JJIE Hub: Resources — Community-based Alternatives

• Scan this guide to find model programs in use across the country as community-based alternatives.
• This report examines a number of programs in Chicago that provide alternatives to detention and incarceration.  While varied in scope and structure, each program works intensively with youth to help them build relationships and connections within the community.

Adolescent Development

• • In 2012, the National Research Council released an exhaustive, authoritative report on the need to reform the juvenile justice system based on research into adolescent development. You can find a brief summary here.
  • See this brief 2012 guide for an overview of the adolescent brain and development research (and the nuances of using it to inform policy).
  • Don’t miss this 2010 guide on how to implement “positive youth development” in a juvenile justice setting and see this website for further information on sites that are adopting the positive youth development approach.

Harm to Youth from Incarceration and Formal Juvenile Justice System Processing

• • For comprehensive, accessible reports on the harms juvenile incarceration does to youth and to community safety, see No Place for Kids, from The Annie E. Casey Foundation; see also, The Dangers of Detention, from the Justice Policy Institute.
  • “The Truth about Consequences” is a fact sheet summarizing the research showing that processing youth in the juvenile justice system does not reduce crime (it can even increase it), and that incarceration is ineffective.
  • Another fact sheet summarizes the policy implications of the landmark Pathways to Desistance study (funded in part by Models for Change), showing that institutionalizing youth has no effect on their rate of re-arrest, and more.
  • Or, check out this meta-analysis showing that processing youth in the formal juvenile justice system does not control crime and in fact increases delinquency.
  • This new study of securely detained youth by the Northwestern Juvenile Project found that 1 in 5 youth had marked functional impairment in social, psychiatric, and academic areas 3 years after release from detention.
  • “Juvenile Justice Interventions: System Escalation and Effective Alternatives to Residential Placement” reports on the results of a study by the Justice Research Center which found that youth placed in residential programs had significantly higher rates of recidivism than similarly situated youth placed on probation.
  • OJJDP introduced a Data Snapshot series based on its Statistical Briefing Book. This Data Snapshot focuses on juvenile residential facility populations, characteristics, and practices.

• For comprehensive, accessible reports on the harms juvenile incarceration does to youth and to community safety, see No Place for Kids, from The Annie E. Casey Foundation; see also, The Dangers of Detention, from the Justice Policy Institute.
• “The Truth about Consequences” is a fact sheet summarizing the research showing that processing youth in the juvenile justice system does not reduce crime (it can even increase it), and that incarceration is ineffective.
• Another fact sheet summarizes the policy implications of the landmark Pathways to Desistance study (funded in part by Models for Change), showing that institutionalizing youth has no effect on their rate of re-arrest, and more.
• Or, check out this meta-analysis showing that processing youth in the formal juvenile justice system does not control crime and in fact increases delinquency.
• This new study of securely detained youth by the Northwestern Juvenile Project found that 1 in 5 youth had marked functional impairment in social, psychiatric, and academic areas 3 years after release from detention.
• “Juvenile Justice Interventions: System Escalation and Effective Alternatives to Residential Placement” reports on the results of a study by the Justice Research Center which found that youth placed in residential programs had significantly higher rates of recidivism than similarly situated youth placed on probation.
• OJJDP introduced a Data Snapshot series based on its Statistical Briefing Book. This Data Snapshot focuses on juvenile residential facility populations, characteristics, and practices.
• "Why Youth Incarceration Fails: An Updated Review Of The Evidence" from the Sentencing Project presents and analyzes the negative consequences of incarceration for young people and explains why incarceration fails to rehabilitate youth and protect the public. It highlights a number of programs, policies, and practices that have been effective at reducing dependence on incarceration and offers recommendations for states and local justice systems.

