Casey Foundation Report Documents Benefits of JDAI Reforms
BALTIMORE — Jurisdictions that have implemented juvenile justice reforms developed by the Annie E. Casey Foundation have cut the number of youth detentions, reduced juvenile justice system costs and improved public safety, according to a new report issued by the foundation.
The report, “Two Decades of JDAI: From Demonstration Project to National Standard,” reviews the development and expansion of the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative and highlights the progress achieved in the reform of state and local juvenile justice systems and detention practices throughout the United States during the last 20 years.
In August, approximately 500 juvenile justice stakeholders and representatives of JDAI-participating jurisdictions gathered at the JDAI Inter-Site Conference in Washington to review the initiative’s progress and participate in workshops on detention and justice reform.
As of mid-year 2009, 27 states, the District of Columbia and 110 local jurisdictions have implemented the JDAI model and more than 60 percent of youths in the United States live in states where the model operates in at least one locality or jurisdiction.
“This progress report summarizes the remarkable efforts of more than 100 jurisdictions to re-engineer their juvenile justice systems,” says Bart Lubow, the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s director of programs for high-risk youth.
Jurisdictions that have implemented the JDAI model have reduced the use of secure detention of juveniles awaiting trial or correctional program placement, according to the report.
In jurisdictions using the JDAI model, the total number of juveniles in secure detention was 35 percent less than the average juvenile detention population prior to implementation of reforms, according to a recent one-day census of active JDAI sites throughout the U.S.
Twenty-four jurisdictions reported a juvenile detention population of more than 50 percent, less than the average in the year preceding adoption of the JDAI model.
JDAI jurisdictions are also reducing the number of juveniles committed to state juvenile correctional facilities. Across all reporting sites, the total commitments to state custody declined by 23 percent since the introduction of reforms.
Reducing the number of juvenile detentions is critical to improving public safety and individual outcomes for juvenile offenders and at-risk youth, officials say. Juveniles who spend time in custody are more likely to re-offend and to abuse drugs or alcohol and less likely to complete high school, find employment and form stable families, according to research.
Incarceration interrupts the juvenile’s maturing process and inhibits the developmental transition from delinquent to pro-social behavior, experts say. Diverting juvenile offenders and at-risk youth from secure detention facilities to alternative community-based programs and initiatives reduces anti-social behavior and recidivism and mitigates against juvenile offenders cycling into the adult correctional system.
“We know that kids in detention are more likely to end up incarcerated and to have poor odds of making successful transitions to adulthood,” Lubow says.
By implementing alternatives to incarceration, jurisdictions can also avoid or reduce the diversion of public resources toward the construction and operation of secure detention facilities. Twenty-seven JDAI sites closed detention units or entire facilities due to reductions in juvenile offender populations, while several other jurisdictions avoided the construction or expansion of detention facilities.
In addition to impacting youth detention practices and achieving reductions in juvenile confinement, the majority of JDAI participant jurisdictions reported improvements across a range of public safety indicators. In county jurisdictions centered in Albuquerque, N.M., Portland, Ore., and Santa Cruz, Calif., the number of juveniles arrested for serious violent offenses declined by 27 percent, 43 percent and 46 percent, respectively, according to the report.
The findings show that JDAI jurisdictions are doing a better job dealing with juvenile delinquency, diverting juvenile offenders, and protecting public safety than they did before introducing reforms, Lubow says.
The expansion of JDAI has also contributed to a comprehensive evaluation of juvenile justice in many participating jurisdictions and the implementation of broader juvenile justice system reforms, according to the report.
Broader system reforms include the development of new methods to engage and support the parents and families of court-involved juveniles. Many jurisdictions are adapting techniques and strategies from the Casey Foundation’s core detention reform initiative, such as objective decision-making tools, family conferencing and community-based partnership, and applying them across other phases of the juvenile court process.
“The report’s findings indicate that juvenile justice’s dual goals of promoting positive youth development and protecting public safety are not in conflict and can be greatly strengthened by eliminating unnecessary or inappropriate confinement,” Lubow says.