Develop Alternatives to Secure Detention
Youth who do not require detention can be monitored at far lower costs, freeing resources for those who do. When alternatives to secure detention are unavailable, youth are more likely to be detained in overly restrictive facilities at a greater cost to them and the community.
What Can Policymakers Do?
-
Fund evidence-based programs. Mississippi’s Juvenile Justice Reform Act included funding for community-based incarceration alternatives. [i] New York state and New York City jointly established the NYC alternative-to-detention pilot program to provide assessment, case management, supervision and community-based treatment to mentally ill youth at risk of detention. [ii] Illinois piloted a comprehensive community-based services program resulting in an $11 million savings and improved public safety. Strategies employed across the pilot sites included Functional Family Therapy and Multisystemic Therapy. [iii]
-
Require home and community supervision options. Utah’s legislatively mandated Division of Juvenile Justice Services administers a continuum of secure and non-secure programs for all youth offenders, including home confinement and electronic monitoring. [iv]
-
Promote short-term crisis placements. Tennessee juvenile code allows counties to use state funds for court improvement or detention alternatives to provide options for short-term crisis placement. [v]
-
Provide non-residential supervision and service centers. Colorado’s statutes provide for the use of reporting centers as part of the case planning for pre-adjudicated youth. [vi]
[i] http://www.wkrg.com/crime_solutions/article/riley_signs_juvenile_justice_reform_bill/13817/.
[ii] http://www.ny.gov/governor/press/press_0612081.html.
[iii] ] Redeploy
[iv] 2006
[v] 37-1-114.
[vi] 19-2-302.