One of the most poignant parts of the recent county realignment discussion was when Debra Shelton, who works for CDCR (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) as an educator, talked about Marco Topete and the fact that we simply failed to provide him with the resources he needed to be able to survive on the outside.
“He had a job when he came out, he had a family support system, and when that crumbled he had no resources to go back to but those he had learned as a youth and a person incarcerated in the system.”
“Had he had a little bit more outside resources, we could have helped him find that job,” she continued. “We could have referred him to mental health. We could have done a lot more, instead we lost an officer and we caused a lot of community havoc and a lot of cost, to where he is today looking at the death penalty or life without parole.”
“Officer Diaz’ life is wasted, one that is lost. He could have been a man still on the job,” she said her voice breaking slightly.
No one wants to hear that. The notion that some tragedies could be prevented is generally met with a talk about free will and fault.
It is easy to argue against such a view. After all, not everyone who is from Marco Topete’s background ends up killing a peace officer. Not everyone who spends years in 23-hour lock down at the SHU (Security Housing Unit) at Pelican Bay ends up murdering peace officers.
We have to somehow account for individual differences. And yet, as Mr. Samuel ran through Mr. Topete’s experiences, you cannot help but get a sense that there is something wrong with the system.
Mr. Samuel made the argument that how people are brought up and their experience dictate how they think and make choices. He ran through a long list of risk factors, many of which are far outside of the control of Mr. Topete, the individual. He argued that as risk factors increase, choices diminish.
It is really the thinking of Professor Criag Haney, a renowned UC Santa Cruz-based psychology professor who has studied the prison system for 40 years, that I think gives a clear picture as to what is going on here.
As a young man, Mr. Topete was in a toxic environment at home. His father had repeated brushes with the law, he introduced Marco Topete to violence, and he introduced Marco Topete to drugs. At the age of 15, the father was incarcerated and Marco Topete began acting out, a huge anger-management issue.
As the professor testified, a series of incarcerations, first at the California Youth Authority and then at CDCR, transformed his risk factors that occurred as a youth and began to mold him into the dangerous criminal he was to become later in life.
The problem is that neither system provided him with the skills, programs and services he would need to transition effectively back into free society.
Eventually, he got transferred from Folsom Prison to Pelican Bay, and as a gang member he was placed in the SHU. The problem is that we are talking about confinement in windowless cells, by themselves for 23 hours a day, and basically no human contact. This would go on for nine years.
This is now the subject of protests and controversy. It is the most severe isolation unit in the nation, Professor Haney would testify.
He then went from the SHU and was released on parole, without treating any of his afflictions, and giving him limited resources with which he was expected to somehow cope in the outside world.
Professor Haney’s background, I think, helps us better understand his thinking on Mr. Topete. It turns out, as a Graduate Student, Professor Haney was one of the principle researchers for the Stanford Prison Experiment.
We have discussed this previously in a very different context, but the thought that emerged from this, and subsequent work from Professor Philip Zimbardo, revolutionized the realization that situational factors form a powerful explanatory device for individual behavior.
As I have previously related, in 2005, as a graduate student at UC Davis, I attended a program at Stanford and one of the lecturers was Philip Zimbardo.
The Stanford Prison Experiment was actually a botched research project, whose errors probably taught us more about psychology than anything in the last fifty years.
24 students were selected to play the role of prisoners and live in a mock prison. The roles were randomly designed and what happened is that the participants ended up adapting to their roles far beyond what the experiment was intended, to the point where many of the “officers” engaged in authoritarian behavior and even began torturing the “prisoners.”
Professor Zimbardo acknowledged that the experiment even impacted his own conduct and permitted the abuse to continue until a number of the prisoners quit the experiment early and the experiment itself was ended after just six days.
Professor Zimbado’s research changed the way research was conducted and also gave us insights into what he referred to as a situational attribution of behavior, rather than a dispositional attribution.
For Professor Zimbardo this meant that otherwise good people could be “corrupted by the behavioral context, by powerful ‘situational forces,’ ” as opposed to dispositional behavior which would be explained more by personal pathologies, character defects and sadistic personalities.
Professor Zimbardo had been called out to examine the conditions of Abu Ghraib, the prison camp that became one of the worst examples of abuse in the Iraq war.
