Category: Criminal Justice Reform

Testimony: Diversion Programs in Kensington

Posted on by GJackson@philadefender.org

On February 26, 2025 Chief Defender Keisha Hudson & Managing Director of Trials Andrew Pappas testified before City Council about how Philly can do better for people struggling with addiction. While programs like the Accelerated Misdemeanor Program (AMP) and Forensic Intensive Recovery (FIR) are helping, too many end up in jail instead of getting the help they need. Read the full testimony below, or download a printable version here.

Watch the testimony video below:

Good morning, Chairwoman Lozada and Members of the Committee. I’m Keisha Hudson, Chief Defender for the Defender Association of Philadelphia. On behalf of the Defender Association, I want to thank you for inviting us to testify today on the effectiveness of diversion programs for individuals suffering from substance use disorder in the Kensington area.

 

In my 22 years as a public defender, I have represented countless individuals whose struggles with addiction led them into the criminal legal system—many of them had no opportunities for treatment extended to them until they were enmeshed in the criminal legal system. I have seen firsthand how our clients get into the system, what solutions work, and how we can sustain, expand, and strengthen the diversion programs that will help them break the cycle of addiction, succeed in recovery, and successfully reenter their communities. 

 

Accelerated Misdemeanor Program:

 

The Accelerated Misdemeanor Program (AMP) is a post-arrest diversionary program that is available for eligible arrestees with no or minimal criminal histories who are facing charges for non-violent misdemeanors. This program is a collaborative effort between our office, the Department of Behavioral Health and Intellectual Disabilities, Public Health Management Corporation, the Philadelphia Police Department and the District Attorney’s Office. In November 2024, stakeholders agreed to expand eligibility criteria, allowing for more individualized participant assessments. AMP Court runs weekly and recent investments from city council, led by Councilmember Squilla and supported by many members of this committee, have improved our capacity to provide direct legal services and connection to treatment providers.

 

In the last four months (October 2024 - January 2025), we observed 446 referrals to AMP and only one revocation from the program. This high rate of success is in part attributable to the treatment providers presence in the courtroom, real time updates on program availability, and the direct transportation to treatment services they provide. Our office is also physically present to provide warm hand-offs for our clients directly to the treatment providers. 

 

Forensic Intensive Recovery (FIR) Program:

 

The FIR program was established in 1991 in response to a federal consent decree related to overcrowding in Philadelphia jails. FIR referrals were implemented as a population reduction strategy by removing those in need of treatment. While an alternative to incarceration program, and not a true diversion initiative, this program is typically discussed within the context of diversionary programming in the city.

 

Essentially, individuals who are incarcerated are referred for evaluation by a FIR evaluator to see if they qualify  for release in favor of placement at a substance abuse or mental health treatment facility. The evaluators are contracted by the City of Philadelphia to conduct the evaluations, generate and distribute reports, and assist in matching the client with an appropriate level of care. Our office processes all FIR referrals for our clients as well as those referred by private and court appointed attorneys.

 

As a result of our attorneys direct experience representing clients, we decided to take a closer look at the wait times people referred to the FIR program experience. We looked at referrals made from April to June 2024.  During that time period 654 FIRs were filed for 615 unique individuals. For 37 individuals, more than 1 FIR was filed on their behalf during an identical incarceration event so we only counted one FIR. For 2 individuals, more than 1 FIR was filed but during different incarceration periods, so we counted them as two unique referrals. So our final referral count was 617 FIRs for 615 individuals. 

 

Our review revealed that on average, it takes over two months for incarcerated people referred to FIR to be released from the jail. On average it takes 35 days from referral for the incarcerated person to be evaluated and then another 12 days for the report to be generated and circulated to justice system stakeholders. In 18% of referrals (113 individuals), the clients were released from the jail prior to their evaluation and were never evaluated by FIR. This is a missed opportunity to intervene. While we don’t usually discuss re-arrest, 45 of the clients (39%) released prior to their evaluation were subsequently re-arrested and re-admitted to the jail within 6 months. 

