JJIE Hub: Reform Trends — Community-based Alternatives

• Victim - Offender Mediation – In this process the victim and offender come together with a mediator for a dialogue about the incident, and generally a restitution plan is developed.
• Conferencing – This process is similar to victim-offender mediation, but both parties have the ability to invite support people to the dialogue, such as parents, teachers, and secondary victims.
• Circles – In this process, a subgroup of the school – such as a group of students or students and teachers – sits in a circle and passes around an object; only the person holding the object can talk.
  • • Peacemaking circles have been used successfully in Peoria, Illinois, where they began at Manual High School in 2006. Within three years, the school had trained hundreds of teachers, and the practice spread to seven local schools. Surveys showed a number of benefits, including improved school attendance, better school work, better relationships with students and teachers, and fewer school removals.^[3]
• Peer Mediation – Student mediators are trained and then can facilitate sessions between parties in conflict. There is not necessarily a clear offender in these sessions.
• Peer/Teen Jury Programs – Students who have broken school rules go before other students trained to be jurors and they discuss the reasons for the student’s actions, who was affected by them, and how the student can repair the harm. Typical cases that they handle include truancy, classroom disruption, and minor property damage.^[4]
  • • From 2008-2010, peer juries at Manual High School in Peoria, Illinois and two other area schools handled a total of 119 cases referred by school administrators; only 6 required a referral back to the administration for further discipline.^[5]

• Positive disciplinary strategies
  These strategies focus on increasing desirable behaviors instead of just decreasing unwanted behavior through punishment.

• Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports (PBIS)^[7] uses school-wide proactive strategies to encourage positive social behaviors, rather than focusing only on punishing negative behaviors. Behavioral expectations are taught to students just as other core curriculum subjects are taught.
  • • Effective School-wide Discipline (ESD) is a PBIS program that has been used successfully in many school districts in Virginia. According to a report published in 2011, since 2007, schools that implemented ESD saw significant benefits including:^[8]
      • • 29 percent reduction in office discipline referrals for general education students and 51 percent reduction for special education students;
        • 45.3 percent reduction in in-school suspensions for general education students and 64.8 percent for special education students; and
        • 75 percent reduction in out-of-school suspensions for general education students and 85.6 percent for special education students.
• Cognitive Behavioral Intervention for Trauma in Schools (CBITS) is a component of PBIS, in which school staff are trained to manage students' behavior and use practical intervention techniques instead of calling the police.
  • • School staff in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana were trained in this approach in 2008, and were able to reduce school arrests by 16 percent in a year.^[9]
• Project Achieve helps schools develop and implement Positive Behavioral Support Systems (PBSS), a school-wide approach to build and reinforce students’ problem- solving and conflict resolution skills in a positive and safe setting.^[10]
• This report from the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges highlights the importance of effective data-collecting and sharing between schools, mental health professionals, law enforcement, and the juvenile justice system to further student success and reduce referrals to to the juvenile justice system. The report also focuses of what information should be collected and shared between schools and the justice system to promote School-Justice Partnerships.
• Rewarding schools
  Schools can be encouraged to use these evidence-based disciplinary programs through approaches such as rewarding them for reducing disciplinary referrals.^[11]
• Louisiana passed legislation in 2010 requiring that the school master plans various localities were required to prepare include provisions for staff and administrator training on positive school behavioral supports and practices.^[12]

• In January 2014, the Department of Education and the Department of Justice released groundbreaking federal school discipline guidance to help school districts end discriminatory school discipline policies. The guidance clarifies schools’ obligations under our civil rights laws and provides examples of best practices so they can implement positive alternative practices. Click here to access the guidance package.
• The National Council of Family and Court Judges (NCFCJ) passed a resolution opposing zero tolerance policies and supporting “school administration discretion in handling student misbehavior.”^[16]
• From Clayton County, Georgia to Denver, Colorado, localities have begun adopting protocols and policies to clarify the role of the police in school discipline issues in order to block the school-to-prison pipeline.^[17]
  • • Connecticut is one example of this. In 2011, Connecticut’s judiciary implemented a new policy to reduce inappropriate school referrals to court. It requires the Juvenile Services Division of the Court Support Services Division to screen all police summons for youth arrested for minor offenses in schools to determine whether the allegations are serious enough to warrant court involvement, and to reject insufficient summons. Various factors are specified for making this determination, such as whether the behavior “is in keeping with normal adolescent behavior.”^[18]
• The Advancement Project has published a Model School Discipline Policy, based on the actual policies from several city public school systems, which can be used by localities to modify their school policies, to help eliminate the school-to-prison pipeline.^[19]

• Delaware passed legislation in 2009 amending the “zero tolerance” provision of the law to allow school boards the discretion not to expel a child that committed a “zero tolerance” offense or to modify the terms of expulsions.^[21]
• Florida amended its zero tolerance law in 2009 to state that “zero-tolerance policies are not intended to be rigorously applied to petty acts of misconduct and misdemeanors, including, but not limited to minor fights or disturbances.”^[22]

• In Meridian, Mississippi, state officials are being sued by the federal government for operating a “school-to-prison pipeline” by arresting and incarcerating students for minor disciplinary infractions such as talking back to teachers and violating dress codes, and then sending them to a youth court, where they are denied basic constitutional rights.^[20]

• Washington state passed legislation in 2010 establishing a statewide dropout reengagement system to provide educational opportunities and access to services for youth aged 16-21 that have either dropped out of school or will not be able to accumulate sufficient credits to graduate high school by age 21.^[24]

• Indiana passed a law in 2011 (HB 1107) allowing the juvenile court to appoint an early intervention advocate for at-risk children who can develop an individualized plan for a child that can include services such as counseling, tutoring, and mentoring.^[25]
• Little Rock, Arkansas passed a 1-cent sales tax increase in 2011 that included $3 million in additional revenue for prevention, intervention, and treatment programs to reduce juvenile crime.^[26]
• Nebraska passed legislation in 2010 providing for early intervention with at-risk children and families, focusing on parental involvement, school attendance, and alternatives to detention.^[27]

