Skip to main content
Publications

Declines in Youth Commitments and Facilities in the 21st Century

December 11, 2015
A major reduction in the number of youth committed to juvenile facilities has taken place this century, yet racial disparities in youth commitment remain large and prevalent.

A major reduction has taken place in the number of teenagers committed to juvenile facilities in this century. At a time of increasing calls to cut the number of incarcerated adults by 50 percent over 10 years, the juvenile justice system has already attained this goal. Moreover, the decline has taken place without harming public safety.

Between 2001 and 2013, the number of juveniles committed to juvenile facilities after an adjudication of delinquency (or, as was the case for 413 juveniles, conviction in criminal court) fell from 76,262 to 35,659.1)The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention compiles data on juveniles in residential facilities using a one-day count, generally taken in late October. The nationwide count is available annually whereas some components of that overall count, including state-by-state counts, are only available on a biannual basis. Citation for most figures and tables in this paper: Sickmund, M., Sladky, T.J., Kang, W., and Puzzanchera, C. (2015) “Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement.” Overall placements, which also include those juveniles held pre-adjudication, peaked in the year 2000 and have since fallen by 51 percent.

This represents a 54 percent decline since a 1999 peak and a 53 percent decline since 2001. As of 2012, these reductions led to a one-third reduction in the number of juvenile facilities since 2002.

Twenty-seven states, spread through every region, have attained a cut of 50 percent or more of their committed youth between 2001 and 2013, while only one state – North Dakota – and the District of Columbia have seen any increases at all. Eight states achieved reduction of at least two-thirds: Mississippi, Massachusetts, Louisiana, North Carolina, Tennessee, New York, Connecticut, and Illinois.

Figure 1. Juvenile Facilities and Placements, 1997-2013
Table 1. Juvenile Commitment Changes by State, 2001-2013
State 2001 2013 Change
Mississippi 546 144 -74%
Massachusetts 804 234 -71%
Louisiana 1,857 549 -70%
North Carolina 1,029 315 -69%
Tennessee 1,410 444 -69%
New York 3,900 1,236 -68%
Connecticut 483 156 -68%
Illinois 2,697 873 -68%
New Hampshire 177 60 -66%
Wisconsin 1,590 558 -65%
Vermont 33 12 -64%
California 12,150 4,452 -63%
Texas 6,801 2,577 -62%
Indiana 2,346 912 -61%
Florida 4,998 1,950 -61%
Ohio 3,207 1,338 -58%
Alabama 1,206 504 -58%
Montana 201 84 -58%
New Mexico 681 285 -58%
Georgia 1,845 777 -58%
Minnesota 1,557 675 -57%
Michigan 2,739 1,224 -55%
Oklahoma 630 282 -55%
Washington 1,593 738 -54%
Arizona 1,128 531 -53%
United States 76,262 35,659 -53%
New Jersey 1,029 507 -51%
Alaska 237 117 -51%
Rhode Island 261 132 -49%
Nebraska 498 273 -45%
Utah 747 411 -45%
Delaware 147 81 -45%
Hawaii 81 45 -44%
South Carolina 981 567 -42%
Maryland 810 471 -42%
Wyoming 267 156 -42%
Iowa 888 546 -39%
Virginia 1,605 1,014 -37%
Colorado 1,137 732 -36%
South Dakota 399 267 -33%
Maine 183 123 -33%
Pennsylvania 3,285 2,337 -29%
Nevada 552 396 -28%
Kentucky 750 546 -27%
Kansas 801 594 -26%
Oregon 1,275 948 -26%
Missouri 1,011 804 -20%
Idaho 378 324 -14%
West Virginia 354 309 -13%
Arkansas 501 450 -10%
North Dakota 150 156 4%
District of Columbia 111 123 11%
Table 2. Juvenile Commitment Rates By State, 2013
State of Offense Committed Youth (per 100,000)
Vermont 20
Hawaii 34
Massachusetts 36
Connecticut 41
North Carolina 41
Mississippi 44
New Hampshire 52
New Jersey 54
Tennessee 66
Oklahoma 68
Illinois 72
Arizona 73
Maryland 78
Georgia 79
Montana 84
New York 87
Delaware 90
Texas 95
Alabama 99
Maine 99
Washington 105
Florida 106
Wisconsin 107
California 108
Utah 108
Ohio 109
United States 114
Minnesota 119
Kentucky 120
Virginia 122
Indiana 126
New Mexico 127
Louisiana 128
Rhode Island 131
Michigan 133
Colorado 134
Nevada 134
South Carolina 134
Nebraska 136
Arkansas 142
Alaska 145
Missouri 146
Iowa 168
Idaho 170
West Virginia 178
Kansas 186
Pennsylvania 186
North Dakota 231
Oregon 245
Wyoming 264
District of Columbia 302
South Dakota 302
Figure 2. Youth Commitment Changes by State, 2001-2013

 

While the factors contributing to these reductions vary by state, in general the decline is a function of both a drop in juvenile offending and a mix of policy and practice initiatives. Juvenile arrest rates fell 39 percent from 2000 to 2012 with roughly equivalent drops across major categories of offenses.

