CBSI Juvenile Justice Assessment - Final Report.pdf

June 2011

This publication was produced for the United States Agency for International Develop-ment by Democracy International, Inc.

BARBADOS

CARIBBEAN BASIN SECURITY

INITIATIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE

ASSESSMENT

FINAL REPORT

Prepared under the Democracy and Governance Analytical Services Indefinite Quantity Contract, # AID-OAA-I-10-00004

Submitted to:

USAID/Barbados

Prepared by:

Bertrand Laurent, Team Leader

Dr. Annmarie Barnes

Tania Chambers

Sherrian Gray

Contractor:

Democracy International, Inc.

4802 Montgomery Lane

Bethesda, MD 20814

Tel: 301-961-1660 www.democracyinternational.com http://www.democracyinternational.com/

CARIBBEAN BASIN SECURITY

INTIATIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE

ASSESSMENT

FINAL REPORT

June 2011

DISCLAIMER

The authors' views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States

Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

CARIBBEAN JUVENILE JUSTICE ASSESSMENT FINAL REPORT

CARIBBEAN JUVENILE JUSTICE ASSESSMENT i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................ II

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................ III

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

KEY FINDINGS…………………

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS……

INTRODUCTION………

BACKGROUND…………………

PURPOSE OF THE CARIBBEAN JUVENILE JUSTICE ASSESSMENT

METHODOLOGY……………

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

BEST PRACTICES……………

REGIONAL ANALYSIS…………

COMPARING JUSTICE SYSTEMS: COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

COUNTRY ASSESSMENTS: ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS

A COLLECTIVE REVIEW OF JUVENILE JUSTICE IN THE OECS

INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENTS OF THE SIX OECS COUNTRIES VISITED

ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA………

DOMINICA………

GRENADA………

ST. KITTS AND NEVIS

ST. LUCIA………

ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES

ASSESSMENTS OF THREE NON-OECS COUNTRIES VISITED

GUYANA………

JAMAICA………

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

OVERALL PROGRAMMING RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDED NEAR TERM INITIATIVES

RECOMMENDED MEDIUM-TO-LONG TERM INITIATIVES

APPENDIX 1: ORGANIZATIONS MET

APPENDIX 2: REFERENCES

CARIBBEAN JUVENILE JUSTICE ASSESSMENT ii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

CARE Center for Adolescent Renewal and Education (St. Lucia)

CARICOM Caribbean Community

CariMAN Caribbean Male Action Network (Trinidad and Tobago)

CBP Community Based Policing

CBSI Caribbean Basin Security Initiative

CCC Civilian Conservation Corps (Trinidad and Tobago)

CCPA Child Care and Protection Act (Jamaica)

COMET Community Empowerment and Transformation Project

COTR Contracting Officer's Technical Representative

CRC Conventions of the Rights of the Child

CRP Community Renewal Program (Jamaica)

CSJP Citizen’s Security and Justice Program (Jamaica)

CSO Civil Society Organization

CSSB Community Safety and Security Branch (Jamaica Constabulary Force)

CXC Caribbean Examinations Council

CYPA Children and Young Persons Protection Act

DARE Drug Abuse Resistance Education

FOTA From Offending to Achieving (Dominica)

GDA Global Development Alliance (USAID)

IDB Inter American Development Bank

JCF Jamaica Constabulary Force

MILAT Military-Led Academic Training (Trinidad and Tobago)

MNS Ministry of National Security

MOE Ministry of Education

MOJ Ministry of Justice

MYPART Military-Led Youth Program of Apprenticeship & Re-Orientation (Trinidad & Tobago)

NGO Non Governmental Organization

NOC New Opportunities Corps, Guyana

NSDC National Skills Development Center (St. Lucia)

OCA Office of the Children’s Advocate (Jamaica)

OECS Organization of Eastern Caribbean States

SERVOL Service Volunteered for All (Trinidad and Tobago)

SOW Scope of Work

SRO School Resource Office (Jamaica)

UN United Nations

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

USAID United States Agency for International Development

UWIDEC University of the West Indies Distance Education Center

YMCA Young Men’s Christian Association

YTC Youth Training Center (Trinidad and Tobago)

CARIBBEAN JUVENILE JUSTICE ASSESSMENT iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In every country visited, the Assessment Team encountered dedicated and passionate professionals, social advocates, and youths who are making great sacrifices and working tirelessly for a better future and greater security. We would like to acknowledge and thank, first and foremost, these inspiring individuals.

It is our hope that this report will give voice to their vision.

The Team would also like to thank Mr. Mansfield Blackwood, USAID/Barbados, who served as the Con-tracting Officer Technical Representative for this assessment, for his thoughtfulness and helpful engage-ment throughout the activity.

The Caribbean Basin Security Initiative is to be strongly commended for commissioning this assessment, demonstrating its commitment to the region and its appreciation of the linkages between youth develop-ment and security.