• Identifying and treating youth in the child welfare system for mental health needs
  Studies have found that a large percentage of youth in the child welfare system have behavioral health problems—over 40 percent in one study, and 54 percent of those placed in foster care in another. Yet poor identification of youth with mental health issues and substandard mental health care hampers treatment of these children.^[32]
• Providing home-based care
  Reducing the use of institutional placements, called “congregate care,” for youth in the child welfare system has been found to improve outcomes for youth. Youth served in family foster care settings were 2.5 times less likely to have a subsequent arrest than youth placed in group homes.^[33] Youth with behavioral problems are more likely to be placed in congregate care, which may then make them more likely to get in trouble with the law.^[34]
• Implementing programs to reduce abuse and neglect
  Since children in the child welfare system in general are at greater risk of justice system involvement, programs aimed at reducing child abuse and neglect could also reduce juvenile justice system involvement.
  • • Home visitation programs have been effective in reducing abuse and neglect.^[35]
    • A Hawaii program that provides new parents who are at risk of maltreating their children with child development training and health services has helped to significantly reduce abuse and neglect.

The Systems Integration Initiative (SII)
This initiative helps jurisdictions work through a planning process to develop a coordinated and integrated juvenile justice and child welfare system. This process includes developing structures for collaboration, such as interagency agreements to institutionalize it, integrated management information systems, and blended funding streams.^[38]Many states and localities have used the SSI model, including: the state of Arizona; Clark County, Washington; DuPage County, Illinois; Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; King County, Washington; Los Angeles County, California; and the state of South Dakota.^[39] Below is a detailed example of how this model has been used.

• • The King County Uniting for Youth program (formerly King County Systems Integration Initiative) began in 2003 to improve outcomes for “cross-over youth,” or youth involved in the juvenile justice and child welfare systems. Accomplishments have included:
    • • Creating and sustaining a collaborative leadership group to guide its work;
      • Development and widespread dissemination of an information-sharing resource guide;
      • Implementing protocols for coordinating case planning and services for youth involved in juvenile justice and child welfare systems;
      • Conducting regular “cross-system” training for staff from various youth-serving systems;
      • Improved mental health and substance abuse screening and assessment processes for juvenile justice youth; and
      • Designing and piloting a school dropout retrieval and retention program.^[40]

The Crossover Youth Practice Model (CYPM) focuses on developing policies and practices that reflect how courts, mental health professionals, and probation officers should work together to improve outcomes for crossover youth.

The model is structured into three phases and five practice areas reflective of many dually-involved youth, beginning with the point of arrest in the delinquency system, to case assignment and case planning, coordinated case supervision, and finally planning for permanency, transition, and case closure.^[41]

Localities in the following states have participated in this model: California, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, and Washington.^[42] See below for a detailed example of how this model has been used.

• • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania’s CYPM leadership team developed several diversion mechanisms, including a “Crossover Court” that serves youth in the child welfare system who have been arrested. The crossover court’s aim is to create a single court process for youth and their families, and work to divert youth in the child welfare system from the formal delinquency process. They have been able to divert nearly 900 youth from the delinquency system.^[43]

• National
  Two federal laws helped to further cross-system collaboration:
  • • The Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention Act (JJDPA) was amended in 2002, and reauthorized in 2018, by adding funding for juvenile delinquency prevention and treatment of youth in the juvenile justice system (or at-risk of involvement) who are victims of child abuse and neglect, or who have experienced violence. It also contained a requirement for the states to coordinate their child welfare and juvenile justice systems.^[44]
    • The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) was amended in 2003 to add supporting or enhancing interagency collaboration between the child welfare and juvenile justice systems to the list of purposes for which state grants could be awarded.^[45]
• State
  • • Oregon
      The state of Oregon passed legislation in 1999 creating a new method for comprehensive planning for services for children, identifying a number of state agencies as partners, including the Department of Human Services, the Criminal Justice Commission, and the Department of Education. In 2002, Oregon’s governor issued an executive order to further the implementation of the law by requiring that all the principal state partners develop formal agreements to improve coordination among the state partners and other state agencies.^[46]

School-Based Diversion
Schools frequently use the police to handle even minor discipline problems, sending many youth into the justice system. Often, a student’s unruly behavior is at least in part due to a mental health disorder.

Training school staff and police officers to identify and appropriately respond to youth with mental health needs can decrease referrals to juvenile court, especially when coupled with alternative community-based mental health resources to which youth can be referred instead.^[47]

More on school-based diversion to mental health.
More on the “schoolhouse-to-jailhouse” track.

Mental Health Focus
A number of youth who act out in schools and in the community have mental health or substance abuse disorders that exacerbate their behavior. Unnecessary arrests and processing of these youth can be decreased when law enforcement officers are trained to recognize the signs and symptoms of mental illness, substance abuse, and developmental disabilities in youth, and to de-escalate their interactions with them. Increasing access to mental health services and supports for these youth is also helpful.The National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, with support from the Models for Change initiative, has developed a Crisis Intervention Training for Youth curriculum to teach law enforcement officers how to recognize and respond to youth with acute mental illness symptoms. Techniques enable law enforcement officers to effectively handle crises in the field in lieu of arresting youth.

More on law-enforcement diversion.

These programs divert youth from the juvenile justice system at time of arrest.^[48]

Florida has used the civil citation program the most widely and passed statewide legislation enacting this program.

