NYCLU's David Moss supports Reso 274 and Intro 447, opposes Intro 629

Hi, Chair Stevens.

Thank you to you and to the committee for this opportunity to testify.

My name is David Moss, and I serve as policy counsel at the New York Civil Liberties Union.

We applaud the committee for holding this urgent hearing.

As you have emphasized, New York City's juvenile detention facilities, Crossroads and Horizon, are in crisis, with young people sleeping in classrooms and common areas as the two facilities flagrantly exceed their maximum capacity.

Subjecting young people to these conditions is unconscionable.

We urge the committee to approve Resolution 274 and Intro 447.

And while we appreciate the intent of Intro 629, we do have concerns about how it would be implemented, and we do not advise the committee to move forward with the bill as it's currently written.

With regard to Resolution 274, we note that New York City has outperformed the rest of the state in terms of raise-the-age implementation.

The city transfers more cases from criminal court to family court than the rest of the state combined, and it has outpaced the state in terms of reducing youth arrests.

The results are profound, with young people more likely to receive developmentally appropriate services that address the root causes of safety and well-being.

And despite these facts and the fact that New York City houses half of the state's youth justice system, it is nevertheless put at a disadvantage by state funding provisions that preclude it.

from reimbursements that other jurisdictions are eligible to collect.

In a worst case but realistic scenario, this could force the city to compromise vital raise the age funding in favor of other necessary expenses or vice versa.

By calling on the state legislature to eliminate this barrier, Resolution 274 is a step in the right direction.

We emphasize, though, that the council must also ensure that money received by the state for RTA-related expenses is invested in community-based programs that connect young people with support and care.

As for Intro 447, this bill reflects the plain truth that raise the age can only succeed if courts and attorneys are aware of the full scope of community-based options that are available to them.

When attorneys, judges, and other stakeholders operate under outdated or incorrect information about existing programs, it may lead them to overlook these options and needlessly order detention.

Intro 447 will ensure that courts and attorneys are better educated and better equipped to meet young people with care, not incarceration.

But distributing resources is, of course, not enough.

ACS and the City Council must also continuously engage judges and attorneys on community-based programming and connect them with providers so that they fully understand the landscape of services offered.

With regard to Intro 629, we do worry that it will have harmful unintended consequences and may otherwise be unworkable as written.

We do not agree that ACS is the appropriate agency to house the review teams proposed by the bill.

We are alarmed that while participation on review teams is mandatory for some stakeholders, ACS would only have to make reasonable efforts to include public defenders.

Contrary, these panels should not be allowed to function unless there is representation from advocates whose sole motivation is the interest of the young person.

Further, as written, the panel is meant to collect and review information that would presumably require the cooperation of the young person, which should only take place with the knowledge and advice of counsel.

And lastly, if I may, given the...

Range of psychosocial information that panels are supposed to consider, we believe that more guardrails should be established to ensure the utmost confidentiality.

The aim of this bill is, of course, worthwhile, but the potential for unintended harm is too significant.

Thank you.