 

This process is simply not a sustainable solution to the substance use crisis we are facing in the city right now. Here at Defender, our social services staff are able to connect clients with evaluations and appropriate placement more effectively and efficiently than this process. But with limited social service advocates, serving all of our clients’ social services needs, we do not have the capacity to provide direct case management and coordination services to meet this need.

 

An additional investment in our office to expand our social services capacity to better serve all of our clients with substance use and behavioral health needs, especially those residing in or arrested in Kensington would go a long way to reducing the jail population, reducing recidivism, and offering the types of interventions people need when they are in the best position to voluntarily accept help and participate in treatment.

 

The Neighborhood Wellness Court (NWC) represents an important acknowledgment that substance use disorder is a public health crisis, not a criminal justice issue. But it ignores some of the more complicated realities of addiction and recovery. In theory, NWC offers participants an opportunity to engage in treatment and social services instead of incarceration. While this approach has the potential to help some individuals stabilize their lives, the approach relies on the threat of prosecution for a summary offense, without more, to incentivize participation.

 

Our experience as defense attorneys working with this particular population tells us that, as currently constructed, its impact will likely be limited by several key challenges:

 

  • Capacity Constraints – Wellness Court serves too few people. Last year alone, the Defender Association handled more than 1,500 new adult cases linked to arrests near Kensington & Allegheny, yet only a small fraction of those individuals would be able to access this program.

 

  • Uneven Access to Immediate Treatment Services – While most defendants can be connected to services, individuals who are not eligible (due to out of county warrants, violations of probation, wanted cards, etc) are unable to access same day services because they are sent to State Road. This not only impedes the person’s direct access to treatment but also increases the prison population.

    This isn’t just an increase in the number of people—it’s an increase to the prison’s burden of caring for people with complex medical needs, at a time when severe staffing shortages at the jails make it difficult to meet basic care standards. If diversion is to work, it must be swift and seamless—every day in jail increases the risk of relapse, overdose, and further destabilization. It also strains our city’s resources as our jail is already embroiled in federal litigation over conditions of confinement.

 

  • Lack of Holistic Support from Trusted Resources – To its credit, the NWC has leveraged the relationships established through the Police Assisted Diversion program and partnered with a number of well respected treatment providers who offer a spectrum of services in the city.

    The challenge is that these providers focus solely on substance abuse treatment, neglecting clients’ legal issues, housing needs, and underlying disabilities. Substance use and mental health treatment needs are only part of the myriad challenges faced by many of our clients. The ramifications of their legal, family, or housing situations can be overwhelming, and often cause them to miss treatment or court scheduled court dates.

    Investing in our office to provide social services, case management and legal representation could increase engagement in treatment, reduce non-appearance at subsequent court events, and prevent subsequent engagement with the criminal legal system. Peer Navigators from our office could also be used to help increase voluntary attendance for treatment and other services.

 

  • Limitations On Eligibility for Transitional Housing  – The Riverside Wellness Village is exemplary in its recognition that recovery cannot happen without stable housing. It addresses the very real issue that many participants leave treatment with nowhere to go, making their path forward far more difficult. However, in recent weeks, we’ve seen that limiting these beds to people leaving inpatient facilities prevents those whose main issue is housing—not substance use—from accessing them until a permanent solution is found.

    The beds are available, but homeless individuals processed through Wellness Court for trespassing are not permitted to stay there and are instead directed to apply for housing through DBHIDS, a process which can take 3 to 4 weeks for placement.

 

  • Legal Barriers – While wellness court provides an alternative to incarceration, it still requires individuals to enter the court system first. We need to rethink diversion as a truly pre-arrest intervention. This avoids the trauma of arrest for the clients but also reduces the administrative burden on officers who are actively present and patrolling the Kensington neighborhood. This puts patrol officers in a challenging role as both social worker and police officer.  By contrast, teams of social workers, peer navigators, and those conducting outreach outside the criminal justice system, could accomplish the same goal pre-arrest by making same-day, immediate, voluntary and direct connections to people at risk for arrest.

