Services for PINS Youth:

A Descriptive Analysis of Services
in Agencies and Schools

in Sullivan County, New York

 

 

-:-

 

 

 

By Thomas S. Rue, M.A., CCMHC, CASAC

www.catskill.net/rue - rue@catskill.net

 

December 4, 1999

 

Independent Study In Counseling Services:

School Counseling Practicum

COUN 600

Rider University, Lawrenceveville, NJ

Graduate Division of Counseling and Human Services

 

Section I - Available Services and Objectives

-

One of the resources available to schools and parents, to help access supportive services for youth who are in need of guidance and structure is the legal/social process by which a juvenile becomes recognized as a Person In Need of Supervision (PINS). The present paper will devote itself to describing the historical basis for that process, and examine its present application in Sullivan County, New York.

The beginnings of modern juvenile justice are described by In re. Gault, 387 US 1, 15-16, 87 Sct 1428, 1437, 18 LEd 2d 527, 539 (1967) as follows:

 

Reformers were appalled by adult procedures and penalties, and by the fact that children could be given long prison sentences and mixed in jails with hardened criminals... They believed that society=s role was not to ascertain whether the child was Aguilty@ or Ainnocent@, but >what is he, how has he become what he is, and what had best be done in his interest and in the interest of the state to save him from a downward career...=

The idea of crime and punishment was to be abandoned. The child was to be Atreated@ and Arehabilitated@ and procedures, from apprehension through institutionalization, were to be Aclinical@ rather than punitive.

 

The PINS concept entered New York State law as early as 1962, when passage of the Family Court Act distinguished status offenses from delinquency and introduced the phrase Aperson in need of supervision@. The statute defines a PINS child as one whose status is that of A...an habitual truant or who is incorrigible, ungovernable or habitually disobedient and beyond the lawful control of parent or other lawful authority.=@

 

Status offenses are a special category of illegal behaviors that apply only to juveniles and would not be considered illegal if done by an adult. The most common of these age-specific behaviors are: truancy, running away from home, ungovernable behavior, curfew violations, and underage drinking and driving. (Brown, 1989)

 

Although FCA '732(b) allows for the filing of a proceeding when Athe respondent, if male, was under sixteen years of age and, if female, was under eighteen years of age at the time of the specified acts,@ this paragraph was declared unconstitutional by the New York State Court of Appeals in 1972 as a violation of equal protection (Matter of Patricia A., 31 NY2d 83, 286, NE2d 432, NYS 2d 33). Following this ruling, family courts held that the age of 16 is the limit of PINS jurisdiction for both boys and girls. The same holds true for runaways. Consequently, parents of 16 and 17 year-olds do not have a right to have their children returned to them even though they still have legal responsibility for the child.  A PINS youth may present challenging behaviors and have trouble accepting authority in society. Examples of the type of behaviors which lead to the filing of petitions include:

 

...truancy and lateness to classes; staying out late at night; running away from home; use of drugs (sniffing glue; sniffing heroin or cocaine; >skin-popping= heroin; mainlining heroin; LSD); engaging in sexual relations; stealing from the home; drinking alcoholic beverages; associating with undesirable companions; refusal to attend mental hygiene clinic or to take medication; fighting with siblings; fighting with parents or cursing them; setting fires; acts of juvenile delinquency which were adjusted at Intake; sexual abuse of a younger sibling; being a >disruptive influence= in school; being suspended from school; flying into rages at home and breaking furniture; unexplained possession of money or property; homosexuality; the general catch all that the child Afails to obey the lawful and reasonable commands of his parents and does not respect them.@ (New York Legal Aid Society, Family Court Branch: Manual For Attorneys, 122-23 [undated], cited in Besharov [1998]).

 

While the above provisions are quite broad, the Family Court Act lacks clear standards governing precisely how they should be applied. Fire-setting and sexual abuse would more typically result in a Juvenile Delinquency petition rather than a PINS petition. Residential facilities often have categorical admission criteria, and settings which accept PINS would likely reject youth with histories of such behaviors.

At a local level, in Sullivan County, the provisions of Article 7 are interpreted at the discretion of an Intake probation officer in consultation with a supervisor and the department director, who is also Sullivan County Commissioner of Public Safety. Probation Supervisor Barbara J. Martin was interviewed for the present paper, and also reviewed a draft of the paper for accuracy. Martin (1999) stated that local practice requires that, AYou have to have a pattern of behavior@ to constitute grounds for a PINS petition. Generally, she said four or five truancies, in proximity to each other, could be viewed as Ahabitual@ and a petition could be filed; Aor if the school can show an extraordinary situation,@ she added. One the other hand, she said, Aone runaway episode would do it.@ Seeking to provide services where ever possible, Martin concluded AWe don=t look for reasons not to accept a PINS.@

The most frequent referral sources, known as complainants, are schools, parents and police agencies. However, FCA '733 states that a PINS petition may be filed by a peace officer, police officer, parent, any victim, or any witness, a recognized agent of any duly authorized agency, association, society, or institution, or the presentment agency (county attorney=s office). In other words (especially with the allowance of any victim or witness), virtually anyone with direct knowledge that a child is in need of supervision has lawful standing to file a petition.

State-approved forms for PINS proceedings are posted on the Internet by the NYS Unified Court System, for public reference and for the convenience of agencies and institutions utilizing the courts (Unified Court System of the State of New York, 1999).

The filing of a PINS complaint is similar to making an application for services. It is best done with a particular goal or objective in mind. Contributing to the filing of PINS petitions by schools is the need to respond to a systemic pressure to take definitive action to hold truant or acting out youth accountable for their misbehavior. Filing the complaint is not an end in itself, and is not a punishment. When an adult or an institution files a PINS complaint against a child, the message which should be conveyed to the child is one of supportive concern and limit-setting. What the complainant is asking for, by filing the petition, is the authoritative backup of a supervising probation officer, or a Judge, to help to ensure compliance with conditions, which are in the best interest of the child.

Despite the Legislature=s intent to overcome stigma associated with the term AJuvenile Delinquent@ for status offenders, since the term APerson In Need of Supervision@ was adopted, this term Ahas itself become a term of disrepute and opprobrium, underscoring the apparent inevitability of stigmatization whenever a label is applied to individuals@ (Besharov, 1998).

In remarks delivered May 31, 1990, then Sullivan County Family Court Judge Anthony Kane commented:

 

There is no lower age limit on a PINS, which I didn't discover until about my fourth year as a Family Court Judge when somebody brought a five year old in on a PINS, but it's true. There is no lower age limit. There is for a Juvenile Delinquent, but not for a PINS because PINS is a status offense. A child is out of control, not that they're intending to do something wrong, not that they've made a conscious effort to commit a crime or to do something. They're just out of control. That probably has as much to do with what's happening in the home, as with the child. The reality is there may be neglect and PINS at the same time. (Kane 1990)

 

Early intervention is encouraged by the Designated Assessment Service (DAS) and by the Sullivan County Family Court, in order to maximize the likelihood of counseling or other interventions which may be offered making a positive difference in the life of the respondent youth. Further along in the above speech, Judge Kane added: AFourteen is a tough age to work with, where the behaviors are already ingrained, and the hormones are raging, and children are whispering under their breath as they're going out the door what they think of you.@

In 1985, the PINS Adjustment Act was passed by the NYS State Legislature to help reduce caseloads in family court, as well as reducing out-of-home placements (Council on Children and Families, 1987). Prior to 1990, when this law was implemented in Sullivan County, some PINS petitions were diverted, if probation and the petitioner could agree that the case could be adjusted.

Besharov (1998) explains the relatively new approach to PINS diversions:

 

The original concept of the juvenile justice system was that judges were to be the center of the process. Children and families were to be brought before judges who would decide what treatment services were necessary and who would arrange for their delivery. However, in the years since the establishment of juvenile courts, a radically different system has evolved. Relatively few cases reach the judge. The juvenile justice system is an elaborate process that takes great pains to avoid formal court action. All Apretrial agencies@, including the police, the schools and the child protective agencies, seek to use the formal apparatus of the Family Court Aonly as a last resort.@

 

Consistent with this idea of appearance of a youth before a judge being Aa last resort@, attempts have been made in Sullivan County to divert as many PINS petitions as possible. Ordinarily, only if the diversion is unsuccessful does the petition go to court.

Examples of the types of services which can be made conditions of a PINS diversion, or a condition of court-ordered probation, include the following: family or individual counseling, parent-child mediation, employment, school attendance, drug or alcohol treatment, teen parenting counseling, preventive services through the Sullivan County Department of Family Services (DFS), formerly known as the Sullivan County Department of Social Services (DSS), participation in recreation programs, youth/family support programs, health services, and emergency shelter. Other conditions which are reasonably related to the adjustment of the problem which led to the filing of the petition may also be included. The probation department exercises discretion to establish reasonable conditions aimed at adjustment of a PINS complaint. If such attempts are unsuccessful, the case may then be brought to court, where the judge may restate the same conditions of probation (for a period of one year), and/or add conditions.