CARIBBEAN JUVENILE JUSTICE ASSESSMENT 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

All Caribbean Community (CARICOM) member states have ratified the Conventions of the Rights of the

Child (CRC), which are the global standards that uphold preventative, protective, and rehabilitative prin-ciples guaranteeing the rights of children to a safe environment. Though the existing juvenile justice sys-tems in member states suffer from significant deficiencies, member state juvenile justice reform programs and efforts all model an effort to adopt or adhere to elements of this rights-based approach. To varying degrees, these countries have sought to:

Upgrade laws from punitive, pre-independence models to a rights-based legislative framework that supports the best interests of the child;

Integrate CRC-recommended age definitions by raising the age of criminal responsibility to 12 and standardizing the age of majority at 18;

Decriminalize behavioral issues among youth by introducing child diversion programs and, in some jurisdictions, eliminating status offenses;

Develop specialized courts, policing responses, sentencing options, and correctional methods for children to better investigate and address the wider social and developmental factors that trigger each child’s offending;

Upgrade correctional and remand facilities to provide a rehabilitative environment that supports the developmental and participatory rights of children; and

Develop – directly and in partnership with civil society – programs that engage and support high-risk children and families and stem delinquency.

Nevertheless, the pace of reform efforts is staggered and at times in conflict with “tough on crime” ap-proaches to rising rates of youth delinquency. Status offenses, low benchmarking of ages of criminal re-sponsibility and majority, punitive approaches to law enforcement, and the underfunding of juvenile jus-tice remain persistent. As a result, Caribbean lock-ups, correctional centers, and adult prisons retain a higher than desirable number of child inmates without addressing the root causes of juvenile crime and resulting high rates of recidivism.

The political impetus to change in the Caribbean is hampered by the low level of priority often afforded to children’s programming combined with the desire of political actors to be seen as championing causes that are supported by a large population of voters. The Assessment team found that even in countries in which the national thrust for juvenile justice reform is strong, change is hindered by the high cost of im-plementation, slow pace of legislative reforms, and an often fragmented approach to the administration of juvenile justice.

KEY FINDINGS

Key findings from the assessment are divided into the following thematic areas:

1) Specialized Courts

While the CRC and some national laws support dedicated courts for child offenders, the most common approach across countries is to set aside one or two days per month for hearing chil-dren’s cases.

CARIBBEAN JUVENILE JUSTICE ASSESSMENT 2

2) Human Resources and Specialized Skills

Respondents in all countries spoke to the need for training of security and justice personnel to deal with the particular problems of children, and the need for specialists, especially child psy-chologists. Most respondents pointed to training as an opportunity for regional collaboration.

3) Centralized vs. Decentralized Juvenile Courts

Placing courts in or near juvenile remand facilities, an approach being strongly considered in a number of jurisdictions, may be effective in smaller jurisdictions but in larger countries will like-ly create inefficiencies, a greater management burden, and increased difficulty both for families to access their child in remand and for witnesses from remote regions to attend court.

4) Replication of the Family Court Model

If found effective, the establishment of Family Courts, in which proceedings tend to be less for-mal and less intimidating to children and where services such as mediation, counseling, and par-enting programs can be made available, should be supported and replicated throughout the region.

5) Diversion by the Police

Countries do not typically have policies or laws that promote diversion programs; however, being the first point of contact with juveniles, the police forces of several countries have successfully introduced diversion into their practices using standing orders and organizational policies.

6) Diversion in the Courts

Though the law in Jamaica allows judges a wide range of diversionary orders as alternatives to custodial sentencing, Jamaica’s commissioner of corrections noted that in practice judges tend to use correctional or probationary orders most frequently.

Community service, mediation, and other forms of diversion that are permitted by law are rarely used for juveniles, with the result that juveniles do not benefit from the full range of rehabilitative options available.

In Grenada, judges have the discretion to impose diversionary orders, but magistrates do not.

Therefore, while alternative sentences can be imposed for more serious offenses, for lesser of-fenses tried before a magistrate’s court an alternative program can only be introduced with the consent of both the juvenile and the complainant. Other countries also experience limitations in the legal framework for varying sentencing options. In Dominica, for example, Community Ser-vice Orders are only available for children over 16.

St. Lucia’s courts have piloted a case management-based diversion program that provides each offender with an individualized diversion plan. Similar programs can be developed in other coun-tries, but require a review of the social enquiry investigation and reporting system, to ensure that information on each child is fully available to the court.

7) Institutional Barriers to Diversion

Institutional barriers to diversion are caused by: dissonance between diversion policies and police practices; lack of resources; low political will to champion juvenile justice reforms; and the splin-tering of juvenile justice administration and services across several agencies.

CARIBBEAN JUVENILE JUSTICE ASSESSMENT 3

8) Cultural Barriers to Diversion.

Traditional punitive thinking regarding juvenile antisocial behavior persists among the general public and security and justice personnel, suggesting a need for greater public education.

9) Community Policing

A number of countries have Community Based Policing (CBP) activities that target youth.

There has been no effort to quantify the effect or impact of the DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance

Education) program, which has fluctuated according to the availability of financial resources, though the police in St. Vincent and the Grenadines and Grenada have spoken highly of it.