How the Florida Civil Citation Program Works

• • Officers have the option of giving youth a civil citation if their alleged offense is a first time, non-violent misdemeanor.
  • Youth are assessed to determine needs, referred to a community diversion program, given sanctions, and/or treatment.
  • If the youth successfully completes the program, the youth gets no arrest record. If unsuccessful, the youth is formally charged and processed through the juvenile justice system.
  • Recidivism rates for youth in the program have been much lower than for youth in residential juvenile programs – 7 percent, vs. 41 percent.

Mental health intake diversion programs
These programs generally require that intake officers receive training to recognize the signs and symptoms of mental illness, substance abuse disorders, and developmental disabilities.

• Front-End Diversion Initiative (FEDI)
  Texas has created a specialized probation diversion program for youth with mental health needs known as the “Front-End Diversion Initiative.” It aims to divert youth with identified mental health needs from being adjudicated delinquent.^[49]

General intake diversion programs
Youth in these programs generally must fulfill certain conditions, such as paying restitution, doing community service, or attending treatment services. Upon successful completion, either no charges are brought or the charges that were levied are dismissed.

• Colorado Juvenile Offender Services Diversion
  This program is for youth who have committed a first-time, non-violent, non-sexual offense. Youth must admit to their charges. Youth are screened, assessed, and provided with services. Upon successful completion, charges are dropped and their record expunged.^[50]

Restorative justice intake diversion programs
Balanced and restorative justice programs are based on the concepts of accountability, community safety and competency development. They emphasize repairing the harm the offender caused the victim and the community, and focus on identifying offender strengths and building on positive attributes.^[51]

• Ogle County Balanced and Restorative Justice Program
  This program in Illinois targets youth charged with a first-time offense. They gain access to services and make a contract to complete certain conditions that may include an apology letter to the victim, a victim-offender conference, accountability worksheets, community service, and/or restitution.^[52]

Domestic violence diversion programs

• King County, Washington has developed a domestic violence diversion process for youth who have been violent with family members. All cases of domestic violence are reviewed to see if they are appropriate for diversion and many are referred to “Step-Up” – a domestic violence counseling program for teens.^[53]

Municipal Court Diversion Programs

• This report Injustice in the Lowest Courts shows how youth and their families across the country often face consequences in municipal courts similar to those they would face in the justice system, but without the same procedural protections. Research by Columbia Law School and the Juvenile Law Center emphasizes the need for reform, discussing jurisdiction, fines, and the potential of diversion programs.

The Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI)
The JDAI initiative of The Annie E. Casey Foundation uses a set of core strategies to reduce the unnecessary and inappropriate use of secure detention as well as to increase the fairness and reduce the costs of the juvenile justice system overall, without compromising public safety. The JDAI initiative is one of the most widespread detention reform programs in the country, with efforts currently ongoing in 150 jurisdictions and 32 states and the District of Columbia.^[54] It has significantly reduced the number of youth in secure detention in many of these jurisdictions, even as juvenile crime has decreased.^[55] See below for the JDAI core strategies and see their website for further details:

• Collaboration of key juvenile justice stakeholders to coordinate detention reform and joint planning and policymaking
• Data collection and analysis
• Development of detention risk assessment instruments to guide objective decisions on whether youth must be detained
• Development of detention alternatives
• Case processing reforms to expedite the flow of cases through the system
• Better ways to handle youth with “special detention cases” - such as youth detained on warrants and probation violations – who are often detained unnecessarily
• Reducing racial disparities^[56]

Day Reporting Centers
These are facilities in the community that youth report to on a daily basis for a specified period of time. The staff closely supervises the youth and may provide a number of services, such as counseling, vocational training, educational programs, and substance abuse treatment.^[57]

• Home Confinement/Electronic Monitoring
  Confining youth to their homes with or without electronic monitoring, under the close supervision of probation officers, has been used as an alternative to secure detention and as an alternative to incarceration after a youth is found delinquent. For more information, see the section above on Diversion.
  It allows youth to remain at home with certain restrictions on their activities, such as curfews or only being permitted to leave the home for specified activities such as school, work, and court.For more information on electronic monitoring see below^[58]:
• Electronic monitoring can involve a range of devices. Generally, youth wear an electronic wrist or ankle device that emits an electronic signal to a device in their home which is monitored 24 hours a day.^[59]
• A randomized study of youth under electronic monitoring and those with traditional home confinement found low recidivism rates for both (4 percent and 3 percent respectively).^[60]
• Communities can save money using home confinement or electronic monitoring. Electronic monitoring programs can range from $5.50 to $10 per day, whereas detention centers range from $100 to $160 per day.^[61]
• The costs to youth and their families for electronic monitoring can be high, however, unduly burdening indigent families as many communities require families to pay the costs of using the system. Parents may be required to set up telephone landlines to use the system and may have to pay for installation and equipment fees.^[62]
• Electronic monitoring can result in “false positives,” such as when the system is connected to a cell phone and a low battery generates a false report on the youth.^[63]

Specialty Courts
Specialty courts are designed to handle youth on a special docket, such as those with substance abuse or mental health disorders, or both. Youth may be diverted prior to adjudication, or after. Examples of youth specialty courts are juvenile mental health courts and juvenile drug courts.^[64]

Learn more here.

Probation^[66]
Standard probation is widely used and one of the oldest forms of community-based alternatives to incarceration. Youth remain in the community, are supervised by a probation officer, and generally must comply with certain conditions.

• Common conditions include meeting regularly with their probation officer, adhering to a curfew, doing community service, and paying restitution for any damages they may have caused.
• Other conditions sometimes required are drug counseling and participating in other types of services.
• Probation may be for a set period, or may be open-ended. Regular review hearings are generally held in court to monitor the youth’s progress.
• If youth do not abide by their probation conditions, a court may and order a range of sanctions or revoke their probation.

