Driving Forces behind the Implementation of Alternatives to Incarceration for Juveniles

Underlying Historical and Economic Reasons behind the Quest for Alternatives to Incarcerating Offenders 

A significant number of factors can be attributed to the trends in juvenile crime in the US. According to an article by the Equal Justice Initiative, a significant number of children in America are victims of neglect, abuse, domestic and community violence, and poverty. The lack of effective interventions to address the plight of such children leads to suffering, struggle, despair, and hopelessness, and the inability to manage subsequent social, emotional, and psychological burdens is attributed to involvement in violent and destructive behavior. One can argue that these issues cannot be addressed through incarceration, thus the need for alternatives that re beneficial. However, the situation is worsened by the evident failure of states to recognize crisis and dysfunction responsible for juvenile delinquency, instead leading to subjection of children to abuse and victimization through the adult criminal and justice system.

One of the most progressive developments of the 20 th century in the criminal and justice systems of the US is the development of a distinct system tailored towards juvenile crime A national assessment conducted by Austin, Johnson, and Gregoriou (2000) revealed that the developments led to formal differentiation in the society’s response to crimes committed by juveniles and those by adults. In response to addressing educational, psychological, and vocational needs of juvenile offenders, specialized detention centers, youth centers, and training centers were developed. However, the idea of a distinct juvenile justice system came under immense scrutiny dating back to 1980s when there was dramatic increase in juvenile crime (Austin, Johnson, & Gregoriou, 2000). According to Puzzanchera, Adams, and Sickmund (2010), US juvenile courts handle on average 1.7 million cases of youths charged with juvenile offenses; translating to 4,600 delinquency cases daily. Despite the drop in crime rate among juveniles, there is no significant drop in the number of cases handled by the respective courts. In any given day, approximately 70,000 juvenile offenders live in confinement away from home and family ( OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book, 2011). In addition, over 250,000 youths are tried and incarcerated as adults in the US annually, majority of themcharged with non-violent crime (Arya, 2011).

On average, 10,000 juveniles are housed in adult prisons and jails in any given day. Under such circumstances, the children loss their freedom in addition to educational and psychological benefits associated with juvenile detention facilities. According to Lahey (2016), research has shown that juveniles house in adult prisons are 34 times more likely to re-offend compared to those in juvenile facilities because denial of the above mentioned rights sets them up for failure in life creating the impetus for recidivism. Consequently, the number of juveniles incarcerated continues to rise, and so does the cost of keeping them in prison. The indirect cost of keeping youths incarcerated ranges between $8-20 billion annually, which translates to approximately $5 per youth per year (Fazal, 2016). The indirect costs are incurred in the form of lost future wages, reliance on public assistance, and lost educational opportunities. Reforms also pose a challenge as developments including setting up juvenile facilities will only add to the economic burden and serve as a conduit for more juveniles to be kept away from the ideal family and social settings, all which have negative implications to the individual and the society as social deficiencies can easily transform to economic burdens. Therefore, alternative to juvenile incarceration is a welcome move, but implementation need to be a prudent process ensure actual intended benefits are realized with less economic ramifications.

Alternatives to Incarceration Currently In Use by Juvenile Courts 

A study conducted by Austin, Johnson, and Weitzer (2005) established that detention and confinement impacted negatively on vulnerable juveniles, hence the need for alternatives. Placement of juveniles into locked facilities pending court processes is postulated to have significant influence on the possibility of being found delinquent and subsequent commitment to correction facilities, immensely damaging their future prospects for success. The juvenile detention alternative initiative (JDAI) which began 2 decades ago has been implemented by a number of counties in the US and has contributed immensely towards the dramatic reduction in prison population, hence lowering the costs of corrections and prospects of recidivism. Some of the juvenile incarceration alternatives used by the courts include the following:

Home Confinement or House Arrest 

This community-based program is adopted pre or post adjudication seeks to limit the activities and movement of the offenders within the community (Development Services Group, Inc. & US, 2014). Under the program, the offender lives at home, but is accorded the freedom to continue their routine such as going to work, attending school, and other responsibilities, but they are monitored closely electronically or through physical contact with staff to ensure compliance to the conditions set by the court. For instance, a number of states including Florida have implemented an alternative electronic monitoring program that requires the offender to wear a tamper-resistant bracelet in addition to carrying an electronic device that calculates and transmits their position to the monitoring center.