According to a publication by the Sullivan County DAS, which outlines the procedures specified in FCA '735, the following steps are involved with the filing of a PINS complaint at the Probation Department:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure I

 

Although the PINS Adjustment Act was passed in 1985, it was not for five more years that a Sullivan County DAS was created. The service has functioned steadily since.

Probation intake figures are not available for the first two years of themandated diversion's existence according to Martin (1999), but the following table shows the trend in complaints which are filed at probation:

Table I

PINS Complaints Filed At Probation
1992	165	1996	196
1993	172	1997	173
1994	152	1998	209
1995	192

 

 

 

The difference between the number of PINS complaints filed at probation in 1998 as shown above (209), and the 165 processed by the DAS (see Table III below) is the number of youth who probation determined could not be adjusted and referred directly to court.  These 44 youth who did not go to DAS for review and diversion, according to Martin (1999) included situations where the youth was unavailable (e.g., runaway or whereabouts unknown), the youth refused to participate in diversion, or the youth was suicidal and was psychiatrically hospitalized.

One current legislative reform efforts underway in New York State, spearheaded by the Parents= Awareness Support System (PASS, 1999), of Watertown, seeks to amend the maximum age at which PINS petitions can be filed to read 18 for all, regardless of gender. As of mid-November 1999, Bill A.01131 as introduced by Assemblyman Stephan Kaufman and Bill S.00674 as introduced by Senator Mary Lou Rath, had been committed to the Committee on Children and Families.

Another issue is the difficulty of engaging parents, who are typically part of a dysfunctional family cycle at home, with PINS youth who are participating in interventions (such as to attend family counseling, or to attend parenting classes when needed). The State of Nevada has taken the step of holding parents criminally liable for failing to prevent their child=s truancy. AA judge convicted a Carson City mother Monday of failing to prevent her 12‑year‑old daughter's 103 school absences. Mari Jo Bailey must spend two days in jail and complete a six week parenting class,@ said Rice (1999).

 

PINS Petitions and The School

 

At a point in history when the local PINS diversion program was being reformed, Judge Anthony Kane (1990) observed an increase in referrals by school districts in Sullivan County:

 

It's an unscientific study because I haven't counted the numbers, but my sense is that we've gotten a lot more of those cases this year than in previous years. And in speaking with some of the people who are involved in special services, there seems to be a significant increase in children who qualify for some special education services. A real significant increase. So we're getting a population moving into the county who are coming in with lots of needs and their next generation are even going to have more needs unless we do something about it.

 

A lack of available hard data makes it difficult to track trends which would show the frequency with which local school districts utilize the PINS system. However, the above comment indicates that, at that time, a noticeable rise was occurring. The intent of the reforms of 1990 was to reduce the size of the court=s caseload, in order to increase its effectiveness with those respondents who are most in need of attention.

Generally, schools are expected to utilize their own internal or contracted educational resources before turning to the legal system, such as when there is evidence of a handicapping condition. In the Matter of Ruffel P, 153 Misc2d 702 (Family Ct, Orange County, 1992), a PINS petition was dismissed in the interest of justice because of the school district=s failure to fulfill its educational responsibility to a handicapped child, as summarized in the Law Guardian Reporter (1993):

 

School District commenced PINS proceeding as to 9 year old boy, who was disruptive in school. Petitioner concluded respondent could not be classified as handicapped or as unable to learn, or otherwise in need of special educational assistance. The Law Guardian moved to dismiss for failure to seriously attempt to place respondent into some handicapped classification. Family Court denies that motion, as being beyond its jurisdiction. However, it grants the motion to dismiss in the interests of justice. The court concludes that it has much implied authority, pursuant to Article 7. At no time did the school deal with respondent=s problems as something other than a disciplinary problem. The school district should first attempt to fashion a reasonable and appropriate environment for the child, before commencing judicial proceedings.

 

Similarly, in Matter of Simon v. Doe, 165 Misc 2d 379 (Family Ct, Seneca County, 1995) it was ruled that truancy must be intentional. In that case, a PINS petition based on truancy was found to have been properly dismissed where evidence was presented by an expert witness that the respondent suffered from "school phobia", the effect of which was to negate intent on the part of the respondent. Supporting the finding that the respondent pupil thus afflicted was neither a truant nor a PINS was the testimony of a clinical psychologist that Aa phobia is an anxiety based disorder which results in avoidance 'in the extreme' of the feared object or circumstance", that this student suffered from such a phobia, and that as a result her will to attend school was "overborne by anxiety@, causing the absences which led to the petition.          

The court, in the above case, wrote:

 

The unique circumstances of this case do not lend themselves to viewing the child's disability as justification for her actions or justifying dismissal in the interest of justice. The effect of respondent's disability rather is more analogous to a criminal matter in which intoxication is raised to negate intent (PL 15.25). If sufficient facts are raised which justify the trier of fact to consider the alleged intoxication on the issue of intent, it may then be considered in determining whether or not the prosecution has proven intent beyond a reasonable doubt. In the within matter, sufficient evidence has been presented to lead this Court to conclude that the petitioner has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent acted intentionally in her failure to attend school. The petition is thus dismissed.

 

School-based resources which can be made available to a child, whether a PINS petition is filed or not, vary from district to district, but generally include various modalities of  counseling (group, individual, etc.), forms of school-based social work, and special education services.

Under the Family Court Act, the definition of "PINS" includes a minor of school age Awho does not attend school@ in accordance with the compulsory attendance provisions of the Education Law '3205(1), which mandates that Ain each school district of the state, each minor from six to sixteen years of age shall attend upon full time instruction.@ 

With regard to truancy, courts have consistently held that a child cannot be found Atruant@ unless it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt there was an Aintentional@ unexcused failure to attend school, including that the absences were not caused by an anxiety disorder or other mental condition.

 

Twenty-three years ago a court dismissed a PINS petition brought by one school district against several children whose parents refused to enroll them in school (because the school stopped providing door to door school bus service), since it was clear the children did not have a conscious underlying intent to violate the law. The court first found that in view of the substantial criminal and civil sanctions that flow from violation of the compulsory education laws, basic criminal law principles were relevant in dealing with the issue of Aillegal@ absentees. The court next deemed it fundamental that an absentee pupil must be found to have a conscious underlying intent (the so-called Aanimo remanendi@) to violate the law before such sanctions are invoked. AIn a word,@ said the court, Athe child must be deemed a truant, i.e., absent by virtue of his own will and personal intent.@ Consequently, the court ruled the law does not permit labeling as truant the pupil who is prevented by parental authority from attending school. (Woodin, 1995)

 

In the above case, it may have been more appropriate for a hotline call to have been made by a school administrator, against the parents for "educational neglect", as a result of their failure to ensure that the child attended school.

 

Preventive and Child Protective Services

 

Among the most common interventions recommended by the DAS is some form of preventive services through the Children and Family Services unit of DFS. For this reason DAS is chaired by a preventive services senior caseworker, who maintains contact with probation and DFS workers.

Preventive services consist of a combination of community- and school-based interventions aimed at preventing a need for out-of-home placement of children. In 1999, DFS entered into contractual agreements with six school districts centered in Sullivan County for enhanced services in schools.

In addition to services which are provided by caseworkers, having an open preventive case makes youth eligible for referrals by their caseworker for advocacy and other services through community-based agencies including Youth and Family Services program of the Community Action Commission to Help the Economy (CACHE), and the Youth Advocate Program (YAP). An advocate may spend any number of hours with the youth or family, as directed and individually contracted by DFS, to help resolve problems and prevent a need for placement.

The following terms (Sullivan County Coordinated Family Services, 1991) refer to types of preventive services:

Casework - engagement of client(s) in a relationship to assist in modification of problem behavior, and/or to gain insight into the client=s emotional state, relationships, and social functioning; and to better cope with crises or daily responsibilities;

Youth Advocate - individual who advocates or needs of young person(s) under the age of 18. Advocacy may include assisting youth in accessing human service delivery systems, dealing with the juvenile justice system or educational services;

Family Advocate - individual who assists a family unit in accessing needed services and may act as a liaison between the family and those systems. An advocate may also assist with basic independent living skills;

Wrap-Around - services provided to youth or families which address both primary and secondary human service needs as well as socio-economic needs and provide a comprehensive range of services specifically tailored to the individual and/or family.

