criminal justice system with the goal of keeping them out of a detention facility. Some estimates have stated that probation officers will have to perform an assessment of over 20,000 youths annually. This additional work will not be possible with the existing workforce in each county. Based on these estimates, additional probation officers will have to be hired if Raise the Age moves forward. However, due to financial limitations put on local governments, including the property tax cap, this cannot happen without adequate financial commitments from the state. While the Executive has said that the state will pay for the local government costs of this program, there are no guarantees that this funding will be maintained in future years. Time and again we have seen the State implement programs with the stated intent of paying for the services, only to abandon that responsibility several years down the road and pass the costs on to counties and other local governments. The legislature must not allow this proposal to become yet another unfunded mandate on counties. The legislature must ensure that local governments are fully reimbursed by 2

4 the state for the expenses of implementing this program, including hiring additional probation officers and support staff. OCFS Facilities Under the Raise the Age proposal, 16 and 17 year olds who, due to the nature of their crime, can not be diverted to probation services would be placed in a youth detention facility. CSEA firmly believes that youths who are required to be placed into state custody must go into a secure OCFS facility that is staffed by OCFS employees. OCFS staff have the training and experience necessary to provide secure oversight of these youths in an environment outside of an adult correctional facility. In addition, OCFS staff members are trained to provide more therapeutic and rehabilitative based supervision. These programs will allow these youths to finish high school, receive a G.E.D., learn a trade, and be ready to return to their community with the skills to be successful. Over the past several years we have seen the failure of programs like Close to Home, which placed violent youths in community based, non-secure facilities. Past experiments utilizing these voluntary agencies have yielded tragic results, including the brutal murder of a community based group home employee in Western New York, as well as the murder of a Rochester-area police officer. We can not afford to risk the safety of the community on this experiment. Any law to raise the age must ensure that similar mistakes are not made. Conclusion I would again like to thank the Chairs and members of the committees for the 3

5 opportunity to discuss CSEA s position on the proposal to raise the age of criminal responsibility. It is crucial that the legislature take seriously the implementation and future funding of this proposal in order for it to move forward successfully. 4