Group Homes 

According to the Development Services Group, Inc. (2014), group homes are long-term community-based alternative that allow the offender to have extensive contact with the community. Like in home confinement, the offender can attend school, go to work, or both. Home groups are less restrictive compared to juvenile confinement centers, and cater for between 5-15 juveniles placed under its care through a court order or public welfare agencies. Home groups is an example of what Lahey (2016) refers to as “a comprehensive continuum of care for justice” that adopts a holistic approach in addressing the plight of juveniles before and after they face the justice system in an attempt to counter root cause of behaviors that lead to delinquency or crime. The Methodist Home for Children’s Value-Based Therapeutic Environment (VBTE) Model is an example of this alternative that focuses on teaching juveniles involved in the justice system prosocial behaviors as alternative to antisocial ones (Development Services Group, Inc. & US, 2014).

Intensive Supervision Programs (ISPs) 

Under circumstances that require high degree of public safety, ISPs are the preferred alternative, as it is a community-based, nonresidential approach. According to Austin, Johnson, and Weitzer (2005), ISPs are classified into those that serve probationers assessed to be of high risk, and those intended as alternatives to institutionalization. It is important to note that this alternative is used post-adjudication and requires strict compliance and high levels of contact from the staff. Consequently, ISPs uses a number of risk control strategies including multiple weekly physical contacts, electronic monitoring, urine tests, and evening visits. Alternative electronic monitoring programs such as those used in home confinement can be improvised for use as ISPs.

Societal and Individual Benefits of Sanctions or Punishments that Retain the Offender in the Family or Community 

Juvenile detention facilities and incarceration centers have been termed as inhumane, ineffective, and wasteful factories whose failure is costing the public billions in addition to ruining thousands of youthful lives. However, the question posited in Fazal (2016) is, “If juveniles are not incarcerated in conflict with the law, what will be done with them?” Caring and investing in the youth, addressing the root causes of crime, and establishing families and communities that hold youths accountable have been suggested as possible alternative. The Development Services Group, Inc. and US (2014) posts that alternative to juvenile detention and incarceration have yielded conflicting results, but their benefits to the society and individuals cannot be underestimated.

At the societal level, alternative programs have facilitated inclusion of juveniles involved with the justice system in community activities. According to Fazal (2016), juvenile incarceration alternatives have facilitated redirection of funds spent in confinement into the communities, hence have a better chance at improving public safety, racial equity, and other positive youth outcomes. The alternatives have inspired change not just among law enforcers and the policy, but also among community members who have recognized that need to create enabling environments for the success of delinquent juveniles. Thought benefits to the society may not be immediate, evidence shows that there is evident potential for success in the long run, notably the reduction in cost of maintenance at incarceration centers and recidivism.

However, the benefits at the individual level are immense. Fazal (2016) and the Development Services Group, Inc. and US (2014) observed that youths placed under alternative programs are less likely to be repeat offenders, though outcomes varied for different offenses.

According to Fazal (2016), the comprehensive continuum represented by alternative programs ensure juveniles who do not need to be in the justice system stay out of it, and ensures availability of sufficient resources to serve all juveniles with complex needs. Under the programs, youths learn to be responsible as they are held accountable for their behaviors; and face less ethnic and racial abuse that are common phenomena in the justice system and incarceration centers. Juveniles are able to develop in environment that provides the basic rights and needs, and receive nurturing and support in learning new skills and response to negative influence, a crucial step to helping them pay their restitution. Societal and individual benefits are interdependent; hence emphasis should be placed on boosting the two through juvenile incarceration alternative programs.

References

Arya, N. (2011).  State trends: Legislative victories from 2005 to 2010: Removing youth from the adult criminal justice system . Washington, DC: Campaign for Youth Justice.

Austin, J., Johnson, K. D., & Gregoriou, M. (2000). Juveniles in Adult Prisons and Jails. Series: A National Assessment.  NCJ .

Austin, James F., Kelly Dedel Johnson, and Ronald John Weitzer. 2005. Alternatives to the Secure Detention and Confinement of Juvenile Offenders. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

Development Services Group, Inc., & United States of America. (2014). Alternatives to Detention and Confinement. Retrieved 04/03/2017 from: https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=270518.

Equal Justice Initiative. (2017). Children in prison. Retrieved 04/03/2017 from: http://eji.org/children-prison.

Fazal, S. (July, 2016). A Much-Needed Alternative to Youth Prisons. The Huffington Post. Retrieved 04/03/2017 from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shaena-fazal/youth-prisons_b_7772722.html

Lahey, J. (January, 2016). The steep costs of keeping juveniles in adult prisons. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/01/the-cost-of-keeping-juveniles-in-adult-prisons/423201/.

OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book . Retrieved 04/03/2017 from: http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/corrections/qa08201.asp?qaDate=2010. Released on December 09, 2011.

Puzzanchera, C., Adams, B., & Sickmund, M. (2010). Juvenile Court Statistics 2006-2007. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.