10) Status Offenses and the Criminalization of Antisocial Behavior

Children and young people face social issues that affect them physically and psychologically and are expressed in age-specific ways.

Through status offenses the criminal justice system is being used to criminalize children experi-encing what are essentially social problems, which will not be solved through enforcement of the-se offenses.

Using the criminal justice system to enforce social judgment puts young citizens in conflict with the state, legal system, and police.

11) The Nexus Between Parenting and Child Offending

Respondents in all countries linked parenting problems and social development issues with juvenile delinquency and offending. Several countries use parenting interventions to target youth delinquency.

Remedial work that focuses on the offender without addressing the household or the youth’s family problems make little impact.

Addressing offenders without addressing their social situations has been found in St. Vincent and the Grenadines to be the primary source of recidivism among youths.

12) Juvenile Facilities

There is an across-the-board lack of juvenile remand and correctional facilities, and all the countries are grappling with housing children in lockups (In several countries, such as Jamaica and Grenada, children are also being held in adult prisons).

Most juvenile facilities, where they exist, include a mixed population of nonviolent first time offenders and more serious violent offenders that interact freely (Juveniles in need of care and protection are also often housed together with young offenders).

The lack of facilities is most stark in relation to females (in Trinidad and Tobago, Grenada, and

St. Vincent and the Grenadines there are no dedicated correctional facilities for girls), which are either provided with probationary sentences or housed in overcrowded women’s or adult prisons.

Even where facilities do exist, overcrowding can result in the remand of girls to women’s prisons.

The respondents did not have any empirical data or evaluations about DARE and were not knowledgeable about comparable juvenile delinquency programs.

CARIBBEAN JUVENILE JUSTICE ASSESSMENT 4

Where child offenders were previously wards of the state, the absence of halfway houses or youth transitioning facilities often means they are homeless upon their return to society.

With the exception of Dominica, the countries studied all have clear policies against mixing child offenders with adults, but few of them have sufficient facilities to implement the policy.

13) Rehabilitation Programming

All countries reported inadequate rehabilitation programs for child offenders and troubled youth, and that while some commendable programs exist, the need far exceeds capacity.

Respondents stressed the need to support and expand existing programs being run by government and civil society, rather than launch new pilot initiatives.

14) Linkages Within Countries

Responsibility for juveniles in conflict with the law is often distributed among several security, justice, and social security agencies. In Guyana four different ministers (Minister of Labor, Min-ister of Human Services and Social Security, Minister of Culture Youth and Sports, and Minister of Home Affairs) and several agencies (e.g. the Child Care and Protection Agency and the New

Opportunities Corps) share responsibility for juvenile programs. With no clear coordinating mechanism, responsibility is diffuse.

Governments rely on NGOs to provide critical services to children in conflict with the law, but state strategies for supporting these agencies are not always clear, making NGOs dependent on international donors.

15) Linkages Across the Region

In-country coordination is needed for effective regional programs but a regional framework and network can trigger and support in-country coordination.

16) Case Management System

None of the countries studied has a comprehensive case management system. Guyana’s Child

Care and Protection Agency and Jamaica’s Department of Corrections have begun to develop computerized case management systems. This presents an opportunity to develop a standard software package that can be tailored to each country. This would be cost effective and would al-so allow for the comparison of aggregated data across the region.

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

Key programming recommendations from the Assessment fall into eight broad categories:

1. Integrated, evidence-based diversion framework is needed in all countries. This should include:

Strengthened inter-agency planning and coordination mechanisms;

Revisiting the utility of social enquiry reporting formats and investigative processes, to improve capacity to identify factors contributing to child offending;

Introduction of integrated case management systems that can provide individualized information to facilitate treatment and aggregate data to facilitate proactive responses to factors contributing to delinquency;

Development of sentencing guidelines and referral systems to promote court diversion;

CARIBBEAN JUVENILE JUSTICE ASSESSMENT 5

Development of police protocols and referral systems to promote pre-charge diversion; and

A multi-agency monitoring and evaluation framework.

2. More programs are needed that engage children as rights-holders, civic participants, and part of the solution to addressing youth delinquency. This will require:

Funding support for programs that positively engage and empower children and give voice to their issues; and

Clubs, after-school, and summer programs that provide structured options for children while they are out of school.

3. Expand family support services to facilitate a holistic response to child delinquency.

4. Rehabilitative programs should be reviewed and strengthened. In particular:

The educational programs provided to children in remand, correctional and diversion programs should be evaluated;

Capacity to conduct medical and psychosocial assessments of children in conflict or contact with the law should be strengthened;

Community-based and nongovernmental initiatives should be reviewed and a network of effec-tive programs developed and supported;

The framework for probation and after-care should be assessed and strengthened, with a view to reducing recidivism; and

Drug detoxification and rehabilitation and other special programs should be introduced or strengthened.

5. The state’s capacity to address the impact of abuse, neglect, sexual exploitation, and exposure to crime and violence on children should be strengthened. This should include:

Mechanisms for developing, evaluating, and replicating psychosocial responses;

Expanding the cadre of child psychologists, clinical social workers, occupational therapists, and other specialists available in each country; and

Developing and replicating behavior modification programs.