Restorative Community Service
Restorative community service focuses on accountability, integration, and change. The Clark County Juvenile Court in Washington has transformed their approach to community service by eliminating youth work crews and using this new approach.^[67]

• Youth have the opportunity to make amends for their offense by giving service of recognized value back to the community.
• An important aspect of the program is that youth work alongside community members on their projects. This provides them with a positive role model and a feeling of integration into the fabric of the community.
• Through this process, youth can begin to see themselves in a new light as being capable of making positive contributions to the community.
• Examples of projects Clark County youth have worked on include Habitat for Humanity building projects, neighborhood clean-up days, working with food banks and homeless shelters, and working in senior citizen homes.

Restitution
Restitution is monetary compensation that a youth pays to a person or a business for a loss or injury that was a result of the youth’s actions. It can often be difficult for youth to pay restitution for a number of reasons, such as being currently incarcerated for their offense, being too young to work, not having the skills to get a job, or having difficulty getting a job because of their juvenile record.A program that tries to address these concerns is Project Payback in North Central Florida, which began in 1997.^[68]

• Project Payback offers youth individual job skills training and provides payment for “community restitution service” hours for youth who are unable to become employed.
• Project Payback monitors the monthly compliance of the youth referred to them, reports their compliance status to court, initiates enforcement action for non-compliance, and informs victim of the status of the case.
• Prior to Project Payback, an average of $166 per month was being paid in total restitution for juvenile offenses and currently the average is over $3500 per month.
• For a recent assessment of the current landscape of restitution imposed on youth, Reimagining Restitution from the Juvenile Law Center examines the impact of restitution in juvenile court and offers broad recommendations for reform.

Intensive Probation Supervision
An example of this type of program is the Cuyahoga County (Ohio) Intensive Probation Supervision (IPS) program for youth charged with serious offenses. A team of probation officers frequently monitors the youth, requires adherence to strict curfews, and arranges services for the youth based on the results of a comprehensive needs assessment. The program lasts from eight to 14-½ months.^[69]

Home Confinement/Electronic Monitoring
Confining youth to their homes, with or without electronic monitoring, has been used as an alternative to secure detention and as an alternative to incarceration after a youth is found delinquent. Click for more information.

Evidence-Based Treatment Programs
Many evidence-based treatment programs are primarily designed for use in the community instead of institutional settings, though most have been adapted for use in both settings. Studies have found many of these programs are more effective at reducing recidivism than incarceration, and cost significantly less. Some effective intensive family-based treatment programs that have begun to be widely used include Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care, Functional Family Therapy, and Multi-Systemic Therapy.^[70] Learn more here.

The “Missouri Model”
This refers to small, community-based facilities that work closely with youth, as opposed to confining youth in large, centrally-located impersonal institutions with few services. Missouri led the way in developing this type of system and has had a great deal of success with this approach. While this model still involves incarceration, the fact that the facilities are offered closer to youths’ homes and are more therapeutic than the more common model of state facilities, which are often similar to adult jails, has led some to consider it a better alternative for those youth that judges will not release.

Mississippi
Passed legislation in 2006 requiring the Division of Youth Services (DYS) to establish an adolescent offender program that “must incorporate evidence-based practices and positive behavioral intervention” including elements such as tutoring, mentoring, and substance abuse treatment.^[71]Pursuant to this legislation, DYS has set up a three-phase program to target youth who have been adjudicated delinquent.^[72]

Texas

• In 2007, the Texas legislature passed SB 103, which prohibited youth adjudicated delinquent for misdemeanor offenses from being committed to juvenile correctional facilities and provided $57 million to local juvenile probation departments who would now need to supervise these youth.^[73]
• In 2009, Texas lawmakers appropriated $50 million to establish the Community Corrections Diversion Program (the “Grant C” program) to allocate money to local probation departments for alternatives to commitment in order to further reduce the number of youth in juvenile secure correctional facilities. The legislature also eliminated approximately $100 million in funding for state-run secure correctional facilities based on the decreased population.^[74]
• In 2011, the Texas legislature passed SB 653, which created the new Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD) and specifically prioritized the agency’s focus on community-based alternatives in the purpose clause of the legislation.^[75]

The Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) has been a leading innovator in performing cost-benefit studies of evidence-based options for juvenile justice. Beginning in the mid-1990s, WSIPP was directed by the Washington legislature to identify “evidence-based policies” that were shown to improve particular outcomes. One of the areas they have studied is juvenile justice.

• WSIPP has found many community-based programs to be more cost-effective than juvenile incarceration. Click here for cost-benefit information on the community-based programs they have recently evaluated.
• WSIPP has also identified programs that are ineffective and the where the costs do not outweigh the benefits. These include the Scared Straight and the Juvenile Wilderness Challenge programs.^[76]

A number of organizations have identified “model” programs through a process of reviews of the research and made available catalogues of these programs. Examples include the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s Model Programs Guide and Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development.^[77]

Because meta-analyses have found many non-“brand-name” practices to be effective, the Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) was developed to help jurisdictions bring local practices into conformity with what research has shown to work.^[78]

• SPEP itemizes the characteristics of effective programs.
• Three characteristics of programs have been found to be most strongly correlated with their effectiveness:
  • the type of program
  • the amount and quality of service delivered, and
  • the risk level of the youth in the program^[79]
• SPEP creates a metric that assigns varying points to programs based on characteristics of the program related to recidivism.
• Administrators can use this metric to assess their current programs and identify methods to improve them.
• The SPEP tool has been implemented in a number of jurisdictions, including North Carolina and Arizona, where it has led to recidivism reductions.^[80]

Evidence-based practices need to be effective with the type of youth served. For example, some practices that may generally be effective with white youth may not be as effective for youth of color. Cultural adaptations take an evidence-based practice and adapt it for language, racial and ethnic group, and/or geographic setting.^[81] Proponents of cultural adaptations recommend them as a bridge between the evidence-based practice and the need for cultural competence so that the treatment aligns with the youth’s worldview.^[82]