Many states have advanced reforms to decrease their committed populations. In Mississippi, a set of state and federal investigations that revealed deplorable conditions in state facilities prompted a reduction in the number of teenagers housed in the facilities and thus led to a sharp curtailment in the use of commitments for status offenses and technical violations. Following passage of the Juvenile Justice Act of 2003, Louisiana currently uses a placement review process to ensure that teenagers are held in the least restrictive placement option.

Connecticut and Massachusetts raised the age of juvenile court jurisdiction to include 16- and 17-year olds and still saw a two-thirds drop in the number of committed juveniles. Advocates in Connecticut are now focused on closing the remaining large facilities in the state, citing both the treatment of the teenagers housed there and the lower effectiveness of secure placement on outcomes.

Despite the promising overall trend and some positive exceptions, there is little evidence that most states are reducing the proportion of commitments for less serious offenders and reserving commitment only for their serious offenders. In 2001, 24 percent of all committed juveniles had been adjudicated on a violent offense; by 2013, that proportion had barely changed and is now 26 percent. Juvenile placement ought to be reserved for those who pose the greatest risk to public safety – but roughly three out of four committed teenagers are held for simple assault, property offenses, drug offenses, public order offenses, status offenses and technical violations.

Figure 3. Youth Commitment Rate per 100,000 by State, 2013

 

Racial and ethnic disparities

African American juveniles are nearly two-and-a-half times as likely to be arrested despite few differences in delinquent behaviors or status offenses. Researchers have found few group differences between youth of color and white youth regarding the most common categories of youth arrests.2)Lauritsen, J. L. (2005). Racial and ethnic difference in juvenile offending. In Hawkins, D. F. & Kempf-Leonard, K. (Eds.), Our children, their children: Confronting racial and ethnic differences in American juvenile justice (pp. 83- 104). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Still, differences exist regarding violent crimes, comprising five percent of juvenile arrests, which are more prevalent among African American and Latino youth. Juveniles adjudicated for violent offenses comprise one in four commitments. Racial and ethnic disparities cannot be explained solely by differences in offending patterns; the remaining three-quarters of commitments are offenses where there are few differences in behaviors.

Disparities grow with each step in the juvenile justice system. Even as the total numbers of juvenile arrests and detentions have decreased, racial and ethnic commitment disparities between youth of color and white youth remain profound.

The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act requires states to address the disproportionate number of youth of color who come into contact with the juvenile justice system (JJDPA (Sec. 223(a)(22))). In 2015, Senators Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island) introduced legislation to reauthorize the JJDPA for the first time since 2002. The Grassley-Whitehouse bill would require states to identify and reduce these disparities, providing concrete guidance on how to do so: establishing or designating local stakeholder groups to advise on the best ways to reduce disparities; identifying key decision points where disparities emerge; and implementing a work plan that includes measurable objectives to reduce disparities. The bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee in July 2015.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) compiles commitment rates by race; data show that almost every state (except Vermont) has significant juvenile commitment disparities. African American youth are 4.3 times as likely as white youth to be committed. Latino youth are 1.6 times as likely, and Native youth are 3.7 times as likely to be committed. Such disparities are highest in some of the states with the lowest overall placement rates. For example, Connecticut and New Jersey maintain rates of confinement that are less than half the national average, but both states confine African American youth at 24 times the rate of white youth.