6. A redemptive, restorative, rights-based ethos of child justice is critical, and should include:

Identification and mobilization of champions in each country;

Identifying, documenting, and publicizing positive case studies;

Positioning, through cost-benefit studies and social investment analysis, the importance of juve-nile justice as an economic and social issue, and empowering stakeholders to use this information in advocacy and promotion; and

Retooling police, judges, prosecutors, probation officers, and other key personnel with transform-ative strategies and approaches, through wide scale training.

7. Upgrading the legislative and policy framework for child justice reform, through:

Review of existing laws and implementation mechanisms;

CARIBBEAN JUVENILE JUSTICE ASSESSMENT 6

Identifying and costing the implementation requirements for introducing legislative and policy changes (such as the OECS Model Legislation and other bills in each country); and

Researching the effectiveness of current sentencing practices and their impact on recidivism.

8. Establish regional linkages among stakeholders to facilitate sharing information sharing.

For an expanded list of initiatives divided into near-term and medium-to-long term programming recommendations, please see the Recommendations and Programming Options section below.

CARIBBEAN JUVENILE JUSTICE ASSESSMENT 7

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is the accepted international legal and normative standard on the administration of justice for children in conflict and contact with the law. Read together with other guidelines and recommendations developed by U.N. conferences and committees, this aims to standardize a rights-based approach to juvenile justice that:

Proffers prevention and rehabilitation as the primary philosophic and strategic underpinnings of a state response to juvenile delinquency;

Values the child offender as a rights-holder with particular vulnerabilities, whose capacity for trans-formation through appropriate attention to developmental needs is at its peak; and

Supports a holistic perspective of juvenile justice that highlights the importance of the institutions of family and community in preventing delinquency and recidivism and seeks primarily to reintegrate the child offender in society.

Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, Jamaica, and the six independent countries of the OECS (St. Kitts and Ne-vis, Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Grenada) became signatories to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) more than fifteen years ago. They are also signatories to other international pacts such as the Beijing Rules of 1985 and the Riyadh Guide-lines of 1990, all of which provide the framework and guidelines for juvenile justice systems worldwide.

These countries are therefore bound to implementing appropriate legislative and administrative actions and other measures to protect the rights of juveniles. Despite significant effort across the region, however, much remains to be done to ensure that acceptable measures, including restorative justice programs and diversion strategies that lift young people out of the traditional criminal justice system, are put in place.

The Caribbean Basin Security Initiative (CBSI) represents a new paradigm for United States cooperation with the Caribbean on issues of citizen safety and shared security. The CBSI brings to bear additional re-sources to the region for law enforcement activities and youth-focused crime prevention initiatives includ-ing gang prevention and community based policing, and therefore sees juvenile justice as a priority area.

PURPOSE OF THE CARIBBEAN JUVENILE JUSTICE ASSESSMENT

The Scope of Work (SOW) for the CBSI Juvenile Justice Assessment describes the purpose of the as-sessment as “to provide USAID with an analysis and prioritized recommendations for programming in the juvenile justice sector in each of the nine focus countries,” namely: St. Kitts and Nevis; Antigua and

Barbuda; Dominica; St. Lucia; St. Vincent and the Grenadines; Grenada; Trinidad and Tobago; Guyana;

and Jamaica. The two main tasks of the assessment team were:

1) To research the current status of the juvenile justice systems in each of the nine countries, includ-ing the challenges, gaps, and opportunities, as well as an assessment of the political will for jus-tice sector reform.

2) Based on a careful analysis of the current status of the juvenile justice systems in the nine coun-tries, provide a list of prioritized recommendations for each of the nine countries, which USAID may pursue as part of programming under the CBSI.

The SOW also requires the assessment team to conduct “a review of current juvenile justice laws, policies and practices, and assess their level of compliance and gap identification with international standards and norms in juvenile justice.”

CARIBBEAN JUVENILE JUSTICE ASSESSMENT 8

The findings of the assessment will serve to inform programming for USAID/Barbados, USAID/Guyana, and USAID/Jamaica.

METHODOLOGY

To execute the Juvenile Justice Assessment, Democracy International assembled an Assessment Team comprising Caribbean specialists in fields including criminology, law, public administration, governance, and anthropology. The team was highly experienced with youth issues, national and regional security pol-icy, corrections, community policing, and civil society development throughout the Caribbean region.

The first meeting of the Assessment Team was convened by Team Leader Bertrand Laurent in Kingston, Jamaica on Sunday, May 1, 2011, to discuss assessment methodology and prepare for a May 2 in-briefing session at USAID/Jamaica. The group prepared a list of questions and probes to provide some measure of consistency in data capture and to guide the interview process in the countries visited.

The In-Briefing was held at USAID/Jamaica on May 2, 2011, with COTR Mansfield Blackwood

(USAID/Barbados) and Supervisory Program Officer Sean Osner (USAID/Jamaica), who hosted the meeting. The Assessment Team subsequently divided into two sub teams to facilitate coverage of the tar-get countries in the limited timeframe available. Mr. Laurent led the first sub team, which conducted as-sessments in Jamaica, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Guyana, and Grenada. The second sub team, led by

Dr. Annmarie Barnes, conducted assessments in Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, St. Kitts and Nevis, St.

