Image Credits: @tomblackout on Unsplash (Unsplash License)
Background
“On any given day, nearly 60,000 youth under age 18 are incarcerated in juvenile jails and prisons in the United States.”
Youth are confined in correctional-style facilities like detention centers, long-term secure facilities, and adult prisons/jails. Some are located in less-restrictive locations including group homes and residential treatment. States with legislative provisions that devote resources to address youth incarceration and rehabilitation often witness lesser recidivism rates. Since 2000, significant policy changes nationwide have reduced youth incarceration. A decrease in youth arrest rates and fiscal difficulties within the criminal justice system have accelerated this process. Additionally, the introduction of research demonstrating youth should undergo different rehabilitation processes than adult offenders, has furthered this movement.
At the federal level, Congress passed a central piece of legislation in 1974, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act. This statute created a central office, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), to primarily support local and state governments in bettering the juvenile justice system. It provided funds to states and introduced requirements to protect youth within the system. Subsequent amendments to this act came in 2002 and in 2018 when Congress passed the Juvenile Justice Reform Act (JJRA). This amended act increased the scope of the original 1974 legislation to ensure the central requirements were enforced. While federal requirements and legislation are regularly being updated, such commitment to change isn’t necessarily reflected on a state-by-state basis.
Connecticut
Connecticut has established itself as a front runner in de-escalating youth incarceration and prioritizing the rehabilitation process. Beginning in 2001, the state became one of the first to make serious changes to youth incarceration practices, developing policies aimed to reduce confinement for minor offenses and encouraging community alternatives, among others. Connecticut’s Office of Policy and Management emphasizes the state’s focus on rehabilitation above incarceration, affirming that its juvenile justice system operates with “the concepts of restorative justice, emphasizing protection of the community, offender accountability, and rehabilitation.” Law enforcement officers in the state are encouraged to confer with parents, make referrals to community organizations, and get youth service agencies involved in juvenile offender interventions. In the case convicted juveniles must be removed from home environments, the situation is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Children and Families (DFC), a state agency that works one-on-one with juveniles and families. Along the same vein, the state implemented legislation increasing resources and expanding services for Families with Service Needs (FWSNs) in 2007. This specialized program works in conjunction with the DFC and operates under the belief that families of children exhibiting problematic behavior (including juvenile offenders) must be actively involved to collectively combat the issue at hand. Overall, Connecticut has consistently updated its juvenile justice statutes, maintaining its position as a frontrunner in restorative juvenile justice.
South Dakota
South Dakota was regarded as one of the states lagging behind in youth incarceration and rehabilitation policy and procedures. In 2010, the state had one of the highest per-capita youth arrests in the country. South Dakota also lacked ample room and resources to detain offenders, so a majority of youth were placed in detention centers. Such centers promoted recidivism and often served as a pipeline to the adult criminal justice system. State legislators took action in 2015, passing Senate Bill No. 73 (2015 Legislative Assembly). Within the bill’s text, the new Act aimed “to improve public safety regarding juvenile justice.” The Act reduces the number of youth in correctional facilities, making space for youth offenders in residential facilities. Additionally, the Act calls for increased investment in programs aimed at decreasing the state’s youth recidivism rates. Finally, it created an oversight council to oversee the implementation of new policy. Following this piece of legislation, the number of South Dakota youth assigned to the Department of Corrections decreased exponentially. Despite making significant progress in the last seven years, juvenile justice activists have called attention to racial disparity and a lack of support for mentally ill youth that exists within the state. In the case of South Dakota, there’s more progress to be made in coming years.
Other States
Several states including Alabama, Georgia, and Maryland have yet to address youth incarceration and rehabilitation in serious policy changes and adaptations. A 2020 report published by Human Rights for Kids supports that these states (among 14 others) are significantly behind in juvenile restorative justice legislation, even asserting each state has made no effort to “protect the human rights of children in the justice system and is likely in violation of international human rights standards.” This distinction was made with the consideration of whether they allow the assignment of children under 18 to adult correctional facilities, establish mandatory minimum sentences for juvenile offenders, and allow juvenile life in prison without parole (JLWOP), among other factors. As far as legislation, these states have much ground to cover.
Future Implications
In addition to the changes on a state-by-state basis (or lack thereof), a general trend of “decarceration” exists, especially for minor offenses. According to 2019 data, “…approximately 53% of the cases [presented in juvenile courts] resulted in a finding of delinquency; 19% were dismissed at intake and 28% were handled informally.” Of the cases that resulted in a finding of delinquency, only 3,300 were passed along to adult criminal court. Activists and interest groups are optimistic that the implementation of juvenile justice acts at the federal level will trickle down to the state level. However, states are likely to remain fragmented without a holistic federal policy approach, stressing the positive influence of nonprofit work in this issue.
As we become more knowledgeable about youth rehabilitation practices, future policies will likely aim to reduce youth recidivism rates and racial disparity within the juvenile justice system. Several key organizations stand out as leaders within the youth justice and decarceration movement.
The Liberty Hill Foundation is a nonprofit organization that supports youth offenders and promotes social justice in the greater LA area. A central goal of the organization is to end youth incarceration. In 2020, the foundation worked toward this goal with the creation of the L.A. County Youth Development Department, also making key achievements such as the closure of nine of LA’s youth jails. Additionally, organizations such as the Coalition for Juvenile Justice work to prevent youth placement in the justice system. Their focus has been to reduce the presence of youth in adult jails and preventing their contact with adult offenders, altogether. Furthermore, the organization serves youth by investing resources into reducing racial disparity within the juvenile justice system.
The Annie E. Casey Foundation has been a frontrunner in juvenile justice reform work, setting an example for community-based initiatives to reduce racial disparity. The nonprofit’s deep-end initiative has prioritized reducing youth imprisonment, especially for colored youths. The initiative is focused on 12 sites nationwide, which collaborate with community members and organizations, aiming to amplify opportunities and appropriate responses for local youths. As a result of this community-based effort, the sites witnessed a decrease in out-of-home placements for African American youth by 41% from 2014-2017, and by 51% in 2018 alone. This significant result and shift to end racial disparity within the juvenile justice system will serve as a guide for future legislation and efforts. This endeavor also displays how a community-based solution can significantly impact local youth and their futures.
Overall, in the near future, those invested in the juvenile criminal justice system outcomes can expect impactful leadership by nonprofits and interest groups, and a heightened focus on restorative justice for youths.