Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Witnesses urge crediting waiting time and reducing placements after testimony on detention delays
Loading...
Summary
At the hearing on House Bill 1936, public defenders and a young woman with lived experience described months and years spent waiting for placement and urged statutory fixes to credit waiting time and create release hearings; defenders cautioned against converting juvenile practice to adult determinate sentencing.
House Bill 1936, addressing how time spent awaiting placement is counted and creating procedural mechanisms for release, drew testimony from the Public Defender Association of Pennsylvania and a young person who said long waits cost her milestones and did not count toward rehabilitation.
Sarah Jacobson, executive director of the Public Defender Association of Pennsylvania, described a backlog caused by fewer placement options and contracting difficulties, notably in Philadelphia where many youth are now sent to state secure facilities. Jacobson said the bill would do two things: create hearings to ask judges to release youth awaiting placement, and provide credit toward placement durations for days spent waiting. She warned, however, that the bill’s language risks pushing juvenile practice toward an adult‑style determinate sentencing model and said the clearer policy solution is to send fewer youth to placement by expanding diversion and limiting unnecessary detention.
Lived experience: Christina Zogar, 22, recounted being charged at 16, spending months in county jail and roughly two years at a juvenile intake center while waiting for placement. Zogar said the waiting time did not count toward rehabilitative placement time, and she described prolonged cell confinement when staffing shortages limited programming. “You don’t have nothing to do. You can’t watch TV. You can’t get on the phone,” she said, describing isolation and missed school. Zogar said that, after placement, she completed programs and peer‑mentored others but that the lost years had a lasting effect.
Why it matters: witnesses and members noted the problem is concentrated in Philadelphia because determinate sentences with minimums and maximums are more common there; crediting waiting time would mainly affect those youth. Committee members asked for data on typical wait durations and for safeguards that avoid unintended shifts toward adult sentencing frameworks.
Outcome: The hearing provided information for committee members; no formal vote was taken on HB1936. Lawmakers requested further technical drafting and data on placement capacity, waitlists and county contracting.