Lucia, and Trinidad and Tobago.

The Assessment Team sought to interview a wide cross-section of stakeholders involved in the juvenile justice system in all source countries using a convenience sampling method. A potential list of stakehold-ers was prepared from a variety of sources including suggested contacts in the Scope of Work, sugges-tions made by COTR Mansfield Blackwood and Sean Osner, and professional contacts known to mem-bers of the team. The group also developed additional contacts through referral from stakeholders in all countries visited.

The Team interviewed stakeholders from government Ministries and agencies with responsibility for ju-venile justice; police departments; members of the judiciary or magistracy; prison officials; advocacy groups; NGOs; UNESCO; and the OECS. Individual and group interviews were conducted in person for all respondents listed in the appended list of contacts.

In total, some 156 persons were contacted formally and in person by the assessment team.

This includes

122 persons interviewed in individual or group interviews, and 34 persons who participated in focus group discussions. The total number of persons contacted in each country is as follows: Antigua and Bar-buda (12); Dominica (11); Grenada (8); Guyana (12); Jamaica (12); St. Kitts and Nevis (17); St. Lucia

(17); St. Vincent and the Grenadines (6); and Trinidad and Tobago (59).

Focus group discussions were held in St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, and Trinidad and Tobago. In keeping with the objective of giving voice to youth, one of our focus group discussions was held with one female and 16 male juveniles who are currently serving custodial sentences at the Youth Training Center in Trin-idad and Tobago. All interviews were held in urban centers. It is also important to note that in all the twin

A single exception was the team’s telephone contact with the UNESCO Trinidad Representative, who was closing the local UNESCO office and could only be contacted by telephone.

This number does not include USAID/US Embassy officials who participated in the in-briefing and de-briefing sessions, and does not include the team’s meeting with the Minister of National Security and his staff in Trinidad.

CARIBBEAN JUVENILE JUSTICE ASSESSMENT 9

island nations included in our sample our team was able to make field visits only to the countries where the seat of government is located.

A final de-briefing session was convened by COTR Mansfield Blackwood at the USAID offices in Bar-bados on May 16, 2011, and included the Director of USAID/Barbados, other officers from the U.S. Mis-sion in Barbados and, by telephone, Sean Osner from USAID/Jamaica.

CARIBBEAN JUVENILE JUSTICE ASSESSMENT 10

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

BEST PRACTICES

Though what often works is at odds with “get tough on crime” public sentiment, the growing interest in best practices reflects increasing support among juvenile justice stakeholders for evidence-based ap-proaches. Our observation, however, is that evidence-based programs are generally rare because agencies do not usually invest in developing data systems that permit them to monitor which programs are working and which are not; cash-strapped donor agencies are increasingly hesitant to fund assessments and stud-ies; and the lack of evidence makes it easy for policy makers to choose politics over evidence. As a con-sequence, most agencies have no idea if they are spending their money wisely and many policymakers are often unaware of research evidence on the most effective and cost-effective programs and policies.

In determining the best practices for Caribbean juvenile justice, a review of each country was considered in relation to two aspects: a child rights based approach that offers children the best understanding of their own situation and allows for their participation in the rehabilitative process, and an approach that is con-gruent with international standards. The team also considered, in the review of existing programs, three programmatic strands central to treating children who come in conflict with the law:

Prevention refers to the reduction of the likelihood of boys and girls coming into conflict with the law and limiting their contact with the formal criminal justice system.

Diversion refers to the diversion of girls and boys away from the formal justice system and into community-based and restorative processes that will effectively address the root causes of their behavior and identify strategies to effectively prevent re-offending.

Protection refers to providing safeguards for children who are already in conflict with the law from human rights violation, focusing on their development to deter them from re-offending and promoting their rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

The Team identified four programs that have a solid foundation in providing individualized care and that can be enhanced to effectively deliver service with the juvenile justice sector. Examples were selected from among the Caribbean countries visited to ensure relevance and promote regional collaboration.

1) MILAT/ MYPART/CCC (Trinidad and Tobago) are a series of interventions developed and implemented by the Military and supported by the Ministry of National Security. The Military-

Led Academic Training (MILAT) and Military-Led Youth Program of Apprenticeship and Re-

Orientation (MYPART) programs provide residential facilities for male youth between ages 16 and 20. The programs recruit at-risk youth with criminal propensities but without a history of vio-lent offending, and combine military discipline with educational or vocational training, offering courses in leadership, conflict management, anger management, and stress management. Though these two programs generally exclude violent offenders, there have been some exceptions where the courts have referred violent offenders as an alternative to imprisonment, and such persons have been fully integrated into the program with no attempt at separation. In addition to the resi-dential programs that can be accessed through MILAT and MYPART, the Military offers a non-residential program for youth aged 18-25, which provides training and development and tempo-rary employment opportunities. The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) receives referrals from the courts, governmental networks, and NGO partners. The CCC recruits young persons from so-cially disadvantaged backgrounds, including youth who have a history of violent offending, and focuses on changing attitudes and behaviors and providing basic life skills training for recruits. It has a component that operates out of Tobago and which contains elements that cater to the specif-ic realities of Tobago. Neither MILAT nor MYPART accommodates the needs of young girls.