• For recent data showing a decline in youth arrests for violent crime see this OJJDP Fact Sheet: Trends in Youth Arrests for Violent Crimes
• For evidence-based practices for prevention, intervention, and aftercare, see these databases of programs rated for effectiveness:
  • • the Evidence-Based Practice Resource Center, run by Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)
    • A Model Program Guide (MPG) from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)
    • Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development

• Download a comprehensive list of trauma treatment programs from the National Child Traumatic Stress Network.
• For an in-depth look, see Peter W. Greenwood’s Changing Lives: Delinquency Prevention as Crime-Control Policy (University of Chicago Press, 2006), which analyzes juvenile delinquency prevention programs, identifying those that are evidence-based and those that are ineffective, discussing why ineffective programs sometimes thrive.
• This report of the Attorney General’s National Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence makes the case that exposure to violence is a national crisis that affects approximately two out of three children. The report provides an in-depth look at the problem, discusses its impact on juvenile justice, and makes recommendations for reform.
• “Increasing Public Safety and Improving Outcomes for Youth Through Juvenile Justice Reform,” by the National League of Cities Institute for Youth, Education and Families recommend strategies for city-led juvenile justice reform that includes expanding high-quality community-based alternatives to arrest and prosecution and ensuring equitable access to these alternatives.
• “Re-Examining Juvenile Incarceration,” a brief from the Pew Charitable Trusts, finds that out-of-home placements and longer lengths of stay do not improve outcomes for most youth and cost taxpayers far more than community-based alternatives. Examines steps taken in many states to reduce incarceration.

• Use brief reports from the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) to compare costs and benefits of numerous treatment programs for youth in the justice system.
• The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) was developed to help jurisdictions bring local practices into conformity with what research has shown to work. To learn more, see Improving the Effectiveness of Juvenile Justice Programs: A New Perspective on Evidence-Based Practice, and its recommendations.
• See this new adolescent-based treatment database and comparison matrix from the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and also see their "Juvenile Graduated Sanctions E-Tool,” which provides information on effective programs and services for juvenile justice-involved youth at different intervention levels.
• The Justice Policy Institute’s report “Sticker Shock: Calculating the Full Price Tag for Youth Incarceration, ” quantifies the direct state-by-state costs spent to incarcerate youth annually in the U.S., estimates the huge long-term costs in unnecessarily confining young people each year, and makes policy recommendations to reduce these confinement costs.

• For youth facing secure detention prior to trial, see this guide.
• For guidance on eligibility and program design for diversion from the juvenile justice system prior to adjudication, see the Juvenile Diversion Guidebook from Models for Change.

• See Tamar Birckhead on how the court system pulls youth in unnecessarily, with recommendations for reform and this document on the “dangers” of prevention and early intervention.
• For an in-depth look at protecting the legal rights of youth and recommendations for solutions, see the Juvenile Law Center’s Protecting Youth from Self-Incrimination When Undergoing Screening, Assessment and Treatment within the Juvenile Justice System.

Conflict resolution/Restorative Justice

• • For an introduction, see this overview of restorative justice principles and their use in schools, and this guide to implementing them.
  • For intriguing data from six U.S. schools and four Canadian and British schools showing significant drops in school suspensions and “behavioral incidents” after restorative justice practices were introduced, see this report.

Evidence-based school-wide disciplinary programming

• • Here’s an overview of “positive behavior support” programs – which include, among others:
    • • Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS)
      • Positive Behavior Support System (PBSS)

School Discipline

• • For juvenile justice advocates, here’s a policy platform on safe and effective school discipline policies.
  • See the Advancement Project for a model school discipline policy.
  • Suspended Progress, from the JustChildren Program of Legal Aid Justice Center, discusses the high number of suspensions in Virginia’s schools, disproportionately impacting males, African-Americans, and students with disabilities, and makes recommendations for lawmakers and policymakers.

