Back to Search for Boards and Commissions
Task Force to Examine and Study the Treatment and Impact of Individuals Ages 18 to 24 in the Court System and Correctional System
Board Information
Purpose
The task force shall evaluate the advisability, feasibility and impact of changing the age of juvenile court jurisdiction to defendants younger than 21 years of age. The study shall include, but not be limited to: (i) the benefits and disadvantages of including 18 to 20 year olds in the juvenile justice system; (ii) the impact of integrating 18 to 20 year olds into the under-18 population in the care and custody of the department of youth services; (iii) the ability to segregate young adults in the care and custody of the department of youth services from younger juveniles in such care; and (iv) the potential costs to the state court system and state and local law enforcement. The task force shall consider resources and facilities, if any, that could be reallocated from the adult system to the juvenile system and the advisability and feasibility of establishing a separate young adult court for persons aged 18 to 24. The task force shall also make recommendations for the establishment, implementation and provision to young adults, aged 18 to 24, who have been committed to the department of correction or a county correctional facility with increased and targeted age-appropriate programming and the establishment of young adult correctional units as authorized in section 48B of chapter 127 of the General Laws. The study shall include, but not be limited to: (i) identifying the need and resources necessary to provide appropriate training to corrections and court staff, community supervision staff and behavioral health providers; (ii) recommendations for programmatic development including, youth development and mentoring programs, mental health access, anger management and de-escalating conflicts, education opportunities and employment and vocational training; (iii) recommendations to improve access to family and increase family involvement; (iv) identifying opportunities to partner with or access appropriate programs or services within the department of youth services; (v) identifying any costs or savings from implementing such programs and identifying any grants or other opportunities to reduce such costs; (vi) reviewing policies and best practices from other jurisdictions and experts in the field; (vii) reviewing existing models and programs currently being provided; and (viii) identifying any costs related to the implementation of new protocols for correction’s and court staff, community supervision staff and behavioral health providers.Legal Authority
Board Members
↓↓ Sort members table by selecting table header for Member, Seat Name, Appointing Authority, or Term End Date.
| Member↓↓ | Seat Name | Appointing Authority | Term End Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dr. Maryann Davis Ph.D. | Expertise, Neurological Development of Young Adults | Governor | - |
| Ms. Kanchana N. Fernando Esquire | Expertise, Young Adult Justice | Governor | - |
| Representative David Vieira | House Member 2 (Minority Leader) | Legislature | - |
| - | Secretary, HHS | Ex Officio | - |
| - | Secretary, EOPSS | Ex Officio | - |
| - | Commissioner of Youth Services | Ex Officio | - |
| - | Commissioner, Dept. of Correction | Ex Officio | - |
| - | Commissioner of Probation | Ex Officio | - |
| - | Chief Justice, District Court | Ex Officio | - |
| - | Chief Justice, Boston Municipal Court | Ex Officio | - |
| - | Chief Justice, Juvenile Court Department | Ex Officio | - |
| - | Director of the Juvenile Court Clinic | Ex Officio | - |
| - | MA District Attorney’s Association | Ex Officio | - |
| - | House Member 1 | House of Representatives | - |
| - | Senate Member 1 | Senate President | - |
| - | Senate Member 2 (Minority Leader) | Legislature | - |
| - | AFSCME Council 93 | Ex Officio | - |
| - | ED, Citizens for Juvenile Justice | Ex Officio | - |
| - | MA Sheriff’s Association | Ex Officio | - |