Photo by Susan Madden Lankford
These changes prioritize the use of costly facilities and intensive programming for serious offenders who present a higher risk of re-offending, while supporting effective community-based programs for others.
In recent years, seven states have passed laws excluding certain juveniles from being placed in state custody, reflecting a growing recognition of the steep cost and low public safety return of confining juveniles who commit lower-level offenses in residential facilities. Three states also have modified the length of time juveniles spend in custody. Because research shows little to no recidivism reduction from extended stays for many offenders, a handful of states have adopted mechanisms to evaluate youth placements and shorten them when appropriate.
1) In 2014, Hawaii banned commitment to the state’s youth correctional facility for misdemeanor offenses.
2) Kentucky adopted reforms in 2014 that prohibit most misdemeanor offenders and Class D felons—the least serious class—from commitment to the Department of Juvenile Justice.
3) Georgia passed legislation in 2013 to prohibit residential commitment for all “status offenses,” such as skipping school or running away, and for misdemeanor offenders, except those with four prior adjudications, including at least one felony.
4) In 2011, Florida banned state commitment for misdemeanors, with certain exceptions for youth with prior delinquency and those at high risk of re-offending.
5) In 2009, Mississippi prohibited commitment to the state training school for any juvenile offender adjudicated as delinquent for a nonviolent felony or with fewer than three misdemeanors.
6) In 2007, California banned state commitment for all low-level and nonviolent offenses.
7) As part of a complete overhaul of its juvenile corrections system in 2007, Texas barred commitments to secure facilities for misdemeanor offenses.
Several other states, including Ohio and Virginia, took steps to remove misdemeanor offenders from state commitment in the 1980s and 1990s.
Moderating length of stay:
1) In 2014, Kentucky limited the amount of time a juvenile may be held by the Department of Juvenile Justice in out-of-home placement for treatment, and the total amount of time a youth may be committed or under court supervision.
2) In 2013, Georgia eliminated the mandatory minimum sentence for certain felony offenses and reduced the maximum term for less serious felony offenses from five years to 18 months.
3) In 2011, Ohio expanded judicial discretion in release decisions for committed youth. Legislation authorized the courts to release from the Department of Youth Services offenders serving mandatory sentences once certain minimum terms are met.
In general, research has found that juvenile incarceration fails to reduce recidivism:
Meta-analyses—studies that combine the results of multiple evaluations—suggest that placement in correctional facilities does not lower the likelihood of juvenile reoffending and may, in fact, increase it in some cases. One longitudinal study of serious adolescent offenders in Maricopa County, Arizona, and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, found that after matching youth offenders on 66 factors, including demographics and criminal history, those in placement fared no better in terms of recidivism than those on probation. A separate analysis of the same data found that youth who reported the lowest levels of offending before being placed were more likely to re-offend following institutional stays.
In Texas, a recent study found that youth in community-based treatment, activity, and surveillance programs had lower rearrest rates than those with similar criminal histories and demographic characteristics who were released from state facilities. An examination of long-term recidivism and education outcomes in Cook County, Illinois, found that juveniles who experienced confinement were more likely to drop out of high school and to be incarcerated as adults than youth offenders who were not incarcerated
An evaluation of Ohio’s Reasoned and Equitable Community and Local Alternatives to the Incarceration of Minors program—a state initiative to supervise youth offenders in the community rather than placing them in institutions—found that the recidivism rate for low- (33% vs 10%) and moderate-risk juveniles (52% vs 21%) in facilities was at least twice that of comparable youth under supervision or in programs in their communities.
In a study of low-risk juvenile offenders, the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice reported that diversion programs demonstrated lower recidivism rates compared with more restrictive options and that out-of-home placement was associated with the highest recidivism rates.
One meta-analysis combining the results of juvenile and adult studies found that longer sentences were associated with a small increase in recidivism. The Arizona and Pennsylvania longitudinal study referenced above reported that longer periods of confinement did not reduce recidivism in most cases.
An Ohio study found that, after controlling for juveniles’ demographics and risk levels, those placed in state facilities for longer periods had higher rates of re-incarceration than did those held for shorter periods.
Factors such as the risk levels of juveniles, the characteristics of programs and the quality of their implementation are key determinants in reducing recidivism, regardless of whether treatment is delivered in institutions or in the community.
High recidivism rates for juveniles released from out-of-home placements have prompted policymakers in several states to ask if the price tag is justified given the results. Though institutional placements vary substantially in cost, they are generally the most expensive options available for sanctioning young offenders. States spend anywhere from tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to hold a single juvenile offender in a corrections or other residential facility. The three-year outcomes in four states suggest a poor return on public investments:
Nearly two-thirds of Georgia’s $300 million budget for the Department of Juvenile Justice was directed in 2013 to out-of-home facilities, including secure youth development campuses where housing an offender cost $91,126 annually. Sixty-five percent of juveniles released from these facilities in 2007 were re-adjudicated or convicted as adults within three years.
The cost of placing an offender at the Hawaii Youth Correctional Facility was $199,329 in 2013, and 3 in 4 youth released in 2005–07 were re-adjudicated or convicted within three years.
The average per-bed cost for Virginia’s six juvenile correctional centers was $85,549 in 2012, and 45% of offenders released in fiscal year 2008 were recommitted or incarcerated within three years. In California, where the average annual cost of housing a juvenile offender in a state Department of Juvenile Justice facility was $179,400 in 2012, 54% of juvenile offenders released from these facilities in fiscal 2007 and 2008 were returned to custody in a state-level juvenile or criminal facility within three years. And in South Carolina, a secure bed costs 32.8 times more than intense probation.