 

Beyond Wellness Court: A Smarter Strategy 

 

With over two decades of experience defending people in this system, I can say with certainty: we cannot arrest or prosecute our way out of this crisis. We need an approach that prioritizes treatment first, not court first.

 

Instead of relying solely on post-arrest diversion, we should be investing in:

 

  • A Kensington Pretrial Diversion Hub – A dedicated resource center in Kensington where individuals can access treatment, housing, and behavioral health support before they face criminal charges. The facility that the city established at 265 E. Lehigh Avenue can easily serve this purpose. If councilmembers have not yet toured the facility, I’d encourage you to do so. But a physical building alone is only one component necessary for this effort to succeed. If we do not incorporate basic tenets of public health, prevention, protection, and promotion of health and wellness, into substance use disorder treatment, we will not achieve the long term goal of eradicating addiction and addressing quality of life for all Philadelphians, especially residents of Kensington.

 

  • Sustained Early Bail Review Services – With the support of the MacArthur Safety and Justice initiative, our office redesigned our interview process and dedicated experienced attorneys to staff early bail review hearings. These hearings prevent unnecessary incarceration and ensure people who may need additional support–like substance abuse treatment–have access to them immediately upon their release.Over the last five years, we’ve relied on our direct experience litigating these hearings to collaborate with the other stakeholders to establish reasonable program criteria and avoid the unnecessary pretrial detention of people who can be safely released. While all of the other justice system stakeholders have sustained funding from the MacArthur initiatives, Defender’s funding has not been sustained. Despite the city’s lack of commitment, we’ve expanded our decarceration efforts to include emergency bail hearings, reducing the prison population and decreasing reliance on FIR as an alternative to incarceration.

 

But we need to couple these early bail review hearings with meaningful opportunities for diversionary programming. We could accomplish this by expanding eligibility for

 

  • Housing as the Foundation – Without housing, every diversion effort will fail. We need to expand transitional and permanent supportive housing tied to diversion programs so that it is not limited to only those people with the most significant treatment needs. Furthermore, we need to prioritize all justice system-involved people for housing assistance. Instead of serving as an additional barrier to housing, an arrest, particularly for something like trespass, could and should signal that this person is most in need of housing support.

 

  • Community-Led Solutions – The most effective interventions are those that do not require court involvement at all. We need more investment in harm reduction, peer-led outreach, and direct connections to treatment services.


Conclusion

Our office’s experience in representing clients from marginalized and vulnerable populations have shown us firsthand the consequences of policies that rely on punishment rather than support. I myself have represented people whose struggles with addiction were met with incarceration instead of intervention. And I have seen how diversion—when done right—can change lives.

 

The Defender Association is committed to working with City Council, the courts, and community partners to implement meaningful solutions. But we must recognize that real diversion happens outside of the courtroom. If we want to reduce crime, save lives, and strengthen our communities, we must move away from criminalization and toward treatment, housing, and real public health responses. This includes prevention initiatives that address root causes of substance use, including mental health issues and exposure to trauma. It includes investing in protections for vulnerable people and creating meaningful emergency response plans for those whose involvement in the criminal legal system is tied to substance use disorder. It also promotes health and wellness by removing barriers linked to poverty, racism, and gender discrimination.

 

Thank you again for including the perspective of Defender Association in this critical conversation. My team and I welcome any questions you may have today or in the near future.

Defender Statement on Juvenile Detention Special Report

Posted on by GJackson@philadefender.org

PHILADELPHIA—”Today’s Philadelphia Inquirer special report highlighting the alarming rates of juvenile detention and placement and the abusive conditions faced by young people in the justice system brings much-needed attention to a heartbreaking reality. We’re grateful to the Inquirer for shining a light on this issue and for sharing perspectives that show the real impact of these systemic failures. 