Police/School Resource Officers in Schools

• • The presence of police officers sends more youth into the court system, usually for minor infractions, causing lasting harm. See these recommendations for reform.
  • This School Discipline and Security Personnel Tip Sheet provides information or working with school resource officers (SROs) and other security personnel in schools to maximize school safety and student success.
  • The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges released a bulletin providing guidance around data collection and how to use it to promote effective School-Justice Partnerships. Accurate and complete data provides School-Justice Partnerships with a foundation to target their efforts around juvenile justice, monitor implementation, and measure outcomes effectively.

Child Abuse and Neglect

• • For a comprehensive approach to serving “crossover” or “dually-involved” youth in both the juvenile justice and child welfare systems, see this paper, which provides communities with a consolidated framework on serving these youth, and see this updated guidebook to system coordination and accompanying technical assistance workbook.
  • This publication examines the role of legal and policy analysis in system integration efforts.

General

• • OJJDP issued a “National Youth Violence Prevention Update” in 2016 discussing the work of 39 sites across the country that they are assisting to prevent youth violence.

• Here’s a general guide from Models for Change to implement effective juvenile diversion programs.
• Review brief information from Models for Change on programs that divert youth with mental health issues in schools, at probation intake, and when they encounter law enforcement.
• To divert youth from secure detention, see “Embedding Detention Reform in State Statutes and Regulations” and examine these policy and program briefs from The Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI); much more information is available at JDAI.
• Click for information on diverting youth to specialty courts, including drug court and mental health court.
• See Law Enforcement’s Leadership Role in Juvenile Justice Reform for recommendations by the International Association of Chiefs of Police to their members on promoting alternatives to arrest, court referral, and detention.
• See OJJDP’s publication “Alternatives to Detention and Confinement” for further information on approaches to preventing youth from being placed in secure detention or confinement.
• “Legislative Reforms in Juvenile Detention and the Justice System,” from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), provides information on new state laws to help reduce youth secure pre-trial detention, reduce the length of stay in detention, and provide community-based alternatives to detention, as well as information on the cost savings of detention reform.
• “New Resources and Insights to Help Youth Succeed on Probation”

• Scan this web page for information on the core provisions of the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA), including the one that governs youth who commit status offenses. See also these recommendations for updating the JJDPA and closing the “valid court order” loophole.
• Check out these statewide recommendations on reducing the use of incarceration for youth who commit status offenses in Kentucky. For programs designed to divert youth who commit status offenses in Connecticut, Florida, and New York, see this brief overview; and go here for more up-to-date information on Connecticut’s success.
• See this publication for ideas on how judges play a role in limiting the incarceration of non-delinquent youth.
• For more information on a community-based “receiving center” – where police can take runaways, homeless, and youth picked up for status offenses – see this fact sheet.
• See the recently released National Standards for the Care of Youth Charged with Status Offenses to learn about best practices for this population. The standards were developed by the Coalition for Juvenile Justice in partnership with the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and a team of experts in the field.
• For more on law enforcement responses to youth who commit status offenses, see "From Courts to Communities: The Right Response to Truancy, Running Away, and Other Status Offenses," published by the Vera Institute of Justice, and see their publication on truancy for research on truancy causes and interventions.
• See this toolkit from the Status Offense Reform Center for tools to transform a juvenile justice-oriented status offense system into one that is community-based, family-focused, and service-oriented.
• “Keeping Kids Out of Court” from the Status Offense Reform Center provides a brief primer to educate new stakeholders on status offenses – the scope of the problem and recommendations for improvements.
• The Vera Institute of Justice has released “A Toolkit for Status Offense System Reform” to provide guidance and tools to help stakeholders develop an approach for responding to and serving youth charged with status offenses in the community. The toolkit is divided into four modules: Structuring System Change; Using Local Information to Guide System Change; Planning and Implementing System Change; and Monitoring and Sustaining System Change.
• "Just Kids: When Misbehaving is a Crime" is an online report by the Vera Institute of Justice that offers a primer on status offenses.
• The Justice Policy Institute's report highlights areas of needed reform and provides examples of policies and practices that will result in a less costly, more effective, and more just system. Specifically, it highlights shifting youth convicted of violent offenses out of secure facilities and into the community.