Preventive Respite - the provision of brief and temporary care and supervision of children for the purpose of relieving parents/foster parents (other than therapeutic foster parents) at a time of need for support or when there has been a loss of capacity to maintain an adequate level of care and supervision due to an unexpected demand upon the family or deterioration of family relationships such that the family needs immediate assistance in order to be able to maintain or restore family functioning (NYS Department of Social Services, 1992).

CPS

Whenever information comes to light which gives reasonable cause to suspect that a child has been abused, neglected, or maltreated by a caretaker, a report may be made to the NYS Central Registry pursuant to Social Service Law '422, leading to an investigation by Child Protective Services (CPS) and possible Neglect or Abuse charges against the perpetrator when indicated. Such proceedings move along independent of  PINS petitions, although a final resulting order may support the same services or interventions which the PINS petition would seek, to help the family improve its functioning and ability to properly care for and supervise the child.

In cases of alleged sexual abuse, domestic violence, and serious physical injury of children, investigations are performed by a Family Violence Response Team, formed in 1999, which consists of two CPS investigators and a Sullivan County sheriff=s deputy based at DFS. This group meets monthly with an assistant district attorney and a mental health case manager from the Community Services (Sullivan County Family Violence Response Team, 1999).

 

Mediation Services

 

One of the standing members of the DAS is Ulster-Sullivan Mediation Services, Inc., a community-based agency which is a member of the Statewide Network of Conflict Resolution Centers. According to a brochure: (Ulster Sullivan Mediation, Undated):

 

Community Dispute Resolution Centers are independent, not-for-profit organizations made possibly in 1981 by New York State legislation. They are funded by a combination of state and local monies. The NYS Unified Court System provides partial funding and sets standards for the training of community mediators. Additional monies come from mediation training contracts with schools and private organizations, and from other specialized conflict resolution services.

 

Mediation services, in the case of PINS proceedings, may involve facilitated negotiation of household rules or other parent-child communication. Agreements are  reduced to writing, which each party signs to signify their give-and-take willing consent.

 

Mental Health and Addictions Counseling

 

A PINS diversion agreement or court order may provide helpful leverage to motivate an otherwise resistant youth or parent to engage in treatment. A wide array of clinical services is available through the Sullivan County Department of Community Services. Treatment modalities include brief or long-term outpatient counseling; play therapy; individual, parent-child, family therapy; and referral for inpatient psychiatric evaluation or care. All of these are available through the county=s Mental Health Clinic on Infirmary Road in Liberty.

Youth who are identified before, during, or after the PINS process as possibly being able to benefit from a mental health or drug and alcohol evaluation or treatment may be referred through the DCS intake unit. If the petition eventually goes to court, and clinical evaluations are ordered by the judge, clients are then seen by a specialized forensics social worker in the clinic. Examples of the types of reasons which might lead to a mental health referral include threats or attempts to harm self or others, history of trauma or suspected trauma (such as physical or sexual abuse, death of a loved one, or other losses), conduct disorder, family system issues, or suspected mental illness.

In addition to clinic-based services, masters-level mental health professionals conduct outreach in local public schools in the districts of Monticello, Liberty, Tri-Valley, Eldred, Roscoe, and Sullivan West. The Treatment Reaching Youth (TRY) program Aprovides treatment either in the school building. Counseling services are provided for youngsters who are experiencing emotional difficulties. Priority for admission... is given to families that would have difficulty accessing these services at an existing clinic@ (Sullivan County Department of Community Services, 1999). With parental consent, TRY clinicians provide psychosocial assessments, treatment, case management, and emergency services. Sessions involve individual or family counseling, and often both. Psychiatric and psychological care are available.

Services through tthe DCS Case Management unit can be provided for youth who are identified as having a history of mental health crises. Case managers conduct home visits and maintain contact with the child in school and community settings. In psychiatric emergencies, Achildren and youth with serious emotional disturbances who experience rapid deterioration of environmental or personal conditions in their place of residence@ may be placed crisis respite with two specially contracted foster homes under a cooperative agreement between DCS and DFS (Sullivan County Department of Community Services, 1997), with procedures in place to ensure that needed mental health care is afforded to the child or youth. At the present time (November 1999), this service is in the process of being privately contracted to Berkshire Farm Center & Services for Youth (Sullivan County Department of Community Services, 1999)

When use of drugs or alcohol by a person who is underage is evident, such a child would likely qualify for clinical education and treatment, at least with a diagnosis of Alcohol Abuse (DSM-IV 305.00) or other appropriate drug-abuse diagnosis. Depending on how far the child=s substance use/abuse has progressed, the disease model of addictions would suggest the possibility of alcohol or drug dependency, which could require more intensive treatment. Outpatient treatment is available at Sullivan County Alcohol and Drug Abuse Services clinic, and at private clinics elsewhere in the Sullivan County. Where a higher level of care is required, referrals can be made to a variety of inpatient facilities both in and outside of Sullivan County.

The two most commonly utilized treatment groups at the SCADAS clinic for PINS youth are an AAdolescent Education@ group, which orients the youth and provides a basic foundation as to the effects of drug and alcohol abuse; and an AAdolescent Probation@ group, which is co-facilitated by a drug and alcohol counselor and a probation supervisor. One of these facilitators provided the following comments about this group's treatment approach:

 

I  had been unable to deal with the oppositional  and extremely defiant attitude of some of the adolescents we see until I watched the Maury Povich program in which sheriffs broke through that attitude by yelling at the kids that they really were hurt children. The defiance needs to be attacked and challenged vigorously until the child's real needs emerge.  (Coleman, 1999)

 

People (including children) who seek treatment, who are dually diagnosed as mentally ill or maladjusted and at the same time are chemically abusive, sometimes encounter difficulty accessing treatment at the mental health clinic in Sullivan County, where an unwritten policy exists that clients must be abstinent from mind-altering drugs before admission to outpatient mental health counseling. Efforts are now underway to clarify this policy and make mental health care more accessible to such clients, even if the person is using alcohol or drugs (provided this issue is addressed in treatment planning).

Youth in acute emotional crisis which prevents functioning in public schools in Sullivan County may be referred to the Rockland Children's Psychiatric Center (RCPC) Intensive Day Treatment (IDT) program, located at the BOCES campus in Liberty (Rockland Children's Psychiatric Center, Undated).

One committee which plans for needs of hard-to-serve youth from a holistic perspective, as well as providing Aflexible funds@ which may be allocated according to the needs of individual children, is the Consolidated Children=s Services Initiative (CCSI). This group meets regularly under the umbrella of the Department of Community Services, with representation from various public and private local agencies, and is staffed by a part-time coordinator.

 

Caseloads of Providers of Services to PINS

 

The following figures were provided by agencies in question for November 1999:

Juvenile probation officers in Sullivan County maintain a caseload of an average of 35 youth, which includes PINS and JDs. Youth are seen at a minimum of once per week, according to Martin (1999), either in the probation office, at home, or in school. The probation department operates a program called Operation Juvenile Nightlight, in partnership with the Sullivan County Sheriff's Department. Sheriff's deputies and juvenile probation officers patrol together, and conduct unannounced home visits. The program is federally funded through the NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services, to reimburse the county for staff overtime costs. Since the Operation Juvenile Nightlight began, on July 26, 1999, 90 hours have been logged on the project resulting in 138 home visits attempted, 102 youth contacted, 116 collaterals, and 32 juvenile ex-probationers contacted, according to Martin (1999), who added that on these visits, seven youth have been apprehended for curfew violations or outstanding warrants, and two on charges related to possession of drug paraphernalia, weapons, and theft of taxi services. A majority of youth contacted on Operation Juvenile Nightlight have been PINS, according to Martin (1999), which she attributed in part to the practice of the court of reducing JD petitions to PINS adjudications  

Children and Family Services caseworkers presently maintain an average caseload of 12 to 14 families in Preventive Services, and 40 to 45 families in Child Protective Services. Foster care workers have an average caseload of 12 youth in care. The frequency of home visits and other contacts varies based on case type (McKenny, 1999).

Treatment Reaching Youth (TRY) staff see youth in schools approximately once per week, or more if needed. Clinicians at the Sullivan County Alcohol & Drug Abuse Services clinic presently average 21, which are mixed adults and youth. PINS youth who are open at SCADAS are typically seen in group settings one to two sessions per week.

 

When Diversions Are Not Adjusted: The Court Process

 

The failure of the PINS diversion system to help a family adjust the problems which led to the filing of a complaint is not the end of process, but the beginning of the actual PINS petition. It is at this point, when the probation department concludes that the diversion attempt has not adequately met the child=s needs, that the case is forwarded back to the DFS legal office for presentment in court.