Table 3. Black/White Commitment Rates per 100,000 Juveniles, 2011
State All Youth White Black Ratio
Utah 108 54 1846 34.2
New Hampshire 52 26 818 31.5
New Jersey 54 10 243 24.3
Connecticut 41 7 169 24.1
Wisconsin 107 42 631 15
Rhode Island 131 62 649 10.5
Minnesota 119 58 548 9.4
Pennsylvania 186 80 682 8.5
Massachusetts 36 14 116 8.3
North Carolina 41 14 108 7.7
California 108 50 365 7.3
Oklahoma 68 39 277 7.1
Kansas 186 112 739 6.6
Hawaii 34 12 77 6.4
Colorado 134 95 595 6.3
Virginia 122 57 342 6
Mississippi 44 14 83 5.9
Louisiana 128 45 261 5.8
Iowa 168 120 688 5.7
Delaware 90 42 240 5.7
Michigan 133 72 396 5.5
Nebraska 136 84 451 5.4
New York 87 47 249 5.3
Tennessee 66 33 173 5.2
Maryland 78 31 159 5.1
North Dakota 231 149 727 4.9
Maine 99 87 413 4.7
Ohio 109 65 308 4.7
Georgia 79 34 160 4.7
United States 114 69 294 4.3
Arkansas 142 80 337 4.2
Washington 105 72 297 4.1
Texas 95 63 250 4
Nevada 135 98 381 3.9
Arizona 73 53 193 3.6
Kentucky 120 89 324 3.6
Illinois 72 43 156 3.6
District of Columbia 302 96 336 3.5
Oregon 245 200 697 3.5
Montana 84 66 227 3.4
Idaho 170 155 524 3.4
Florida 106 72 241 3.3
Missouri 146 105 351 3.3
New Mexico 127 78 241 3.1
Indiana 126 98 296 3
West Virginia 178 154 463 3
South Dakota 302 167 475 2.8
Alabama 99 64 180 2.8
South Carolina 134 71 171 2.4
Alaska 145 91 206 2.3
Wyoming 264 213 276 1.3
Vermont 20 16 0 0

One in Three Juvenile Facilities Have Closed Since 2002

There were 970 fewer juvenile facilities in 2012 than in 2002, a 33 percent decline.3)Data on juvenile facilities is available via biannual reports on residential facilities, the most recent of which is Hockenberry, S., Sickmund, M., & Sladky, A. (2015). Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2012: Selected Findings. While facilities of all sizes have closed, a greater percentage of the largest facilities did. The number of facilities holding fewer than 100 juveniles fell from 2,696 to 1,872 (a 31 percent decrease); the number of facilities holding 101 to 200 juveniles fell from 171 to 83 (a 51 percent decrease); and the number of facilities holding more than 200 juveniles fell from 88 to 30 (a 66 percent decrease). The largest facilities are expensive to maintain, but they also provide less tailored services than small facilities, increasing the chances of reoffending.

The dual trends of closing large facilities and declining numbers of juveniles in placement have changed the typical juvenile placement. In 1997, 36,597 juveniles (35 percent of all juveniles in placement) were held in facilities that housed more than 200 people. By 2013, 7,195 juveniles (13 percent) were held in these large facilities.

Conclusion

Despite impressive decreases in youth held in juvenile facilities, disturbing racial disparities still persist nationally, as well as the unnecessary detention of low-level and nonviolent offenders.

Reductions in juvenile offending combined with common-sense policy changes have led to large reductions in the number and percentages of teenagers in large state facilities and generally in confinement. These reduced expenditures on facilities ought to lead to real justice reinvestment in programs that can prevent offending, such as drug and alcohol counseling and mentorship programs. For teenagers with mental health concerns, a comprehensive approach, such as multisystemic therapy which addresses the many factors that can impact a teenager’s offending, is an effective intervention that supports teenagers and their families.

Confinement should be used sparingly and briefly, and only as a last resort. For serious offenders, a successful program should be intensive and address teenaged aggression, focusing on rehabilitation to keep them in confinement only as long as they are a threat to public safety.

Most importantly, states should not over-rely on confinement as the way to address teenaged misbehaviors but instead invest in alternatives, utilizing confinement in limited circumstances and for short periods. Research has consistently shown that juvenile facilities are not merely expensive and counterproductive to reducing offending behavior, but outright dangerous for teenagers. Despite reductions in juvenile commitments, there is much more to be done.

Figure 4. Number of Juvenile Offenders by Size of Facility, 1997-2013
Figure 5. Percent of Juvenile Offenders by Size of Facility, 1997-2013
 

Footnotes   [ + ]

Related Posts
publications
November 08, 2017

The Sentencing Project's 2017 Annual Newsletter

Despite this changing political environment we have made strides in advancing justice and helping to shape a reform agenda for both policymakers and the advocacy community in 2017.
news
Race & Justice News: Bail Reform in New Jersey, Maryland, and Illinois
March 13, 2017

Race & Justice News: Bail Reform in New Jersey, Maryland, and Illinois

State reports reveal cash bail disproportionately impacts poor and minority defendants, Homeland Security expands federal immigration enforcement, and more in our latest Race and Justice News.