CARIBBEAN JUVENILE JUSTICE ASSESSMENT 11

2) From Offending to Achieving (FOTA) in Dominica is one of four programs run by the Social

Center, a local nongovernment organization established in 1950 by the Catholic Church. The

Center’s overall goal is to promote the family wellbeing and address the needs of the individual and family. FOTA caters principally to boys and men aged 14 to 17 years who are before the courts for minor offenses and young males who have been convicted or who the courts have placed on probation. The Center is also utilized as a preassessment phase prior to sentencing by the Dominican magistracy. The Center’s twin approach is to utilize both informal and judicial measures. The program was selected as a winner in the “Keeping Boys Out of Risk” complemen-tation showcased at the Regional Caribbean conference on Keeping Boys Out of Risk in Jamaica and is also one of the initiatives supported by the UNICEF Barbados’s Eastern Caribbean office.

3) Community Based Policing (CBP) Mentoring Initiative in Jamaica is being run by the Jamaica

Constabulary Force’s Community Safety and Security Branch and was developed with support from USAID/Jamaica’s Community Empowerment and Transformation (COMET) Project. Pri-marily preventative in nature, the initiative seeks to provide diversionary activities and mentor-ship through role modeling to youngsters who are at risk. Some examples of these activities in-cludes police youth bands and athletic clubs, summer camps, the incorporation of Civic education and Community Security workshops into online Caribbean Examinations Council (CXC) prepara-tory courses, and neighborhood rap sessions between “corner crews” and police. Though these individual activities have been successfully tested in different communities by the Jamaica Con-stabulary Force and its CBP partners the Social Development Commission and the Ministry of

Education, they are now delivered as a comprehensive program.

4) A Ganar is an economic empowerment program run by Partners of the Americas that combines sports ethics (based on football) with classroom activities, vocational training, internships, men-torships, and community service to help at-risk youth (ages 16-24) in Latin America and the Car-ibbean to develop market-driven job skills, become entrepreneurs or return to the formal educa-tion system. The program enhances the personal development of the youths, and provides a struc-tured curriculum and a supportive environment. It combines skills building with citizens’ partici-pation, enabling young people to become positive contributors to their community and society.

USAID is providing support for A Ganar to expand to Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, St. Kitts and Nevis, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. In St. Kitts and Nevis an important innovation in the program involves support for incarcerated youth described later in this report, which should be closely followed and evaluated for possible replication throughout the region.

Highlighting best practices from beyond the region would incur a risk of inappropriateness. Two excellent sources of best practices information and analyses, however, are recommended:

The US Department of Justice / Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's Model

Programs Guide (MPG) is designed to assist practitioners and communities in implementing evi-dence-based prevention and intervention programs. The MPG database of over 200 evidence-based programs covers the entire continuum of youth services from prevention through sanctions to reentry. The MPG can be used to assist juvenile justice practitioners, administrators, and re-searchers to enhance accountability, ensure public safety, and reduce recidivism. The MPG is an easy-to-use tool that offers a database of scientifically-proven programs that address a range of is-sues, including substance abuse, mental health, and education programs.

Best or Promising Practices in Juvenile Justice is a library of cases and analyses available in the

Knowledge & Information Service Office of the National Center for State Courts, Washington

DC.

CARIBBEAN JUVENILE JUSTICE ASSESSMENT 12

REGIONAL ANALYSIS4

Juvenile justice laws throughout the English speaking Caribbean have evolved from similar pre-independence colonial statutes and common law norms. The typology of this legal framework involves the use of status offenses to commit juveniles – traditionally defined as children between the ages of 8 and

16 – to correctional institutions or “reform schools” for behavior that is socially or morally sanctioned.

Though what is clearly defined as a status offense in one jurisdiction may bear the cloak of a “care and protection” intervention in another, they share a common response of criminalizing perceived deviant be-havior. Similarly, residential correctional institutions may have different designations, but often fail to facilitate consistently high levels of rehabilitation and reintegration of children under their care.

The mechanics of juvenile justice reform laws also bear similarities, as like means are devised by national institutions to bring old laws into conformity with United Nations standards. All countries studied have signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child and would have received similar recommendations

(from the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child and regional institutions such as the OECS) and rep-resentations (through the United Nations Children’s Fund and local and international NGOs) for updating the legislative and judicial framework for treating with child offenders. The reform legislation proposed in several countries often aims to create a stronger judicial and institutional framework for treating chil-dren in need of care and protection, and to integrate diversionary options in police and judicial powers.