Fact-finding and adjudication in family court that a child is a PINS must be by preponderance of the evidence [Matter of Tonya U., 243 AD2d 785 (3d Dept 1977). Prior to this, n 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a juvenile facing a possible loss of liberty had at least four Constitutional rights: A(1) the right to notice of the charges and time to prepare for trial; (2) the right to counsel; (3) the right to confrontation and cross-examination of witness; and (4) the right to remain silent in court. [In re Gault, supra, 387, US 1, 87 Sct 1428, 18 Led 2d 527 (1967).

Court proceedings involve taking of formal testimony, with the respondent represented by an attorney known as a Law Guardian. Parents may also be represented by legal counsel, if they desire. An assistant county attorney employed by DFS presents the petition on behalf of the county and acts in a role comparable to that of a prosecutor.

Clinical evaluations are frequently ordered by the court to be conducted by mental health or addiction treatment facilities, where professionals interview the child, parent(s), and sometimes other family members, and prepares a psychosocial history and/or treatment recommendations.

After fact-finding, a pre-dispositional investigation (PDI) is ordered by the court, to be performed by the probation department. This report explores all phases of the respondent=s life history, the behavior problems which led to the filing of the complaint, and attempts which have been made to adjust the matter. The PDI report concludes with an evaluative analysis and specific recommendations for legal disposition.

 

The basic structure of the investigation consists of a complete, legal, social, and medical history, including previous Court and arrest records, family history, education, psychiatric and psychological reports, employment and financial information, and description of the present offense. The Probation Officer gathers this information through interviews with the individual, his family, police, school officials, the complainant, employers, and friends. All information is for the confidential use of the Court, the primary purpose being to assist the Court in the determination of the individual best plan of action for the youngster. The Probation Officer includes in this report a recommendation to the Court which is approved by his supervisor. The Court is free to follow this recommendation or to proceed otherwise, subject to the limitations of the Family Court Act (Suffolk County Probation Department, 1999).

 

The array of options open to the court at this point in the proceeding may include placing the PINS respondent on probation for a period of one year (18 months, in the case of a Juvenile Delinquent), with a variety of special conditions; or placing the child in the care of DFS in an array of foster care or residential settings. In the discretion of the judge, a conditional discharge may also be granted, which is supervised directly by the court; or the case may be adjourned in contemplation of dismissal, or simply dismissed outright.

If the respondent is either placed on probation or placed in the care and custody of DFS, court-imposed structure continues for the child, and compliance with conditions including clinical counselor or other indicated services will apply. A violation of any such order of disposition, may result in the filing of a petition to bring the child back in front of the judge for continued supervision, or referral to a higher level of care, either with DFS or with the NYS Office of Children and Family Services.

Family court proceedings are generally conducted in a setting which is conducive to privacy, though changes in recent years have opened the court-room to observers.

Tabulations of court PINS filings from 1998 are contained in Tables III through V in Section 2  of this report (Statistical Summaries), based on data received from Sullivan County Family Court.

 

To Place or Not to Place

 

Much has been written about the efficacy of out-of-home placement as opposed to various Afamily preservation@ measures aimed at restructuring the family system for behavioral change (see, for example, Goldstein, Freud & Solnit, 1973). The work of Salvador Minuchin (1974) and others in the family therapy movement suggests that hope for positive changes can be well-founded, provided that family-based interventions are afforded as opposed to scapegoating the child. Placement prevention efforts are only appropriate when the home is deemed by DFS to be a safe environment for the child.

The following levels of out-of-home care available to Sullivan County youth (Sullivan County Coordinated Family Services, 1991):

Respite - either preventive or crisis short-term maintenance (does not involve a change in custody) for such purposes as parental hospitalization or youth psychiatric crisis. Preventive Respite is defined in more detail above.

            Non-Secure Detention - family-type home for short-term maintenance while a child is awaiting court action or movement to a more permanent setting;

Foster Care - placement with another family or foster parent (sometimes relatives, known as kinship foster care) which results when parents cannot care for their own children at home. May be court ordered. A foster family receives a stipend to provide foster care for one to six children;

Therapeutic Foster Care - foster care which provides a high level of support for foster parents which allows children who are seriously ill or disturbed to remain in foster care as opposed to institutionalization;

Group Home - family-type home for care and maintenance of 7 to 12 children who are at least five years of age. Most group homes are community-based, with the residents attending local public schools and using other generic community services;

Residential Treatment - residential school staffed with clinicians and childcare workers, housing may be in dormitories or clusters of cottages.

Secure Facility - institutional setting, usually in the care and custody of DFY, in a locked jail-like facility for juveniles where program includes school, counseling, recreation, medical, and vocational instruction (usually reserved for delinquents, not PINS youth);

Sullivan County DFS presently has 86 licensed foster homes of its own, as well contracting for as an average of 10 therapeutic foster care beds at Abbott House. (This contract is for a specified dollar amount, and the actual number of youth served may vary.) Another contract exists for therapeutic foster homes for up to 12 youth with histories of mental illness and/or addiction with Berkshire Farm Center and Services for Youth, though this program is not yet operating at capacity.         

As of November 1, 1999, there were 104 youth in the care and custody of DFS. The percentage of these youth placed on PINS petitions, as opposed to other reasons (delinquency, abuse, neglect, etc.) was not available. Of these youth, 78 were in foster care; 10 were in therapeutic foster care; 5 in group homes; 7 at out-of-county residential facilities in New York State; and 4 at out-of-state residential facilities (McKenny, 1999).

Most difficult to place C  though more likely to be in court on a JD petition than a PINS proceeding C are children identified as sexual offenders or arsonists. Such antisocial youth are often placed out of the county, or out of state. It should be noted that or arsonists or sex-offending youth who are assessed as Alow risk@ are occasionally placed at the Abbott House group home in Swan Lake, with outpatient mental health counseling by a private therapist who specializes in treating offenders. Local youth found to have committed more serious sexually abusive acts are more likely to be placed at a residential facility such as Lake Grove School in Wendell, Massachusetts. Upon return, as a Astep down@ placement, they may be returned to local care the group home in Swan Lake. McQuade Home for Children is another rare facility which is sometimes willing to accept children with these types of severe behaviors (McKenny, 1999).

 

Reunification, Independent Living, Adoption

 

Historically, the Child Welfare Reform Act of 1980 (PL 96-272) placed pressure on agencies and courts to preserve natural family strictures. That law, however, was in many respects superceded by the passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (PL 105-89), which included reauthorization of the Family Support Services Program, now renamed the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program (PSSF).

 

PSSF, as we know, added two new services: time-limited reunification services, and adoption promotion and support services. Time-limited reunification services are defined as services and activities that are provided to a child who is removed from his/her home and placed in a foster family home or a child care institution, as well as to the parents or primary caregiver of the child. Services are provided in order to facilitate the reunification of the child and caregiver safely and appropriately within a timely fashion, but only during the 15-month period after the date that the child is considered to have entered foster care (Jenkins, 1999).

 

Permanency planing, or the process of formulating the least restrictive plan which  meets the child=s needs for safety, security, and health, is managed by DFS caseworkers who rely on professional evaluations, as well as their own observations and input from foster parents or other caregivers, as to the youth's social development and readiness to return home, as well as changes in the family system while will ensure that the home is a safe environment. Alternatives might include independent living, or termination of parental rights and Afreeing@ the teenager for adoption.

Typically at the end of the first year in care, recommendations are made the family court (ordinarily, the same judge who placed the child in care), based upon  adjustment and ongoing need for supervision. Youth who are discharged from care may be placed on probation supervision again. (Generally, children in foster care are not eligible for probation supervision at the same time that they are in placement.)

DFS maintains a staff of caseworkers prepared to assist youth with each of the goals of permanency planning: prevention, foster care, independent living, or adoption.

 

Recidivism

 

Certain groups appeared especially likely to be seen as again by the DAS on a new petition. Of the 165 petitions during 1999, 19 were repeaters. According to the Sullivan County Youth Bureau (1999), risk factors showing Aclear over-representation among youth repeating PINS@ included the following descriptors:

n Youth with parents who abuse substances (47%);

n Hispanic youth (37%);

n Youth classified by the Committee on Special Education (32%);

n Students from Liberty (32%) and Monticello (24%) school districts;

n Youth who were repeating grades (21%);

n Students from BOCES (16%);

n Youth diagnosed with Borderline Mental Retardation (16%).           

Based on the above information, it would appear that the highest risk service recipients in Sullivan County are youth with substance-abusing parents; youth whose native language is other than English; and those who are educationally disadvantaged, learning disabled, or from larger, more ethnically diverse school districts.

 

Discussion: Implications for Educators

 

The decision of whether, or when, a school will file a PINS complaint and commence the above described process is made by administrators, based on district policy. It is important to realize that once filing the petition, in and of itself, does not accomplish much of anything, without a meaningful service plan which follows. Creation of such a plan is formulated in cooperation with probation intake and the DAS, but it may be helpful to have an idea of the type of service which will be most helpful to a child before filing.