 

“We are also grateful for the exceptional advocacy of our leadership team and public defender, Brendan Lokka and to our client, Abdul Anderson. Our youth often express how terrified they are to speak up on their experiences in detention and placement. Adbul’s bravery in coming forward and speaking to his experience shines a bright light on what so many of our youth go through as they navigate an already traumatic and detrimental juvenile justice system.
 

“For too long, our youth justice system has fallen short in providing the care, safety, support, education, and rehabilitation that children need. The conditions described in the story aren’t isolated—they’re part of a larger problem rooted in outdated policies that focus on punishment instead of prevention, alternatives to detention and placement, and rehabilitation. The Defender Association has been calling for action and offering solutions, but meaningful change will require bold contributions from every leader and organization that plays a role in our system.  

 

“We’re committed to working together to build a youth justice system that prioritizes protecting and uplifting young people rather than causing further harm. We invite city and state leaders, community groups, and advocates to join us in making the changes our youth desperately need. 

 

“This is a moment to reflect on how we can shift resources from detention to supporting youth and families at home and in the community. If detention or placement is the only option, we must  invest in the trauma-informed rehabilitation and robust education and reentry support they deserve so that they can thrive.” 

 

# # #
 

Keisha Hudson on Passage of Prison Oversight Bill

Posted on by GJackson@philadefender.org

PHILADELPHIA—“The Defender Association of Philadelphia applauds City Council–in particular, bill sponsors Isaiah Thomas and Nicolas O’Rourke–for the unanimous passage of prison oversight legislation. This bill represents a crucial step toward accountability and transparency in Philadelphia’s jails. 

 

“Managing over 4,000 individuals in secure facilities is a monumental task that requires effective oversight and community partnership. This legislation is an important first step toward building trust and ensuring the City’s correctional system is accountable for the safety of prison employees and incarcerated people.

 

“The passage of this bill is a pivotal moment for reform, but to be effective, every system stakeholder must collaborate on the implementation of this legislation and other solutions to the systemic challenges within our jails. The Defender Association remains committed to collaborating with justice system partners to create meaningful and lasting change.”

 

 

# # #

Defender Testimony: Prison Oversight

Posted on by GJackson@philadefender.org

On October 29, Director of Prison Advocacy Tom Innes testified on behalf of the Defender Association in support of Ordinance #240817 and Resolution #240834. These proposals aim to amend the city charter to establish an Office of Prison Oversight and a companion Prison Oversight Board.

 

Read the full testimony below, or click here to download a printable version.

Watch Video of Tom Innes's Testimony:

Full Testimony (as submitted for the record)

 

Good afternoon. My name is Thomas Innes, and I serve as the Director of Prison Advocacy at the Defender Association of Philadelphia. On behalf of the Defender Association, I would like to thank Majority Leader Gilmore Richardson, bill sponsors Majority Whip Thomas, Minority Whip O’Rourke, and all members of City Council, for inviting the Defender Association to share our testimony in support of Ordinance #240817 and Resolution #240834. These proposals aim to amend the city charter to establish an Office of Prison Oversight and a companion Prison Oversight Board.

 

This charter change, which creates an independent Prison Oversight Board and Office of Prison Oversight, is about our past, our present, and the future we hope to create. Before discussing the current situation or the future this legislation envisions, I want to share some historical context—one I am uniquely positioned to provide.

 

In addition to my role as Director of Prison Advocacy, I hold the unofficial title of the Defender Association’s longest-serving attorney. I joined in 1978 as a trial attorney and have been with the organization ever since. In 2000, I formed the Prison Services Unit in response to the conditions my clients were facing in jail. Since then, I’ve been the primary point of contact for our attorneys, clients, and their families as they navigate the county jail system.

 

Over the past 24 years, I’ve witnessed every change within the jail—from times when the population was close to 10,000 to moments when it dropped to 3,400. I’ve been there through the HIV/AIDS epidemic, COVID-19, changes in staffing levels, and the introduction of privatized medical care. With every shift, I’ve been on the ground, on State Road, solving problems both big and small.