Fiscal Realignment/Reinvestment

• • For an overview of the history and development of statewide reform of juvenile justice systems by shifting funding from incarceration to community-based alternatives and their impact on policy, practice and public safety, see Resolution, Reinvestment, and Realignment: Three Strategies for Changing Juvenile Justice, by Jeffrey A. Butts and Douglas N. Evans.
  • For information on legislative levers to lock in local funding, see this tip sheet from the National Juvenile Justice Network’s Fiscal Policy Center.
  • “Getting It Right: Realigning Juvenile Corrections in Ohio to Reinvest in What Works,” explains the evolution and impact of Ohio’s RECLAIM fiscal realignment initiative and describes Ohio’s more recent “Competitive RECLAIM” initiative to create sustainable funding for evidence-based community-based alternatives.
  • The Urban Institute launched a project to explore methods that states and localities have used, or could consider, to invest in a continuum of care and opportunity for youth and their families. The report, "Promoting a New Direction for Youth Justice: Strategies to Fund a Community-Based Continuum of Care and Opportunity", addresses, "How can we support better outcomes for youth and families by investing more resources in programming and community development strategies in neighborhoods disproportionately impacted by incarceration?"

Downsizing

• • For guidance on “downsizing done right,” see this policy brief from NJJN.
  • Go here for specific examples from around the country.

• See OJJDP’s publication “Alternatives to Detention and Confinement” for further information on approaches to preventing youth from being placed in secure detention or confinement.
• See the website for the United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Special Litigation Unit, for further information about lawsuits to improve the conditions of confinement for incarcerated youth.
• The Council of State Governments Justice Center report, “Closer to Home,” released in January 2015, studied the juvenile justice reforms Texas enacted from 2007-2011 aimed at reducing the confinement of youth and investing in community-based alternatives. The study found a 65 percent reduction in the state-secure youth population between 2007-2012, as well as a 33 percent decline in juvenile arrests. Read the full findings of the study here. ^[1]
• Los Angeles County: Youth Justice Reimagined (YJR), is program created to transform and improve the operation and outcomes of Los Angeles County’s youth justice system. Goals include prioritizing equity and accountability, recognizing the need for healing-informed responses along the continuum of youth justice system involvement, and providing coordination to further expand Youth Development across the County.
• The Division of Youth and Family Services in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, embraced a new method of case planning that proactively integrated positive identify formation. DYFS is realizing promising outcomes in its pilot implementation of the GFCM. Youth in the pilot phase gained protective skills, and their risk to re-offend dramatically decreased in comparison to the control group.
• This report highlights areas of needed reform and provides examples of policies and practices that will result in a less costly, more effective, and more just system. Specifically, it highlights shifting youth convicted of violent offenses out of secure facilities and into the community.
  • In a follow up to their 2018 report, "Smart, Safe, and Fair: Strategies to Prevent Youth Violence, Heal Victims of Crime, and Reduce Racial Inequality", JPI features four jurisdictions (Milwaukee, WI; New York, NY; Washington, DC; and the state of Virginia) that have fundamentally reformed their juvenile justice systems. These jurisdictions have reduced the number of youth they incarcerate (including those involved in violent behavior), successfully directed cost savings towards further reforms, and brought youth tried as adults back under their jurisdiction. The report highlights lessons intended to guide other jurisdictions in making similar reforms and stresses the importance of victim consultation and inclusion to successful reform implementation.
• This companion report to Why Youth Incarceration Fails from the Sentencing Project features six "Effective Alternatives to Youth Incarceration." The report advocates for homegrown approaches while presenting the research evidence and success stories backing these approaches.

• See this publication for a “Toolkit for Applying the Cultural Enhancement Model to Evidence-Based Practice."