Several of the countries in the region are further grappling with increasing levels of major crimes com-mitted by children. Initiatives to develop a stronger rights-based response mechanism to children in need of care and protection may then be seen to conflict with policing strategies for reducing violent crime, gang activities or trafficking in guns and drugs. Varied national approaches to the development and scope of child diversion programs reflect this tension.

UNICEF has conducted extensive reviews of juvenile justice laws in the Caribbean, in the 1990s and again in 2008. Similar reviews have been conducted at the OECS and national levels. Given the slow pace of legal reform in the Caribbean, several of the observations and recommendations remain current. This report will build on and update those efforts by assessing country laws against a number of international law and policy indicators.

COMPARING JUSTICE SYSTEMS: COMPLIANCE WITH

INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

The table below sets out selected indicators that track the compliance of the juvenile justice system in each country with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other UN guidelines.

4 This legislative review was developed from stakeholder interviews, a review of available laws and by cross-referencing previous reports.

This includes murder, sexual offenses and gun crimes. In Jamaica, children of either gender may be high level functionaries, decision-makers and leaders in organized criminal enterprises. Gang activity is a key trigger for juvenile criminal activity in countries such as Jamaica and St. Lucia.

CARIBBEAN JUVENILE JUSTICE ASSESSMENT 13

Table 1: Compliance with International Standards on Juvenile Justice –Selected Indicators

COMPLIANCE INDICATORS ANT DOM GRN GUY JAM ST.V ST.L ST.K T&T

1. There are no status offenses or provisions applicable only to children that allow them to be incarcerated or insti-tutionalized for criminally or morally sanctioned behavior that is not similarly sanctioned among adults.

n/k

N

C

2. The age of criminal responsibility is 12 or higher N N N N C N C N N

3. The age of criminal majority is 18 N C C N C N N C N

4. Courts have wide disposition powers for cases in which the accused is a child.

C C N6 N C C C C N

5. Courts can apply diversionary orders or alternatives to custodial sentencing

C C C C C C C C C

6. Police have diversionary policies and there are estab-lished alternatives to arresting and charging a child of-fender.

C N C C N C N N N

7. There are special police units for dealing with child offenders

C N C C N C N N n/k

8. Children are separated from adults in remand and cor-rectional centers

C C C C C C N C C

9. Children are not kept in adult jails or prisons. N N N N N N7 N N N

10. Children in conflict with the law are housed in sepa-rate facilities from children in need of care and protection.

N N N N N N N N N

11. There are special courts or court days for trying child offenders

C C C C C N C C C

12. There are special court procedures for children C C n/k C C C C C C

13. There are institutionalized mechanisms for providing children before the courts with legal representation or assistance

N N C C C n/k N N N

14. Children’s participation rights are facilitated in court by laws or regulations requiring children to be fully informed of proceedings in language that they can understand n/k n/k n/k C C n/k N C n/k

15. Corporal punishment is not used as a sentence or disciplinary measure in any correctional institution

N n/k n/k C C N8 n/k N N

16. Educational programs are provided in remand and correctional facilities.

C C C C C C C C C

While alternative sentencing exists, magistrates do not have the wide discretionary powers enjoyed by judges.

In St. Vincent, this only applies to children over 16.

St. Vincent law allows corporal punishment, but respondents state that this provision has not been used recently.

CARIBBEAN JUVENILE JUSTICE ASSESSMENT 14

COMPLIANCE INDICATORS ANT DOM GRN GUY JAM ST.V ST.L ST.K T&T

17. Medical services are provided to child offenders C C C C C C C C C

18. Psycho-social assessment and treatment is readily accessible to child offenders

N N N N N N N N N

19. Post-release and after-care programs facilitate effec-tive reintegration of child offenders into communities

N N N N N N N N N

20. Family support and reintegration programs are tai-lored to child offenders

N N N N N N N N N

Sources: Respondent interviews; juvenile justice and child welfare laws for each country.

Key: C= Compliant N=Non-compliant n/k=not known

A comparative assessment of the compliance of juvenile justice laws and policies in the countries studied with those recommended in the CRC and other instruments reveals the following commonalities:

High-Levels of Compliance:

Most countries studied have special courts, court days, or court procedures for child offenders.

Disposition options available to the courts are likely to allow for a range of noncustodial options.

However, respondents indicate that, due in some cases to the paucity of rehabilitative programs or to the limitations of formal referral systems there is a decided preference for probationary orders.

Children are typically required to be kept separately from adult offenders, but the limited availa-bility of remand and correctional facilities can mean that children are still housed in adult lock-ups and prisons.

Medical services and educational programs are widely provided thereby fulfilling rights require-ments under the CRC. Respondents question, however, the effectiveness of these programs, par-ticularly for children having special health or education needs.

Programming in these areas should focus on assessing and strengthening the impact of laws and policies, and evaluating the extent to which programs and practices fulfill the intent or require-ments of the law.

Low-Levels of Compliance:

The countries studied were least compliant in their age definitions. While there is no standard age of criminal responsibility in the CRC, the 12-year minimum has been recommended in several in-ternational and regional instruments.

With the exception of Jamaica, the countries studied recog-nize children of ten years old or younger as responsible for their actions.