 

The Problem: Persistent Opacity
One constant remains: the county jail is a persistently opaque institution. This lack of transparency fosters an environment where abuses can occur unchecked. It has also hindered meaningful dialogue between policymakers, corrections staff, and the community about how our city should treat incarcerated individuals.

 

The physical location of the jail is telling. It sits in a remote corner of the city, difficult to reach by public transit. Public access to the buildings is limited, and information is often tightly controlled. I’m one of the few non-incarcerated individuals who can speak directly to what goes on inside, having seen it firsthand for decades.

 

The Current Remedy: Litigation
In the absence of independent oversight, the only avenue for addressing conditions in the jail has been systemic litigation—a reactive measure, not a preventative one. I brought an exhibit [Fig. 1] today to show the long history of lawsuits against the city, each ending in a consent decree because there was no defense against the conditions people were forced to endure.

 

(Fig. 1) SYSTEMIC LAWSUITS AGAINST THE PHILADELPHIA JAILS AND CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
Commonwealth ex rel. Bryant v. Hendrick          1971 Consent Decrees*
Jackson v. Hendrick 1971-2003 Consent Decrees
Warrington v. City of Philadelphia 1998 Consent Decree
Harris v. City of Philadelphia 1982 - 2003 Consent Decrees
Bowers v. City of Philadelphia          2006 - 2008 Court Orders & Consent Decrees
Williams v. City of Philadelphia           2008 - 2016 Consent Decrees
Remick v. City of Philadelphia          2020 - 2024 Consent Decree
*Consent decrees are settlements reached because the conditions were indefensible.

 

Despite the federal oversight, problems persist. In fact, Philadelphia has been under federal consent decrees for 32 of the last 43 years—including the past three years. If litigation alone could have solved these issues, we would not be here today.

 

A History of Failed Attempts at Oversight
Past efforts at oversight have been largely ineffective. The Board of Trustees, formed years ago, was toothless and powerless, mainly serving to rubber-stamp budget requests from the prison administration. Meetings were mostly conducted in private, with limited public notice or participation. I was a non-voting member on this board and witnessed firsthand the lack of true oversight.

 

In 2014, the creation of the Philadelphia Department of Prisons as a separate city department brought another attempt at oversight—a Prison Advisory Board. Unfortunately, it was no different. It lacked authority and continued to operate with minimal transparency. Meetings were often inaccessible and limited to those within the administration. Despite–or maybe because of–my extensive knowledge and experience, I was excluded from serving as a Defender representative on that board, and what little oversight existed quickly dissipated.

 

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the situation worsened as the jails moved from mere opacity to almost complete secrecy. The public and even advocates kept out of the loop. In 2023, the Prison Advisory Board dissolved after growing frustration over its ineffectiveness.

 

Present-Day Challenges
Today, the situation remains dire. The ongoing federal lawsuit, Remick v. Philadelphia, is still unresolved, with the city under a $25 million contempt order for failing to meet agreed-upon conditions.

 

[Philadelphia Department of Prisons] Commissioner Michael Resnick, whom I have known for 20 years, is a good man and an extremely capable leader trying admirably to make changes. However, no single person, no matter how competent, can replace the need for a structured, independent oversight body.

 

The urgent need for independent oversight is underscored by recent events:

 

Over the past 20 months, more than 20 people have died in Philadelphia’s county jail. These deaths are reviewed internally, and families must hire attorneys to access information. Even then, they often face restrictions on sharing what they’ve learned.

 

From May 2023 to May 2024, an average of 106 individuals per month were transported from the jail to emergency rooms—over three per day—with no public explanation.

 

In the same timeframe, 420 incidents of pepper spray use were reported, sometimes occurring multiple times per day, with no external review or justification.

 

Recent events—a stabbing of a corrections officer just last week and two deaths within the last two months—only add to the urgency for oversight. The community deserves transparency about what happens behind the prison walls.