Just as it is important for parents to provide structure and discipline at home, it is crucial that school policies with respect to PINS proceedings be applied uniformly, with fairness, and with the type of tolerance which educators hope to inculcate in students.

It has been mentioned previously that educational measures should come first. For example, if it appears that a child may not be learning, this may be due to a learning disability or other handicapping condition, as much as to being Aungovernable@ in the sense of requiring PINS intervention. Likewise, there exist in Sullivan County a number of local Aalternative@ schools, intended for children who are not classified but who do not fit into to regimented structure of a regular high school. One such school, in Youngsville, is maintained by the Sullivan County Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) as a community-based solution for students who don=t fit in at their home school, but who do have the capacity to learn under the right circumstances. Such students may or may not benefit from the filing of a PINS petition, though institutional constraints may require it.

Upon noticing an unexplained decline in a student=s performance, school counselors and others would do well to carefully assess the root causes of the decline. Likewise, chronic absenteeism may have a number of causes which can be resolved without filing a legal proceeding against the student.

On the other hand, if a PINS petition is going to be filed, reason would suggest that it be filed as early as possible in the school year, to allow probation, caseworkers, counselors, and other providers to accurately gauge the impact which supervision is having on the respondent=s behavior and attendance; or there may simply be a repeat of the cycle the following September, after the child is discharged from probation following a 90-day diversion most of which took place during summer break. Yet, one pressure preventing schools from filing early is they need time to build sufficient Aevidence@ for a complaint. Often this threshold is not crossed until toward the end of the school year. The uneven cycle with which school filings occurs (as well as hotline calls alleging Aeducational neglect@), with a flood tending to arise in April and May, is a common complaint of service workers in the various county agencies which work with PINS youth.

Early intervention has also been emphasized, in the sense that PINS proceedings are more likely to make a favorable impact on a younger child than a relatively defiant older teen, as Judge Kane (1990) observed, Awhere the behaviors are already ingrained, and the hormones are raging, and children are whispering under their breath as they're going out the door what they think of you.@

 

Suggestions For Program Development And Reform

 

County of Sullivan

Development of PINS services by local public and private agencies must channel scarce revenues where they are most likely to make the greatest difference. Local sub-populations at highest risk for repeated filing of a PINS petition, according to the Sullivan County Youth Bureau (1999) include: children of alcoholics and addicts; those with Spanish surnames; and children who are classified by the Committee on Special Education, repeating a grade, or who are attending BOCES. The same findings suggest that the ideal location to center additional services would be Monticello or Liberty, since these schools also appear to be at highest risk for repeat PINS petitions.

A few recommendations which are inferred by the present author from the findings of the Sullivan County Youth Bureau (1999), for local schools, treatment agencies and child welfare agencies, include more of the following:

n Recruitment and hiring of Spanish-speaking counselors and probation officers, and implementing innovative methods to increase outreach in Latino communities.

n Tracking youth enrolled in special education, or who are retained in grade, for truancy and behavior problems so as to immediately refer identified high-risk students for school-based Preventive Services before reaching the point that a PINS petition is filed.

 

n Improved communication mechanisms between schools and agencies to enhance coordination of home-school services aimed at preventing PINS behaviors;

n Integrated clinical mental health and addictions treatment with children of alcoholics and substance abusers;

n Emphasized family treatment and parental participation with children in all settings, increasing the likelihood of lasting systemic change in the family, and thereby reducing risks for the child of a need for behavioral interventions;

n Uniform county-wide data collection and statistical tracking of clients, in order to better identify systemic strengths and needs for program development.

State of New York

At a state level, advocates and lawmakers should examine the following concerns about Article 7 of the Family Court Act and consider the wisdom of reforms allowing:

n That the age at which PINS petitions may be filed be amended to eighteen (18) years for both genders; and

n That parents or guardians of PINS respondents be more readily subject to Family Court orders, under a theory of derivative jurisdiction, in connection with such proceedings (e.g., to attend parenting classes, counseling, etc.), or risk possible civil penalties including possible loss of custody.

 

Areas for Further Study

 

The present paper compiled and summarized the basic characteristics of PINS respondents and petitioners, clinical needs of respondents, and what services are presently in place to meet those needs. There are numerous opportunities for further study, either by students or by agencies themselves.

For example, study of the various clinical treatment modalities utilized with adolescents is warranted. Findings might impact on the nature of services emphasized by local agencies and the court. For instance, conjoint family therapy is known to be a powerful treatment approach to resolving problems of youth, in that the scapegoating aspect of identifying the adolescent is reduced and functions of the family system in maintaining a dysfunctional cycle is examined and changed. Despite this, conjoint family therapy receives relatively little emphasis in the provision of treatment in Sullivan County's mental health clinic.

Another study might include an analysis of Family Court records to examine a suspected correlation between cases which have a history of Family Offense proceedings (FCA Article 8) and subsequent filing of PINS or JD petitions against children of parties named in those proceedings. Results of such a study would likely draw attention to the relationship of domestic violence by parents to ungovernable and delinquent behavior by youth, and examine the types of services available to victims of abuse and their families. Likewise, a possible relationship between the filing of Support proceedings (FCA Article 4) against parents could be compared against subsequent PINS and JD petitions. Bearing out the hypothesis that risk of ungovernable and delinquent behavior in youth significantly rises with the occurrence of parental acting out (violence, non-support, etc.) could lead to increased emphasis on a family-systems approach to clinical treatment.

Formal attention could be given to the success of particular projects, such as the  Family Violence Response Team in identifying and reducing physical and sexual abuse, either by therapeutic family-preservation measures or by removing the child from the home by means of an abuse or neglect petition (FCA Article 3). This team was formed during 1999, so an opportunity exists to track various factors in its cases as compared to comparable CPS cases in past years. It is important to track and document successful interventions in order to maintain public support for funding to human services.

Likewise, the long-term effect of increasingly integrated clinical counseling services and DFS preventive services should be tracked. Will earlier intervention by preventive services, and caseworkers and clinicians being based in schools rather than at agency offices, lead to fewer PINS filings in coming years? Such approaches make sense from a common-sense point of view, but documented results may justify continuation of such programs and wider replication, whether in other grades locally or in other localities.

At present in Sullivan, as in most locales, behavioral health data is collected by a variety of agencies, offices, and groups, but the collective data is not widely shared. If agencies were to join together in identifying data elements to be collected, all would be helped by the interagency sharing of the accumulated statistics. Join Together (1999) describes a similar situation in Franklin County, Kansas, where the Kansas City Community Epidemiology Work Group was formed by Project Neighborhood, Inc.

 

It has representation from seven institutions or agency Agates@ which represent the Apulse points@ of the community. They include the police department, the school district, a drug court, a family court, the Truman Medical Center, and the state Probation and Parole Services and Department of Mental Health. Representatives from these groups come together to help structure, interpret and disseminate collected data to better monitor and analyze drug-use patterns in their community.           

 

Once taking such steps as described above, there would be no reason to confine the data analysis to drug use. The mission of the Franklin County Prevention Institute, according to its website, is to be Aa center for study and research which works to improve the community's understanding and practice of healthy behaviors through collaboration, innovation, education, consultation and the application of science to practice,@ including but not limited to drug use, mental health, exercise, nutrition, and sexuality.

 

Section 2 - Statistical Summaries: 1998

-:-

A summary description characteristics of PINS petitioners and respondents was compiled by the Designated Assessment Service (DAS) of Sullivan County, and provided for use in the present paper by the Sullivan County Youth Bureau and Sullivan County Probation Department. As noted previously, Standing representation on the DAS exists from the youth bureau, probation, DFS, Community Services, and Sullivan Mediation Service. In addition to these staff members, DAS meetings are typically attended by representatives of each of these agencies, the petitioner (parent, school representative, etc), respondent, and any helping professionals or service providers who may be actively working with the respondent at the time, or who are otherwise invited.

The most recent full year of data which is available at this writing is 1998.

Statistical information was compiled at DAS meetings where structured case reviews are conducted was performed on a representative sample of PINS petitions processed through probation, using a grid. After the conclusion of the year, statistics were compiled by the Sullivan County Youth Bureau (1999) and shared among agencies participating on the DAS, as well as to the present author for use in this paper.

Of  the total 165 petitions filed with the DAS during 1998, 125 were recorded.

 

Characteristics of Petitioners

 

A majority (105, or 64%) of the petitions filed during 1998 were filed by one of the 15 school districts which falls within the geographic boundaries of Sullivan County. Among school-related behaviors, 51 (31%) were for cited for excessive absenteeism; 18 (11%) for chronic tardiness; and 11 (7%) for failing classes.