For immigrant youth, there is a need for culturally relevant community-based alternatives that relate to and help further success of youth. Access to community-based alternatives that have programs for immigrant youth to participate in is critical to integration into a community after involvement in the justice system. ^[82a]

Programs by state:

• Florida^[84]
  • Florida has a two-tier system for troubled non-delinquent youth – Families in Need of Services (FINS) and Children in Need of Services (CINS).
  • Florida has established a network of service providers to work with troubled youth and their families. The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) contracts with the Florida Network of Youth and Family Services (“the Network”) to provide the services.
  • The process begins when a family having trouble with a child—such as skipping school or running away—contacts a network provider, or when law enforcement or school staff refers the child. Services are provided through the FINS system. Most situations are resolved in this way.
  • If the next level of intervention is needed, then the matter is referred to court as a CINS case, and the court can order a youth to treatment or services or secure shelter for up to 90 days.
  • The program has been very successful, with 91 percent of youth remaining crime-free after six months of services. It is estimated that the program has saved the state $160 million dollars^[85].
• Louisiana^[86]
  • Louisiana’s informal Families in Need of Services (FINS) program is a statewide program offering services for status offenders and their families. However, many youth are referred to juvenile court on FINS petitions, which can include status offenses such as “ungovernable behavior,” running away from home, curfew violations, and truancy.
  • Because a substantial number of youth were being formally adjudicated on FINS petitions and placed on probation, detention, and/or committed to non-secure custody, the Models for Change initiative worked with several jurisdictions in Louisiana to divert youth who committed status offenses from the formal juvenile justice system.
  • Strategies have included:
    • Increasing the number of evidence-based community alternatives for FINS youth and families;
    • Implementing screening and assessment tools at key decision points;
    • Working with schools to develop alternatives for youth who are truant, alternatives to zero tolerance policies, and reduce out of school suspensions and expulsions; and
    • Working to eliminate FINS interventions involving probation, detention, and non-secure placement.
  • Jefferson and Rapides Parishes have dramatically reduced the volume of informal FINS cases, formal FINS petitions, and FINS adjudications since these strategies were implemented.
• New York^[87]
  • New York City^[88]
    • In 2002, New York City began the Family Assessment Program (FAP). The goals were to provide services for children and families more quickly and reduce reliance on the family court for youth who commit status offenses.
    • Families seeking services now meet with a FAP specialist immediately who assesses their situation and can make needed referrals without filing the case in court. Four levels of care are available, from family stabilization to Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care.^[89]
    • Two-and-a-half years after the program began, probation intakes of youth who had committed status offenses had declined almost 80 percent.
  • Orange County^[90]
    • Orange County began the “Family Keys” program in 2003 to develop an immediate crisis response for families.
    • Family Keys is a part of the Southwest Keys Programs, which is a non-profit organization that works with youth in the status offense system.
    • Parents seeking help for a child who chronically misbehaves call the probation department for an initial assessment; eligible families are referred immediately to Family Keys.
    • Family Keys visits and interviews the child and family within 48 hours, and connects them to services within a short time frame.
    • Of the 2,180 families who accepted Family Keys services between 2003-2008, 98 percent of the children avoided out-of-home placement. Additionally, by 2009, 88 percent of youth who participated in Family Keys were living at home in the community with their parent/guardian after exiting the program.
    • Total PINS placements dropped from 71 in 2006 to 11 in 2010 after instituting the reforms.
• Oregon
  • Multnomah County
    • Multnomah County started its Juvenile Reception Center in 1998 to reduce unnecessary incarceration of youth in the detention center. This allowed police officers who arrested youth aged 11-17 for a status offense or minor delinquency offense to take them to the reception center instead of juvenile detention. There, an intake counselor does a thorough assessment of the youth’s needs and then works with the family to provide counseling and supportive services. For further information, go here – scroll down for a video.^[91]
• Washington
  • Four demonstration sites in Washington state have been working with the Models for Change initiative to reduce reliance on formal processing for truant youth. A statewide “Becca Task Force” works on truancy issues at the state level.
  • Strategies that the demonstration sites have worked on in support of state-level efforts include:
    • Guidelines to unify practice statewide
    • Establishing a truancy program evaluation model
    • Working with schools to develop truancy intervention alternatives to formal delinquency processing and with pilot counties to develop more community-based alternatives
    • Increasing the number of evidence-based program options
  • Truancy petition filing rates have decreased 22 percent statewide since the program developed under Models for Change began. Truancy contempt hearings are down 29 percent and truancy contempt orders are down 37 percent.^[92]
• West Virginia
  • The West Virginia legislature passed B. 2550, signed by Gov. Tomblin on March 26, 2015, which requires school-based interventions to be made before schools can refer youth to court for truancy.
  • B. 2550 also doubles the number of absences required to trigger a court referral.

For further information on these and other state strategies, see the Vera Institute of Justice, Status Offense Reform Center’s website.

A growing number of judges do not place youth in secure detention for status offenses, even in jurisdictions that allow them to do so when youth violate court orders related to their case, such as orders to attend school regularly (known as the “valid court order” exception).