 

Commissioner Resnick’s Proposed Alternatives
Commissioner Resnick has suggested alternatives to an independent board, including expanding roles for the Pennsylvania Prison Society and the Defender Association. Obviously, both organizations are excellent choices to take part in oversight. However, neither has the authority or resources required to enact and ensure permanent and meaningful reforms. The Prison Society, for instance, cannot speak to staff or demand records, and it oversees every jail in the state, not just Philadelphia’s. Similarly, the Defender Association lacks the power to require documentation and relies on requests that the jail can simply refuse.

 

Conclusion
True oversight requires a constant presence inside the jail, with full access to records and the ability to engage directly with staff. The proposed charter change would create an entity capable of this, with the authority and resources to bring genuine accountability.

 

We must never forget that incarcerated people are, in fact, people. Almost all are citizens of Philadelphia who will be returning to communities, families and loved ones. We can’t simply lock them away and forget about them. As citizens we must do all we can to preserve their health and safety, along with the prison employees who are placed in jeopardy every day due to lack of staffing and resources.

 

The jails are a public institution, and the public needs and deserves a clearer view of what happens behind their walls. This charter change would shine a bright and steady light where darkness has reigned for far too long.

 

Thank you for your anticipated support of this initiative.

 

Click here to download a printable version

Policy Statement: Prison Population Reduction Post-Remick

Posted on by GJackson@philadefender.org

Introduction

District Court Judge Gerald A. McHugh’s ruling holding Philadelphia’s prisons in contempt for for the City’s inability to provide a safe, secure, and civilized environment for our incarcerated citizens is completely justified. However, it’s a grim reminder that the Philadelphia Department of Prison’s (PDP), currently understaffed by 800 Correctional Officers, cannot ensure the safety of our citizens awaiting trial or serving sentences.

 

PDP is required to receive and hold people who have been remanded to their custody by the courts, whether they’re awaiting trial, being held on detainers for minor infractions, or serving a sentence. It is incredibly naive to think that the PDP will hire 800 corrections officers any time soon. Therefore, it is crucial that other system stakeholders, including the First Judicial District (FJD), the Department of Probation, and the District Attorney’s Office (DAO) work with us to address this humanitarian crisis.

Defender Association's Policy Recommendations

As stakeholders, we must commit to reducing the jail population. We recommend strategies to decrease reliance on county incarceration for public safety, starting with reducing or eliminating ‘short-term’ admissions to county jail. These brief stays do not improve public safety and may even decrease it by destabilizing individuals and their families. 

 

By addressing the following policies, we can reduce these admissions and decrease the jail population and strain on prisons without compromising public safety [click the + to view each recommendation]: 

 

This practice subverts due process by using an unattainably high bail amount as a proxy for holding without bail. Overusing the $1 million bail recommendation diminishes its meaning, forcing bail commissioners to make detention or release decisions without a meaningful DAO recommendation. Unable to rely on this signal, commissioners set higher bail amounts, delaying the actual decision and leading to detention until a judge reviews the bail. Many people at PDP are held initially because they cannot pay bail, often released within 14 days when bail is lowered or funds are raised. This process causes unnecessary detention, discrimination against the poor, family and community destabilization, and an overburdened prison system.

The City presented evidence that in May 2024, 49 people were admitted to jail and released the same day another 114 were released within 24 hours; 138 within two to four days; and 234 within five to fourteen days. These numbers demonstrate that these individuals are making bail quickly, resulting in unnecessary strain on the jail's limited staff and clogging the  jail admission system. The first five days in jail are the most expensive ones for the jail’s medical and other systems and research demonstrates that even periods of detention of 3 days are correlated with increased short and long term rates of re-arrest.

There are currently over 100 people sitting in jail because of a technical violation. 

Empowering bail commissioners to impose non-financial conditions of release, such as house arrest or GPS monitoring, at preliminary arraignment can prevent unnecessary detention. Although use of these tools raise other concerns, earlier access can streamline reviews and reduce detention. Currently, such conditions cannot be set until a judge reviews the initial bail. Providing these alternatives before jailing the arrestee will decrease the jail population and reduce the use of prison resources.