Professor Zimbardo’s research showed an environment with normal people working in inhuman conditions, “12-hr night shifts, 7 days a week, 40 days with no break; extreme exhaustion, high stress level, chaotic conditions, filth, noise, unsanitary; in charge of 1000 prisoners, 12 army reserve guards, 60 Iraqi police…” and under the constant fear of attacks, where soldiers and prisoners were killed and wounded, finally broken.
“The environment created at Abu Ghraib contributed to the occurrence of such abuse and the fact that it remained undiscovered by higher authorities for a long period of time,” he concluded.
“Abuses would not have occurred had [military] doctrine been followed and mission training conducted,” he continued.
Nevertheless, the military court found that individuals were “personally responsible for the abuses,” and therefore they were dishonorably discharged and imprisoned for a number of years.
Professor Zimbardo told us this was “the triumph of a mindless dispositional view,” where the individual gets blamed without regard to situational determinants, and the corrupt system and chain of command – both the military and the Bush administration were absolved.
This view gives us insight into the prison world, additionally, because people’s minds are shaped by the conditions in prison and the need for basic survival.
The sum total of Mr. Topete’s life becomes a recipe for disaster – lack of a strong father figure, anger and substance abuse at a young age, lack of strong parental intervention at crucial moments, and then the intersection with the correctional system.
An issue, perhaps not talked about enough, is the confinement at the SHU. Last summer, inmates at Pelican Bay engaged in a hunger strike over this issue.
“The conditions of confinement inside the SHU are deplorable,” said former prisoner Manuel LaFontaine. “You are put in a six by ten concrete cell with no windows or access to sunlight, with no access to human interaction or contact, only cement being your friend.”
After three weeks, the CDCR finally agreed to review its policy, but a few months later, the CDCR had yet to do anything and inmates again are engaging in the hunger strike.
In fact, in 2006, a study by the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons had stark warnings on the overuse of solitary confinement.
They find it necessary “that segregated prisoners have regular and meaningful human contact,” without being subjected to extreme physical conditions “that cause lasting harm.”
Moreover they found, “Prisoners often are released directly from solitary confinement and other high-security units directly to the streets, despite the clear dangers of doing so.”
This is exactly what happened with Mr. Topete.
This practice does extreme harm.
“There is troubling evidence that the distress of living and working in this environment actually causes violence between staff and prisoners,” they report. They add: “the consequences are broader than that … the misuse of segregation works against the process of rehabilitating people, thereby threatening public safety.”
The report cites Professor Haney, “who has interviewed hundreds of prisoners in segregation, has said that they are ‘utterly dysfunctional when they get out’ and that family members often ask him to help their relatives adjust to normal life.”
In addition, a 2003 paper by Professor Haney entitled “Mental Health Issues in Long-Term Solitary and “Supermax Confinement” finds, “Research shows that an extended stay in segregation is harmful to such individuals and makes it more difficult to treat them successfully once they return to the general prison population or are released to the community.”
This report was from 2006, and his research on the impact of solitary confinement goes back to the mid-1990s, long before Professor Haney ever met Mr. Topete and before Mr. Topete was released.
But the prosecution tried to dismiss his expertise based on the fact that the defense had to pay for his time in evaluating Marco Topete and testifying. In a system that qualifies a law enforcement officer with a few hundred hours of training as an expert, it is somewhat laughable that the prosecution had free rein to attack the credentials of a real expert, who had conducted years of research on these very topics and is considered one of the leading authorities in his field.
The findings here are quite sobering and suggest that officials should have known the risk that releasing Mr. Topete directly to the outside world might present to society.
The research on recidivism rates is telling, “People who were released directly from segregation had a much higher rate of recidivism than individuals who spent some time in the normal prison setting before returning to the community: 64 percent compared with 41 percent.”
This is basically similar populations who were given different treatments.
The report therefore recommended making “segregation a last resort and a more productive form of confinement, and stop releasing people directly from segregation to the streets” and ensuring “that segregated prisoners have regular and meaningful human contact and are free from extreme physical conditions that cause lasting harm.”
But to date that has not occurred.
From our standpoint, the view of the experts makes it clear, regardless of Mr. Topete’s ultimate fate, that better policies, better resources and more support could have prevented the death of Deputy Tony Diaz.
For all of the crying of poverty in the system, it should be noted first that lack of money has not prevented Yolo County from seeking the death penalty in this case. Second, that the death penalty itself costs the system hundreds of millions more a year and over a billion over a relatively short period. And finally, as the report from 2006 notes, solitary confinement not only exacerbates the problems but it costs two to three times more than the use of more conventional prisons.
