Alternatives to the Secure Detention and Confinement of Juvenile Offenders

By James Austin, Kelly Dedel Johnson, and Ronald Weitzer

Austin, J., Dedel Johnson, K., & Weitzer, R. (2005). Alternatives to the secure detention and confinement of juvenile offenders.OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Full report available here.

Summary by Sarah Tetteyfio, NDTAC | stetteyfio@air.org
 

In the September 2005 OJJDP Bulletin, Alternatives to the Secure Detention and Confinement of Juvenile Offenders, the authors contend that secure detention and confinement are unnecessary punishments for the majority of juvenile cases, and the overuse of such sanctions results in overcrowded facilities and increased costs for the juvenile justice system. Additionally, detention and confinement have not proven effective in decreasing recidivism and helping offenders transition back into their communities; according to the authors, “community-based programs are cost-effective solutions for a large number of delinquent youth” (p. 3). Systemic change, utilizing quality assessment tools, and special program initiatives can better serve certain populations of juvenile offenders and reduce the use of detention and confinement.

The bulletin discusses the strengths and weaknesses of four types of reform strategies (special program initiatives, legislative reforms, administrative reforms, and litigation-based reforms) and identifies two important tools (objective classification and risk assessments) that can be used to develop successful alternative programs and determine placements in those programs. Reliable and valid classification and risk assessment tools at integral decision points serve to accurately determine “what level of custody an offender should be assigned” as well as an offender’s risk level in terms of recidivism or “other negative outcomes” (p. 5). The bulletin charts five major decision making points in the detention process (p. 7):

• Youth enters the system.
• Youth is adjudicated.
• Youth is committed to a secure facility.
• Youth is transferred to an appropriate facility.
• Youth is transferred to a designated housing unit.

Also included is a thorough explanation and examples of classification and risk assessment instruments used at these points. Sample instruments used by Indiana, Georgia, and Louisiana are referenced and located in appendices.

It is the authors’ claim that, in addition to the appropriate use of classification and assessment systems, the availability of special programs will help reduce the use of secure detention and confinement in juvenile cases. The bulletin provides examples of alternatives to detention and secure confinement including:

• Outright release
• Supervised release
• Residential programs
• Diversion
• Intensive supervision programs
• Community-based treatment and therapy
• Residential treatment

Although many programs claim success, research and evaluation studies in this area are still needed. Of these programs, those most successful “are based on interventions that are intensive, sustained, holistic, and linked to serious rehabilitative services” (p. 22).

The authors conclude by emphasizing the ineffectiveness of detention and confinement in reducing crime by youth who are delinquent and reiterating the need for objective classification, risk assessment, and various reform strategies for effective systems change.

See the Current Reading List

Sign up for NDTAC's e-mail list! You'll receive event and product announcements as well as timely information from NDTAC and the U.S. Department of Education. In addition, this listserv provides you with a forum to share with and request information from other professionals in the field about issues related to the education of youth who are neglected, delinquent, or at-risk.