Many of those incarcerated people  65 or older pose no threat to public safety. They can–and should–be released safely. 

Incarcerating drug-addicted people poses significant risks to their health and safety. Providing access to these programs is crucial to reducing their incarceration. The lack of proper treatment, access to medications, and support for withdrawal symptoms and other medical issues related to substance use can lead to severe complications and death. Investment in comprehensive, community-oriented programs will ultimately reduce the cycle of addiction and incarceration.

 

Download a printable version of the policy here

 

A Shift in Mindset

Overlooking the Philly jails, an electronic billboard on I-95 advertising Eastern State Penitentiary flashes the message: “Old Prison/New Ideas.” We need to embody the spirit of this slogan if we’re going to make these and other needed changes. We also need to understand that these changes will  require a significant investment of time and resources beyond what city funds and the PDP alone can accomplish. Meaningful and lasting reform also requires a shift in mindset by other system stakeholders. We can’t continue to behave as if this is solely PDP’s crisis to solve. We need cooperation from every judicial system stakeholder to ensure we’re protecting public safety while keeping many of our citizens from ever hitting the admissions door of the jail. 

 

We need to recognize the humanity of incarcerated people, and stop treating incarcerated people like “units” to be locked away indefinitely. These are men and women with families and communities that they will eventually return to. We should ask ourselves, how will what they experience behind prison walls impact the kind of citizens they are when they go home? We must also remember that the horrible conditions in the jails don’t just impact the incarcerated. Every day that conditions don’t improve is another day of needless health and safety risks for prison employees, most of whom are Black and Brown Philadelphians. 

 

As we did during the COVID-19 emergency, the Defender Association is again ready to collaborate with our fellow stakeholders to come up with bold and creative solutions that protect the rights and lives of those in our city's custody.

 

Download a printable version of the policy here

Join Our Youth Action Board!

Posted on by GJackson@philadefender.org

Are you 18-23, currently system involved, or have you transitioned out of the system? Do you have something to say? Apply to join our Youth Action Board!

 

The Youth Action Board (YAB), is a youth-led collective that aims to amplify the voices of older youth (ages 18-23) who have experienced the foster system. Together, our mission is to evoke change and bring awareness to the issues older youth face as they transition out of the system.

 

The YAB advocates for:

 

-Raising awareness for youth and connecting them with important services;

-Dismantling systemic injustice and improving legal representation;

-Encouraging services that are culturally aware, trauma informed, and courteous;

-Conflict resolution and effective communication; and

-Promoting leadership, story telling, and uplifting

 

The YAB will campaign, organize, and advise on issues strictly impacting Older Youth in child-serving systems. This group will guide how to better serve and represent youth in ways that respect their agency.

 

This is an opportunity for you to be heard and to be at the forefront of making a difference! Apply to be a part of the Youth Action Board!

 

Fill out the Youth Action Board application here

 

Download and share the Youth Action Board Flyer

 

 

2024 Father’s Day Bailout

Posted on by GJackson@philadefender.org

This Father's Day, the Defender is working with Frontline Dads to bring home as many Father's as possible!

 

If your loved one's bail is under $50,000 and they have NO other detainers, they may qualify to be freed through the Father's Day Bailout program!

 

To apply for the Father's Day Bailout, please fill out the form below:

 

Keisha Hudson on Court’s Dismissal of Irizarry Shooting Case

Posted on by GJackson@philadefender.org

PHILADELPHIA—“Our (mostly Black and Brown) clients never get to present or argue a justification defense at a preliminary hearing. And they certainly do not get their cases dismissed based on a judge’s determination that there was a justification defense.

 

“Instead, our clients—all of whom are poor and almost exclusively Black and Brown people—have their cases held for trial, and they sit in jail for months awaiting their day in court. Going forward, certainly before this forum, Defender Association attorneys will be making the same arguments and demanding the same results.”

 

# # #

 

Follow us: @PhillyDefenders