Nobody wants to hear this, but Deputy Diaz might still be alive if we had taken seriously in 2006 the reports on the conditions at the SHU. And people still are not addressing the issue today. How many more people will have to die before we fix these problems?
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Which is it – the prison system or bad background – that made Topete kill Deputy Diaz? At what point do you hold him accountable for his own actions?
“Which is it – the prison system or bad background – that made Topete kill Deputy Diaz?”
Yes
“At what point do you hold him accountable for his own actions?”
Is sentencing him to LWOP not holding him accountable for his own actions?
[quote]Is sentencing him to LWOP not holding him accountable for his own actions?[/quote]
Fair enough, but hardly the point. Your article seems to be saying (and I don’t want to put words in your mouth) that Topete is not responsible for this killing – the state is, for abusing him…
The title of the article is where I’m going with this.
To me, leave aside the issue of whether Topete is accountable for his actions, the question is really what can we as a society to prevent this from happening in the future with a different individual.
[quote]…the question is really what can we as a society to prevent this from happening in the future with a different individual.[/quote]
Frankly, I doubt anything society could have done differently would have resulted in a different outcome, but that is pure speculation on my part. Nevertheless, like you, I am foursquare in favor of youth programs designed for prevention; work programs for prisoners; and certainly the expansion of mental health services for those that need them. But where the heck we are going to get the money/political will to make such changes is beyond me, in light of the current legislators’ attitudes… they don’t seem to be able to get even the simplest things right…
Elaine a point I made in the article that addresses one of your previous points: “As the professor testified, a series of incarcerations, first at the California Youth Authority and then at CDCR, transformed his risk factors that occurred as a youth and began to mold him into the dangerous criminal he was to become later in life.”
I very much disagree with your second point. There are multiple points in his life where he had two or more paths and had someone been able to intervene his result would have been different.
Or to put it another way, he’s not all that much different at an early age than my nephew, the difference is, Topete did not have someone to intervene on his behalf. Or do you think we are wasting our time trying to help our nephew?
You also seem to contradict yourself: “I doubt anything society could have done differently would have resulted in a different outcome” and then “I am foursquare in favor of youth programs designed for prevention; work programs for prisoners; and certainly the expansion of mental health services for those that need them. But where the heck we are going to get the money/political will to make such changes is beyond me” so which is it, after all, you can’t have it both ways?
ERM,
“Frankly, I doubt anything society could have done differently would have resulted in a different outcome, but that is pure speculation on my part. Nevertheless, like you, I am foursquare in favor of youth programs designed for prevention; work programs for prisoners; and certainly the expansion of mental health services for those that need them.”
You put forth several possible resources, which can influence the decisions made by individuals and outcomes of their lives. I do believe that one should be held accountable for one’s actions, Topete deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison for his actions. However, what I observe and hear regarding the situations many youth are in (not surprisingly, they are failing school, have run-ins w/law enforcement, substance abuse problems, etc.), I’m not so quick to “blame them” (as now adult offenders) entirely.
To be honest, it’s relatively rare to see a child who grows up exposed to terrible things/people regularly (ie dom violence, drug/alcohol abuse, criminal activity, etc.), has no positive role model/adult figure to go to, sexually/physically/emotionally abused, is not taught how to be a decent person (the basics: right, wrong and how to treat people), is abandoned by their parent(s) or their parent(s) float in and out of their lives, etc…and blossoms into a model citizen. There are children who suffer through such atrocities and do, which is incredible.
This is just based on my experience, but my response to people who do blame the individual for whatever terrible acts they’ve been accused/convicted of…my response is “yes, he/she committed a unlawful and unspeakable act and should be punished, but what do you expect given their treatment/experiences during those formative childhood years?”
What I listed above is the general scope and common theme among so many youth that, not surprisingly, become adult offenders. The key is to address these issues when they are young with substantive community/school/probation (when applicable) programs that specialize in individually helping (academic support, work experience, engaged in activities that interest them, counseling, therapy, etc.) each child, while working directly with his/her immediate family/guardians, who is struggling (ie academically, at home, violating laws, etc.). I think there are various programs available here and there, but there needs to be a multifaceted approach and concerted effort to get at the heart of the issue in each community.
It’s often stated that we need to invest more in K-12 to help these kids. I agree that improvements must be made, so they don’t lose kids who are struggling academically. The problem is that the kids who are struggling, “at-risk youth,” “problems,” etc., aren’t having their needs met at traditional schools. It’s not uncommon for schools to systematically push these students out. Of course, these students tend to have poor academic performance, which reflects poorly on the school’s numbers and reputation.