According to the Sullivan County Youth Bureau (1998), AThe most aggressive filers were Monticello (7%), Livingston Manor (6%), Fallsburg and Liberty (5%), and Delaware Valley (4%). Of the total 165 PINS filed, 44% were from Monticello, 16% from Liberty, 13% from Fallsburg, 8% from Livingston Manor, 6% from Tri-Valley, 4% from Delaware Valley, with other districts having much lower representation in the total. BOCES filed a total of 12% of PINS seen by DAS.@

On average, each school district with PINS youth filed on about 5% of its youth in grades 7 through 10; and countywide, about 5% of all youth in grades 7 through 10 were processed by the DAS as PINS youth during 1998.

Of 125 the petitions analyzed, the vast majority (111 or 67%) were for alleged ungovernable or disrespectful behavior. Sixteen petitions (10%) alleged drug or alcohol use by the child. Fourteen petitions (8%) were for being absent without leave or running away. Eight petitions (5%) were for violent or dangerous behavior with a weapon. Some of the above totals exceed 100% because petitions often allege more than one  infraction.

The following data, based on information compiled by the Sullivan County Youth Bureau (1999), shows the frequency with which various public school districts in Sullivan County filed PINS petitions during 1998 as compared to the number of youth who would be expected to fall within the range for PINS petitions (up to age 16):

 

Table II

Public School Districts Filing PINS Petitions And District Populations, Grades 7 To 10 Sullivan County, New York
Sullivan County School District	Popul=n* Gr. 7-10	Petitions Filed	Percent of PINS	Percent of Popul=n*
Monticello	1,068	72	44%	7%
Liberty	557	26	16%	5%
Sullivan Co. BOCES	N/A	19	12%	N/A
Fallsburg	433	21	13%	5%
Livingston Manor	225	14	8%	6%
Tri-Valley	355	10	6%	5%
Delaware Valley	199	7	4%	4%
Jeff=ville-Youngsville	283	3	2%	1.5%
Pine Bush	N/A	3	2%	N/A
Roscoe	115	2	1%	2%
Eldred	238	2	1%	1%
Youngsville Alt. Sch.	N/A	2	1%	N/A
Narrowsburg	111	1	1%	1%
Unknown	N/A	2	1%	N/A
Total	3,584	184	>100% due to rounding error	5%
Notes: Total petitions filed includes 19 repeated petitions filed on the same child. Total number of respondent youth: 165. AN/A@ indicates that figures are not available.

Of the 165 petitions filed with the DAS during 1998, institutions filed fully 70% (115), the vast majority of which (105, or 64%) were filed by schools; and 6% (10) by police agencies. The remaining 30% (50) were filed by family members (parents, etc.)

 

Characteristics of PINS Respondents

 

Total PINS youth processed through the Sullivan County DAS in 1998 included 104 boys (63%) and 61 girls (37%), for a total of 165. Slightly less than two-thirds (98, or 59%) of the total PINS respondents processed through DAS during 1998 were White; while the remainder was equally divided as Black (34, or 21%) and Latino (33, or 20%).

Ages of respondents ranged from age 8 (2, or 1%) to age 15 (56, or 34%) at time of filing. Fully 70% of respondents during 1998 fell within the two-year range of 14 and 15; and another 15% (25) were age 13. The remainder included 17 (10%) who were 12; two (1%) who were age 10; and four (2%) who were age 11. No petitions were filed against 9-year-olds during 1998.

The variance in age may be explained by factors related to eligibility for status under Article 7, which extends only until the child's 16th birthday. As that age approaches, pressure increases on school or parental authorities to decide whether to file.

 

Table II

Gender, Race/Ethnicity, Age PINS Respondents at DAS, 1998 Sullivan County, New York (% of N=165)
Gender		Race/Ethnicity		Age In Years
Male	63% (104)	Caucasian	59% (98)	8	1% (2)
Female	37% (61)	Black	21% (34)	9	-
		Hispanic	20% (33)	10	1% (2)
Repeat Filings (Same Respondent)				11	2% (4)
Male	12	Caucasian	9	12	10% (17)
Female	7	Black	3	13	15% (25)
		Hispanic	7	14	36% (59)
Note: Details on repeat filings are incomplete. It is possible more PINS youth repeated than were noted at DAS. These data should be considered as working minimums.				15	34% (56)
				Mode = 14.5 yrs.

 

The distribution of grade levels appears fairly consistent with distribution of ages. With the largest number of respondents being in the range of 14 or 15; and the bulk of the total group in 8th or 9th grade. Twenty (16%) of the of the youth had repeated one or more grades at the time the PINS petition was filed.

The data suggest a PINS petition is most likely to be filed as to a youth during the year he or she enters high school, or during the two years before. The largest number of respondents were in 9th grade (51, or 31%), followed by 8th grade (35, or 21%), followed by 7th grade (26, or 16%), and 10th grade (24, or 15%). Remaining were: 6th grade, 6 (4%); 5th grade, 5 (3%); 4th grade, 2 (1%); and 2nd grade, 1 (0.5%).

Forty-three (40%) of the PINS respondents were receiving failing grades in school at the time the petition was filed.

 

Identified Clinical Concerns and Interventions

 

Of the 125 petitioners whose case histories were analyzed, 59 (36%) were classified by the Committee on Special Education. Eighteen (11%) of these were clearly identified as Learning Disabled, and two were identified as Emotionally Disturbed (1%). Five (3%) were identified as mentally retarded, according to the DAS.

The Sullivan County Youth Bureau (1999) states: AOver a third of youth PINSed (36%) were clearly designated SE (special education), with a number of other likely learning disabled but not specifically identified. Schools filing PINS did not supply enough data for us to get clear readings on relative numbers of LD, ED, or other specific diagnoses. Many PINS youth, whether designated SE or not, were informally labeled AADD@, but clear statistics were not available.@ In 20% (33) of the cases, special education status was not mentioned in the DAS as a significant factor in the case history.

The report from Youth Bureau continues: AMany youth arrive in PINS diversion with clear records of a family history of domestic violence, abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, parent substance abuse or parent mental-health issues. Of those seen in DAS, 38% had family histories of abuse or neglect, 21% specifically of abuse; 15% had records of sexual abuse; and 17% showed a clear link between the neglect/abuse and parental substance abuse. Of PINS cases in which this data was available, 38% had parents with alcohol and drug problems and histories, with alcohol specified in 28% of all PINS and drugs named in 25% of the total PINS cases reviewed in DAS.@

A past mental health history in the respondent was identified in 21 (17%) of the 125 reviewed cases (specific DSM-IV diagnoses not available). However, a mental health evaluation and/or counseling was recommended in a relatively high percentage of cases. Numbers of dually diagnosed (MICA) cases were not recorded by the DAS in 1998.

More than half (66, or 53%) of the 125 youth tracked by the Youth Bureau were referred to one of two local agencies for preventive AWrap-Around@ or mentoring services. A similar number (64, or 51%) were referred for mental health evaluations. Six (5%) were referred for psychological or neurological testing. Half (63, or 50%) of the 125 were directed to provide urine specimens for analysis at probation; and 44 (35%) were referred for evaluations and treatment at SCADS, the Recovery Center or elsewhere. Thirty-three (26%) were recommended for tutoring, after-school tutorial, or summer school. Twenty (16%) were referred to their school=s CSE for re-evaluation. Nineteen (15%) were referred for vocational programs. Nine (7%) were referred to Rape Intervention Services and Education, a program operated by Planned Parenthood of Sullivan County. In four cases (3%), a member of the DAS conducted a home assessment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table III and IV

New Petitions Filed Sullivan County Family Court PINS Proceedings - 1998
Petitioners
Monticello	30
Sullivan County BOCES	7
Livingston Manor	6
Fallsburg	5
Liberty	5
Youngsville Alternative School	3
Roscoe	1
Tri-Valley	1
Delaware Valley	1
Narrowsburg	1
Schools  (total of above)	60
Parents	31
Police (Monticello)	1
Sullivan County Department of Family Services	2
Total new PINS filings	94

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supplemental Petitions Filed Extensions Of Placement; Terminations Of Placement; Violations, etc. Sullivan County Family Court PINS Proceedings - 1998
Petitioners
Sullivan County Department of Family Services	30
Parents	28
Sullivan County Probation Department	20
Schools	7
Law Guardian	1
Total supplemental PINS filings	86

 

 

 

 

Data presented in Tables III, IV and V were provided by the clerk of Sullivan County Family Court, with permission of the judge (Meddaugh, 1999; Emerson, 1999). Information thus received was entered into a database (Q&A, ver. 4) for analysis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table V