Many have initiated or participated in cross-system collaborative efforts with stakeholders in a variety of systems, such as the school system and the child welfare system, to develop new alternatives to the court system.^[93]

National

• Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA)
  The federal JJDPA was enacted in 1974 and reauthorized in 2002, and again in 2018. It sets forth standards for the care and custody of youth that come into contact with the justice system, including those charged with status offenses.^[94] States that agree to abide by the Act (Wyoming is the only state that has not) receive federal funds in exchange for complying with the Act’s key provisions.
  • JJDPA core requirements include the deinstitutionalization of status offenders. It prohibits youth charged with status offenses from being securely confined.
• JDPA allows an exception to this prohibition - the “valid court order exception” allows youth adjudicated for status offenses to be confined if they violate a direct order from the court. These orders are often general—such as requiring regular school attendance.
• The 2018 reauthorization passed with stricter requirements to the valid court order exception. A VCO must be written and may not be renewed. The court must show that the VCO was violated, and provide factual basis that shows reasonable cause to believe the order was violated. If a youth is found in violation of a VCO, they may be placed in a detention facility but for no longer than seven days and the court must provide a plan for release of the youth.^[95]
• Although about half the U.S. states and territories prohibit the valid court order exception, or don’t use it, about half do use it.
• Juvenile justice advocates argue that the valid court order exception should be removed for some of the following reasons:^[96]
  • A status offense is non-delinquent and non-criminal. Rather than resolving factors that led to a status offense, placing these youth in detention can aggravate these factors, because the youth are exposed to negative influences in detention centers and will be burdened with the stigma of having been placed in one.
  • Detention is more costly and less effective than home and community-based care.
  • Detention interrupts education, making youth who are detained less likely to return to school. This can further aggravate status offender issues, such as truancy and running away.

State

• Connecticut^[97]
  • In 2005, the Connecticut legislature began to overhaul its status offender system by requiring that by 2007, judges would be prohibited from placing children who commit status offenses in secure detention.
    In 2006, the legislature established an advisory board to monitor the progress being made on system changes and recommend further reforms.
  • In 2007, the legislature required that all children referred to court for status offenses be initially diverted.
  • After a brief screening by a probation supervisor, children in crisis are referred to family support centers and youth with lower level needs are referred to a local youth service bureau or a program in the community.
  • The family support centers offer a variety of services, including crisis management, family mediation, cognitive behavioral support groups and one-on-one therapeutic sessions.
  • A formal petition on a youth who has committed a status offense is only filed in court if a youth’s behavior escalates, or the youth has repeated crises.
  • After four family centers were opened in 2007, the number of youth detained for status offenses dropped from 493 in 2006-7 to 0 in 2008-9; and as of 2010-11, the juvenile court formally processed only four-and-a-half percent of youth referred for status offenses, down from 50 percent in 2006.^[98]
• Georgia
  • In May 2013, HB 242 was signed into law, completely revising the state’s juvenile code. Among other changes, the new code works to reduce the formal juvenile justice system involvement of youth who have committed status offenses.
  • Pursuant to the new legislation, schools must demonstrate that they have tried to address a youth’s issues at the school level before they can refer the youth to juvenile court.
  • Youth in court for a status offense must be treated in the least restrictive environment possible.
  • Limits are placed on the use of secure detention for youth who have committed status offenses, and the use of placement (equivalent to prison in the adult context) is prohibited.^[99]
• Lousiana
  • Under a 2012 law (Senate Bill 467) agencies must use all appropriate and available resources before they can refer a youth who has committed a status offense to court and must document all the steps they have taken to prevent youth entering into the juvenile justice system. (Because youth who commit status offenses usually signal a family in crisis, these are referred to as “Families in Need of Services” [FINS] cases.)^[100]
• New York
  • New York’s Family Court Act was amended in 2005 to make a number of reforms to the Persons in Need of Supervision (PINS) system—which handles youth who have committed status offenses— resulting in a statewide decrease in PINS petitions of 41 percent annually, from 2,204 to 2,006.^[101] The amendments did the following:
    • Mandated that each county and New York City provide diversion services for youth at risk of having a PINS petition filed (their families also receive services);
    • Required that the diversion services must be designed to provide an immediate response to families in crisis and must identify and use alternatives to detention;
    • Required probation departments to review efforts made by schools seeking to file PINS petitions to determine that they had made sufficient efforts to improve a student’s attendance or behavior;
    • Prohibited probation and diversion service providers from using any statement made by a youth against him/her at a hearing prior to conviction;
    • Restricted when police officers can take PINS youth to non-secure detention or family court;
    • Restricted when the family court may order PINS youth to detention;
    • Restricted when a PINS petition can be filed.^[102]
• Washington
  • The Washington state legislature passed the “Becca” bill (S.B. 5439) in 1995 in response to the deaths of three runaway children, including 13-year-old Rebecca Hedman. The bill provides for strict court enforcement of runaway and truancy laws.^[103]
  • The Becca bill led to a huge number of court filings against youth who committed status offenses in Washington State (more than 18,000 in 2006) and a considerable amount of controversy regarding this approach to truancy.^[104]
  • The Washington State Becca Task Force was founded in 2002. It is a statewide voluntary organization composed of state leaders, including legislators, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and treatment providers.^[105]
  • The mission of the task force is to help keep kids in school and out of the justice system, through a number of mechanisms, such as early truancy interventions, sharing research and best practices for truancy prevention and intervention, and collaborating on statewide Becca reform efforts.
  • Models for Change has been working with demonstration sites in Washington state since 2006 on new approaches to truancy that rely less on formal court processing.

For further information on these and other state strategies visit the Status Offense Reform Center’s website.

A number of states have passed legislation either to provide financial incentives to counties to reduce incarceration in state facilities or to put in place a more permanent realignment of responsibility from the state to the counties for managing justice-involved youth. Some examples:

• California
  • In 1965, California passed the Probation Subsidy Act, which gave financial incentives to county probation departments for each offender that they did not commit to the state. The program lasted until 1978, and led to significant cost savings and reductions in incarceration.^[106]
  • In 2007, California passed legislation (S.B. 81) prohibiting the commitment of youth adjudicated delinquent for non-violent offenses to the state Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) and establishing a Youthful Offender Block Grant Program, which provided state funds to counties to serve youth not committed to DJJ.^[107]
• Florida^[108]
  • In 2004, the Florida legislature provided funding for a pilot diversion program known as “Redirection.”
    Through this initiative, the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice contracted with Evidence-Based Associates to divert youth from residential placements into two types of community-based therapeutic alternatives – Multi-Systemic Therapy and Functional Family Therapy.
  • The initiative saved the state more than $8 million dollars in its first year and has been expanded in subsequent years; the state has seen more cost savings and a corresponding drop in recidivism.
• Illinois
  • Like Ohio, the Illinois legislature passed Redeploy Illinois in 2004 to reduce overcrowding in its juvenile facilities.
  • Counties that wish to participate in Redeploy must agree to reduce the number of youth committed to state facilities by 25 percent of the average of the past three years, and must compensate the state for commitments that exceed that amount. In return, the state reimburses the counties for funds spent on local alternatives.^[109]
  • A majority of participating counties reduced their state commitments, though not all did. Between 2005 and 2010, counties participating in Redeploy Illinois reduced commitments to Illinois prisons by 51 percent (from 1,737 to 854). During that period, the 28 participating counties kept 883 youth away from state prisons, saving the state an estimated $40 million.^[110]
• New York^[111]
  • The state passed the “Close to Home” initiative in 2012.
  • Under this initiative, New York City youth have been moved from the state’s “non-secure” and “limited secure” facilities to settings administered by the city and run by non-profit organizations under contract with the city administration for Children’s Services. However, advocates note that this doesn’t mean youth are placed in alternatives to a residential facility.
  • The state is funding these new local programs through a block grant to the city.
• Ohio
  • The Ohio legislature passed legislation establishing the RECLAIM Ohio (Reasoned and Equitable Community and Local Alternatives to the Incarceration of Minors) in 1993 to try to reduce overcrowding in state juvenile facilities.
  • RECLAIM uses a formula that ties the funds counties receive from the state to reductions in counties’ use of state juvenile facilities. The funding structure encourages counties to develop community-based alternatives.
  • Since RECLAIM was enacted, the number of youth committed to state facilities has fallen significantly, and recidivism has dropped as well.^[112]
  • In 2010, the Ohio Department of Youth Services (DYS) initiated a program called “Targeted RECLAIM” to direct funds to six counties that committed the highest percentage of youth to state facilities.^[113]
    • The six participating counties have to use the funds for model or evidence-based programming for youth in order to meet the goals for reducing the number of youth they send to DYS facilities.
    • In 2012, Targeted RECLAIM funding was awarded to eight additional counties.
    • Targeted RECLAIM has helped these counties to significantly reduce their DYS admissions; through fiscal year 2012, the RECLAIM counties reduced their admissions by 712 youth, compared to the year prior to starting the initiative.
    • Additionally, youth served by Targeted RECLAIM services were found to be 2.4 times less likely to be incarcerated after completing their services than youth who were committed to state facilities.
    • Overall, DYS average daily population has decreased significantly since the start of Targeted RECLAIM, from 1,430 youth in 2009 to 649 youth in 2012.
• Pennsylvania
  • Pennsylvania passed Act 148 in 1976, which altered its counties’ financial incentives in order to prioritize keeping youth involved in the justice system at home or in community programs.
  • Under the act, the state reimburses counties for 80 percent of community-based services, but only 40 percent of the cost of confinement in a state facility or juvenile detention center. The Act led to steep declines in state commitments.^[114]
• Texas
  • In 2009, as part of Rider 21 to the General Appropriations
    Act, the Legislature required that the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission (TJPC) pay the Texas Youth Commission (TYC) $51,100 for each youth committed to TYC in excess of 1,783 youths per year.
  • This led to TJPC initiating a Commitment Reduction Program under which counties propose plans for reducing commitments and receive grant money from TJPC to fund community-based programs.^[115]
  • Since the program has started, the state has saved more than $200 million dollars and commitments have dropped more than 68 percent.^[116]
• Wisconsin
  • In 1979, Wisconsin passed the Community Youth and Family Aids Program (“Youth Aids”). Youth Aids encourages counties to treat youth locally by distributing juvenile funds to the counties through a process that discourages committing youth to the state.
  • Youth Aids has led to a significant decline in youth incarceration that has coincided with a decline in youth arrests.^[117]

• Wayne County, Michigan^[118]
  In 1996, Wayne County accepted the state’s offer of grant money to take over responsibility from the state for its youth in trouble with the law. The county was able to significantly reduce juvenile incarceration and recidivism through a series of steps, including:
  • Using more home detention with electronic monitoring;
  • Making the county accountable for half the cost of any juvenile committed to the state, in order to provide a financial disincentive for state commitment; and
  • Contracting with a collaborative of private substance abuse and mental health providers to provide supervision and services to youth.

• The Council for State Governments Justice Center
  This organization works with a handful of states to implement justice reinvestment strategies. The process involves developing a team of policymakers, experts, and stakeholders that then move through three phases: analyzing data, developing policy options, and measuring performance. While often focused on adult criminal justice systems, strategies have also been implemented involving juvenile justice systems.^[119]

Unsafe conditions in juvenile facilities, often exacerbated by overcrowding caused by the huge number of youth being incarcerated, have led to numerous class-action lawsuits throughout the country. State efforts to improve conditions have increasingly incorporated an emphasis on community-based alternatives.

For examples, see “Downsizing - Strategies: Litigation.”

The Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI)
The JDAI initiative of the Annie E. Casey Foundation is a process that uses core strategies to reduce the unnecessary and inappropriate use of secure detention as well as to increase fairness and reduce the costs of the juvenile justice system overall, without compromising public safety. It has been quite successful at reducing the number of youth in secure detention in communities all over the country. JDAI efforts are currently ongoing in 300 counties nationwide.^[120]

Initiatives Led by State Officials

• Indiana
  • On March 11, 2022, Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb signed a major set of juvenile justice policy reforms. Some of the key provisions include expanding pre-court diversion options, limiting the use of detention for children under the age of 12, and developing a statewide plan to collect and track key juvenile justice data. The legislation also requires the creation of new diversion and behavioral grant programs as well as the establishment of a statewide oversight committee to develop policies and plans for implementing the legislative provisions by 2023.
  • In 2012, the Indiana Department of Correction (IDC) was able to close the South Bend Juvenile Correctional Facility and planned to transition many youth to community-based facilities.
  • The IDC was able to accomplish this by reducing its overall juvenile population from 1,100 youth to approximately 550 by reducing length of stay guidelines, sending youth to the least restrictive setting, and working with the courts to develop more community-based diversion programs. They are also beginning work with the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI).^[121]
• Massachusetts^[122]
  • In 1972, Jerome Miller, Commissioner of the Massachusetts Division of Youth Services (DYS)—frustrated with the fact that the longer youth stayed in DYS facilities, the worse they behaved after release—shut down all the state's facilities and limited commitments to high-risk youth in small facilities.
  • Juvenile crime declined following this change, and fewer released juveniles went on to commit crimes as adults.
• Missouri^[123]
  • In response to severely overcrowded facilities and deplorable conditions, state officials shut down the boys’ and girls’ youth training schools in 1983 and shifted the population to small, local facilities characterized by a structured and therapeutic environment where youth are not locked up. Now, fewer than 8 percent of the youth released return or end up later in adult prison. The success of this approach has led to national recognition of it as the “Missouri Model.”

• Pennsylvania
  In 2011, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued rules requiring that when judges order a youth to an out-of-home placement, they must explain why they are doing so, and why it is the least restrictive placement.^[124]

Unsafe conditions in juvenile facilities, often exacerbated by overcrowding caused by the huge number of youth being incarcerated, have led to numerous class-action lawsuits throughout the country. State efforts to improve conditions have increasingly incorporated an emphasis on community-based alternatives.

• Lauderdale County, Mississippi - Disability Rights Mississippi filed a lawsuit to gain access to the Lauderdale County Juvenile Detention Center (LCJDC) in Lauderdale County, Mississippi. After documenting concerns regarding the policies and practices at the detention center, a settlement agreement was reached that included the following:^[125]
  • When youth violate a court order, court staff must consider alternative sanctions to secure detention.
  • Lauderdale County was directed to apply to join Annie E. Casey’s Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) to reduce the use of secure detention.

• Ohio - In the case of S.H. v. Stickrath, a class action suit was brought against the Ohio Department of Youth Services (DYS) alleging a system-wide failure regarding conditions of confinement that endangered the health and safety of the youth within DYS facilities. In a stipulated judgment resolving the claims, DYS was required to take a number of actions including:^[126]
  • Develop “a continuum-of-care system that emphasizes prevention, intervention, and treatment in local communities using evidence-based or promising practices . . . and a strong system of after care.”^[127]
  • Create a regional system of small, community-based facilities and community services.
  • Reduce the population of its current facilities with the goal of expanding regional beds while reducing or closing existing facilities.
  • Continue to review the RECLAIM formula^[128] in order to achieve its population reduction goals.
  • Develop a plan to retain youth in the justice system in the community where possible, and reduce reliance on institutional confinement.

• Utah – In the mid-1970s, Utah was sued for inhumane treatment in its juvenile facilities and almost lost control of its large juvenile facility, the Youth Development Center (YDC). To avoid this, Governor Matheson closed down the YDC, funded community programs, and built three small, high-security facilities. This saved Utah millions of dollars and improved outcomes for youth.^[129]

Legislative strategies include comprehensive system reforms to reduce incarceration and increase community-based alternatives, as well as more targeted efforts to reduce detention and/or commitments, close particular prisons, and other types of initiatives. Below are some examples.

Comprehensive Reform

• Arkansas
  • By 2007, juvenile crime in Arkansas had dropped 41 percent and Arkansas was looking for less costly, more effective ways to treat youth in the juvenile justice system.
  • The Arkansas General Assembly passed Senate Resolution 31 in 2007, which required an analysis of the current juvenile justice system and ways to improve it.
  • This led the Arkansas Department of Youth Services (DYS) to introduce a five-year plan to reform the juvenile justice system in 2009 that focused on shifting the emphasis from incarceration to community-based treatment.
  • Since that time, there have been steady drops in the number of overall commitments to state facilities.^[130]
• Texas
  • In 2011, Texas passed legislation that closed three of its 10 youth prisons and shifted state money to local programs, tasking the new Texas Juvenile Justice Commission with maximizing community-based programs.^[131]

Limiting Detention or Commitment

• Connecticut
  • Connecticut passed legislation in 2011 (H.B. 6634) restricting the use of secure detention, in part by requiring the court to find probable cause that the youth committed the offense and that there is no less restrictive alternative.^[132]
• Florida
  • Florida passed legislation in 2011 (S.B. 2114) providing that, with some exceptions, youth can no longer be committed to juvenile residential facilities unless they have a felony conviction, three or more prior misdemeanors, or are adjudicated of offenses highly correlated with a risk of re-offense.^[133]
• Mississippi
  • In 2009, Mississippi passed legislation (H.B. 1494) requiring courts to make a specific finding that there is no reasonable alternative to a non-secure setting before they can (a) send youth who have committed a first-time, non-violent offense, or youth under the age of 10 to the state training school, or (b) send youth charged with first-time non-violent offenses to detention for more than 90 days.^[134]
    The following year, Mississippi passed legislation (S.B. 2984) providing that a young person could not be committed to the state training school if they were adjudicated delinquent for a non-violent felony or fewer than three misdemeanors.^[135]
• Texas
  • In 2007, Texas passed legislation (S.B. 103) prohibiting the court from committing youth for any offense other than a felony.^[136]
• Virginia
  • In 2000, Virginia passed legislation (H.B. 295) restricting the commitment of youth to only those youth 11 years or older who (a) have currently or in the past committed an offense that would be a felony if they were an adult, or (b) have previously been adjudicated delinquent of three or more offenses that would be misdemeanors if they were adults.^[137]