I know “hand-holding” is not looked upon highly by some, but in certain cases…it’s necessary. If it’s important that we reduce crime, “laziness” / “why can’t they just get a job like everyone else” (ie the use of public assistance) and so forth, communities must find ways to help these youth from every angle. It could be costly, but maybe it doesn’t have to be. Volunteers are often used in successful youth programs and a lot of services are available locally, but people aren’t aware they exist or don’t think they are eligible to participate.
I don’t have the answers, but I know that something needs to be done to shield youth from the aspects of their lives that lead them down this criminal, unhealthy and unproductive path (or guide them elsewhere and offer additional support as the family unit may provide none) and offer them opportunities. By opportunities, I don’t mean opening a youth center (although that’s great), but something more substantive like a program that guarantees youth who’ve been deemed “at-risk” two-year paid tuition at a community college (for a trade, AA or whatever else), housing and career experience if they graduate HS and don’t commit serious offenses. Of course, there would need to be a program and services available to the youth between the moment the youth is deemed “at-risk” and graduation to help him/her succeed.
These aren’t well-thought-out ideas or suggestions, but I am confident that something more has to be done with respect to our youth if we want to better our communities in the short and long-term
[quote]I very much disagree with your second point. There are multiple points in his life where he had two or more paths and had someone been able to intervene his result would have been different.
Or to put it another way, he’s not all that much different at an early age than my nephew, the difference is, Topete did not have someone to intervene on his behalf. Or do you think we are wasting our time trying to help our nephew?[/quote]
Here is the crux of the problem, I believe. I personally think how a person turns out in life has 50% to do with genetics and 50% to do with upbringing. It could go either way, depending on both. Look at Jeffrey Dahmer. By all accounts he had loving parents, but was screwed up from Day 1. He actually pulled road kill off freeways to play with/experiment on as a child. In another case a 13 year old child and his 6 younger siblings, were abandoned by a drug addicted mother. The 13 year old got himself a job to support his brothers and sisters. Another young girl who had two drug addicted parents went on to graduate from Harvard, determined not to follow in her parents footsteps.
From everything I have read about Topete, I just very much doubt anything would have changed the ultimate outcome of his life. However, that does not negate my feeling that we should put youth programs in place to help the unfortunate who do have troubled backgrounds; develop work programs inside the prison system; and provide more mental health services inside and outside the prison system.
[quote]What I listed above is the general scope and common theme among so many youth that, not surprisingly, become adult offenders. The key is to address these issues when they are young with substantive community/school/probation (when applicable) programs that specialize in individually helping (academic support, work experience, engaged in activities that interest them, counseling, therapy, etc.) each child, while working directly with his/her immediate family/guardians, who is struggling (ie academically, at home, violating laws, etc.). I think there are various programs available here and there, but there needs to be a multifaceted approach and concerted effort to get at the heart of the issue in each community. [/quote]
Totally agree, but we still have to recognize that some kids, despite every helpful tool we provide, may not turn out “all right”.
In Topete’s case, I think we have to ask the very hard question “Was Topete a product of his upbringing/the prison system, or did he embrace every bad aspect of his life to the exclusion of anything good?” Ultimately, it matters not one whit, bc he has to be held accountable for his actions. But it does matter to the extent of putting prevention programs in place. One youth program that I strongly favor is the “Scared Straight” approach. Incorrigible youth are brought into the prison system for a day, to see where they are headed if they don’t straighten out. The success rate for these types of programs seems to be relatively high, interestingly enough…
ERM,
“Totally agree, but we still have to recognize that some kids, despite every helpful tool we provide, may not turn out ‘all right’.”
Yes, of course.
“One youth program that I strongly favor is the ‘Scared Straight’ approach. Incorrigible youth are brought into the prison system for a day, to see where they are headed if they don’t straighten out.”
Generally, those types of programs are not very effective. Often the youth who’ve been forced to participate (or did so in lieu of some other punishment) in such programs may be affected initially, but that fades away. Through my experience and conversations with professionals with decades of experience, the “scared straight” approach is neither embraced nor regarded as a highly effective method. If you are basing your assessment of such programs on the television program, “Beyond Scared Straight,” you may be getting an incomplete perspective on the method and its efficacy.