Judicial Dispositions New and Supplemental Filings Sullivan County Family Court PINS Proceedings - 1998
Disposition	New Filings	Supplemental
Care and custody of DFS (level unspecified)	18	28
Probation	38	13
Terminate C/C DFS	2	11
Residential Placement	3	6
Modification	0	4
True Date	3	3
Suspended Judgement	3	4
Unknown	0	3
ACD	15	2
Returned	0	2
Dismissed / Not Proven	2	1
Dismissed, Want of Pros./Withdrawn/Admin Closed	5	9
Therapeutic Foster Care	3	0
Conditional Discharge	1	0
Referred to probation for diversion	1	0
	94	86

 

Case Study

 

"Alice" was interviewed at her mother=s residence, during evening hours, when an appointment was scheduled for the purpose of interviewing her, with her mother, about her experiences as a Person In Need of Supervision. Mother and daughter were pleasant and cooperative. (Alice=s mother was initially asked whether one of her other children might be willing to participate, but she suggested meeting with Alice instead.) Alice appeared pleased that her opinions were being solicited and happy to share her story. She signed consents to release of information for the Sullivan County Department of Community Services, Sullivan County Department of Family Services, Center for Workforce Development, Communicat Action Commission to Help the Economy, and Berkshire Farm Center & Services for Youth, each of which has provided services to Alice in the past. The releases stated information about her would be Aincluded in a research paper submitted to Rider University and otherwise be made public, but with my name changed.@

Alice=s family first became known to this writer when they were treated for over a year in a home-based family therapy program, which no longer operates in Sullivan County, from late 1993 to early 1995, then under the auspices of Berkshire Farm. At that time, Alice had recently been discharged from foster care and was living independently at the age of 18. Though she was not part of the household for most of the time this writer worked with the family, she was seen in several sessions. Several of Alice=s five brothers and two sisters have also been subjects of PINS proceedings (including one brother who is currently in residential placement). This case history focuses on Alice as an individual, with emphasis on the period in which she received services as a PINS.

For present purposes, a psychosocial evaluation prepared by the Sullivan County Department of Community Services, dated August 1, 1991, was consulted.

At present, Alice is 24 years old and lives in a neighboring county, where she has been employed intermittently as an exotic dancer, about 90 minutes from her mother=s home. Alice was born in 1975, making her 14 when a PINS petition was filed against her in 1990. At that time, her parents were married and living together, though they separated shortly thereafter, and her father has since died of chronic alcoholism. Her youngest brother has also died. As a child, records indicated that Alice was sexually abused; and then again in 1990 (prior to the filing of the PINS petition) by her half-brother. By the time she was 15, she had disclosed this abuse to her mother, her caseworker, and at least two counselors. Poorly defined interpersonal boundaries in Alice=s family system has been a longstanding problem and may remain such even up to the present time.

Alice explained that her truancy began at Delaware Valley Central School District, when she was in 8^th grade. She was vague about her reasons for skipping school. AIt wasn=t that I was bad. I just didn=t go to school,@ she recalled. Her mother agreed, adding, AShe didn=t get into real trouble until she was placed. Once she was in foster care she got into all kinds of trouble.@

Alice=s current explanation for the truancy, as well as her subsequent troubles in foster care, was that she Ajust wanted to have fun@. She did not take school seriously, and seems to have determined that no one would change this. As a student at Delaware Valley Central School, Alice began cutting classes and then started missing whole days. After a period of time, school officials began to discuss the possibility of filing a PINS petition due to excessive truancy. Hoping to prevent them from doing this, with her parents= approval, Alice moved to the home of her brother, in a neighboring town, and transferred to Monticello Central School District. Her records from DVCS followed her, and after Aa couple of months@ Monticello Middle School filed a PINS petition when an improvement in her attendance was not seen. She was in the eighth grade.

A 1991 screening evaluation states, AShe was raised and disciplined by her parents until August, 1990, when she was put into foster care due to a PINS petition because she refused to go to school (she would not elaborate on this issue. She describes the relationship with her parents as more of a friend-type relationship, than parent-daughter.@

At the time of her September 1991 screening, Alice had been in foster care with a family in Fallsburg since August 1990, in the care and custody of the Sullivan County Department of Social Services. The evaluation notes that, in addition to being in foster care, she was also currently on probation as a PINS. Though this is probably an error. It is most likely that she was discharged from probation upon being placed in foster care.

Alice recalled being treatment as an outpatient at Sullivan County Alcohol and Drug Abuse Services, but said she did not take the experience seriously. AI didn=t get anything out of it, honestly,@ she said. AI remember that skinny dude with his pant leg up. He used to ask, >So how do you feel today?= and I=d say, >Aaaagrrh!=@ Alice also recalled having been admitted as an inpatient to two different facilities for treatment of alcohol and drug abuse; the first time, after getting drunk at her foster home. According to the screening evaluation, shortly after Alice was discharged from ReDirections of Kenoza Lake, New York in March 1991, she again got drunk and cut her face on purpose with a razor blade to get her parents= attention. She was subsequently admitted to a rehab near the Canadian border. The present state of Alice=s sobriety is not known. It appears that she still has difficulty expressing painful emotions when talking about unpleasant events.

Her affect in the interview at times seemed inappropriate to the content. Alice beamed with pleasure as she recalled her foster care caseworker at her wits= end over her misbehavior. She Awanted to get rid of me in any way possible. She would come out of that court room with steam blowing out of her ears. She used to tell me, >I can=t take you any more.=@ Alice mentioned that after her case, the caseworker changed jobs, which seemed to suggest that she believed she had worn the worker out. (In reality, the caseworker accepted a promotion within the Children and Family Services unit.)

Alice was unable to recall precisely how many foster homes she passed through. She remembered the first foster parents (from whom she ran away) as Agood, loving people... The rest of them, you know, were just there.@

Some of the foster homes she experienced were clearly abusive. Alice remembered one home with a woman whom she described as Aa dyke@, whom Alice said frequently patted her rear-end in a manner which made her feel uncomfortable. After running from that home, Alice said, she was placed briefly in secure facility in Westchester County for a few days. Upon release, she was placed with a family in which, it was later proven, children in care were sexually molested by the foster father. AThey were insane. You couldn=t go in the refrigerator. You couldn=t use the phone... He never touched me, but they were mean to me C very mean,@ she recalled. (This writer remembers reading news reports of this foster father=s conviction and sentencing.) According to Alice, after she complained to her worker from the Department of Employment and Training about being kept locked in her bedroom, a police investigation began. She said a police officer ordered her caseworker to immediately find another foster home for her (which Alice had been requesting for some time). Although she was critical of the DSS for not believing her sooner, Alice admits that she Acried wolf@ enough times that she can understand why her allegations of abuse in foster care were initially met with disbelief by her caseworker.

AOver all,@ Alice said, Adespite being in some bad foster homes, I don=t think it was a terribly horrible experience... Actually, I=m kind of glad I went to foster care. I made a lot of friends there.@ Her mother disagreed: AI don=t think it helped her. My opinion is that she got worse when she went into foster care.@

After being returned to her mother=s custody, in addition to occasional services at the outpatient counseling clinic, Alice was assigned a family advocate through a community-based agency. Alice=s memories of this advocate were mostly negative. According to Alice, the advocate was fired when it was learned that she was using Alice as an unpaid babysitter for her children while she attended college.

Ironically, despite numerous modalities of counseling and human services which were given to her while she was in the PINS system, Alice=s recollection of who was most helpful to her during those years is that it was a secretary whom she met at BOCES while working there as a file clerk on a summer employment program. This secretary apparently provided an informal relationship upon which Alice felt she was able to reply. AShe was just, like, my friend. She used to call me every day. She took me to her house to do ceramics,@ Alice recalled, noting that the woman hurt her back and left work on disability. This comment was accompanied by appropriate affect; Alice appeared sad as she said she has lost contact with the woman over the last couple of years.

At present, Alice lives independently and maintains friendly relations with her mother. She stated she was married five or six months to a man (not the father of her son) who physically and sexually abused her and her younger sister; and they have now been separated for 18 months. Alice dropped out of school at 16, in the 10^th grade, because she was pregnant. (She did not keep this child.) Despite not yet having completed her GED, Alice verbalized a goal of attending a local community college in January 2000 to study computer programming and learning to write web pages. This plan seemed unrealistic at the present stage, since Alice lacks the prerequisite schooling to get into college.

This writer=s impression was that Alice is still maturing, and seems to cut off painful emotions from conscious awareness or expression. Her memories of being in foster care lacked much self-insight, though the unsolicited admission that she Acried wolf@ a lot of times, explaining why her caseworker did not believe her allegations of abuse, showed a degree of introspection and empathy. Whether the interventions which were offered to her as a PINS, including placement in foster care, were substantially helpful to her or not remains an open, and perhaps unanswerable, question.

