1. NASW Presentation
Understanding KIDS
FOR CASH Scandal

2. How did this happen?
 Jan. 26: The U.S.
attorney for the
middle district of
Pennsylvania
charges Ciavarella
and Conahan with
fraud and
conspiracy.

3. Past History
 From 1981 until 1997, Judge Chester
Muroski handled the county’s delinquency
and dependency cases.
 Local youth workers recall him as fair.
 His philosophy when it came to first-time
offenders, he says, was that confinement
should be used only in matters of serious
violence.

4. The Years Before..
 Under Judge Muroski, a relatively small
number of youths had been detained at the
Luzerne County Juvenile Detention Center. A
directory of detention centers published by
the American Correctional Association
reported that three juveniles were at the
detention center on June 30, 1991.
 Muroski sent 65 youth to out-of-home
placements in 1995 and 60 in 1996.

5. Understanding How it all Started..
 Looking over the data, and from interviews
once Ciavarella took over Juvenile court
many youth workers immediately noticed
changes.
 “We started to see the number of kids going
to Camp Adams skyrocket,” recalled Ron
Evans, who was working with the local Big
Brothers Big Sisters at the time, referring to a
military-style camp for juveniles.”- Ron Evans

6. Interviews
 From interviews with attorneys interviewed
during the year 2004 candidly admitted that
their presence often made little difference
given Ciavarella’s staunch philosophical
views on juvenile justice.
 Zero Tolerance was in full effect following the
2005 year in the Juvenile Court System that
would be enforced by Ciavarella.

7. First Appointed
 In1995 Mark Civerella was voted into a
Judge Position and placed in charge of the
Juvenile System.

8. Understanding Zero Tolerance
 Zero tolerance imposes automatic punishment for
infractions of a stated rule, with the intention of
eliminating undesirable conduct.
 Zero-tolerance policies forbid persons in positions of
authority from exercising discretion or changing
punishments to fit the circumstances subjectively;
they are required to impose a pre-determined
punishment regardless of individual culpability,
extenuating circumstances, or history. This pre-
determined punishment need not be severe, but it is
always meted out.

9. Understanding Zero Tolerance
 Zero-tolerance policies are studied in
criminology and are common in formal and
informal policing systems around the world.
The policies also appear in informal
situations where there may be
sexual harassment or Internet misuse in
educational and workplace environments.

10. Zero Tolerance cont.
 Littleevidence supports the claimed
effectiveness of zero-tolerance policies. One
underlying problem is that there are a great
many reasons why people hesitate to
intervene, or to report behavior they find to
be unacceptable or unlawful. Zero-tolerance
policies address, at best, only a few of these
reasons.

11. Zero Tolerance Cont.
 For instance, Ciavarella had a zero tolerance policy
for crimes committed while in school. With rare
exception those children would be sent away to an
out-of-home placement, period.
 “Basically, if something happens in school, no matter
how minor it is, it’s going to result in the child going
away,” Virginia Murtha-Cowley, a former public
defender for Luzerne County, said in a 2004
interview.

12. Time Line: 1999- 2001
 1999 | Ciavarella sends 192 youths to out-of-home
placements. In his first three years, Ciavarella places
more youths (363) than Muroski did over his final six
years handling the juvenile docket.
 2001 | The Pennsylvania Superior Court overturns a
1999 decision in which Ciavarella committed a 13-
year-old who did not have an attorney present. "I'll
never do it again," Ciavarella tells a local newspaper,
about allowing a defendant to proceed without an
attorney.

13. Time Line: 2002
 2002 | County President Judge Michael Conahan signs
a placement guarantee agreement in January between
the court and PA Child Care, a new privately run
detention facility, worth $1.3 million a year.
 In December 2002, Conahan and Ciavarella
announced they would no longer send juveniles to the
center because of deplorable conditions, even though
the Department of Public Welfare deemed it safe.
 The county started leasing beds from a new, private
facility, PA Child Care. From 2002 to 2006, Luzerne
never averaged fewer than 19 youths per day at that
facility.