Taking youth on tours of prison facilities and exposing them to the horrors within those walls does make some youth uneasy about the prospect that they too will end up there. However, that alone will do basically nothing to help the youth “straighten out” in the long-term (and even in the short-term, really). There are some professionals who’ve stated that such programs may actually be causing more harm than anything else. I don’t have all the citations and data, but my point is that I don’t believe they are very effective and, at best, are a relatively insignificant resource in terms of actually keeping our youth in school and out of trouble.
My conversations with people who knew Topete suggest that he’s far more complex than portrayed. He had a real affection for his daughter, he tried hard to give her a good life, but ultimately he had too many demons and too few resources to help him and it all came crashing down on him.
Like Superfluous, I would argue scared straight isn’t the answer. Marco Topete did not need to be scared, he needed to have tools and skills and therapy and resources.
“From everything I have read about Topete, I just very much doubt anything would have changed the ultimate outcome of his life. “
Topete is not a Dahmer. My view of Topete is shaped by talking to his wife and others who know him, so obviously it is a very different view than the prosecution has tried to shape of a monster. I just don’t think the guy was a monster who was a lost cause, i think he was a guy who never got a break in life and could never escape his past.
forgive me if this sounds ever so cliche but this is typical left wing propaganda – namely society is to blame for actions caused by individuals, not the individuals themselves. Sorry, but that got real old long ago. THe vanguard is a broken record on this.
forgive me, but I know people who have been through a lot more than Topete has, who manage to hold down full time jobs and contribute so let us dispense with the bull.
There are several problems with your statement. First, the point of this article was not to suggest that society was to blame for Topete’s actions. The point was to suggest that had Topete received the resources and help he needed, this could have been prevented. It is a subtle but very important different.
Second as Superfluous made the point, you may be able to find people who have been through more than Topete including parents getting them into drug dealing that manage to hold down full time jobs and be productive members of society, but my guess is they are exceptions.
91 Octane,
“forgive me if this sounds ever so cliche but this is typical left wing propaganda – namely society is to blame for actions caused by individuals, not the individuals themselves. Sorry, but that got real old long ago. THe vanguard is a broken record on this.”
Not “namely society,” but if society recognizes that there’s a correlation re: what I mentioned above (abuse, constant exposure to negative things/people, no support system, etc.) and youth/adult criminal behavior…does society share in the responsibility of the outcome for failing to do more to prevent/spearhead/adequately address/remedy these problems our most vulnerable youth endure?
Do you deny that such factors play a significant role in shaping youth and the adults they develop into?
We can blame the individual all we want, but if we know that there are reasons why certain youth have increased odds that they will become youth/adult offenders…wouldn’t it be best to address those life-influencing factors early on?
“forgive me, but I know people who have been through a lot more than Topete has, who manage to hold down full time jobs and contribute so let us dispense with the bull.”
You’re anecdotal evidence does not negate the fact that a child’s life experiences, treatment, exposure, family unit, etc. can (it often does, sadly) adversely effect their lives as youth and adults. I think it’s fairly well accepted that at least a strong correlation exists re: incarceration and childhood experiences. However, a child raised by wonderfully supportive parents with all the advantages in the world can develop into a terrible adult. On the other hand, a child who grew up in the worst type of home/neighborhood with absolutely no advantages can develop into a productive and mindful citizen. I suspect those would be the outliers.
correction: Your anecdotal evidence…
[quote]I suspect those would be the outliers. [/quote]
Interestingly, in my experience, they are the norm… you would be surprised how many people have overcome terrible childhoods and become productive adults… it always amazes me…
ERM,
“Interestingly, in my experience, they are the norm… you would be surprised how many people have overcome terrible childhoods and become productive adults… it always amazes me…”
It’s your experience that youth from healthy/supportive households w/every advantage become offenders while youth from a much worse background become productive adults is common?
Well, I think it depends on with whom you’re speaking. The general theme as to the backgrounds of incarcerated youth, kids failing out of school, adult offenders, etc. isn’t usually…the youth had wonderful/supportive parent(s), never experienced any trauma, wasn’t exposed to chronic substance abuse/violence, grew up in a nice neighborhood/town/city. If you go speak with these kids or those working directly with them, you may gain a different perspective.
There are a lot of kids who’ve endured horrible things and persevered. It may be that they had no/little help and were able to rise above it all. I’m not denying it occurs, but I don’t think it’s the norm at all. It may be that they were removed from the horrific home life/school/neighborhood and were placed in a much healthier one. It may be that they simply were able to get the services and guidance needed to help them through it all. IOW, the very assistance that I mention above, which can help these kids, could’ve been part of the reason some of these youth became healthy and productive adults.It certainly occurs, just not often enough.
