SOUTH BEND, Ind. -- As students across Indiana begin the new school year, some communities are reevaluating the need for police officers in schools.

In recent decades, the percentage of schools across the nation with a police presence on campus increased from less than 1% to nearly 60%.

Indiana doesn't disclose the numbers of police officers in schools, but in the last few years, between 900 and 1,200 students were arrested on school property.

Darryl Heller, director of the South Bend Civil Rights Heritage Center and assistant professor of women's and gender studies at Indiana University-South Bend, pointed to data that show Black students are arrested at more than twice the rate of white students.

"We know that Black and brown students will get punished harsher and more frequently for exactly the same behaviors that white students do," Heller observed. "So, that disparity is a deep cause of concern."

He added the disparity often leads to criminalizing behaviors that are really just kids acting up. He urged the South Bend School District to remove its five School Resource Officers. In Heller's view, a new agreement between the district and police department is long overdue, and could be an opportunity to put resources to better use.

Heller argued community members who want officers in schools may think it improves student safety, but research shows otherwise. He would like to see the current funding for School Resource Officers go instead toward more nurses and counselors on campuses.

"We're willing to spend millions of dollars a year to pay police to be in our schools, when we could actually be using that money to pay for more social workers, or more restorative justice practitioners or others, who I think would make our environment in schools much safer than a mere police presence," Heller contended.

A bill in Congress, the Counseling Not Criminalization in Schools Act, would prohibit the use of federal funds for law enforcement officers in schools. Nationwide, more than 14 million students attend schools that have police officers on duty.

New Mexico's 30 day legislative session, held in even-numbered years, typically focuses on budget issues, but juvenile justice advocates are hopeful the governor will prioritize a bill that failed to pass last year.

The bill would have banned life-without-parole sentences for juveniles, and would make them automatically eligible for parole after 15 years.

American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico Staff Attorney Denali Wilson said she believes the legislation would balance the needs to protect public safety, respect the rights of victims and also address harsh sentencing.

"And, the need to treat children, who we know possess unique capacity to grow and change, to treat them differently than we treat adults who commit similar crimes," said Wilson.

According to Wilson, increased parole options for young people who commit crimes creates incentive for good behavior and participation in rehabilitation programs.

She said she hopes New Mexico will join the movement in 25 states that have already abolished juvenile life-without-parole sentences.

But some opponents of so-called "second chance" bills would like to see New Mexico remain an outlier in the movement.

Jennifer Bishop-Jenkins founded the National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Murderers after her family members were killed by a person under age 18, and is its president. Her group argued against the bill in last year's session.

"We're not 'fry 'em all, lock 'em up' type people," said Bishop-Jenkins. "That's not what's going on here. We want individual victims' families to be able to speak out to what they think is appropriate in their case. And we want the judicial system to determine fair penalties."

At the ACLU, Wilson said she has clients sentenced for crimes at age 16 and still in prison, nearly 40 years later.

She said that costs taxpayers a lot of money. She noted a recent case that took two years and involved two district attorneys, two defense attorneys and significant judicial resources.

"Everybody in the room agreed the sentence was unconstitutional and needed to be fixed," said Wilson. "And this kind of litigation will continue unless and until the legislature acts."

Wilson says 75 people fall under the provisions of the "second chance" bill in New Mexico.

As the court system works to catch up from pandemic disruptions, many courts continue to use remote technology or are testing new ways to incorporate it. But groups that advocate for criminal-justice reform and juvenile justice are voicing concerns. They say these steps raise questions about litigants' rights, their access to representation and other resources.

Especially with children, said Veronica Williams, who founded Mothers Against Wrongful Convictions, it's important for them to feel they have a support system, and in-person relationships can be key.

"When they are dealing with court hearings and proceedings, we have to understand that they are fragile," she said. "And when they become fragile, they can become disoriented. And if we're not careful, we lose them in the system."

Research has found children are more likely to be perceived as less accurate, believable or consistent if they testify by video. In a study by the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, 66% of respondents said "going remote" has compromised attorney-client communication, making it harder to have confidential conversations and build relationships.

Without universal access to high-speed internet, said Doug Keith, a counsel with the Brennan Center for Justice, many attorneys working during the pandemic have reported poor audio or video quality. He noted that 4% of Americans and 9% of those in rural areas lack access to broadband.

"Twenty-six percent of people in the Black, rural South and 18% of people on tribal lands lack such access," he said, "so it's clear that there are significant communities across this country, and within most states, that have disparate access to this technology."

He said there are some contexts where remote hearings can be beneficial - for instance, in civil cases with low-income parties who may have limited time off work, or for legal-aid organizations to reach underserved areas of their states. But he said it's important to take a careful look at whether proceedings can have better outcomes in person.

HARTFORD, Conn. -- Officials are considering ways to handle an increase in car thefts and other crimes in Connecticut.

Juvenile-justice advocates say they want to ensure reform is not reversed and strategies addressing the rise in crime also support community needs. Data released last month by the state show the number of young people admitted to juvenile-detention centers dropped 87% between 2005 and 2020.

Erika Nowakowski, associate director for the Tow Youth Justice Institute at the University of New Haven, which provided data for the report, said policymaker solutions should focus on tackling basic needs, such as housing, employment and mental health services.

"We should be focusing on prevention and making sure that those resources and those community services are available and accessible to them," Nowakowski contended. "So that we don't get to a point where they feel they need to steal a car because they need to make money to help support the family."

Motor-vehicle theft in the state increased nearly 41% between 2019 and 2020, but was on the decline in years prior, after peaking in the 1990s. The Tow Institute supports the state's Juvenile Justice Policy Oversight Committee in its planning for 2022 legislative recommendations.

The Connecticut Senate Republican Caucus unveiled its "Safer Connecticut" proposal in October, which includes GPS monitoring for young people arrested for a violent crime or a repeat offense, along with funding programs to address trauma, truancy, and provide mentorship.

Jordyn Wilson, community connections associate for the Connecticut Justice Alliance, said juvenile justice policy change should include feedback from the young people it will impact.

"Oftentimes you see that there's adults that are making decisions that inherently affect our young people," Wilson observed. "We'll just make sure to continually let people know, 'Look, you need to be having these conversations with young people, because essentially, the decisions that you guys are making affect them, they're the future generation.'"

Lawmakers in support of the proposal have requested a special session to address juvenile crime.