14. Time Line: 2003 – 2004
 2003|Conahan and Ciavarella get a total of $997,600
in kickbacks for their roles in the construction and
use of PA Child Care.
 2004|A high school student named Lisa is committed
to Female Adventure Challenge Therapy (FACT) for
writing a threatening note to another girl.
 The case prompts the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader to
do a series of articles on Ciavarella's court practices.
 2002-04 | Ciavarella commits 1,111 youths to out-of
home placements.

15. Time Line: 2005
 2005 | Western PA Child Care is built; the judges
receive another $1 million in concealed payments from
the developers.
 Pennsylvania mandates that juvenile judges engage
each juvenile facing adjudication in a standard
colloquy, intended to make sure youths are aware of
their right to counsel and the potential consequences
involved in their cases.
 Ciavarella later admits he never issued the colloquy.

16. 2006 - 2007
 2006 | The last in a string of payments dating back to
2003 is made to Conahan and Ciavarella. All told,
the U.S. attorney estimates that the judges received
$2.6 million in unlawful payments.
 2007 | Fifteen-year-old Hillary Transue is committed
in April to FACT for three months for creating a
MySpace page that mocked her school's assistant
principal. She does not have a lawyer and Ciavarella
does not advise her of her right to counsel. The
Juvenile Law Center (JLC) helps to get her released
early.

17. Time Line: 2007
 In 2007, a frantic call from an alarmed parent
prompted Juvenile Law Center to investigate
irregularities in Pennsylvania’s Luzerne County
juvenile court.
 As the investigation started,the investigation
uncovered hundreds of children routinely appeared
before Judge Mark Ciavarella without counsel, were
quickly adjudicated delinquent (found guilty) for
minor offenses and immediately transferred to out-
of-home placements.

18. Time Line: 2008
 April 29, 2008: The Juvenile Law Center, a public
advocacy group, asks the Supreme Court to
investigate the large number of juveniles appearing
without counsel before Luzerne County Judge Mark
A. Ciavarella.
 Ciavarella's incarceration rate for juveniles is more
than double the state average, the center reports.
 May 26, 2008: Ciavarella removes himself from
juvenile court duties and admits he repeatedly failed
to properly inform juveniles of their right to counsel.

19. Time Line: 2009
 Jan. 8, 2009: The state Supreme Court denies the
Juvenile Law Center's request for a review of
Ciavarella's cases.
 Jan. 26, 2009: Federal prosecutors announce
Ciavarella and former judge Michael T. Conahan will
plead guilty to accepting $2.8 million from individuals
tied to for-profit juvenile detention centers.
 The court subsequently removes them from judicial
duties.

20. Time Line: January to February 09
 Jan. 30, 2009: The Juvenile Law Center asks
the Supreme Court to reconsider a review of
Ciavarella's cases.
 Feb. 11, 2009: The Supreme Court names
Senior Berks County Judge Arthur E. Grim to
conduct a review.

21. Time Line: June to August 2009
 June 9, 2009: In consultation with the Supreme
Court, legislation is introduced in the General
Assembly to form the Inter branch Commission on
Juvenile Justice to investigate the kids-for-cash
scandal.
 Its 11 members will be appointed by the assembly,
the governor's office and the court.
 Aug. 24, 2009: The former judges withdraw their
guilty pleas after a federal judge rejects the 87-
month prison sentences called for in their plea
agreements. They are subsequently indicted by a
federal grand jury.

22. Time Line: 2009
 Jan. 8, 2009: The state Supreme Court denies the
Juvenile Law Center's request for a review of
Ciavarella's cases.
 Jan. 26, 2009: Federal prosecutors announce
Ciavarella and former judge Michael T. Conahan will
plead guilty to accepting $2.8 million from individuals
tied to for-profit juvenile detention centers. The court
subsequently removes them from judicial duties.

24. What became of this?
 Now we will look at what the scandal has
produced.
 What has changed
 How the system has been affected
 What is new in the Juvenile System of
Luzerne County Pa.