As a consumer of services, Alice=s specific suggestions on how to improve the local child welfare system included the following:

n Alice said she believes greater effort could and should have been made to prevent her initial out-of-home placement. AI think if they had me stay home, and put me in counseling, and tried to help me work things out at home, I could have,@ she suggested. (It was noted that her entry to foster care took place just before the initiation of a historic effort in Sullivan County to substantially reduce the number of out-of-home placements [Howard, 1992].)

n Alice gave it as her opinion that childcare workers and foster parents should receive more intensive background investigations before being permitted to work with children. AI think that they should check people more that they hire,@ she said.

n Once children are placed, Alice said she believes the Department of Family Services Ashould make better matches between kids and foster parents instead of placing them anyplace that will take them.@

Case Discussion

It can not be stressed too strongly that while aspects of Alice=s expereince may be typical of adolescence, her experiences with abusive foster parents and childcare providers are far from from typical. Nevertheless, risk of abuse occurs everywhere, including in foster care. Alice=s case was selected for inclusion here because her family was known, and she was willing to sign written consents. Alice=s story is representative only of one young girl=s experience, from her own point of view, as a PINS.

The purpose of including a case history here was not to analyze the client=s individual or family dynamics (though some of this must occur to gain a picture of the case situation), but to add the dimension of a real person=s experience to the statistics, program descriptions, and discussion of procedures. There is also no intent here to armchair-quarterback what could have been differently in Alice=s services case while she was in the PINS system. The final results for Alice may well have been no different had she not been placed, or had a PINS petition never been filed on her behalf. Without a functional crystal ball or time-machine, there is no way to know.

This points to a difficulty in program evaluation in human services. Outcome measurement in a community-wide set of programs as broad as the PINS system is complex. With multiple agencies and programs, some under the executive and judicial branches of local government; some factors and components in schools; and some in community or religious organizations, sorting out which factors are helpful in enhancing a child=s healthy and safe development is difficult. However, more systematic data collection than presently exists would dramatically empower agencies to improve program. Improvements in data-tracking programs in Sullivan County are now underway.

            Alice=s observations and suggestions for improvement of the system may be taken at face value, with no suggestion that any of her workers or providers were anything less than conscientious and caring. As a veteran consumer, Alice is believed to have earned the right to be critical of a delivery system which all can agree is imperfect.

One conclusion which can be drawn from Alice=s story is that formal systems and programs may not be nearly as important to an individual child as the presence of a special person or relationship. It may be practically anyone. In Alice=s case, this person was a secretary whom she met while enrolled in a summer youth program at BOCES. Such a person to take her under her wing might have been found anywhere in her travels, but this secretary happened along for Alice at the just right time. Another noteworthy person for Alice seems to have been the employment specialist who believed her reports of being maltreated in the foster home and brought in the local police, leading to the foster father=s arrest and conviction for sexual abuse of other children in the home.

This writer believes that every one of the service providers whom Alice encountered in her travel through the PINS system had the potential of offering such a special connection to Alice, and they undoubtedly have done so with other clients C regardless of whether the right chemistry occurred between them and Alice.

Caring and supportive adults at all levels of society who make themselves available to disadvantaged youth may be found in schools, agencies, and in fact  all through every community. They may be teachers, secretaries, probation or police officers, counselors, athletic coaches, administrators, relatives, friends, or neighbors. It seems to be inherent in the human condition that these informal Aadvocates@ are bound to be the ones who make the greatest difference and provide the clearest sense of hope for personal betterment and self-sufficiency in individual lives. 

 

 

References

 

Berkshire Farm Center & Services for Youth (1999), Letter of Mary K. Stodden, Contract Administrator, to Sullivan County Department of Community Services, April 30.

 

Besharov, Douglas J. (1998), AIntroductory Practice Commentaries@, in McKinney=s Consolodated Law of New York Annotated, Laws of 1962, Ch. 686, FAC, Art. 7.

 

Brown, Waln K. (1989), What Parents Should Know About Juvenile Delinquency And Juvenile Justice, William Gladden Foundation: Huntington, New York.

 

Coleman, Richard (1999), e-mail dated November 29 (quoted with permission).

 

Council On Children And Families (1987), PINS Adjustment Services Planning Sourcebook, State Interagency Workgroup: Albany, New York.

 

Emerson, Cathy (1999), letter to the author, December 1, accompanied by printout of database of 1998 PINS cases.

 

Goldstein, Joseph, Freud, Anna & Solnit, Albert J. (1973), Beyond The Best Interest of The Child, Macmillan Publishing Co.: New York.

 

Howard, Joan (1992), Human Services In Sullivan County, 1991-1992, Sullivan County

            Human Services Administration, Monticello, New York.

 

Jenkins, Randy (1999), ACommon characteristics of diverse state reunification programs@, The Prevention Report, National Resource Center for Family Centered Practice, University of Iowa: Iowa City, No. 2,  p. 28.

 

Join Together (1999), ALocal data: The basis for your community=s plan@, Join Together To Reduce Substance Abuse, Fall 1999, pp. 1 and 11 (newsletter) which cites the website of Franklin County Prevention Institute, at www.fcpi.org.

 

Kane, Anthony T. (1990), Speech to Youth-At-Risk Community Partnership Program, annual luncheon address, May 31, 1990, 9 pp.

 

Law Guardian Reporter (1993), APetition is dismissed in the interests of justice@, Appellate Divisions of the Supreme Court of the State of NY: Albany, IX, I, 26.

 

Martin, Barbara J. (1999), telephone conversation with the author, November 23.

 

McKenny, Barbara (1999), personal communication with the author, December 3.

 

Meddaugh, Mark M. (1999), letter to the author, November 8.

 

Minuchin, Salvador (1974), Families & Family Therapy, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts.

 

New York State Department of Social Services (1992), ARespite Care And Services For Families/Foster Families (DSS Regulation 435)

 

Parents= Awareness Support System (PASS, 1999), website at http://passgroup.com.

 

Rice, Jody (1999), AJudge sends mother to jail for daughter's school absence@, Reno Gazette-Journal, Reno, Nevada, November 23.

 

Rockland Children's Psychiatric Center (Undated), "The Sullivan County IDT Program",

            Liberty, New York.

 

Sobie, Merril (1987), The Creation of Juvenile Justice: A History of New York=s Children=s Laws, The New York Bar Foundation: Albany, New York.

 

 

Suffolk County Probation Department (1999), AFamily court investigations@ on website at www.co.suffolk.ny.us/probation/faminv.html.

 

Sullivan County Coordinated Family Services (1991), ATerms@, definitions compiled by and distributed among participating agencies, February 21.

 

Sullivan County Department of Community Services (1999), ATreatment Reaching Youth@, Liberty, New York (brochure).

 

Sullivan County Department of Community Services (1997), APolicy and Procedure: Children and Youth Crisis Respite Service@, revised December 23.

 

Sullivan County Designated Assessment Service (1990), APINS Diversion Program: An Interagency Assessment & Referral Service 'Working to Keep Families Intact'@, Monticello, New York (brochure).

 

Sullivan County Family Violence Response Team (1999), ADo You Suspect That A Child Has Been Abused? Physically? Sexually@, Liberty, New York (brochure).

 

Sullivan County Youth Bureau (1999), "CYS (PINS) Statistics for the Year 1998: Summaries", Division of Health and Family Services, Liberty, New York.

 

Unified Court System of the State of New York (1999), Persons In Need of Supervision Forms Index, on the Internet at  www.courts.state.ny.us/famctforms/pinsindx.htm

 

 

 

Ulster-Sullivan Mediation (Undated), AUlster Sullivan Mediation: Dedicated to improving problem solving abilities of all individuals so that your differences may be appreciated instead of being a source of strife@, Monticello, New York (brochure). 

 

Woodin, David E. (1995), Law In Focus, ANeedles and PINS@,  column on website at members.aol.com/dewoodin/lif/951202.htm.

 

 

END NOTES

This paper was written in partial fulfillment of requirements of a graduate class at Rider University of Lawrenceville, New Jersey. The author is employed by the Sullivan County Division of Health and Family Services, but in creating this report was not in any sense acting as a spokesperson for the agency.

All of the information contained in this document is publicly available.

Grateful appreciation is expressed to professional colleagues at various human service agencies named herein for program descriptions, statistics, and comments given during review of drafts during this report=s preparation; to the Hon. Mark M. Meddaugh and staff of the Sullivan County Family Court, for the provision of statistical information; and to the anonymous former PINS youth who agreed to be the subject of a case study. Thanks also goes to Brian Golden, director of guidance at Fallsburg High School, for suggesting the topic and providing encouragement in a variety of ways.