However, the reality is that the vast majority of youth who are struggling (ie failing school, incarcerated, etc.) have experienced great trauma, amongst other things, and if they don’t get the help they need…will likely not develop into lawful and/or productive adults or at least have an extremely difficult time doing so.
SM, please back up your assertions.
Thanks.
AdRemmer,
“SM, please back up your assertions.”
As I stated above, I don’t have all the citations and data compiled. Further, I stated previously that I’m basing my comments on experiences, observations and conversations with others in related fields. I don’t fell obligated to present to you the research and studies available on this issue. There are interesting OJJDP studies/surveys available online, though.
Based on my experience, observations and the information I’ve come across, I don’t believe my comments/opinions are off base. If you believe otherwise, then share what you think.
“There are several problems with your statement. First, the point of this article was not to suggest that society was to blame for Topete’s actions. The point was to suggest that had Topete received the resources and help he needed, this could have been prevented. It is a subtle but very important different.”
so if society was not to blame for his actions, then who ultimately is?
“but my guess is they are exceptions.”
I think you need to meet more people. suggestion: spend more time outside davis.
superflous man: if people are not ultimately held responsible for their actions, then you end up with a country which becomes ungovernable. you have anarchy, every man for themselves – I shot johnny because the voices told me – I raped jill because I my mother was an alcoholic – I tortured animals because I had nightmares about rabid dogs……
91 Octane,
“superflous man: if people are not ultimately held responsible for their actions, then you end up with a country which becomes ungovernable. you have anarchy, every man for themselves – I shot johnny because the voices told me – I raped jill because I my mother was an alcoholic – I tortured animals because I had nightmares about rabid dogs……”
It’s not my opinion that offenders should go unpunished. I stated above that I believe they need to be held accountable for their actions. It’s my hope that something can be done to more significantly address the issues that affect the lives our youth who are “at-risk,” so as to prevent them from a life that is unhealthy, unproductive and criminal. There are steps that can be taken in an attempt to reverse the course or mitigate the problems before it’s too late (ie “- I raped jill because I my mother was an alcoholic”).
“Interestingly, in my experience, they are the norm… you would be surprised how many people have overcome terrible childhoods and become productive adults… it always amazes me… “
Terrible childhoods? I guess it depends on what you mean by that. Topete’s father specifically got him involved in criminal activity. I find it very difficult to believe that the typical person in that situation would overcome it and become a productive adult. I need specifics to evaluate your claim however.
“so if society was not to blame for his actions, then who ultimately is? “
I think your are missing a lot here trying to pigeonhole this into an individual-society dichotomy.
I agree with most of Superfluous’ comments on this subject. I certainly support the idea that Topete be sentenced to life without parole. But that does not rule out finding ways to better handle youths in his position.
“I think you need to meet more people. suggestion: spend more time outside davis. “
Are you kidding me?
SM expressed: [quote]I don’t fell obligated to present to you the research and studies available on this issue. [/quote]
OK — Just remember your little quote noted above. Now permit me to give you a little food for thought…
Consider the less-privilieged “at risk” people groups in the US & the free services provided same, by soicety.
[quote]The point was to suggest that had Topete received the resources and help he needed, this could have been prevented. It is a subtle but very important different.[/quote]
Very well then. Please research & share your findings as to [u][b]ALL[/b][/u] the services ever received by Topete. From public school(s), to social services, City of Woodland, communithy based organizations, churches, YMCA, Big Brothers, private entities/organizations, probaton, CYA, CCDR, mental health and the like (not an exhaustive list). Then let us know what IYHO is missing.
oops RE: SM reply…”society”
AdRemmer,
“Consider the less-privilieged ‘at risk’ people groups in the US & the free services provided same, by soicety.”
I understand that services are available to these youth. In my experience, part of the problem is getting them linked up with the services available to them and help they need. Whose responsible for doing so? I think a more comprehensive approach would be helpful and the availability of resources is not necessarily the sole (or even major) problem in each community.
Is it your opinion that the services available are adequate and there’s no need to increase funding for such programs, develop new programs, consolidate efforts, etc.? Do you think any change, restructuring, refocus of efforts/services, etc. would be helpful or can nothing be done to increase the odds that this demographic will succeed?