Common Ground: Lessons Learned From Five States That Reduced Juvenile Confinement by More Than Half

• NCJ Number: 242597
• Author(s): Spike Bradford
• Date Published: February 2013
• Length: 44 pages
• Sponsoring Agency: John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
• Corporate Author: Justice Policy Institute
• Sale Source: Justice Policy Institute
• Publication Format: Document; Document (Online)
• Publication Type: Technical Assistance; Historical Overview; Case Study
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This report identifies lessons learned about how to achieve significant reductions in the confinement of juveniles from five States that showed the greatest decline in the rate of juveniles in residential placement between 2001 and 2010.

Abstract

The States are Connecticut (a 57.2-percent decline in juvenile placements); Tennessee (a 55-percent decline); Louisiana (a 52.7-percent decline); Minnesota (a 50.6-percent decline); and Arizona (a 50.2-percent decline). Five factors impacted the decline in juvenile placements in these States. Each State was the target of class action litigation regarding confinement conditions or other legal or administrative scrutiny. Second, juvenile corrections split from the adult system and/or partnered with child welfare. Third, there was improved inter-agency collaboration and communication, often through the formation of a high-level task force or commission. Fourth, State leaders recommitted their systems to a holistic juvenile justice ideal that acknowledges adolescent behavior is inherently different from adult behavior, requiring different types of intervention and services. Despite the significant reductions in juvenile confinement achieved, the juvenile justice systems in these States need to improve in some areas, since each State continues to experience disproportionately high numbers of youth of color at every level of its juvenile justice system; and low-risk youth continue to be detained prior to adjudication. A separate analysis is conducted for each State. Eight recommendations are offered. First, advocacy organizations should bring litigation against poor conditions or unconstitutional treatment. Second, re-energize existing juvenile justice commissions or cabinet-level task forces that will promote collaboration among stakeholders. Third, use experts for technical assistance. Fourth, focus on using developmentally appropriate therapeutic interventions rather than punishment. Fifth, address issues collateral to confinement reduction. Sixth, recognize opportunities to push change. Seventh, draw on lessons learned from States that have achieved reform. Eighth, establish a richer data repository. Extensive figures and 53 notes