- Date
- October 2001
Several hundred thousand youth churn through detention facilities in the United States each year—youth who have been arrested, but not convicted, of any charges. The use of detention has increased substantially over the past decade, as detention populations grew by 38 percent between 1987 and 1996. Overcrowding in juvenile detention facilities is common. Over 70 percent of the detention facilities in America are over their capacity. Additionally, youth of color are significantly overrepresented in detention. According to a 1999 report from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, in 1996, African American youth were nearly twice as likely to be detained as white youth, even when controlling for offense behavior.
Swimming against the tide of increasing detention populations, the Annie E. Casey Foundation launched its Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) in 1993. The goals of the JDAI were “to reduce the number of children unnecessarily or inappropriately detained; to minimize the number of youth who fail to appear in court or reoffend pending adjudication; to redirect public funds toward successful reform strategies; and to improve conditions of confinement.” With Casey support and through a combination of approaches including expediting case processing, developing alternatives to detention, and creating objective detention screening instruments, officials in Multnomah County (Portland), Oregon and Cook County (Chicago), Illinois were able to substantially reduce the number of youth who they detained without jeopardizing public safety. For example, from 1993 to 2000, the number of youth detained on an average day in Cook County declined by 30 percent. Similarly, between 1994 and 2000, the number of youth referred to detention in Multnomah County declined by more than half. From 1993 to 1999 (the latest year available), violent youth arrests in Cook County fell by 54 percent. From 1994 to 2000, overall felony arrests for youth in Multnomah County declined by 45 percent.
With the growing use of detention nationally as a “first line” response to allegations of juvenile delinquency and the growing number of minority youth who are being detained, it is reasonable to ask about the effectiveness of increasing the use of detention as a crime control policy versus other policy alternatives.
Building Blocks for Youth, a national initiative to promote a fair and effective youth justice system, commissioned this report to determine whether it is possible to reduce the number of youth in secure detention and place young people who have gotten in trouble with the law in community programs, without incurring an increase in juvenile crime. Our analysis concentrated on two neighboring jurisdictions—Washington, D.C. and Maryland—which have struggled to manage their juvenile detention populations during the 1990s. Building Blocks also focused on these jurisdictions because of their high rates of disproportionate minority confinement. For example, while African Americans make up 32 percent of Maryland's youth, African Americans are 64 percent of detained youth and 72 percent of youth who are committed to state facilities after adjudication. In the District of Columbia, the problem is even worse. On most days, every young person at the Oak Hill Youth Center, the district's juvenile detention and commitment facility, is a youth of color.
The District of Columbia and Maryland provide an interesting basis for comparison because the two jurisdictions employ similar statutes regarding delinquency jurisdiction, and similar processes for waiving a juvenile to the adult system. Both jurisdictions also operate detention systems that confine minority youth in numbers that are greatly disproportionate to their representation in the general population. However, during the 1990s, these two jurisdictions took dramatically different approaches to juvenile detention. While the state of Maryland was increasing its use of detention, detention rates in the District of Columbia declined substantially. Furthermore, the District's two facility closures were caused largely, if not completely, by exogenous factors (a lawsuit and an act of Congress), thereby allowing consideration of a sharp decline in the use of detention that cannot be said to be the result of a decline in crime rates. After a decade of heading in two decidedly different directions, it is worthwhile to examine the difference in outcomes. Specifically, this report will seek to determine if the District of Columbia's substantial decline in the use of detention came at the expense of public safety or, conversely, if Maryland's increased use of detention was associated with improved public safety.