With inadequate facilities throughout the security and child protection systems, adult and child populations, as well as child offenders and children in need of care and protection are often co-mingled. This can result in stigmatization and the contamination and vulnerability of less delin-quent children.

There is also a paucity of rehabilitative programs, including psycho-social treatment and family-oriented interventions. Several respondents cited these issues as leading to recidivism among

The OECS Model Legislation on Child Justice, for example, recommends 12 as the age of criminal responsibility.

CARIBBEAN JUVENILE JUSTICE ASSESSMENT 15

youth offenders. Diversion options are available to the police in some jurisdictions, but are often not accompanied by adequate programs and expertise to ensure effective rehabilitation.

Programming in these areas should dedicate sufficient resources to make an impact on transform-ing the system, and should not be limited to legislative interventions. Integrated, holistic ap-proaches to reducing delinquency are needed.

Semantics and Misnomers:

Changes in terminology may not necessarily result in the desired shifts in the ethos, intent, and impact of the criminal law. In some countries, imprisonment of children has been prohibited. Yet the courts are typically permitted to detain children in schools or institutions that may have the reputation of correctional institutions in the eyes of the public. Similarly, status offenses may be repealed and replaced with care and protection laws that allow “uncontrollable” children to be similarly detained and criminalized. Rather than being an exceptional provision, respondents sug-gest that in Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, and Jamaica, “uncontrollable” children account for a large percentage of the population of residential institutions. This suggests that legislative com-pliance cannot be viewed in isolation from the impact of implementation mechanisms.

CARIBBEAN JUVENILE JUSTICE ASSESSMENT 16

COUNTRY ASSESSMENTS: ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS

The following Country Assessments address first the OECS collectively and individually, offering rec-ommendations for the group as well as each country. The Country Assessments then address Guyana, Ja-maica, and Trinidad and Tobago, offering recommendations to be considered by the USAID Mission in each country.

For the sake of consistency, each of the Country Assessments follow the same structure: the Assessments begin with a description of the features of the juvenile justice system; then progress to the country’s legal framework; the key points regarding diversion rehabilitation, and detention; the contribution of civil soci-ety; the government’s capacity for reform; and a list of major gaps. These elements provide an under-standing of the implementation environment and lead to the list of priority needs/recommendations for

Mission consideration that closes each of the Country Assessments.

A COLLECTIVE REVIEW OF JUVENILE JUSTICE IN THE OECS

The OECS has provided specific support to its member states in the area of juvenile justice. According to

OECS officials interviewed, some of their juvenile justice initiatives emanated from concerns about the facilities available in St. Lucia, where the OECS is headquartered, and from the apparent lack of stand-ards that seemed pervasive throughout the region. The OECS has sought the agreement of Member States to implement a project that will establish regional standards, publish a procedural manual for the opera-tion of facilities, and develop a quality assurance system. Having obtained the agreement of Member

States, the OECS is now developing terms of reference for the appropriate consultancies.

The OECS has also launched a family law reform project and has developed model legislation for all countries that have ratified the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. While all states have some form of legislation that impacts the rights of children, the OECS reports a wide variation throughout the region, with only Grenada having enacted the model legislation. Among reasons cited for the lack of im-plementation are the following:

Some states believe that the provisions covered in the model legislation have already been ad-dressed in their domestic policies;

Some states do not wish to adopt the legislation because of the obligations that would be imposed upon them;

There is widespread concern about the capacity of states to implement the legislation, for exam-ple, the subsidiary need to build safe places; and

There is an absence of civil society advocacy for implementation of the legislation.

The OECS identifies several factors that inhibit juvenile justice reform in the region including historical attitudes and perceptions about youth that are defined by paternalistic and punitive approaches. In addi-tion, current criminal justice responses to the crime problem tend to homogenize the idea of youth in-volvement in criminal activities and help to maintain a general perception of youth as a major social prob-lem. Strong calls were made in Dominica, Grenada, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines for child psy-chologists to be available to residential facilities as well as court or community-based programs. In these and other countries, the treatment provided to children with psychiatric, psychosocial, and developmental problems is often insufficient.

The following are recommendations for USAID/Barbados regarding the OECS as a group:

CARIBBEAN JUVENILE JUSTICE ASSESSMENT 17

Facilitate inter-island networking, information sharing, and joint training for juvenile justice pro-fessionals across the board including court officials, law enforcement, social workers, psycholo-gists, and teachers;

Facilitate the preparation of case studies and best practices from within the OECS around which policy makers and managers can meet and find common ground (e.g. St. Lucia’s Court Diversion program);

Provide technical and material support in cases where policy makers and managers wish to repli-cate or mainstream practices developed in neighboring islands;

Support legislative changes and judicial education;

Provide technical and material support for reform efforts and “bottom up” initiatives;

Provide technical and material support to improve juvenile facilities and develop operational framework for delivery of a comprehensive rehabilitation program (such as the Harris Home in

St. Kitts and Nevis); and

Provide training for Magistrates to deal with family matters and to be sensitized to the needs of juveniles.

INDIVID…